Old Owl concludes

A million hits – third and final part

So, after parts 1 and 2, here we are.  It is December 2019.  Ben Ingham (formerly Tory, then Independent, then Leader of East Devon Alliance and now Independent again – but not for long as he moves back to his original Tory home soon …) is now Leader of East Devon District Council.  He has steadfastly refused to allow any East Devon Alliance independents to join his cabinet or committees and instead he has allied himself with various Independents, quasi-Independents, “really-not-very-independent-at-all-but-I probably-wouldn’t have-got-in-if-I-still-called-myself-Tory” independents, and real Tories – and all is not well.

There are many rumblings about his management style, his hard-to-uncover motivations and plans.  Eventually these erupt into open disagreement and defections.  By March 2020 it seems common sense prevails and those not allowed into the corridors of power have realised that they now have to desert a sinking ship and/or work together to defeat the current regime, which is anyway falling apart.  Owl describes the situation in February and March 2020 here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2020/02/11/breaking-news-cllr-paul-millar-joins-east-devon-alliance-independents/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2020/06/19/east-devon-district-council-the-pendulum-swings/

By May 2020, things have sorted themselves out – hurrah!  Although, it has to be said, the sorting out was frustrated again and again by various quasi-independent and Tory councillors, particularly the Chairman of the Council, Stuart Hughes who manipulated the office (with the help of CEO Mark Williams and other old guard Tories) to delay the inevitable changeover of power as much as possible:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2020/05/page/2/

However, as it has done recently in the USA, democracy prevailed and a coalition of many different independents and smaller parties rose into the ascendent and in May 2020, Councillor Paul Arnott, Leader of East Devon Alliance was made Leader of the Council:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2020/05/29/east-devon-elects-new-leader-at-second-attempt-after-chaotic-meeting/

Immediately the new power group made a controversial (but highly popular) decision – it withdrew East Devon District Council from the much-hated Greater Exeter Strategic Plan – which would have seen East Devon take most of Exeter’s overflow housing into the west of the district, as Paul Arnott explains here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2020/08/31/council-leader-paul-arnott-explains-the-reasoning-behind-the-change-of-policy-of-withdrawing-from-gesp/

Tory councillors, who had fought long and hard to see much more development in East Devon were not happy!

Since then, it has to be said, there has been a much more calm, co-operative, transparent and collegiate way of doing democratic business in East Devon – which like all other councils has been torn asunder by the ravages of Covid-19.

Throughout all this time, East Devon Watch has fulfilled its brief – to keep its beady eye on the ramifications of decisions about how East Devon should progress into the future and how that progress should happen.  It has been the source of many scoops, has been loved by many and hated by quite a few (not least our current and past MPs who have never, and will never, escape accountability for what they do and say).

EDW finds East Devon in much safer hands but in much more fragile times and will be reporting on and commenting about the matters that we all need to know about – prodding, pushing, investigating, reporting, criticising (without fear or favour) so that you, the constituents and voters have a better idea of what is going on and who is moving and shaking events.

Soon, if Boris Johnson is to be believed (hhhmmm…) there will be elections to County Council in May 2020 and probably by-elections and elections again in East Devon.  EDW will be on the case.

During its lifetime, this Old Owl retired and handed on the baton (twig, branch) to New Owl who is doing a magnificent job of keeping its fresh, beady eye on the district.  Long may it continue!

And Old Owl feels confident in saying the next million hits will be just as interesting (or even more interesting) than the first million!

The government is not sure where billions of pounds worth of personal protective equipment (PPE) is located, the head of the National Audit Office has disclosed.

Rajeev Syal www.theguardian.com

Gareth Davies, the comptroller and auditor general, said outside consultants had been brought into Whitehall to find all equipment, which is stored at different sites around the country, or is in transit from abroad.

The task had been undertaken so that the Department of Health and Social Care knew when stocks would become too old to use and could complete its own accounts, he said.

Under questioning from the public accounts committee, Davies said: “We have been working closely with the DoH. It has commissioned consultants to advise it on first of all understanding where all the PPE that has been bought actually is. It sounds like a strange question but it is a really big issue because it is not all standing neatly in an NHS store somewhere.

“We have amounts in containers, in storage around the country, there’s some on the docks and there is some en route somewhere from China.”

Concern over shortages of PPE was a marked feature of the early phase of the pandemic last year as countries around the world scrambled for scarce supplies as the disease spread across the globe.

Frontline staff in both health and social care experienced shortages of PPE, with some forced to reuse single-use items as stocks ran low.

In July, Rishi Sunak allocated £15bn to procure masks, gowns and gloves – a sum that dwarfs the entire spending of other Whitehall departments.

Davies said the task of evaluating how much the stock was worth would also mean assessing when the equipment went beyond its “use by” date.

“Evaluating that [PPE] accurately for the 31 March for the accounts is a really difficult proposition – it is not one that can be avoided because it is a very material sum this year. Fifteen billion pounds has been budgeted to spend on it in the year.

“We have been working with the department and their consultants to understand how they are getting a handle of where the material is and then how it is being valued, including the issue that I know the committee has been interested in, the age of the stock and at what stage does it become unusable and therefore valueless.”

The government has been criticised for an over-reliance upon outside consultants during the pandemic.

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson confirmed that it has outside consultants working on its accounts, but said it was incorrect to suggest they are working on locating and accounting for PPE. The department did not reply to questions asking which outside consultants are being employed or how much they are being paid.

“These claims are false. We are working to ensure that our accounting records are accurate and up to date and the National Audit Office is performing its annual audit. As is standard practice in any industry, a stock take is done before the end of the financial year, so that records are up to date. The Department of Health and Social Care is no different,” the spokesperson said.

Joined-up care and less bureaucracy are among the proposals by the government in a bid to reform the health and social care system in England.

ITV News www.itv.com 

A plan to build on work done during the coronavirus pandemic to create a “more integrated, more innovative and responsive” NHS has been set out by Health Secretary Matt Hancock.

However, many have questioned why these changes are being suggested while the NHS battles the Covid-19 crisis.

So, what exactly is being suggested?

What do the plans hope to achieve?

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said the proposals include improving care and tackling health inequalities through measures to address obesity, oral health and patient choice, the Department of Health said.

The measures effectively sweep away some of the bureaucracy and organisational changes introduced by then health secretary Andrew Lansley in the heavily criticised 2012 Health and Social Care Act which increased competition in the NHS.

The DHSC acknowledged that under the current system NHS staff waste a significant amount of time on unnecessary tendering processes for healthcare services.

The new proposals mean the NHS will only need to tender services when it has the potential to lead to better outcomes for patients.

What about social care?

The White Paper (the way the government sets out planned changes) promises better integration between the NHS and social care, which is usually funded privately or by local authorities.

Making it easier to treat people outside hospitals and making it safer and easier for medics to discharge patients into the community could ease pressure on the NHS while also improving care.

The government’s plans would allow the NHS and local government to come together legally as part of integrated care systems to plan services around their patients’ needs, including a greater focus on preventative healthcare outside hospitals.

Will ministers have a greater role?

Ministers will assume greater responsibility, although Mr Hancock has insisted the clinical and day-to-day operational independence of the NHS will be protected.

The reforms will give the health secretary “the right levers to ensure accountability back to Parliament and taxpayers”, DHSC officials said.

Anything else?

The coronavirus pandemic has starkly illustrated the dangers of an obese population and the White Paper includes new requirements about calorie labelling on food and drink packaging and the advertising of junk food before the 9pm watershed.

The White Paper also calls for the Healthcare Safety Investigations Branch to be made a statutory body and so able to enforce laws, and to reduce risk and improve safety.

What did the government say?

The proposed social care reform will “make the system work for those who work in the system”, Mr Hancock told the Commons.

“At its heart, this White Paper enables greater integration, reduces bureaucracy and supports the way that the NHS and social care work when they work at their best together,” the health secretary said.

“It strengthens accountability to this House and, crucially, it takes the lessons we have learnt in this pandemic of how the system can rise to meet huge challenges and frames a legislative basis to support that effort.”

Mr Hancock continued that “there is no better time than now” to carry out social care reform.

Answering critics who have asked “why now?” Mr Hancock told the Commons: “The response to Covid-19 has, in my view, accelerated the pace of collaboration across health and social care, showing what we can do when we work together flexibly, adopting new technology focused on the needs of the patient and setting aside bureaucratic rules…

“The pandemic has made the changes in this White Paper more not less urgent, and it is our role in Parliament to make the legislative changes that are needed.”

Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth questioned plans to reform the health service during the ongoing pandemic Credit: UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor/PA

What has Labour said?

Labour also questioned the timing of the suggestions, with shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth saying” “Staff on the front line are exhausted, underpaid. The Royal College of Nurses says the NHS is on its knees.

“Primary care and CCG staff are vaccinating and will be doing so for months ahead, including possibly delivering booster jabs in the autumn. And today we learn that 224,000 people are waiting over 12 months for treatment.

“And this secretary of State thinks this is the right moment for a structural reorganisation of the NHS.

“Now we will study the legislation carefully when published but the test of his reorganisation will be whether it brings waiting lists and times down, widens access, especially for mental health care, drives up cancer survival rates and improves population health.”

He added: “Fundamentally, how will this reorganisation and power grab improve patient care?

“He didn’t mention waiting times in his statement, it’s only mentioned once in the leaked White Paper.”

What have experts said?

Richard Murray, of the King’s Fund health think tank, said there was “much to welcome in the ambition of the White Paper, but the history of the NHS is littered with reform plans that overestimated benefits and underestimated disruption”.

He also questioned the timing of the proposed shake-up, with the health and care sectors still battling Covid-19.

Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of the NHS, said: “Our legislative proposals go with the grain of what patients and staff across the health service all want to see – more joined-up care, less legal bureaucracy and a sharper focus on prevention, inequality and social care.”

Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges welcomed the proposals “to drive integration and support greater collaboration through integrated care systems (ICS)”.

She said while legislation will not make collaboration happen, it can “remove barriers and facilitate the changes that the NHS really needs as we move into the post-pandemic recovery stage”.

NHS Providers chief executive Chris Hopson said there is “widespread agreement” across the NHS on many of the proposals in the White Paper based on a set of agreed legislative proposals in 2019.

He said: “These proposals provide an important opportunity to speed up the move to integrate health and care at a local level, replace competition with collaboration and reform an unnecessarily rigid NHS approach to procurement.”

But he said the organisation is “keen to understand the government’s intentions on some of the new proposals it has added such as the new powers for the Secretary of State to direct NHS England, transfer powers between arms length bodies and intervene in local reconfigurations”.

Dr Jennifer Dixon, chief executive of the Health Foundation, gave only a partial welcome.

She said: “One half of the proposals, to help local services collaborate better, could help improve care for patients and follows the direction NHS leaders are already taking.

“The other half, giving the Secretary of State more power over the NHS, is concerning, has no clear rationale and could take health care backwards.”

Ian Hudspeth, chairman of the Local Government Association’s community wellbeing board, said the paper “provides a promising base on which to build stronger working relationships between local government and the NHS”.

The British Medical Association’s council chair Dr Chaand Nagpaul warned against rushing reform when doctors are “now both physically and emotionally exhausted”.

He said: “Proposals for sweeping reorganisation on such a scale will need greater time for consideration and must not be rushed through while doctors are still tackling the winter surge in infections, hospitalisations and tragically, deaths.”

A novel way to audit an administration’s impact on the health of a nation. Owl has totted up the figures which appear to exceed 2 million over Trump’s four year term.

Wonder how Boris is doing? What are the “costs” of his delayed decision making?

Arianne Cohen www.fastcompany.com 

The Trump administration leaves a devastating health legacy far beyond COVID-19, according to a new study in The Lancet by 33 researchers, led by professors at Harvard Medical School and the University of California at San Francisco.

The report finds that the Trump administration’s health policies resulted in 461,000 unnecessary U.S. deaths annually—in addition to 40% of America’s COVID-19 deaths thus far, plus 22,000 avoidable deaths annually from environmental policies.

The authors paint a damning picture of Trump politics, concluding that he purposely sought struggling white voters, and then backed policies that threatened their health: He earned his largest 2016 electoral margins in counties with the county’s worst mortality statistics, with life expectancies averaging 2 years shorter than in counties where he lost. His policies overwhelmingly favored corporations and wealthy Americans.

The paper presents a horrifying quantification of how and why the pandemic has cost so many American lives. Though the report points many fingers at the Trump administration, it also highlights the previous four decades of weakened social and health safety nets, including the 50,000 frontline workers that public health agencies lost from 2008 to 2016 due to budget cuts; over 10% of Americans faced hunger, which correlates with a high risk of obesity and diabetes, both common factors in severe COVID-19.

The researchers compared the U.S. figures to those of G7 nations. “This unprecedented decoupling of health from national wealth signals that our society is sick,” says coauthor Steffie Woolhandler, a lecturer (and former professor) at Harvard Medical School. “While the wealthy have thrived, most Americans have lost ground, both economically and medically. The Biden administration must reboot democracy and implement the progressive social and health policies needed to put the country on the road to better health.”

This is the first comprehensive look at the health impacts of the Trump administration.

Tourism bosses in Devon and Cornwall are backing the police message to holidaymakers not to travel to the region during next week’s traditional half-term school holiday.

[Matt Hancock admits he’s booked a summer break in Cornwall after Transport Secretary Grant Shapps declared: ‘People shouldn’t be booking holidays right now – not domestically or internationally.’ www.dailymail.co.uk]

Colleen Smith www.devonlive.com

Despite the disastrous impact that Covid-19 has had on the holiday sector, industry leaders across the South West all joined the police and emphasised that lockdown still means lockdown: “Please, please do not come.”

The director of Visit Devon, Sally Everton, said: “Saying ‘Don’t come’ goes against the grain because my role in life is to promote Devon’s tourism industry – so for me it is really difficult. But we 100 per cent support the police message. We are still in lockdown. It is illegal to travel outside of your local area.”

It comes despite new figures which show that the region lost over half of its visitor economy in 2020, with 166,000 South West people currently on furlough – most of those in hospitality.

Devon and Cornwall Police issued their message earlier today urging people to stay local in order to prevent the spread of coronavirus. It called on people to “stay local this half term”, saying the region “will welcome you back again soon”.

In March 2020 CornwallLive, DevonLive and Plymouth Live joined forces with the region’s MPs, tourism leaders and the emergency services to issue one simple message – please come back later.

The campaign continues with its three main objectives, calling on visitors to pledge to:

Help stop the spread of corona and save people’s lives

Protect our NHS from further pressure

Support our tourism industry by pledging to come back later in the year and not now

Alistair Handyside, South West Tourism Alliance chairman, said: “We are in lockdown. We are closed. Please, please do not come.

“And then, when we do eventually get the announcement that we can open the message is very simple: Don’t come unless you have booked somewhere to stay because we will have less capacity.

“We have lost a lot of business and some are not operating. For example 15 per cent of holiday cottages will not open because they are not confident about dealing with the Covid cleaning and all the other issues around this terrible pandemic.

“Hotels will be operating at less than normal capacity, as will guest houses.

“Although people are predicting a boom what they don’t realise is that we are full because we have less capacity and more demand. This means people have to book before they come.”

Ms Everton, the director of Visit Devon, added: “Our message to tourists is very clear: Welcome back – but not until it’s safe. We are very much in the government’s hands and as things stand people have to stay away. It’s illegal to travel out of your local area. We 100 per cent support the police message.”

Malcolm Bell, chief executive of Visit Cornwall, agreed that that the tourism board’s message is very much in line with that of Devon and Cornwall Police.

Mr Bell added: “There is no reason for anybody to come because we are in lockdown.

“It’s stating the obvious to be honest but that does probably have to be restated and it’s always good to remind everybody.

“I think a lot of people might say that they knew that and of course, they are aware that they can’t come, but it doesn’t hurt to remind people of that.”

He continued: “As always public health comes first and that goes without saying. We did have two-and-a-half-million people down last year with no impact so it has proved that the tourism industry can operate in a Covid safe manner when safe to do so”.

North Devon MP Selaine Saxby yesterday called on the Health Secretary to give reassurances that efforts to get coronavirus infection rates in the region to among the lowest in England will not be eradicated by the return of tourists.

Ms Saxby asked Matt Hancock after he unveiled tough new measures for travel in England whether the Government is working on making sure the infection does not increase when tourists are allowed back.

The Conservative MP also asked about whether consideration is being given to easing lockdown measures in areas were infection rates are low.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps raised fears that Britons might not be able to enjoy a holiday either in the UK or abroad this summer.

Mr Shapps told Sky News that border measures were now targeted against newer variants of the virus, rather than a means of restricting travel to areas with higher infection rates as under the now-scrapped “travel corridors” system.

“It’s not about the prevalence of the virus elsewhere now, it’s about the variants,” he said.

Ms Everton added: “Last year there was very clear evidence that tourists did not cause a spike when they were here during July and August.

“But now we have all these variants which are far more transmissible. In Devon and Cornwall we have done a great job and the figures for the virus are coming down and down. It proves that lockdown works.

“Many of our holiday businesses have spent thousands of pounds to ensure they are Covid safe and have the correct personal protective equipment. Now when we are allowed to reopen it’s up to the public to play their part – act like responsible adults and stay away from crowded places. The problem is that when people come away on holiday they tend to breathe a sigh of relief and think ‘Ah – thank God for that’ and forget the Hands, Face, Space rules still apply.”

Nearly 300,000 people in Devon – more than a quarter of the population – have had their first Covid-19 vaccine, latest NHS England figures show.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com 

The statistics, which provide the position as of February 7, show that there have been 284,342 vaccinations in the county, with 271,603 of them being the first dose. Just under 70,000 vaccinations were carried out in that seven day period.

The figures for Devon, which will have risen in the most recent days, are by far the highest number of vaccinations for any of the regions within the South West – double that of Cornwall – and they show that 27.1 per cent of the population had received their first jab. This is up on the 20.5 per cent as of January 31.

With estimated adult population of the Devon STP area being 999,049, the 271,603 who had received their first dose, means that as of Sunday, 27.1 per cent of Devon’s residents had received at least one dose of the vaccine. Those numbers will have risen since, with Thursday morning’s Team Devon Local Outbreak Engagement Board meeting hearing the number was now just under 300,000.

The statistics show that as of Sunday, of the 79,525 estimated population of over 80s within Devon, 76,193 had received their first vaccine – a total of 95.8 per cent, with 10,897 – 13.7 per cent – having also had the second dose, with Devon’s population of over 80s is significantly higher than every other region – more than double in some instances

Of those aged 75-79, 54,074 people have received the first dose of the vaccine – an estimated 98.2 per cent of the cohort – while 42,785 of those aged 70-74, an estimated 53.8 per cent of the cohort – had as of Sunday had at least one dose.

And 98,551 under 70s, primarily those employed in health and social care settings, although some in the next cohorts from the priority list, had received the first dose of the vaccination as of Sunday – 12.5 per cent of the total under 70s.

Health chiefs say that the remain confident that all of those in the top four priority groups – all those in care homes, health and social care staff, and those over 70, will have at least been offered a vaccine by Monday, and that so far, 84 per cent of them had received their first vaccination.

Dr Paul Johnson, clinical chair of the Devon CCG, told Thursday’s morning Team Devon Local Outbreak Engagement Board meeting that close to 300,000 first doses in Devon had now been issued.

He said that all but eight care homes where Covid-19 outbreak had been in progress had now been vaccinated, and that they were ready to start on cohort 5 – the over 65s next week.

Dr Johnson said: “Given the high proportion of older people in the county, it is testament to good work to keep up with other areas who don’t have so many old people.”

He showed figures that prior to the start of the vaccine rollout from a survey that they carried out that suggested that 74 per cent of the population were happy to take the vaccine, 19 per cent were hesitant, two per cent were resistant, while less than two per cent were going to reject the vaccine.

He said: “It looks like we will get at least 90 per cent of the population having the vaccine, so a significant number who were hesitant have been persuaded.”

The Team Devon meeting also were presented with findings from Living Options, who had been asked jointly by Devon County Council and Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, to contact a wide range of partners to gather their perspectives on how their often vulnerable and hard to reach service users were understanding the new Covid-19 vaccination programme

The report said: “A positive majority of respondents will not reject having the vaccine and feel that prevention is better than a cure. They feel that, though there may be risks attached to it, as nothing is free of side effects, healthy people are dying and they would rather give the vaccine a go.

“The biggest concern was about possible side effects as the testing is seen to be for a much shorter amount of time than normal. There is confusion for many on the practicalities of when they might get the vaccine and difficulties in knowing where best to look for accurate information. It feels for some like there are inconsistencies in provision across localities and this can be hard to understand / accept.

“Many communities, including BAME and Learning Disability, are identified already as being disproportionately affected by Covid-19 and this inequality is further compounded by a lack of translated resources about both Covid rules in lockdown and information about the vaccine.

“Accessible information including alternative languages, Easy Read, BSL and for those who are hearing and / or visually impaired is essential.

“Other communities that might be more vulnerable to Covid are homeless people, refugees / asylum seekers, those in custody, and Gypsy / Romany Travellers, so it will be vital that strategies are in place to vaccinate these as soon as possible.

A member of staff prepares a dose of the Oxford/Astrazeneca coronavirus vaccine at a coronavirus vaccination clinic at the NHS Nightingale Hospital North East in Sunderland. Picture date: Tuesday January 26, 2021. (Image: PA Wire/PA Images)

“Alongside making the vaccines manageable to all communities the actual vaccination centres must also be as accessible as possible. Many people live without anyone else to offer practical support to help them so this must always be understood, and provision made to ensure that they are equally able to access information / the actual vaccine.

“Poor mental health is an increasing concern, and the vaccination programme offers hope that the pandemic may start to get a little easier to live through and there is good understanding of why certain groups have been prioritised.

“However, those who are vulnerable, but not in a priority group, may feel they have to ‘shield’ until they receive the vaccination to remain safe. This is likely to increase feelings of loneliness and isolation. There is also an increased reporting of those who have serious agoraphobia / OCD, amongst other conditions, because of the key messaging about how Covid-19 is transmitted. This can stop people being able to leave their houses so provision needs to be made for people in this situation to enable them to access the vaccine.”

There are now five methods by which the vaccine is being rolled out across Devon.

All four of the county’s main hospitals – in Plymouth, Exeter, Torquay and Barnstaple – are giving the vaccination to priority groups in line with national guidance, while GP practices are working together in groups to set up local vaccination centres, and across the county, 20 centres are now in operation, serving all of Devon practices.

GP-led facilities are delivering the vaccine to residents and staff in care homes, while pharmacies have started to deliver the vaccine, and the mass vaccination sites at Home Park in Plymouth, and Westpoint Arena just outside Exeter became operational with thousands of vaccines a day to be delivered.

Every Devon care home has been vaccinated as well, except for those where there were active outbreaks.

Old Owl continues..

Part 2 – The scandals …

So, here we are … Claire Wright, a new, young, very feisty INDEPENDENT district councillor, looking for answers (a novelty in itself) and prepared to do whatever it took to find them … and a restive community pining for change.

Scandal 1 – the “Local Development Framework Forum”

This was a closed group, meeting in secret, with no agendas or minutes published (which is why it was created as a “Forum” and not a full committee).  Its job was to scope out future development sites to include in the forthcoming Local Plan, which every council was being forced to produce by central government to very narrow guidelines.

It was hard at first for her (and others) to penetrate this secrecy – but to cut a long story short – eventually through Freedom of Information requests and publicity, EDDC reluctantly had to publish the agendas and minutes.

And what a scandal that was!  It seemed that this Forum spent most of its time discussing and visiting sites of close associates and businesses to assess their suitability for developments large and medium.  This was NOT the idea of such a group.  It was supposed to assess ALL sites brought forward by ALL interested parties against criteria that ought to have included such things as sustainability and landscape protection.  Again, to cut a very long story short, this was found to be the wrong way to be going about things (duh) and the whole procedure, Forum and all, had to be scrapped and started again – this time as a formal committee – with the beady eyes of the public (and Claire Wright) watching … at least two years wasted (though it would undoubtedly not have been wasted had it been allowed to remain secret and led to a Local Plan that would have been very, very local).

Scandal 2 – the East Devon Business Forum

Some bright sparks in the ruling group then had a stunner of a brainwave.  Given that councillors and officers were now having to be in the open, why not create another group of local councillors and landowners and get them to be the major force for the new Local Plan – genius!

The great and the “good” were therefore assembled and – yet again – met in secret under the redoubtable chairmanship of one Councillor Graham Brown, who had also played one of the leading roles in Scandal 1 above.  But this time local and national developers had seats (by invitation only) at the table.

All the usual … er I was going to say suspects but let’s say local and national house builders and wannabe housebuilders … were members.  And, to add insult to injury, the Forum was allowed to meet in an EDDC-owned building, bankrolled and given senior administrative support by … East Devon District Council – at this point under the iron hands of Karim Hassan and Mark Williams aided by their senior officer Nigel Harrison, who gave this Forum all the help it needed.

Once again, much fighting by locals meant that this “Forum” eventually had to publish its work, which, once again, concentrated on giving its members the best possible opportunities to be developers large and even larger …

Once people heard about this new group, there was outrage and a growing number of local people decided that something radical needed to be done.  This led to the creation of a new local pressure group “East Devon Alliance”.  This group had no interest in political affiliations – it simply wanted what was best for East Devon, not for developers’ pockets.

East Devon Alliance eventually had no choice but to register as a political party if it wanted to fight locally (and even nationally) in elections, which it duly did.  It had some success at the local elections 2015, returning several councillors, but not enough to encroach on the established Conservative majority.  Still it was making inroads.

Scandal 3 – I can get you planning but I don’t do it for peanuts

What can one say – a sting by the Daily Telegraph no less and it even made its front page!  A couple of delightful young women were sent to talk to Councillor Graham Brown about how to get planning permission in East Devon, covertly recording their meeting.  Bear in mind, he was Chair of East Devon Business Forum AND ran his own planning consultancy while being a Conservative councillor at this time.

Owl can report no better than this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-21768520

It must be noted that Councillor Brown was not suspended immediately and resigned rather than being expelled from the Conservative Party.

Tempers were now running high, and there was even a report published on planning scandals which devoted a whole chapter to East Devon!  It was called “Scaring the Living Daylights out of People” by Anna Minton:

https://spinwatch.org/index.php/component/k2/item/5458-the-local-lobby-and-the-failure-of-democracy

Partly on the back of this and partly because of a real desire for change in the district, the East Devon Alliance went from strength to strength and fielded more candidates at the next local election in 2019 and successfully got some of those candidates elected to the district council.  It seemed like EDA was in the ascendance but then a major setback occurred. Its then Leader, Ben Ingham (formerly a Conservative Councillor, then an Independent councillor, then an East Devon Alliance councillor) turned once again to become an “Independent” Councillor claiming to be the leader of all independents in the council.

At the May 2019 elections the Conservatives lost their overall majority but “Independent” Ben Ingham turned his back on the East Devon Alliance, he once led, and took a miscellaneous group of independent councillors into a loose coalition with the Conservatives, following very similar policies to those of the defeated Tory administration…. All that hard work had now come to nothing!

Next … part 3 concluding – successes, the future and East Devon Watch’s place in that future …

Andrew Lloyd Webber composes a tribute

This has to be seen as an historic planning failure, hopefully the last legacy from the “Old Guard”. It is a good example of how a council’s hands are tied once it grants outline planing permission. Seeking outline planning permission has become common practice- Owl

“The scheme won’t win awards for the layouts”

“Of all the sites, this is the runt of the litter” 

“It is everywhere houses in an everywhere town.” 

“This flagship new housing development says to many younger people seeking a first house, ‘You are not welcome here’.”

Daniel Clark eastdevonnews.co.uk 

Plans to build 303 new homes in Exmouth have been given the go-ahead – despite being branded ‘disgusting’, ‘unexciting’ and a ‘missed opportunity’. 

The scheme for Goodmores Farm, off Hulham Road and Dinan Way, also features land for a new primary school and employment and commercial use.

East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Planning Committee today (Wednesday, February 10) approved the reserved matters application – which features 16 ‘affordable’ dwellings – by 11 votes to one.

Members heard the layout ‘won’t win award’ and were told the project offered ‘everywhere houses in an everywhere town’.

Eagle Investments Ltd secured outline permission for up to 350 homes on the plot in July 2018.

It also secured the go-ahead for five-and-a-half acres of the site to be utilised for mixed-use employment and commercial purposes, and three acres for a primary school.

The application approved today detailed the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the project.

Five per cent of the homes will be ‘affordable’.

And while councillors were unhappy the number is far below its 25 per cent policy requirement – they said there was nothing they could do as the principle of the development had already been agreed.

The proposals for 303 homes at the Goodmores Farm site in Exmouth.

EDDC development manager Chris Rose had recommended approval and told the meeting: “The scheme that has been submitted provides for a development that is well-balanced and does not impact unreasonably on its surroundings, the trees on site, existing watercourses, highway safety or the amenity of nearby residents.

“The scheme won’t win awards for the layouts, but, because of the constraints, we have what we have, and I think the application has either mitigated the concerns or come up with good reasons why they cannot go further.”

Councillor Ben Ingham, who represents the Woodbury and Lympstone ward, said: “Of all the sites, this is the runt of the litter and the reason it has taken so long to come forward is because it offers the greatest challenges for the development and the least amount of profit.”

He said the scheme was of ‘great benefit’, adding: “Only 300 homes, not 350 are to be built on the plot, so we should grab this.

“There are so many merits that weren’t on the table five years ago, so it would not be good to reject this.”

Fellow ward member Cllr Geoff Jung branded the proposals ‘a missed opportunity for right development in the right place’.

He added: “What we are getting is a 300-home housing estate that is unexciting and hardly advanced on energy saving from 50 years ago.

“It is everywhere houses in an everywhere town. The proposal will not deliver a high-quality healthy place and therefore should be refused.”

Exmouth Halsdon ward member Cllr Paul Millar said: “Exmouth is dire and urgent need of more affordable homes.

“This makes a mockery of the spirit of the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan where the target is 25 per cent, but to see just 16 affordable homes out of 303 is an insult and doesn’t provide any benefits to Exmouth.

“This flagship new housing development says to many younger people seeking a first house, ‘You are not welcome here’.

“There is a high need for affordable housing that will grow even further and you have to ponder how the passing of time made this inappropriate and unbalanced.

“This application in its current form is disgusting.”

The development plot at Goodmores Farm in Exmouth.

Exmouth Brixington representative Cllr Maddy Chapman described the scheme as being one that should read ‘could do better’.

Exmouth Town ward member Cllr Olly Davey said the proposals were a missed opportunity, adding: “This was a chance to create a forward-looking, fit-for-the-21st-century housing estate here with open living spaces, green spaces, provision for active travel, clear walking and cycling routes, but that doesn’t appear to be provided.

“We have a similar housing estate to much of what exists in Exmouth already and lacks infrastructure.

“This lacks vision and we have a 20th century site with a loss of biodiversity, doesn’t relate well to the context of the site and provides poor amenity to residents.”

Cllr Philip Skinner said: “It is a very difficult site to come out of, but we have to balance to get a scheme that is going to work along with what people want to see.

“If you play too hardball, you can end up with not a lot at all – and while this may not be totally satisfactory, it may be what we end up with.”

Cllr Mike Howe added: “We can’t change history or rewrite it.

“The Local Plan was made and formed with all the local knowledge, but we have to live with the outcomes and understand the context decisions were made in at the time.

“It is regretful that we end up with five per cent affordable housing, but that is a fact of life that we can’t change and, if we want more, then viability means we will lose out on something else.”

Cllr David Key said: “This will have to go forward as we wouldn’t stand much chance at an appeal.”

Another contender emerges as East Devon’s very own Handforth – Owl

Council agrees to broadcast virtual meetings after ‘fiasco’ over accuracy of minutes

Francesca Evans seaton.nub.news 

Colyton Parish Council has agreed to record and broadcast its virtual meetings in future, following a request from a member of the public who described recent meetings as “a fiasco”.

The December meeting of the parish council descended into an ill-tempered debate over the accuracy of the minutes of the previous meeting in November, when the controversial Neighbourhood Plan had been discussed.

The minutes reported that a decision was made to withhold all comments submitted during the public consultation on the draft Neighbourhood Plan, until the consultation period was over, and they would then be shared with parish councillors and members of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee at the same time.

Council chairman Andrew Parr said this was not what was agreed by the council; he understood that parish councillors would not see the comments until after the consultation period had ended, but the steering committee members would receive them so they could continue with their work.

After much heated debate on the subject, a vote on whether or not to amend the minutes was split, with Cllr Parr giving his casting vote in favour of changing them.

Cllr Howard West then put forward a motion of no confidence in the chairman, but this failed with four votes to five.

Throughout the meeting, several members of the public argued that they had listened to the November meeting and the minutes had been correct.

Now a resident has called for all future meetings, currently held via video conferencing app Zoom, to be recorded and broadcast to the public to ensure similar confusion does not happen again.

Speaking in support of the proposal during the public forum at this week’s meeting, Rob Kenyon said: “I’d like you to consider formally recording your sessions in a more accurate way, whether that’s visually or visual and audio after the fiasco of the meetings in November and December.

“I think this would be beneficial to whoever is taking the minutes and for people to reflect back on to get clarity on what was said and what was not.”

Addressing Cllr Parr, Mr Kenyon continued: “Me and other members of the public witnessed that particular meeting and that isn’t what we heard, so why you then chose to change those minutes and proceed with other councillors to try and get them formally changed is beyond me.

“To cut out all that aggravation, it would be far better if you had a system to recall what was said fully and accurately and then all this animosity would be resolved.”

Cllr Paul Arnott, who is also leader of East Devon District Council, said most other local authorities were already recording and broadcasting their meetings.

Referring to a video clip of Handforth Parish Council in Cheshire, which went viral last week due to the dysfunctional nature of the meeting, he joked: “I don’t think any of us fear we’re the next Jackie Weaver!”

He continued: “It’s a little bit embarrassing for us because so many tiny parish councils are doing this and why aren’t we?

“All that would happen is that this Zoom meeting would simultaneously be put out either on YouTube or a Facebook link, which could be done in about 30 seconds.

“We may get one person watching, we may get 50, but at the moment we’re in no man’s land because people are having to login to our Zoom meetings when they could just be watching it via their own Facebook account or something.”

Cllr Ray Watts argued that the council was not being asked to broadcast the meetings, but just to record them for their own use to check accuracy.

However, clerk Ian Haines said the initial request from the public did ask for the meetings to be broadcast, which by default meant they would also be recorded for future reference.

Cllr Arnott said: “It’s almost perverse not to do both, you just press one button.”

But Cllr Watts pointed out that this would involve setting up a parish council Facebook account or something similar, and proposed the meetings be recorded only on a three-month trial basis.

One member of the public then interrupted, asking: “What are you frightened of?”

Cllr Arnott commented: “Just because about every other town and parish council in East Devon are doing this, we should record it and make it available for transmission on the internet. ‘Broadcast’ is a really loaded term, all we’re doing is putting it on the internet.”

Cllr Crispin Denny added: “Absolutely, this is the 21st century and this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.”

On Cllr Arnott’s proposal, it was agreed to record and broadcast future meetings.

During the silent hours a night owl “clicked” on an East Devon Watch post creating an historic moment …………….the MILLIONTH hit!

To mark this significant milestone “Old Owl” has written three reflections on what led to the creation of the blog, what has happened since it started, culminating with the “changing of the Guard” in EDDC last year.

Appropriately this milestone has been reached just as we prepare to embark on the County Council elections. Are the people of Devon in 2020 [oops should read 2021] ready to follow the example of the East Devon electorate who voted for local change in 2019?

“New Owl” will be posting these timely reflections on successive days.

Observations by “Old Owl”

Part One – Why?

When this blog started in 2014, never did OA think that it would last this long, let alone reach its milestone birthday of ONE MILLION hits!  So, OA looks back at how this came to be.

Many years ago, during the 1990’s, OA had its first inklings that all was not well in East Devon, and particularly at East Devon District Council.  It became obvious to anyone with half a political brain that the district was being run by a cabal (“A cabal is a group of people who are united in some close design, usually to promote their private views or interests in an ideology, a state, or another community, often by intrigue and usually unbeknownst to those who are outside their group) of highly influential councillors (Conservative) and officers (under the savvy leadership of one Mark Williams).  It was further obvious that this group expected (and had hitherto been correct) that this state of affairs would long continue.

There were so many things to point to.  The rather opaque way Cranbrook was foisted on an unknowing population, rewards of official posts to those who toed the strict line that the ruling group maintained (paid offices, promotions, new jobs).  It was too easy to identify these people, but they made it impossibly difficult to follow their trails.

Towards the end of the 1990’s there began to be murmurings amongst the voting populations that these issues existed but very little idea about how to go about changing things.  With alarming regularity the “same old” group went about its business almost unseen.

In the early 2000s and the decade that followed, it became impossible to ignore that this group was not only highly influential but also had many conflicts of interest.  Planning applications directly and indirectly connected to these individuals seemed to sail through the planning process, developers of large housing schemes being particularly welcomed, especially if they had good connections already in the area. While those of people not connected to them floundered endlessly. There were flagrant breaches of trust and manipulation of events.  One such event springs to mind: Councillor Malcolm Florey, who moved permanently to France but who was considered to be perfectly capable of taking decisions about East Devon from there:

https://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/budleigh-ward-member-defends-move-1-687241

Evidence slowly began to mount that things were in a desperate situation – action was needed.  The council was basically run at this time by the leadership of East Devon Conservatives (the notorious Sarah Randall-Johnson followed by Paul Diviani and a small group of trusted Tory councillors) and a smooth partnership of Mark Williams (CEO), Karim Hassan (director of Regeneration and now Chief Executive of Exeter City Council) and the no-less redoubtable head honcho of Planning – Kate Little.  Ably assisted by highly development supporting councillors such as disgraced ex-Councillor Graham Brown.  This group was effectively a developer-friendly team, working for the most part in the shadows.  Karim Hassan was eventually replaced by the now also departed Richard Cohen who easily stepped into Hassan’s shoes.

At about this time, a young woman from Ottery St Mary decided enough was enough and mounted a campaign to flush out the information that people so desperately needed.  A number of highly-publicised demonstrations were led by her at The Knowle (EDDC HQ) and the ruling group began to get VERY nervous.  When she easily succeeded in obtaining a district council seat at Ottery St Mary, the nervousness VASTLY increased.  She had defeated the then Leader of the Council (Randall-Johnson) and the writing was well and truly on the wall that change was about to come.

Here OA must once again stress that Claire Wright NEVER has any involvement in East Devon Watch (no matter what those who would like it to be so think), which has ALWAYS been run by independent authors).  It just so happened that EDW proved to be just about the only outlet at that time that gave her campaign wide publicity – local newspapers simply parroting the propaganda of the leading group.

It is fair to say that Ms Wright had a baptism by fire.  Never had an independent councillor been subject to so much vitriolic and misogynistic behaviour from Conservatives on the council.  She was treated with total disdain and attempts were constantly made to destroy her and her reputation.  She responded valiantly and fearlessly – and in time, as she found her feet, scored notable successes in bringing transparency to the long-concealed machinations of the Conservative majority.

And what machinations they were …

Times were about to change …

You may remember the tale of the jeweller from Florida and the Spanish intermediary who profited to the tune of tens of millions of pounds from vast PPE contracts, paid for with taxpayers’ money. Well, there have been developments.  

Government continues to fail to publish details of contracts within the legally required timeframe, but we have learned of another contract it entered into with the jeweller Saiger, worth £36 million, for face masks. 

The contract was for FFP2 masks  – which protect the wearer, unlike the ones we all wear to the supermarket. But to protect the wearer they need to be adjustable – which means headstraps – and all of these masks have ‘earloops’. Earloop masks, Government has admitted in other cases, can’t be used in the NHS because they don’t give a proper fixing. We expect these £36 million of masks will also be unusable.

Not only did Government buy PPE that can’t be used. It also appears to have paid well over the odds. For one type of mask, Government paid $2.93 per unit. The prevailing price paid by Government at the time it entered into the contract was about 60p per unit: more PPE, paid for at a premium, that can’t be used by the NHS.

But that’s not all. 

Saiger was awarded a contract worth £70.52 million to buy 10.2 million sterile surgical gowns. We are challenging this particular contract in court. Almost all of the gowns supplied under that £70m+ contract are unable to be used as such because they are wrapped in such a way that their sterile quality can’t be maintained.

At this stage, you might be wondering: shouldn’t a responsible Government just put up its hands and say “we got this wrong”? 

Instead, it is spending, quite literally, millions in public funds trying to defend the indefensible. And what we want to know is, who is this spending for – is it in your interests? Or is it to avoid political embarrassment? If you would like to support our attempts to deliver transparency, you can donate to the legal challenge here.

Thank you, 

Jolyon Maugham QC

Director of Good Law Project

Care homes were left exposed and vulnerable by a lack of personal protective equipment early in the pandemic, while the government’s handling of the procurement left ministers open to accusations of conflicts of interest, MPs have found.

Kevin Rawlinson www.theguardian.com 

A damning report published on Wednesday by the Commons public accounts committee (PAC) concludes that the Department of Health and Social Care’s decision to prioritise hospitals for PPE meant care home workers and residents were not properly protected.

“Frontline workers were left without adequate supplies, risking their own and their families’ lives to provide treatment and care,” said the committee’s chair, Meg Hillier. “We’re at a dangerous new phase of the pandemic, in our third national lockdown with no defined end in sight. The government needs to acknowledge the errors and be better prepared.”

Ministers have been accused of running a “chumocracy” after it emerged that contracts worth £1.5bn have been awarded to firms with links to the Conservative party during the pandemic.

Many contracts were awarded without proper tender processes and departments were criticised for not publishing many of the details in the usual manner.

The committee said the episode had left the government “open to accusations of poor value for money, conflicts of interest and preferential treatment of some suppliers”, while a lack of transparency “undermines public trust in government procurement and the use of taxpayers’ money”.

The committee found also that, while the government had a plan and a stockpile of PPE in place, that proved insufficient to deal with the pandemic.

The committee said care homes only received a fraction of the PPE needed compared with the health service – and were only taken seriously after their high mortality rates became apparent.

Overall, the committee said frontline staff in both health and social care experienced shortages of PPE, with some forced to reuse single-use items as stocks ran “perilously low”.

The findings recall complaints made by the Labour MP Nadia Whittome, who spoke out about PPE shortages after working in a temporary role as a carer during the pandemic.

Surveys by staff organisations found at least 30% of care workers, doctors and nurses reported having insufficient PPE – even in high-risk settings.

“Many workers at the frontline in health and social care were put in the appalling situation of having to care for people with Covid-19 or suspected Covid-19 without sufficient PPE to protect themselves from infection,” it said.

The committee’s findings follow on from two highly critical reports published last November by the National Audit Office (NAO).

Concern over shortages of PPE was a marked feature of the early phase of the pandemic as countries around the world scrambled for scarce supplies as the disease erupted across the globe.

The committee said the situation was particularly acute in the social care sector, which did not receive “anywhere near enough” to meet its needs.

The committee criticisms over the lack of transparency around the procurement process echoed similar made by the NAO. In particular, the MPs pointed to concerns over the so-called “high priority lane”, where orders were placed with companies on the basis of recommendations from MPs or other prominent figures rather than those with expertise in the field.

“Leads that were considered more credible were those from government officials, ministers’ offices, MPs and members of the House of Lords, but it is not clear why this assumption was made,” it said.

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “We have been working tirelessly to procure, produce and deliver PPE to over 58,000 settings, protecting our health and social care staff on the frontline of this pandemic.

“As the public accounts committee recognises, the government faced significant challenges in having to rapidly procure PPE at pace in a competitive international market. Thanks to the combined effort of government, NHS, armed forces, civil servants and industry we have delivered over 8.1bn items of PPE at record speed.”

Politico Newsletter today:

Cabinet Secretary Simon Case wakes up to a tricky problem in his in-tray this morning, after Education Secretary Gavin Williamson appointed a close friend, former MP turned Tory peer James Wharton, as the new chair of the Office for Students. The plum role brings a taxpayer-funded salary of £60,000 for just two days’ work a week. Peter Riddell, the commissioner for public appointments, is accusing the government of “packing” the selection panel with Tories to rig the outcome. And now Labour has swooped …

“’clap for the NHS’ during the first lockdown, was part of a ‘false Covid-19 narrative’” 

The influential right wing think tank, the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), has published a paper critical of the NHS. The paper was written by the IEA’s Dr Kristian Niemietz a consistent critic of the NHS, who believes it should be replaced

Extract from extensive report on IEA findings: David Wilcock www.dailymail.co.uk 

“The NHS‘s performance during the coronavirus pandemic has been ‘nothing special’ and many countries without similar public healthcare have performed better, a think tank claimed today.

The Institute for Economic Affairs said ‘there is no rational basis for the adulation the NHS is currently receiving’ as it attacked ‘confirmation bias’ on both sides of the political spectrum.

In a new report it accused politicians across the board of trying to fit the pandemic into their pre-existing world-view.

This included leftwingers who used the deadly pandemic to criticise low public spending but also those on the right who have demanded that the UK become much more self-sufficient.”…

….“Dr Niemietz also attacked the ‘clap for the NHS’ during the first lockdown, saying it was part of a ‘false Covid-19 narrative’ of ‘how lucky we are to have the National Health Service, and how grateful we have to be for that’ “

However, Electoral Commission records show that the chair of the IEA board, Neil Record, has donated £32,000 to Hancock. See:

Thinktank critical of NHS Covid response has links to Hancock

Haroon Siddique www.theguardian.com 

Labour has demanded that Matt Hancock return donations from the chair of an influential conservative thinktank after it published a report saying there was “no reason to be grateful” for the NHS during the coronavirus pandemic.

The report published by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) claims to debunk “myths” including that “the NHS is the star performer of the pandemic” and that it “has done the most amazing job under the most difficult of circumstances”.

Written by Dr Kristian Niemietz, the IEA’s head of political economy, it says: “There is no rational basis for the adulation the NHS is currently receiving, and no reason to be ‘grateful’ for the fact that we have it. It should go without saying that if the UK did not have the NHS it would not have no healthcare system. It would have a different healthcare system.”

After suggesting possible alternative systems used overseas, such as insurance-based models, it adds: “There is no guarantee that this would have served the UK better during the pandemic, but there is certainly no reason to believe that it would have done any worse. There is nothing special about the NHS, neither during this pandemic, nor at any other time.”

Electoral Commission records show that the chair of the IEA board, Neil Record, has donated £32,000 to Hancock. In a letter to the health secretary, the Labour deputy leader, Angela Rayner, urged Hancock to pay back the donations and condemn the “disgraceful attack” on the NHS.

She wrote: “As health secretary it is your job to protect and defend our country’s greatest institution – our National Health Service – and stand up for our NHS staff who have sacrificed so much throughout the pandemic to save lives and keep us safe. It is therefore deeply concerning that our country’s health secretary is so closely linked to … an organisation which criticises our NHS and is committed to its dismantling, abolition and replacement with a privatised healthcare system.”

The public has shown its appreciation for NHS staff in the pandemic, from the weekly “clap for carers” between March and May last year to making personal protective equipment for frontline workers and delivering meals to hospital staff.

Referencing the “clap for carers”, the IEA report says: “It was soon followed by self-made posters and adverts saying ‘Thank you NHS’ or some variation thereof, usually showing hearts and rainbows drawn around the NHS logo, popping up everywhere. Crises often trigger a collective ‘Rally-Round-the-Flag Effect’, and ‘Rally-Round-the-NHS’ is the modern British version of that.”

The IEA is one of the most politically influential thinktanks in the UK, previously boasting that 14 members of Boris Johnson’s cabinet had been associated with its group’s initiatives.

The report, released on Tuesday, says the NHS was only the star performer “in the way in which for proud parents watching a school performance, their own child will always stand out as the ‘star performer’, even if nobody else sees it that way”.

Niemietz writes: “The claim of this paper is that an effective pandemic response is compatible with a variety of public spending levels, a variety of trade regimes, and a variety of healthcare systems.”

Rayner urged Hancock to take action “to assure NHS staff and the British people that you don’t share the view … that we should not be grateful for the NHS or thank the NHS and its staff for their work during the pandemic”.

The IEA and Department of Health and Social Care have been approached for comment.

Texas Attorney struggles to remove cat filter during Zoom court hearing

Jackie Weaver’s account of the follow up actions of the Handforth parish councillors, planning and environment meeting, sounded all too familiar to Owl.

Jackie Weaver: ‘Me, the Zoom bully? The men thought so’

 Extract from Alice Thomson’s interview  www.thetimes.co.uk

“……What many of us want to know is whether the men have grovelled for their rude behaviour. “What do you think?” she says, laughing. “Actually, they have made a formal complaint.” Really? Do they not realise that most of the country took her side? “They thought my behaviour was appalling. They thought I had bullied them, I treated them with disrespect, I had exceeded my powers, which makes me smile as I have their names etched on my heart and I won’t forget.”

The monitoring officer of Cheshire East council is investigating the complaint. “Hopefully, they will resolve it soon. I am not suspended, at least; they do have 23 years of experience of me, so I am not too worried.”

Weaver hopes that a formal complaint regarding the meeting will be resolved soon…”

A county councillor is calling for the Government to reconsider its decision to snub a funding bid to rebuild flood-hit Tipton St John Primary School. 

About Author Daniel Clark eastdevonnews.co.uk 

Otter Valley ward representative Claire Wright has written to education minister Baroness Berridge and launched a petition urging Whitehall to provide funding for a new school in the village.

The Environment Agency (EA) declared in 2015 that there is a ‘risk to life’ of the children attending the hub and that it must be rebuilt outside of the flood zone.

However, a  £3.5million bid to the Priority Schools Building Programme was rejected in the same year.

Councillor Wright says ‘it’s now time for government ministers to put things right’.

Controversial plans for 150 homes and a new primary school in Ottery St Mary were rejected earlier this month.

The scheme would have seen Tipton St John Primary School relocated from its village setting to a site on the town’s outskirts.

Cllr Wright has told Whitehall: “There is no other plan. This cherished local school is now at risk of closure due to the flood risk.”

Tipton St John Primary School. Image: Google Maps

Flooding next to Tipton St John Primary School. Image: Devon County Council

She says in her letter to the Government: “I am writing to you asking that you consider the above much-loved school for your current rebuilding programme.

“The Environment Agency has been deeply concerned about the welfare of children attending the school since 2015 where it stated in a report that there is a ‘risk to life’ of the children attending the school because of the flood risk.

“It maintains this position and the school is in flood zone three.

“I have attended at least two clean-up community efforts since alongside teachers, parents, children and the fire and rescue service, and, around ten years ago, children had to spend six months having lessons in the local village hall and church due to a serious flooding event, which rendered the buildings out of action.

“For a decade, strenuous efforts have been made by the diocese, Devon County Council and the governors to find a solution.

“In 2015, just after receipt of the Environment Agency’s report stating that Tipton St John Primary School held a risk to the life of its children, the diocese, supported by Devon County Council, applied to the Government’s Priority Schools Building programme for funding for a rebuild in the village, outside the flood zone.

“There were meetings with ministers and many encouraging communications were exchanged and a suitable piece of land in the village was identified and there were positive discussions with a local land owner.

“Unfortunately, after many months of encouraging discussions, our bid was rejected by ministers.

“This was extraordinarily disappointing and left the diocese and Devon County Council desperately casting around for alternatives.

“Eventually, this led to the very unpopular planning application that has now been rejected.”

Cllr Wright adds: “New schools should be funded by central government, not by the planning system.

“Especially when the Government body responsible for prevention of flooding has described the lives of children as being at risk and it is only a matter of time before the school is flooded again.

“The local community feels incredibly let down by government ministers over the Priority Schools Building Programme.

“As a voluntary-aided school it is vital that it receives financial support from central government.

“I really hope that this time the Government will now do the right thing and provide Tipton St John Primary School with the necessary funding for a rebuild outside the flood zone.”

Gove under pressure as Guardian, Times, Telegraph, FT, Mirror and others sign openDemocracy letter calling for investigation of controversial FOI ‘Clearing House’

Mary Fitzgerald www.opendemocracy.net 

More than a dozen current and former national newspaper editors have signed an openDemocracy public letter calling for MPs to urgently investigate the British government’s handling of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.

The rare show of unity from traditional rivals across the British press comes in response to an openDemocracy investigation which revealed details of a secretive unit inside Michael Gove’s Cabinet Office, described as “Orwellian” by the head of the National Union of Journalists.

A shadow cabinet minister has accused the unit, known as the ‘Clearing House’, of “blacklisting” journalists. It is also said to have blocked the release of sensitive FOI requests.

Joining openDemocracy’s call for transparency, the editor of The Times, John Witherow, called the situation a “disgrace” and Katharine Viner, editor-in-chief of The Guardian, criticised government “time-wasting on legitimate FOI requests”, saying it stands “at odds with its global commitments to press freedom”.

They join the editors and editors-in-chiefs of openDemocracy, The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, Financial Times and Daily Mirror, as well as Paul Dacre, chief executive of Associated Newspapers, Alan Rusbridger, former editor-in-chief of The Guardian, and Lionel Barber, former editor of the Financial Times, in signing openDemocracy’s letter demanding swift action to protect FOI.

The letter calls for an investigation into the controversial Clearing House unit. It also demands new measures to speed up FOI requests and greater support for the Information Commissioner’s Office, which oversees FOI.

openDemocracy is working with the law firm Leigh Day on a legal bid to force the Cabinet Office to reveal full details of how the Clearing House operates, and nearly 40,000 people have also signed a petition to Michael Gove calling for urgent action.

Expressing his support for openDemocracy’s initiative, Times editor John Witherow said: “Transparency is not a privilege or a gift bequeathed to a grateful citizenry by a benign government. It is a fundamental right of a free people to be able to see and scrutinise the decisions made on their behalf.

“That message has failed to get through to the government of Boris Johnson, which seems hell-bent on making it harder. This is not only a disgrace, but a mistake.”

Guardian editor-in-chief Katharine Viner also called for more powers for the Information Commissioner to investigate breaches of the law on FOI: “Given the huge amounts of public money now spent with private contractors, a clear commitment to greater transparency and a well-funded Information Commissioner are manifestly in the public interest,” she said.

‘Against the spirit and the letter of the law’

Today’s joint letter – addressed to the chairs of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee – comes amid rising concerns about how Freedom of Information requests are dealt with, particularly within Whitehall.

Conservative MP David Davis, a signatory of today’s letter, has described the Clearing House as “certainly against the spirit of the (FOI) Act – and probably the letter, too”.

A recent report released by openDemocracy showed that FOI response rates are at their lowest level since the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act 20 years ago.

When previously questioned by MPs about the Clearing House, Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove said that the government treats all Freedom of Information requests in “exactly the same way”, adding: “They’re applicant blind, so whether or not it’s a freelance journalist, someone working for an established title, or a concerned citizen.”

However, after openDemocracy reporter Jenna Corderoy sent a Freedom of Information request to the Attorney General’s Office, she discovered that staff at the office had written in internal emails: “Just flagging that Jenna Corderoy is a journalist,” and: “Once the response is confirmed, I’ll just need [redacted] to sign off on this before it goes out, since Jenna Corderoy is a reporter for openDemocracy.”

Other disclosures suggest that many requests, including those from The Guardian, The Times, the BBC, Privacy International, Big Brother Watch and others have been treated in similar ways, undermining the “applicant-blind” principle of the FOI Act.

In December, openDemocracy reported that the Clearing House had blocked the release of documents about the infected blood scandal, involving thousands of people who received contaminated transfusions. And in January, we revealed that the housing ministry had told local councils it was “appropriate” to block the release of information about buildings that still have Grenfell-style cladding.

Labour shadow Cabinet Office minister Rachel Reeves this week called for the FOI Act to be extended to cover public service contracts outsourced to private firms, amid numerous reports of prominent Conservative party donors being handed lucrative government work.

‘Deteriorating’ press freedom in the UK

Experts warn of a worsening climate for media freedom in the UK. Reporters without Borders (RSF) has criticised Boris Johnson’s government for its “vindictive” response to media criticism over its handling of the pandemic, warning that press freedom in the UK is being eroded.

Today’s openDemocracy letter on FOI (published in full below) has won the backing of cross-party MPs and peers, leading cultural figures such as the author Philip Pullman, human rights lawyers, journalists, press freedom advocates and global non-governmental organisations including Index on Censorship, RSF, Greenpeace, Article 19, PEN and Transparency International.

Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, warned: “In 2016 the government tried to clamp down on Freedom of Information and they failed: there was a public outcry at the time and the plans were dropped. Now it’s clear they just changed their tactics. The intended outcome is the same.

“To obstruct and restrict FOI shows the government’s disdain for open and transparent government and basic democratic scrutiny. Journalists from across the media industry are united on this issue, we all want to see FOI fully restored. To restrict FOI is to undermine public interest journalism.”

A spokesperson for the Cabinet Office said: “A Clearing House function has operated in different forms for the 15 years since the FOI Act came into effect, and a small Cabinet Office team now helps ensure a consistent approach to requests for information.

“This is especially important for complex FOI requests where we must balance the need to make information available with our legal duty to protect sensitive information and national security.”

He added: “This government remains fully committed to its transparency agenda, routinely disclosing information beyond its obligations under the FOI Act, and releasing more proactive publications than ever before.”

Sign the petition: save our Freedom of Information

The UK government is running a secretive unit inside Michael Gove’s Cabinet Office that’s accused of ‘blacklisting’ journalists and hiding ‘sensitive’ information from the public. Experts say they’re breaking the law – and it’s an assault on our right to know what our government is doing.

We’re not going to let it stand. We’re launching a legal battle – but we also need a huge public outcry, showing that thousands back our call for transparency. Will you add your name?

In Douglas Adams’ comic novel “The hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy”, the permanently bewildered Arthur Dent lies down in front of a bulldozer to prevent it destroying his house. He’s told by a jobsworth council worker that permission to demolish his home for a bypass had been available to view in the planning office for the past nine months.

[From “Computer Active” 27 Jan – 9 Feb]

“Yes.” Arthur replies “it was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”.

Shortly after this Earth itself is demolished, which rather puts Arthur’s inconvenience into perspective. But his frustration has been shared by thousands of UK residents over the years, albeit without the threat of being mauled by one of the world’s big cats.

The traditional way to read a planning notice require visiting a library, scouring adverts in your local newspaper, or squinting at the microscopic text on signs strapped to lamp posts. The Government wants to make life easier by bringing notices online as part of its push to modernise the planning process. In doing so, it will tell local authorities they won’t have to print statutory notices in local newspapers. 

The past year has made this change more urgent, the Government said. Its “Planning for the Future” White Paper, published last August said that the Covid-19 pandemic “has highlighted the need for modern digital planning services that can be accessed from home”, rather than stored in dusty cabinets guarded by leopards.

Inevitably the scheme involves Google. It has given £1m to a project to build a single website on which all councils nationwide can publish planning notices, as well as about 800 local news websites.

You’ll be able to search the information for planning notices near you, and sign up for alerts realted to a particular area. Google will provide technical advice to the newspapers to help ensure the information reaches as many people as possible.

Google’s money comes from its Google News Initiative which funds projects that “work with the news industry to help journalism thrive in the digital age”.

It launched the scheme in 2018, following pressure from regulators and media over how much money it makes from adverts placed alongside news stories written by newspapers and websites.

Local newspapers say Goggle’s involvement will help compensate for money they’ll lose if councils stop advertising planning notices in print. They claim this is worth £10m a year to the UK newspaper industry, further wounding a sector already hit by falling advertising revenues caused by the pandemic. Publishers say that losing this money could put the jobs of 400 journalists at risk.

While welcoming the online scheme, publishers the Government to keep the local requirement for councils to place planning notices in newspapers. They point out rightly that many people don’t use the internet – around 1.3per cent (roughly 6.5 million) of the UK’s adult population – not to mention the many other millions who do go online but nevertheless prefer reading newspapers and magazines to websites.

For Goggle’s part, it hopes  such measures will prove it can coexist with traditional forms of media such as local newspapers, and therefore prevent or more likely delay Government regulation.

We don’t see any reason why notices shouldn’t appear online and in print. With such wide coverage, even Arthur Dent would probably have found the info he was looking for.