The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is set to publish a White Paper with South West set to be latest region to receive new powers

[Are we about to see “The Great South West” combined authority replacing our counties with the elimination of our distinct regional cultures? And who might we expect to be its Mayor? The man with the Midas touch? Is this another of un-elected Dominic Cummings’ “Moonshot” ideas? – Owl]

By David Parsley inews.co.uk 

Boris Johnson’s plans to ‘level-up’ the nation could lead to a new single authority for the South West of England with policy making powers in areas such as education, health, energy infrastructure and transport.

The Government’s White Paper on Devolution and Local Recovery, which is due to be published within weeks, will make reference to “regional partnerships” and herald the creation of formally recognised regional partnerships supported by the Government investment.

The Great South West group, an economic alliance that claims to have the support of the Prime Minister, believes the region should be given the same status as the Northern Powerhouse.

A spokesman for the group said: “Our aims include securing commitment from Government to recognise the economic potential of the area as part of its levelling up agenda, and to provide strategic backing and investment to fulfil our aims.”

At the heart of the Great South West’s proposals is £45bn of investment to create the cleanest economy in England, and the first to be net zero carbon.

Matt Barton, head of strategy at Cornwall Council, said: “The hope is that the Great South West will be one of the first to benefit given it has already submitted an ambitious prospectus ambition to Government.”

Plans not going far enough for some

However, the plan to hand powers from Westminster to the South West is unlikely to go far enough for some campaigners, including Sir Gary Streeter, the Conservative MP for South West Devon.

Sir Gary said: “The Great South West project is an attempt to inject some much-needed coherence into this region’s dialogue with government. Unfortunately, the government is now introducing a White Paper on devolution which may delay our recognition as a coherent region.”

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, said the White Paper was imminent.

She said: “We have set out a clear commitment to level up all areas of the country by empowering our regions through devolving money, resources and control away from Westminster.

“We are considering a range of options and will set out our detailed plans in the White Paper that will be published this Autumn.”

Labour MP opposes plans

However, Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP for Exeter, is against any move that led to counties losing their own individual identities.

“This is a ridiculous proposal from Boris Johnson – tearing up decades, if not centuries of people in England identifying with their county and in the case of historic cities like Exeter and Plymouth, with their city,” said Mr Bradshaw.

“What we need in the South West are local councils that are empowered and have the funds to deliver on behalf of their local communities and a coherent regional body like Labour’s Regional Development Authorities, which the Tories abolished, which can provide strategic leadership on economic development priorities across the South West and other regions as a whole.”

Helen Matthew described the news as ‘absolutely brilliant’.

From a correspondent:

Update to the meeting between Burrington Estates and The Parish Council – 9/9/20

A number of the Save Clyst St Mary team attended the meeting that took place in the village hall on Wednesday night. Burrington Estates gave a short presentation on their revised scheme, with a question and answer session at the end. We remain extremely concerned by a number of the answers given and the fact that there remains nothing written down in the planning application regarding a number of the contentious items. The planning application is at an outline stage and although there are some excellent facilities shown, it must be remembered that this is an indicative proposal. This potentially could result in many significant changes before the final application is given approval. This planning application has many elements to it and there are some good proposals in the application. Thank you for all the objections so far, for those households that still want to object please can I remind you that the closing date for objection to the revised scheme is 16th September. I have attached a copy of our template objection letter. As I previously said I am happy to take paper copies to East Devon (please post through our door 11 Clyst Valley Rd) or they can be emailed directly to planningwest@eastdevon.gov.uk 

Below are listed some of our concerns and the responses given by Burrington Estates on Wednesday evening:-

1.       Although these amendments are an improvement on the original application – do you understand why local public trust was lost, when major changes were made to the proposals after the Public Consultation and this has proved damaging to the relationship between the parties and generated 155 initial objections?  However, there is support for sustainable employment numbers, for the renovation of the historic buildings, the introduction of cafes, bars, retail outlets and services, the reinstatement of the outdoor and indoor sports, leisure and fitness facilities and the swimming pool for use by the community.

The developers acknowledged that they submitted a very different application to the one shown at the Public Consultation in the village hall.

2.       As professional planners you are aware that national planning laws are endorsed in Local Development Plans with the purpose of governing what is appropriate and what is inappropriate development.

So  why have you ignored planning policies in the East Devon Local Plan, the Neighbourhood Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework by proposing 54 homes on green fields in Zone A that are  specifically protected in the Local Plan; by replacing 14 supportable traditional dwellings (shown at the Public Consultation) with an incongruous, towering 40-apartment block structure in Zone D; by exclusively planning  for only employment uses when Strategy 26B  allocates  conversion primarily for housing and  by developing in  flood risk areas – all of which have now culminated  in the creation of an immensely large development which will pressurise existing oversubscribed infrastructure (particularly highways) and is contrary to countless policies in the Local Plans for the protection of communities? 

Burrington Estates are claiming that the site remains not viable to refurbish without development on the green fields. We asked if it’s not viable, why have they started work on the site and what happens if approval isn’t given the go ahead?  Burringtons claim that they are taking a commercial risk.

3.       Can you understand the concerns within the community that the original Transport and Economic Impact Assessments contained major flaws that were highlighted by experts commissioned by the Parish Council, so there is continuing scepticism concerning the validity of economic data and statements that suggest that the entire development will not be financially viable without the housing in Zones A and D?  Burringtons purchased this complicated site with a full awareness of the planning history and environmental limitations and it is unacceptable to declare viability issues at this stage.

Burringtons are claiming that they have now met and satisfied the consultees’ concerns but we still have apprehension that their figures and data regarding traffic simply don’t stack up.

4.       In the light of decisions made by the new  East Devon District Council regime, where they opted to withdraw from the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan, raising concerns about sizeable developments detrimentally affecting the characteristics of  rural districts without supporting infrastructure guarantees – surely sustainable development,  providing  quality rather than quantity would be more appropriate instead of submitting  incongruous proposals which equate to requesting planners to ignore statutory planning policy and promote excessive development in a small, rural village community?

The developers stated they build quality housing

5.       Is it acceptable to build in flood risk areas without substantial flood relief measures being in place? Burringtons appear to accept that flooding will occur at times  in the new sizeable Zone J parking areas – but where are 395 vehicles going to park when Zone J is under water – existing approach roads and residential area?

We remain extremely sceptical that areas that were designated flood zones on the site will still be flooding. The developers stated they have a very sophisticated flood plan and in the event that the car parks were going to flood, areas of them would be closed off prior to the flooding.

6.       Highways England had concerns regarding traffic from a potential workforce of between 2,500 and 3,000 (figures quoted by Burringtons at the Public Consultation). However, your amendments now appear to predict 1,381 jobs and 1,068 full -time equivalent workspaces with an emphasis that these could be higher depending on the final mix of uses on the site. Can you explain this disparity in predicted employment numbers? Do you agree that clarity is essential in predicting the expected significant increases in traffic, which will unquestionably overwhelm the capacity of the local highway network at peak times in an area that already suffers with major gridlock?

The developers agreed that the figures stated are a starting point and they might rise but could also be significantly less. (This was after they stated that a large proportion of the buildings have already been pre-let). However, yesterday Highways England reiterated their continuing concerns on significant increases in traffic.

7.       Strategy 26B  for Winslade Park allocates housing  and a small amount of  office employment use  (only 0.7 hectares) on the brownfield areas and although other uses are supported for the provision of health services, crèches, nurseries, sports, leisure, restaurants and cafes – it must be stressed that B8 (storage and distribution) is totally inappropriate on this site.

It was acknowledged that the site was to be used only for health services, crèches, nurseries, sports, leisure, restaurants and cafes

Burrington’s left the meeting and The Parish Council (PC) debated their presentation. The PC agreed to employ their professional planning consultant to submit a response to the amendments. The PC objected to the design proposals for a block of 40 apartments in Zone D but agreed that if there was proof that the whole scheme was not financially viable without the development on the green fields in Zone A, the PC would not object to the housing development on the green fields.

However, having campaigned against inappropriate development and for the protection of these specific green fields for over 6 years – the Save Clyst St Mary Residents’ Association still objects to the development of housing on the green fields in Zone A because the proposals are against planning policy in the East Devon Local Plan and the local Neighbourhood Plan and we remain determined to represent the views of the 155 objectors in this community who did not support such development on green fields. We remain opposed to the amended Zone D height, massing and design of a 40 apartment block in this location and to proposals on flood risk areas and can only accept sustainable development of this site which will not detrimentally affect the highway network with increased traffic.

The Residents’ Association is a Member of The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE Devon) and CPRE planning consultants are submitting another objection to these amendments to support our campaign. CPRE Devon continues to oppose the housing proposals on the green field land of Zone A which is outside the development allocation and in open countryside and contrary to the Development Plan Policy. They also oppose design, height and massing of the 40 apartment block in Zone D and highlight a failure to consider high quality design and place-making given the historic value of this site. They also favour the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement. They consider the proposals fail to demonstrate that the scheme will deliver a sustainable development and mutually supportive gains. The proposals focus on economic benefit and the quantum of development needed to deliver a viable scheme. CPRE Devon concludes that the proposals are not based on local need and do not respect the social and environmental aspirations and planning policy of the community and should therefore be refused. (A copy of their full objection will be available to view under Application 20/1001/MOUT on the EDDC planning website).

Owl was tempted to look for a suitable perch overlooking Sidmouth but has been disappointed…………

 Pegasus Life – Feels like home – Find your Dream Lifestyle

Tory East Devon MPs have explained why they helped defeat a Labour bid to change the Fire Safety Bill and include proposals from the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

Becca Gliddon eastdevonnews.co.uk 

An amendment to the legislation was rejected by 188 votes to 318 in the House of Commons on Monday (September 7).

The Fire Safety Bill – introduced to prevent tragedies like Grenfell Tower in which 72 people died in June 2017 – seeks to clarify who is responsible for fire safety in blocks of flats.

Labour wanted to amend the bill to ensure that recommendations from the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry were put in place.

The Government says it is committed to implementing the measures – but a consultation on the proposals is needed first.

East Devon MP Simon Jupp and Honiton and Tiverton representative Neil Parish both voted against the amendment.

Mr Jupp said: “I voted for the Fire Safety Bill to help ensure the tragedy of Grenfell isn’t ever repeated.

“I want all those affected to continue to receive the support they deserve and new laws put in place to improve fire safety.

“The inquiry’s report recommended seeking the views of those affected and the wider public on the specific proposals.

“Labour’s amendment would have cancelled out the ongoing consultation before it’s completed next month.

“The Government accepts the recommendations of the inquiry in full and I voted against a move which goes against the inquiry’s report and the process to introduce legislation to protect people’s lives.”

Mr Parish added: “The subject of the Labour amendment is the subject of an ongoing public consultation on fire safety that ends on 12 October.

“This consultation must take place, as changes under the Fire Safety Order must be consulted on.

“As such, the proposed amendment would not have sped up the process for the necessary changes to be made to legislation and under the defeated amendments, regulations would still have had to have been drafted anyway.

“Further, in some areas, not only is the consultation proposing to implement the recommendations as set out by the Inquiry, but to go further still.

“My ministerial colleagues have assured me that fire safety is an absolute priority and the Government will move quickly to act on the feedback from the consultation once it is concluded.”

Phase two of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry is under way.

Its phase one report, published in October 2019, found that the tower’s cladding did not comply with building regulations and had fuelled the rapid spread of the blaze.

Labour’s proposed amendment to the Fire Safety Bill required flat owners or building managers in England and Wales to:

• Share information with their local fire service about the design of external walls and the materials used;
• Carry out regular inspections of lifts and individual flat entrance doors;
• Share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents of the building.

Labour MP for Exeter Ben Bradshaw said: “The Government’s decision to vote against Labour’s amendment to the Fire Safety Bill is a shameful U-turn on their commitment to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

“It is vital that the Government deliver on this promise so that a disaster like this is never allowed to happen again.”

Journalists lose jobs on East Devon newspapers 

The newspapers in East Devon published by Archant are being converted to ‘good news’ only with journalists being made redundant

Philip Evans axminster.nub.news

The parlous state of the regional press in the UK, which has led to hundreds of local newspapers closing down in recent years, has been underlined by major changes about to be introduced by publisher Archant’s East Devon titles – the Exmouth Herald, the Sidmouth Herald and the Midweek Herald.

Hold The Front Page (HTFP), the newspaper industry’s dedicated website, is reporting today that Archant is planning a “radical” restructure involving their East Devon publishing operation based at Exeter Airport.

According to HTFP, a number of redundancies are being made including their South West group editor Jim Robinson and Devon editor Andrew Coley who is much admired in the East Devon towns covered by the Midweek Herald.

In addition, the HTFP reports that sports editor Steve Birley, his assistant, a photographer, three district reporters and a chief reported are being made redundant.

In their place, three new community editor posts post will be created, one covering each of the three areas who will be responsible for the editorial coverage of their area without the help of full-time reporters.

The restructure of the papers came after the announcement that Archant is now under new ownership.

London-based investment firm RCapital has taken a 90 per cent share in the Norwich-based business with responsibility for the pension scheme being taken over by the government’s Pension Protection Fund.

According to an internal email, the three East Devon weeklies are now set to become ‘good news’ titles along the lines of the recently launched Torbay Weekly.

Although newspapers I have edited in recent years have been in competition with the Herald, I have every reason to be saddened by this news.

I was editor of the Sidmouth Herald for nine years in the 1970s and I launched the Midweek Herald in 1981 when the titles were owned by notorious former Fleet Street journalist Jimmy Hall, late of this parish.

It’s where I met my wife Jackie and I still have many happy memories from my days in Sidmouth.

Among the reporters who worked for me was Mark Holland, who went on to become one of the most influential executives in the Australian press, and Geoff Baker who went into music PR and looked after Beatle Paul McCartney’s public relations for 15 years before moving back to his home town, Lyme Regis, where he works as a freelance.

The Midweek Herald has served East Devon well over the years, especially the towns of Honiton, Axminster and Seaton. Like all local newspapers, the past couple of years have been particularly challenging with advertising revenues dropping.

The Herald has employed many good journalists, among them Chris Carson, the area’s longest serving reporter who is highly regarded in the industry.

The conversion of the three East Devon Herald’s into ‘good news’ publications – with no coverage of council meetings, courts and crime – comes as a surprise to other local journalists and the sacking of the sports editor would indicate there will be little or no sport.

But fear not, Nub News, part of a network of 46 news websites throughout the country, with many new launches in the offing, is well established in East Devon with sites in Exmouth, Sidmouth, Honiton and Axminster.

We will continue to report all the major issues in our area as well as our unrivalled coverage of business, community events and sport.

We also offer free listings for local shops and businesses and free events listings.

If you have a news item for Nub News you can post it yourself using our ‘Nub It’ button on the website homepages, or contact one of our reporting team in East Devon:

hannah.corfield@nub.news (Sidmouth and Exmouth)

joe.bulmer@nub.news (Honiton)

philip.evans@nub.news (Axminster/Seaton/Sport)

francesca.evans@nub.news (Axminster/Seaton)

Twenty years ago, Boris Johnson hired me as political correspondent at the Spectator magazine. He was a joy to work for, a fine editor and a loyal colleague with the quickest mind I had ever encountered. 

Peter Oborne www.middleeasteye.net

Over the last few months I have found myself trying to reconcile the exhilarating and generous individual I knew so well back then with today’s prime minister of Britain. 

A prime minister who shamelessly lies to parliament, who misled the Queen over the prorogation of parliament, who wages permanent war on the independent civil service and who turned his back on Britain’s international obligations by pledging to tear up his own Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.

Two Johnsons

It’s impossible to equate the editor of the Spectator 20 years ago and today’s British PM.

It’s as if we are talking about two different people. Johnson of the Spectator stood up for the rule of law, for British institutions, for the union, for the international order and for the honest politics which as prime minister he daily subverts.  

Back then he had a sophisticated understanding of policy – one which disdained simple solutions. We would have lucid discussions of complex issues, either in weekly conferences or at the famous Spectator lunches.

Boris was sunny, liberal, optimistic and pragmatic. So how did Johnson of the Spectator turn into the man who trashes Britain’s reputation by ripping up international agreements?

I acknowledge Middle Eastern readers will have allowed themselves a hollow laugh by this stage, given Britain’s record in the region. The betrayal of the Arabs after World War One. The invasion of Iraq. The abuse of the UN Security Council resolution in Libya. The extraordinary rendition and torture. A blind eye to Israel’s violations of international law and being complicit in Saudi war crimes in Yemen.

British statecraft

Never before has there been a situation where a cabinet minister has flagrantly stated on the floor of the House of Commons that he knew a course of action was unlawful, but that he was going ahead to do it anyway.

Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland secretary, did just that this week when he confirmed that a new bill to override the Brexit withdrawal agreement “does break international law in a specific and limited way”. Even former Prime Minister Tony Blair had to produce a statement from his attorney general pretending that invading Iraq was legal.

This new policy of flagrantly breaking the law shatters our reputation. Why would any country ever sign a document with Britain again? Only yesterday Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab was lecturing Iran that it must abide by international law and “comply with its nuclear commitments & preserve the JCPOA”. Farcical. 

What stinking hypocrisy from the British foreign secretary. And immediately picked up by French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian who took aside the wretched Raab to inform him that the UK’s proposed breaching of the Withdrawal Agreement was “unacceptable”.

Earlier this year, Britain condemned Iran’s detention of the British ambassador in Tehran on the basis of international law. We used international law to condemn Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, and the attacks on civilians in Syria’s Idlib. Yet Boris Johnson, an intelligent man, has gone ahead and deliberately trashed Britain’s reputation around the world. Why?

What follows is no more than informed speculation. No one can look into the soul of another human being and be sure about motive. But here is my own attempt at reconciling the inspirational editor I worked for two decades ago with the dishonest lawbreaker in 10 Downing Street today. 

Who runs Britain?

Early last year Johnson entered into a bargain with Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings, formerly the organisers of the Vote Leave campaign. They would propel him to Downing Street, enabling him to realise his ambition to become prime minister. 

In return Johnson would abandon the traditional Conservatism he supported at the Spectator. Cummings was installed in Downing Street as a “senior adviser” while Gove would run the government. I explained some of the elements of this arrangement in a Middle East Eye column in July.  

Johnson is in office. Gove and Cummings are in power. Note that yesterday it was Gove – not Johnson – who held talks with the European Union. This is Gove and Cummings’ policy, not Johnson’s. All politicians are in one sense actors in search of a scriptwriter. In Cummings, Johnson had found his scriptwriter.

Deep down, this Faustian pact makes Johnson miserable. Look at his recent photographs, and you can see the deep unhappiness in his eyes, which in recent weeks are starting to tell a story of private panic. 

His government is a national disaster but, remember, it’s also a private tragedy for Johnson.  

The reckoning 

Johnson is scared. He’s destroying Britain. He knows it. As a highly intelligent man he will sense that history will damn him as one of Britain’s worst prime ministers. It’s not just Brexit. The Covid-19 crisis is worse, with his government sending out chaotic messages and overseeing the worst death toll in Europe.

In the words of the Daily Mail, one of the prime minister’s biggest backers, “the government’s approach seems bewilderingly confused. Stay at home. Go back to work. Stay alert. Don’t mix with more than six people. Eat out to help out.”

Johnson won’t last. He may go of his own accord, though Gove and Cummings will fight to keep him. That’s understandable. He’s their tool and their only route to power, so he serves their purposes.

The Conservative Party may in due course act to remove him, as it has done before with leaders far better than Johnson. One way or another he will go. Times are far too serious now for Johnson’s trademark brand of cheery rascality and empty ebullience.

Fear, anxiety, and actual suffering are much more widespread, while economic disaster and national disintegration loom. The nation will want a sober leader at this grave and terrible time. 

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.