“The policy is a nonsense so profound you simply couldn’t make it up.”

www.independent.co.uk 

The government’s back in the business of underwriting mortgages, in a move that sees Rishi Sunak using a taxpayer-funded helicopter to spray petrol on to the house price wildfire currently burning. 

The market was running hot before this latest intervention, which sees the state underwriting  95 per cent mortgages for homes worth up to £600,000. Rightmove, for example, recently reported a 2.1 per cent jump in asking prices month on month, taking them to a record £327,797. The annual increase was 5.1 per cent. 

That’s what happens when a shortage of supply meets heavy demand, the first lesson your child will learn when they start taking economics classes, but something Mr Sunak, a former banker, seems to have forgotten. 

There are multiple reasons for this: the forthcoming end of the stamp duty holiday, the gradual opening up of the economy post-lockdown, people reassessing their circumstances as home working is much more widely adopted are just a few of them.

The problem with throwing the government-backed mortgages into the mix is that it will further increase demand, and thus prices, by bringing an army of new buyers when there will be no corresponding increase in supply.

It has justified this, and similar policies, by arguing that it’s helping people to get on to the housing ladder. 

But the policy is ultimately self-defeating because, sure, some buyers who couldn’t raise the deposit for a 90 per cent home loan will now be able to get on the ladder at 95 per cent (although mortgages at this level are proving to be quite expensive). 

Trouble is, it doesn’t matter if your mortgage is for 95 per cent of a home’s value, 90 per cent or even 100 per cent, you aren’t going to get one if you can’t pass the strict affordability tests financial watchdogs force lenders to apply. 

So Peter, who’d saved diligently for a deposit for a home he could just afford prior to the scheme, gets robbed by Paul, who, with a higher salary but less savings, can afford to buy at a higher price through one of the new subsidised 95 per cent loans. 

This is exactly what happened with the previous help to buy schemes, a point made by housing charity Shelter. 

“The fundamental problem with help to buy is that it tries to solve the problem of unaffordable house prices by making it easier for potential buyers to access a mortgage. 

“As the amount of mortgages issued are a key driver of house prices, the schemes push up prices further,” it said. 

History looks set to repeat itself. Think about this as well: to afford a 95 per cent mortgage for one of the £600,000 home at the top of the scheme you’ll need to be among the fortunate few with an annual household income of £127,000 or more.

Quite why the government is subsiding home loans for these people at a time when it’s next to impossible to get a council house in some parts of the country is beyond me. 

The policy is a nonsense so profound you simply couldn’t make it up. 

The biggest beneficiaries will inevitably be the fat cats at the top of the big house builders, who must be drooling right now. Profits – and CEOs’ bonuses – are set to go through the roof. 

Meanwhile, Britain has a chronic shortage of affordable housing, while those forced to rent privately have few rights and scant chance of making genuine homes of the properties they live in given they can be turfed out whenever it’s convenient for the landlord to cash in.

And don’t even get me started on cladding and Grenfell. 

But that’s Tory housing policy for you: a disaster whichever way you look at it. 

Of 46 UK domestic routes operated by Flybe at the time of its demise, 42 will be flown this summer by Loganair and six other airlines, comprehensively and successfully safeguarding the UK’s domestic connectivity.

William Telford www.business-live.co.uk.

The UK’s largest regional airline is to launch a new air route between Norwich and Exeter.

Loganair’s new service, which starts on July 12, will operate a four flights per week across the summer season on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday – moving to Monday and Friday flights from September onwards. The 70-minute flight on Loganair’s 49-seat Embraer 145 jets will compete against a 320-mile road journey.

Fares start from £49.99 one-way including all taxes and charges. All Loganair fares include a free checked baggage allowance, and tickets are on sale already.

The service links existing Loganair destinations. Norwich is already served from Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Jersey, and Exeter from Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle.

Scottish-headquartered Loganair has also brought forward the resumption date of its Edinburgh-Norwich services, originally planned for September 2021, to recommence on July 12.

The new service adds to the restoration of domestic connectivity from Exeter lost through the collapse of Flybe in 2020 – between the four routes now flown by Loganair, those flown by its partner airline Blue Islands to Manchester and Jersey, and other airlines’ services to Belfast and Guernsey.

Of 46 UK domestic routes operated by Flybe at the time of its demise, 42 will be flown this summer by Loganair and six other airlines, comprehensively and successfully safeguarding the UK’s domestic connectivity.

Loganair chief executive Jonathan Hinkles said: “We are very pleased to expand our commitment to Norwich and Exeter with this direct service, connecting two important UK business and leisure locations.

“We’re sure this new connection will be warmly welcomed by customers travelling for work reasons and by those – just as soon as they can – travelling to visit friends and family.

“The need for domestic connectivity has been clearly recognised by the UK Government with its stated intention to reform Air Passenger Duty on domestic flights.

“There is no doubt the high level of APD has historically rendered such links as Norwich to Exeter economically difficult to sustain.

“The fact that 42 of Flybe’s 46 lost domestic routes have now been restored also shows the resilience and the importance of supporting the UK’s domestic airlines and this ‘team effort’ across the industry is something of which we should we all be proud.”

Exeter Airport operations director Stephen Wiltshire said: “It’s marvellous that Loganair is re-establishing the link between Exeter and Norwich, which is a key route for business, tourism and reconnecting family and friends kept apart by the pandemic.

“Importantly, this launch fills another gap left by the collapse of Flybe, with almost every domestic destination from Exeter now being restored by Loganair and other carriers over the coming months.”

Norwich Airport managing director Richard Pace said: “We’re delighted Loganair is re-establishing the link between Norwich and Exeter. We also welcome Loganair’s decision to restart the route to Edinburgh in July.

“In launching these routes, Loganair is putting its trust in the UK Government to deliver on its promise to reduce domestic Air Passenger Duty which is critical to the recovery and sustainability of domestic flying.”

Why do so many public contracts end up with friends of Dominic Cummings? Like us, you might have wondered. But, although reporters pick these stories up, nothing ever happens. Well, this time it’s different.

(Awaiting the reserved judgement – Owl)

goodlawproject.org 

On 3 March 2020, the Cabinet Office shook hands with Public First, a small privately held polling company. There was no formal contract, prior advertisement, or competitive tender process. It just made what procurement lawyers call a ‘direct award’. It formalised it retrospectively on 5 June 2020 and publicised it a week later. The total contract value is £840,000.

The directors and owners of Public First are Ms Rachel Wolf and Mr James Frayne. They have close connections with both the Minister for the Cabinet Office (the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP) and his long time colleague and Chief Adviser to the Prime Minister who works in the Cabinet Office (Mr Dominic Cummings).

We believe that money for your mates, on a handshake, formalised later, is unlawful. 

This is why Good Law Project has instructed Rook Irwin Sweeney and leading procurement lawyers Jason Coppel QC and Patrick Halliday. You can read our formal pre action protocol letter to Mr Gove and Mr Cummings here and the proceedings here.

To ensure value for money, to protect public funds, to guard against cronyism and bungs, one must put public contracts out to tender. And there was no exception here to that rule.

It is only with your support that we can continue to hold Government to account. If you would like to make a donation, you can do so here.

Timeline:

30th July 2020: Witness statement of Jolyon Maugham QC: available here

30th July 2020: Witness statement of Rook Irwin Sweeney LLP: available here

13th August 2020: Amended court bundle: available here

19th August 2020: Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Resistance: available here

24th November 2020: Order from Court granting Permission for application Judicial Review: available here

21st December 2020: Detailed Grounds of Resistance: available here

21st December 2020: Witness statement of Dominic Cummings: available here

21st December 2020: Witness statement of Lee Cain: available here (Government was unable to produce a signed version of Lee Cain’s witness statement and so it was not relied upon in the hearing)

21st December 2020: Witness statement of Helen Stratton: available here

21st December 2020: Witness statement of Nicola Westmore: available here

21st December 2020: Witness statement of Alex Aiken: available here

21st December 2020: Witness statment of Simon Soothill: available here

21st December 2020: Witness statement of Catherine Hunt: available here

25th January 2021: Claimant’s skeleton argument: available here

1st February 2021: Defendant’s first skeleton: available here

9th February 2021: Witness statement of Mrs Jan Gooding: available here

10th February 2021: Email and instant messaging evidence: available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here

10th February 2021: Extract from NAO report: available here

15th February 2021: Summary of hearing: available here

Because it is fielding 20 candidates, the “Freedom Alliance” gets significant publicity. 

Conservative anti-lockdown MPs in parliament number around 50 out of 364, about 14%. If this is representative of the general Conservative voting community then a number of Tory County seats could become marginal.

Owl thinks this provides an opportunity to “Change the Guard”. In the outgoing council the Conservatives held 41 of the 60 seats in DCC. So it only requires 11 of their seats to change for overall change to become a reality.

Remember there is a very different form of Alliance fighting this election. In East Devon, the East Devon Alliance (EDA) are candidates in Colyton & Seaton, where they won last time, and Axminster and Sidmouth where they came a close second.

From the EDA website:

We represent those who question the financial integrity of the District and County Councils; decisions made by a small “cabal” of Councillors from one dominant group, who use the party system to bulldoze through policy, and legislation – to the detriment of the vast majority of the residents in this County – ably and willingly assisted by a silent and compliant cohort of party members who rarely speak and who rarely object but continue – with a quiet word in their ears and a gentle arm at their elbows – to vote how they are told and when they are told. That is not democracy in our opinion. That is a virtual autocracy.

(Owl has already posted “All you need to know about one of Devon’s leading ‘Freedom Alliance’ candidates.”)

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com 

The newly formed Freedom Alliance political party is fielding candidates for 20 of the 60 seats in Devon, from Seaton to Hartland and from Combe Martin to Salcombe.

The Freedom Alliance Political Party, officially recognised earlier this year, say they are “committed to the principles of personal freedom” and oppose national lockdowns to contain the coronavirus pandemic.

Dr Stephen Hopwood is a local party spokesman and a doctor of medicine who has worked in Totnes as a holistic practitioner for 25 years, and said: “These are unprecedented times and we aim to show that we are indeed a viable force to be reckoned with.

“More and more people are intelligently analysing what is true and what is not and beginning to see through the false narrative. We have decided to stand to support these people in this understanding and to directly oppose this unacceptable roll out in our community.

“We’re offering electors the chance to vote for a genuine opposition to the measures which have been imposed by the Government – measures that we do not believe were even remotely justified by the scale of the threat in the first place.

“Our economy has been ruined and our individual freedoms massively curtailed. Our fundamental human rights are in real danger of being lost and we believe we must act now to protect our community and humanity.”

“We reject the kind of restrictions that have been imposed on us in the last year under the guise of a pandemic which is just not justified by a proper rigorous scientific study of the data,” said Dr Hopwood.

“We have seen the threat of Covid exaggerated and large numbers of deaths caused by the lockdown itself – a huge cost in human misery, with people unable to get treatment or not being diagnosed for other illnesses. The toll on mental health and on society as a whole has been completely appalling, punitive and very damaging.

“Old people have been imprisoned in care homes. Children have seen their education blighted and been coerced into virus testing regimes and mask-wearing which is all hugely psychologically damaging. Businesses and livelihoods have been unnecessarily destroyed.”

The Freedom Alliance is calling for an immediate end to all lockdowns and believes any testing or vaccination should be completely voluntary and any ‘decline’ should not lead to any detrimental consequences. The party rejects compulsory mask-wearing and says vaccine passports are unnecessary and discriminatory.

Dr Hopwood said: “Times are very hard and people are delighted to have sincere individuals and a new political party step forward and speak up for them. Our numbers are growing rapidly as increasing numbers of local people realise what is going on and identify the need to stand together.”

Elections will take place for all 60 seats on Devon County Council on Thursday, May 6, with voters going to the polls to elect their representatives for the next four years.

The entirety of the 60-strong council will be up for re-election, with 56 ‘single-member’ Electoral Divisions and 2 ‘two-member’ Divisions’.

The current composition of the council consists of 41 Conservatives, 7 Labour, 6 Liberal Democrats, 3 Independents, 1 Green Party, 1 East Devon Alliance and 1 North Devon Liberal.

All elected councillors will serve their usual four year term upon their election.

The Conservatives and Labour are the only parties who are fielding the maximum of 60 candidates, with the Liberal Democrats fielding 55.

The Green Party are fielding 45 candidates, with one from UKIP, five from Reform UK, and 20 from the Freedom Alliance, who are standing on a platform of ‘no lockdowns, no curfews’.

The East Devon Alliance have three candidates, the Trade Unionist and Social Coalition have six, while there are 28 Independent candidates.

Claims that a Cornish hotel needs to clear coastline to build conference rooms for the G7 Summit have been dismissed by the government.

When push comes to shove will Cornwall Council simply roll over? – Owl

Will Humphries, Southwest Correspondent www.thetimes.co.uk

Carbis Bay Hotel has felled mature trees, cleared scrubland and poured concrete foundations without planning permission on the basis that development is needed for the summit in June.

The Cabinet Office has made it clear to The Times, however, that the hotel estate met all its requirements at a visit last year. Extra meeting rooms were not needed for the summit.

The council rejected the hotel’s plans three years ago for holiday lodges and a spa on the same strip of land because the development would harm the “beautiful backdrop to the beach”. The National Trust, which owns adjoining land, objected to the 2018 proposals on the “undeveloped coast” and has objected strongly again to the latest plans.

The resort, which will host the world leaders, has ignored calls from Cornwall council to halt its development until it decides on its retrospective planning application. It is not illegal to request approval after works have been completed but all work must be removed if the application fails.

The hotel submitted its plans in March after complaints. Local elections mean that councillors cannot meet to consider the work until after the summit of world leaders is held.

The hotel claims in its application: “Additional space is needed to provide smaller meeting room spaces for bilateral talks.” It said that the meeting rooms were needed to “enable the hotel to meet the accommodation requirements of the G7 Summit”.

A government spokeswoman said, however, that they had not asked the hotel to carry out any work for the G7. “The venues selected for the summit at Carbis Bay Estate and Tregenna Castle Resort provide the facilities required to host this significant international event,” she said.

Rupert Manley, a retired doctor, from St Ives, said that the planning system needed reform to make it illegal to develop an area without planning permission. “It sends a disastrous signal to developers that this is the way to do it,” he said. “This loophole needs to be tightened.”

Elise Langley, of St Ives, said the hotel was “obliterating the coastal woodland with no planning permission”.

Linda Taylor, local councillor and Conservative group leader on Cornwall council, said she “cannot imagine for one moment the G7 would occupy property that has not got full planning permission”.

“The last thing the Cabinet Office wants to be engaged in is a planning dispute,” she said.

“I absolutely support the G7 coming to Carbis Bay and I have every confidence the hotel will be an absolutely fabulous venue but we do have a planning process.”

Taylor said that following concerns raised by locals she requested the planning decision be made by a committee of councillors.

The hotel’s planning application for the meeting rooms appears to have been rushed, with it relying on an out-of-date ecological survey which Cornwall Wildlife Trust said could only be relied upon until January 2015.

The design and access document carries one error-strewn section which reads: “Thsi (sic) investment combined with the hotels reputation and unrivalled location have atracted (sic) internationsl (sic) renown to an extent that the Hotel has been sucessful (sic) in hosting the upcoming G7 Conference.”

Carbis Bay Hotel did not comment.

Is East Devon missing a trick? How about joining forces with South Somerset to push this through? – Owl

Small villages in one part of Somerset could soon find it a lot easier to provide affordable housing for local residents.

Daniel Mumby www.somersetlive.co.uk

Under current planning laws, housing developers only have to provide affordable housing (i.e. housing sold for below the market rate) for any new development of ten homes or more – meaning many smaller sites get built out without any low-cost option being provided.

South Somerset District Council is attempting to fix this by asking the government to designate most of its parishes as ‘rural’ – meaning they can insist on affordable homes even for smaller new developments.

The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is expected to respond to the council’s request later in the year.

Under the Housing Act 1985, UK parishes which are ‘rural’ (i.e. those with a population under 3,000) can set a lower threshold for affordable homes – allowing them to seek contributions from developers towards rural affordable homes without approving massive new schemes.

‘Rural’ areas in Somerset already include parishes which lie within either national parks (including Exmoor) or areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs).

Map showing rural parishes in South Somerset (orange), those which could be designated as rural (blue and purple) and urban areas (grey) (Image: Ordnance Survey/ South Somerset District Council)

But only three small parts of the South Somerset district currently have this ‘rural’ designation:

• Settlements within the Blackdown Hills AONB – such as Buckland St Mary and Whitestaunton, both near Chard
• Settlements within the Cranborne Chase AONB – such as Pen Selwood near Wincanton and Brewham near Bruton
• Settlements within the Dorset AONB – solely the parish of West Crewkerne

If the council is successful, almost every parish in the district would be classed as ‘rural’ by the government.

Tessa Saunders, the council’s specialist in strategic planning, said continuing under the current system was not an option.

She told the council’s district executive committee on April 1: “The rural designation will enable more affordable housing to be delivered in our rural communities once new policies in the Local Plan review have been prepared and are supported by viability evidence.

“This designation will also help to protect our rural communities from potential future national policy changes that seek to accelerate housing delivery, but having the unintended consequence of reducing affordable housing delivery in rural communities.

“The current affordable housing unit threshold policy does not work for rural areas as it limits the supply of much-needed rural affordable housing and often results in schemes that no longer meet genuine community need.”

The only parishes which would be exempt (and retain the existing threshold of ten homes) are those which are currently classified as ‘urban’ due to their population size – namely:

• Bruton
• Castle Cary (and neighbouring Ansford)
• Chard
• Crewkerne
• Ilminster
• Langport (and neighbouring Huish Episcopi)
• Martock
• Somerton
• South Petherton
• Wincanton
• Yeovil

However, the planned reform would provide protection for a number of parishes on the fringes of growing towns – such as Tatworth and Forton near Chard, or West Coker near Yeovil.

Council leader Val Keitch said: “In rural areas there is a need for one or two affordable homes – and that’s not what we’re getting, and so people are having to move out. Personally, I think that’s unfortunate.”

The district executive committee voted unanimously to approve the plans, with MHCLG expected to respond to the council’s request in the coming months.

The follow-up to yesterday’s post Trending Boris Johnson’s “Lies” -10 million views and rising.

Something to bear in mind when you vote on May 6: “Tory Culture”. – Owl

Andrew Sparrow www.theguardian.com

Six opposition parties in the Commons are urging the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, to allow a vote on an inquiry into Boris Johnson’s “consistent failure to be honest” in statements to MPs.

They want Hoyle to let them table a motion saying that Johnson’s conduct should be referred to the committee of privileges, on the grounds that making a deliberately misleading statement to MPs amounts to a contempt of parliament under the Commons rulebook, Erskine May.

Given the size of the Conservative majority, there is no realistic chance of MPs approving such a motion, but a debate on this subject – if the Speaker were to allow one – would be highly embarrassing to the prime minister.

The letter was organised by the Green MP Caroline Lucas and it has been signed by five other parliamentary party leaders: Ian Blackford (Scottish National party), Sir Ed Davey (Liberal Democrats), Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru), Colum Eastwood (SDLP) and Stephen Farry (Alliance).

The Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, was invited to sign the letter, but declined. A party source said Labour did not normally sign up to initiatives launched by other parties.

Lucas was partly inspired to take action by a video posted on Twitter by the campaigner Peter Stefanovic about what he describes as Johnson’s “lies”. It has attracted more than 11m views.

“It’s hard to recall any prime minister who has treated parliament with the contempt that this one does,” said Lucas.

“There is a normalisation of lying to the house which is deeply dangerous, especially coming from an increasingly authoritarian government which is looking at every means to avoid accountability.”

In their letter, the six MPs express their “deep concern” that the PM’s repeated failure to be truthful is damaging the reputation of the Commons.

They go on: “This is not a question of occasional inaccuracies or a misleading use of figures: it is a consistent failure to be honest with the facts, or to correct wrong information at the earliest opportunity when misleading information is given. This, we believe, amounts to a contempt of the house.”

The letter cites six examples of Johnson giving misleading information to MPs: saying the economy had grown by 73% under the Conservatives, when the figure covered the period since 1990 (including Labour’s term in office); saying CO₂ emissions had been cut by 42% since 2010, when the real figure was by 38% since 1990; saying the nurses’ bursary had been restored, when the replacement arrangement is less generous; falsely saying the number of families living in poverty had been cut by 400,000 since 2010; falsely saying Bridgend was going to be a battery manufacturing centre; and saying Covid-related contracts had been published when they had not.

When challenged about comments like this, No 10 will sometimes acknowledge that an error was made, but more usually brushes aside the complaint or argues that Johnson was misunderstood.

Johnson himself almost never corrects the record in the chamber, and Downing Street does not say his record for honesty is problematic – despite the fact that Peter Oborne, who was political editor of the Spectator when Johnson was its editor, has recently published a book, The Assault on Truth, wholly devoted to what he describes as Johnson’s “lies”. Oborne, a political reporter for almost 30 years, says he has never encountered a senior British politician “who lies and fabricates so regularly, so shamelessly and so systematically as … Johnson”.

The opposition MPs want the committee of privileges to investigate Johnson because other avenues of complaint appear closed. Knowingly misleading parliament is against the ministerial code, but only the PM himself can order an inquiry into breaches of the code.

The code of conduct for MPs says “honesty” is one of the values they should respect, but the parliamentary commissioner for standards does not investigate complaints about MPs making false statements in the chamber.

Intentionally misleading MPs could be a contempt of parliament, and contempt allegations can be investigated by the committee of privileges.

But the committee can only launch an investigation after a vote for one by MPs, and it is for the Speaker to decide whether a debate on such a motion can be held.

The Speaker’s office said it would not be commenting on private correspondence with MPs.

In response to the claims from the opposition MPs, a government spokesperson said: “The prime minister follows the ministerial code.”

Six opposition parties in the Commons are urging the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, to allow a vote on an inquiry into Boris Johnson’s “consistent failure to be honest” in statements to MPs.

• Renovation of existing agricultural buildings with new link extension to create a new dwelling Monkton Park Farm Payhembury Honiton EX14 3HYRef. No: 21/1043/FUL | Validated: Fri 09 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawfulness for proposed loft conversion, insertion of gable window and rooflights to front, and replacement windows3 Ashclyst View Broadclyst Exeter EX5 3NARef. No: 21/1040/CPL | Validated: Fri 09 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey side extension, replacement porch and reconstruction of garages Old Alfington Inn Alfington Ottery St Mary EX11 1NZRef. No: 21/1034/FUL | Validated: Fri 09 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Fell Western Red Ceder (T1) The tree is damaging the drive, it needs to be removed before the bank is underpinned. Bank End Tipton St John Sidmouth EX10 0AWRef. No: 21/1035/TRE | Validated: Thu 08 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of dormers to front and rear to enable loft conversion, rear extension with revised roof over garage to provide first floor accommodation, creation of first floor balcony and Juliet window with glazed balustrade, and change of materials to render walls, weatherboarding to dormers, slate roof and anthracite grey/black windows & doors (revision of 20/0419/FUL) 82 Foxholes Hill Exmouth EX8 2DHRef. No: 21/1028/FUL | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Reduce height of three golden Lawson cypress on southern boundary of 1 Sidleigh by up to 1.2 metres to same level as in 2015 ref: 15/1684/TCA 1 Sidleigh Sid Road Sidmouth EX10 9DERef. No: 21/1015/TCA | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T6, Oak : reduction of branches as indicated on photo by two metres leaving a spread of approximately four metres. Reason: branches are causing excessive shading and have little amenity value. 2 Sidleigh Sid Road Sidmouth EX10 9DERef. No: 21/1013/TRE | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 Willow – Reduce stem with chicken of the woods by 5-6m in height Reason: Appropriate arb management to reduce the risk of failure 3 Perriams Old Ebford Lane Ebford Exeter EX3 0QBRef. No: 21/1027/TRE | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of side extension (revision of 20/2897/FUL) 40 Bedlands Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 6QNRef. No: 21/1026/FUL | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Reserved matters application (access, appearance, landscaping, layout, scale) pursuant to the outline planning permission ref: 12/1291/MOUT for the creation of 2 sports pitches including pedestrian and cycle access, landscaping and associated works , together with the partial discharge of conditions 2, 4, 5, 17 and 19 of outline planning permission 12/1291/MOUT relating to phase 11 Land At Tithebarn Green Clyst HonitonRef. No: 21/1016/MRES | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Proposed garden room Coate Farm Hawkchurch Axminster EX13 5XBRef. No: 21/1011/FUL | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of agricultural tracks. Great Trill Farm Musbury Axminster EX13 8TURef. No: 21/1018/AGR | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Agricultural storage building Great Trill Farm Musbury Axminster EX13 8TURef. No: 21/1017/AGR | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for the construction of single storey rear extension2 Bramble Close Budleigh Salterton EX9 6JSRef. No: 21/1023/CPL | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Refused
• Certificate of lawfulness for the conversion of garage to habitable space11 Turnstone Avenue Seaton Devon EX12 2FPRef. No: 21/1021/CPL | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Approved
• Reduction and shaping of cherry tree by up to 1.2 metres to leave a finished height of approx. 3.7 metres. Eucalyptus, remove lowest first order branch over grass, reduce first order branch over drive by up to four metres, remove two branches overhanging Sidleigh. See attached photos. 1 Sidleigh Sid Road Sidmouth EX10 9DERef. No: 21/1014/TCA | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed roof extension High Meadow Greenhill Avenue Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5HWRef. No: 21/1007/FUL | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Application for the removal of conditions 33, 34 and 35 (relating to the provision of the railway link/railhead to the site) on the outline planning permission ref: 10/2184/MOUT for an intermodal freight facility and freight distribution centre, landscaping, ancillary works and updated Environmental Statement Lidl Distribution Centre Chillpark Brake Clyst Honiton EX5 2FURef. No: 21/1002/VAR | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Oak trim back lower branches to recommended 1.5m from property. Reason: Appropriate Arb Management. The Farthings Upton Pyne Exeter EX5 5JARef. No: 21/0994/TRE | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single and two storey extension and porch 19 Grove Hill Colyton EX24 6ETRef. No: 21/1004/FUL | Validated: Thu 08 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Construction of a timber frame outbuilding, with 20 no. solar panels on the roof Summerleaze House Gammons Hill Kilmington Axminster EX13 7RARef. No: 21/1001/FUL | Validated: Thu 08 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey front extension 8 Chineway Gardens Ottery St Mary EX11 1JGRef. No: 21/0998/FUL | Validated: Thu 08 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing timber garage and open porch, and construction of new replacement double garage and porch. Aram Littlemead Lane Exmouth EX8 3BURef. No: 21/0990/FUL | Validated: Thu 08 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey extension and porch 9 Wychall Park Seaton EX12 2EWRef. No: 21/0993/FUL | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use and alterations to detached double garage to create an annexe for use by family. 61 Jenwood Road Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4UYRef. No: 21/0954/FUL | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey rear extension and rear dormer window 1 Railway Terrace Tipton St John Sidmouth EX10 0AARef. No: 21/0955/FUL | Validated: Fri 09 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retention of replacement outbuildings; rebuilding of supporting wall The Captains Cottage Fore Street Beer Seaton EX12 3EERef. No: 21/0972/FUL | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed weather boarding to dormer window, and construction of raised patio 4 Grange Close Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5LDRef. No: 21/0951/FUL | Validated: Thu 08 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement oil tank Ryecroft Cottage Yarcombe Honiton EX14 9BDRef. No: 21/0968/FUL | Validated: Thu 08 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Rebuild supporting wall The Captains Cottage Fore Street Beer Seaton EX12 3EERef. No: 21/0973/LBC | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Construction of single storey rear extensions Banjul Toadpit Lane West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1LQRef. No: 21/0940/FUL | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of first floor rear extension and front facing gable extension; installation of side facing windows at first and second floor level. 5 Higher Brook Meadow Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9SSRef. No: 21/0948/FUL | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of detached garage Saundercroft Whimple Exeter EX5 2PFRef. No: 21/0918/FUL | Validated: Thu 08 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of Condition 2 (plans condition) of approved application 19/1580/FUL (Construction of first floor bedroom extension, ground floor bedroom replacement roof and rear ground floor dining room extension) to allow alteration to proposed dormer window and hip to gable. The Old School Exmouth Road Exton Exeter EX3 0PQRef. No: 21/0915/VAR | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Temporary change of use of land (for three year period) for the siting of up to seven glamping tents, five dining domes and associated facilities and parking Land West Of Leggetts Lane RousdonRef. No: 21/0898/COU | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed equestrian ménage (for private use) Wiscombe Grange Southleigh Colyton EX24 6JFRef. No: 21/0904/FUL | Validated: Thu 08 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of greenhouse Bendarroch House Bendarroch Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1JYRef. No: 21/0927/FUL | Validated: Thu 08 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) and removal of condition 3 (closure of access and reinstatement of hedge) of planning permission 20/0568/VAR to allow the retention of the temporary access onto Stony Lane Bridge Farm Stony Lane Woodbury Salterton Exeter EX5 1PPRef. No: 21/0908/VAR | Validated: Thu 08 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey side and rear extension and single storey side extension Samguri Bendarroch Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TSRef. No: 21/0914/FUL | Validated: Fri 09 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of replacement dwelling and detached garage with accommodation above Ty Croeso Offwell Honiton EX14 9RYRef. No: 21/0886/FUL | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Change of use to a glamping site comprising 2 no glamping pods and a facilities and toilet building (retrospective application) Pine Hollow Hulham Road Exmouth EX8 5DXRef. No: 21/0856/FUL | Validated: Fri 09 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of garden studio/office and decking to enable business enterprise Ty Croeso Offwell Honiton EX14 9RYRef. No: 21/0844/FUL | Validated: Fri 09 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Norway Maple : Fell due to causing structural damage to nearby wall. 8 Fairlawn Court Sidmouth EX10 8URRef. No: 21/0828/TCA | Validated: Wed 07 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retention of shelter for storage of bicycles and electric scooter. 1 Kings Row King Street Honiton EX14 1EHRef. No: 21/0815/FUL | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace 2no. ground floor sash windows on front (south east) elevation. 231 High Street Honiton EX14 1AHRef. No: 21/0804/LBC | Validated: Fri 09 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace 4no. fixed pane windows in existing sunroom with 2no. French doors on side (south east) elevation and extend sunroom floor level into small section of lounge floor by raising floor level Stowford House Colaton Raleigh Sidmouth EX10 0JBRef. No: 21/0698/LBC | Validated: Tue 06 Apr 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

Environment Secretary George Eustice defends ex-PM David Cameron over lobbying scandal…

(MP for Camborne and Redruth)

[No comment yet from Dave’s great pal Hugo? And is it just Dave or the whole party?- Owl]

Kate Ferguson www.thesun.co.uk 

A CABINET minister yesterday defended former PM David Cameron over the lobbying scandal.

Environment Secretary George Eustice insisted Mr Cameron had not “broken any rules”.

Mr Eustice told the BBC: “It is acceptable because people have worked within the rules.”

Mr Cameron is under fire for messaging Chancellor Rishi Sunak asking for millions in Covid bailouts for finance company Greensill Capital.

Mr Eustice also defended Health Secretary Matt Hancock for having shares in his sister’s company which won NHS contracts.

He said: “There is nothing wrong with ministers having financial interests provided they declare them.”

Boris Johnson has ordered a lawyer-led review into the Greensill affair.

Meanwhile, a string of parliamentary inquiries have been set up into lobbying and second jobbing at the top of government.

But Mr Eustice downplayed talk of major reform.

He said it might be right to “consider tweaks to policy” but that, fundamentally, the system was a “pretty good one”.

But Labour’s Rachel Reeves said Mr Cameron had plunged his party into a fresh Tory sleaze scandal.

Shadow minister Steve Reed said the lobbying scandal was something “you would associate with a tinpot dictatorship”.

Boris Johnson says he agrees with Lord Pickles as more inquiries are launched over David Cameron Greensill scandal

The Conservative peer who chairs NHS England is facing demands to explain why he helped arrange for Greensill Capital to lobby senior health service bosses, with Labour describing his role as “shocking”.

Denis Campbell www.theguardian.com 

David Prior is facing questions over a meeting he organised between the now collapsed finance firm’s founder Lex Greensill and the overall boss of the NHS and its chief financial officer.

Lord Prior – a former Tory MP, health minister and Tory party deputy chair – also helped to facilitate a meeting at which Lex Greensill was able to lobby Lady Harding, the Tory peer who chairs NHS Improvement, the health service’s financial regulator.

That encounter led to Greensill being able to meet the chief executives of a number of NHS hospital trusts whose support he was seeking for a scheme to let the NHS’s 1.4m staff in England be paid daily by Greensill, via an app called Earnd, rather than monthly in what Labour said was a latter-day “junk bonds” exercise.

Harding is best known as the boss of the government’s heavily-criticised £37bn test and trace programme.

Calls for clarity about Prior’s involvement with Greensill come amid continuing controversy about the roles played by David Cameron, the former prime minister, who was a lobbyist for and senior figure at the firm, and Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who backed the payments system it wanted to introduce across the health service.

Cameron has been under fire for weeks for lobbying an array of ministers and civil servants, both for Greensill to be able to access emergency government funding during the Covid pandemic and for the NHS to adopt the scheme involving health service pay.

Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, said: “Shockingly, meetings were convened by NHS England chair and former Cameron health minister Lord Prior with senior NHS officials, and fellow Tory peer and NHS leader Dido Harding facilitated further meetings with Trust chief executives.

“Trusts may have spent valuable time considering the adoption of this untested scheme and did so because the secretary of the state and the most senior NHS figures succumbed to Cameron and Greensill’s lobbying.”

Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson on health, said: “Conservative party cronyism must not be allowed to interfere with the daily running of the NHS. I expect all details of Lord Prior’s engagement with Lex Greensill to be made public, allowing proper scrutiny to take place.”

The Sunday Times disclosed how Prior arranged for Lex Greensill and his close colleague Bill Crowther, an ex-head of government procurement under Cameron, to meet Julian Kelly, NHS England’s chief financial officer, in July 2019 at a meeting which Sir Simon Stevens – the service’s chief executive – attended for 15 minutes at the peer’s request.

Ashworth added: “We now need to know how many NHS leaders and officials did Cameron and Greensill lobby? How many NHS trusts in total were approached about a scheme that was really a form of usury?”

NHS England declined to say who had asked Prior to arrange access for Greensill. It is thought that he was approached by senior figures at the firm whom he knew from his days working in the City.

Hancock is already under scrutiny for having a drink with Cameron and Greensill, who was an adviser to Cameron when he was prime minister of the coalition government of 2010-15.

The Sunday Times published an email that Cameron sent to Matthew Gould, the chief executive of NHSX, the health service’s digital innovation agency, seeking his help in ensuring that Greensill’s company, in the event of a deal, could access the personal details of NHS workers held in the service’s Electronic Staff Record. Gould replied that “we will certainly look into the ESR question”.

The Guardian asked the Department of Health and Social Care if Hancock had approached Prior or Harding before their respective engagements with Greensill. But it refused to answer and suggested we submit a freedom of information request to pursue that information.

A DHSC spokesperson said: “The wellbeing of NHS staff is the top priority of the department and health secretary.

“Our approach was and is that local NHS employers are best placed to decide how different pay flexibilities fit with their overall pay and reward offer for their staff.”

Dr John Puntis, the co-chair of Keep Our NHS Public, which campaigns against NHS privatisation, said: “Prior, Harding and Stevens are all concerned with promoting a digital transformation of the NHS on the unevidenced and highly dubious basis that it will save money and improve care.”

A spokesperson for NHS England and NHS Improvement said: “NHS England and NHS Improvement experts scrutinised these proposals but decided not to go along with them. Had these ideas been taken forward by NHSEI, there would have been a transparent and open procurement process.”

NHS England did not respond when asked why Prior arranged for Greensill and Crowther to meet Kelly and what contact if any Prior had with Hancock, Cameron, Greensill or Crowther before fixing the meeting with Kelly. They also did not respond to a request to disclose details of all relevant communications.

David Cameron used private jets owned by Greensill Capital to fly around the world for speaking engagements, the Financial Times has revealed.

www.thelondoneconomic.com 

The former Prime Minister, known as the architect of austerity, would frequently use the “plushy furnished aeroplanes” to travel around the world.

According to the reports he charged at least £120,000 an hour for speaking engagements, a handsome sum which has stuck in the craw of many people on social media this weekend.

Austerity in Britain

Cameron and chancellor George Osborne popularised austerity in Britain after coming to power in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

In his keynote speech to the Conservative Party forum in Cheltenham on 26 April 2009 Cameron declared that “the age of irresponsibility is giving way to the age of austerity” and committed to end years of what he characterised as excessive government spending.

The austerity programme included reductions in welfare spending, the cancellation of school building programs, reductions in local government funding, and an increase in VAT.

Spending on the police, courts and prisons was also reduced.

A new report by the centre right think tank finds, once again, that the large developers “land bank” and control the “build out” rate so as not to disturb the market price. For example, the six biggest house builders alone currently have roughly 1 million plots in their strategic land banks, nearly the equivalent of the target supply across England over the next five years. 

Question is what to do about it? – Owl

Alex Morton www.cps.org.uk

Since the 1960s, housing supply has fallen steadily each decade, and that attempts to fix this have mostly focused on increasing the number of planning permissions flowing through the system. However, while the 2010 planning reforms led to permissions rising to over 350,000, the number of new homes actually built was just over 200,000.

A new report by the Centre for Policy Studies calls for changes to the planning system to open up the market and allow better access for small and medium sized companies and to diversify the housing supply.

As highlighted in ‘The Housing Guarantee’ out today, the top 10 house builders currently build 40% of all new homes, with the top six controlling around 33% of the market. Facing challenges to obtain land, smaller builders face being squeezed out of the system – falling from building around 40% of homes in the 1980s to around 10% now.

The six biggest house builders alone currently have roughly 1 million plots in their strategic land banks, nearly the equivalent of the target supply across England over the next five years.

The report sets out three key reforms that the think tank argues must be made to address the systemic failures in the current system and support delivery of more homes:

–        Changing permissions to delivery contracts based on an agreed timeline. Where house builders cannot deliver this, they would have to pass the land on at an agreed price to local SMEs. This would mean as land came forward for development, it was actually translated into new homes.

–    A renewed emphasis on the Housing Delivery Test, ensuring councils are assessed on the basis of numbers of homes built, not on planning permissions granted – and are penalised if they are not delivering for their community. This would increase not just the number of homes built, but their speed, diversity and quality.

–    Introducing panels of local house builder SMEs that public sector land is sold to, with challenging delivery targets to ensure the quality and diversity of local housing supply, and support competition within the sector.

Over time, these reforms would modernise the new build housing market, making it more transparent, and ensure the flow of land actually turns into new homes via a clear and obvious build-out trajectory. It would mean a higher delivery of housing and a greater role for SMEs as well as higher overall supply. 

David Cameron lobbied the NHS for access to doctors’ and nurses’ personal data weeks into the coronavirus pandemic.

By Redrow Homes www.thelondoneconomic.com 

The revelations, published in the Sunday Times, throw fresh scrutiny on the former prime minister’s work for the controversial financier Lex Greensill.

Cameron, 54, is embroiled in a ballooning lobbying scandal, after it emerged that he urged ministers to give collapsed lender Greensill Capital access to Covid-19 loan schemes.

An email, published by the newspaper, reveals that Cameron also sought to exploit the pandemic to promote a Greensill payment scheme which he claimed would “help all NHS employees’ welfare, morale and wellbeing”.

Cameron had been lobbying for the product, a new app called Earnd, for six months with little success, with take-up by NHS hospital trusts and staff minimal.

On 23 April, as Boris Johnson was recovering from Covid-19 and the NHS struggle to cope with 700 daily virus deaths, Cameron sent an email to Matthew Gould, the head of NHSX – the digital arm of the health service.

He told Gould, 49, that Matt Hancock, the health secretary, was “extremely positive” about Greensill’s “innovative” proposal to pay NHS staff daily advances on their salaries through Earnd.

Cameron – who helped millions in share options with Greensill – had already brought the Australian to lobby Hancock over drinks.

In the email, the ex-Tory leader revealed his “ask”; Greensill’s app would be “much slicker if it can obtain access to employee data in ESR” – referencing the Electronic Staff Record, which holds information on 1.4 million key workers.

Earnd, he told Gould, “addresses one of your key priorities: helping all NHS employees’ welfare, morale and wellbeing”. 

He added: “This is of such potential importance in contributing to the priority of doing all we can to help NHS employees at the current time… I think some help from you would go a long way.” 

The email introduced Gould to Bill Crothers, a Greensill director who had run government procurement under Cameron.

“Finally, and importantly,” Cameron signed off, ‘once this is all over, it would be great to see you again — maybe for lunch? Let’s stay in touch!”

In response Gould – who also served under Cameron and was a school friend of George Osborne – said he would “certainly look into the ESR question”.

Earnd eventually entered a contract with ESR to supply software that would use the personal details of NHS staff, to allow claims for early payment to be verified – and signed a deal with a firm co-owned by Hancock’s department to roll the app out to “all” NHS organisations.

But just 450 people signed up, despite the deal giving Earnd access to the records of as many as 400,000 people.

Greensill went bust last month, putting 50,000 jobs at risk globally, including 5,000 in the UK. The Earnd app also filed for administration, owning at least £400,000 to NHS-affiliated groups. 

A spokesman for Cameron said: “These discussions were about the mechanics to ensure Earnd was delivered for NHS workers in a smooth and efficient way.” A Greensill family representative added Earnd was never supposed to make a profit from the NHS: “Lex is devastated that the Earnd project didn’t succeed.”

No shock whatsoever expressed at Tory Corruption – only about the government ensuring that the inquiry will be fudged in their favour. – Owl

by Mike Sivier voxpoliticalonline.com 

Snout in the trough (all right – bucket): perhaps the Conservatives should rename themselves the Corruption Party?

A lobbyist is running the Tory government’s inquiry into the Greensill scandal.

A lobbyist is running Parliament’s watchdog on lobbying.

And more people in public life are being identified as employees of the collapsed finance firm Greensill Capital, meaning their loyalties were divided between working for the public good and making profits for this private company. And this is just one firm. How many other MPs, former MPs and people in charge of other public organisations are also enmired in this corruption?

Consider this:

For those who can’t read images well, it says the government review of lobbying is being headed by Nigel Boardman, a consultant with law firm Slaughter & May – which lobbied against tightening lobbying laws.

It seems clear that the ‘fix’ is in – anyone who works for a firm that wants more freedom to lobby the government won’t find any corruption in David Cameron’s activities for Greensill, right?

Now let’s look at how Parliament got into a position where a former prime minister was able to insinuate himself into the corridors of power on behalf of his new employer and influence current ministers to provide Greensill with huge amounts of public money. Why didn’t the lobbying watchdog spot it and put a stop to it?

Here‘s iNews:

A senior member of the Government’s own lobbying watchdog runs his own firm advertising his access to ministers at the highest echelons of power.

Andrew Cumpsty sits on the Government’s Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), and boasts of his access to Cabinet ministers.

Do you think that might have something to do with how the rot has set in so far?

And then there’s this:

Hogan-Howe – now a Lord, and therefore well-placed to put in a good word for his employers – has only been discovered because of the focus on Greensill.

But how many other firms have their fingers in government pies via members of Parliament they just happen to have in their pockets?

And how much are our MPs and former MPs earning from second (or third, or fourth, or however many) jobs with these organisations?

Yes, there’s a Parliamentary inquiry happening, independently of Boris Johnson’s Slaughter & May-led whitewash, but that won’t go far enough either.

We need a full investigation into the current employment situations of all former MPs. Do they work for firms that have government contracts and, if so, how were those contracts secured?

Let’s find out how deep the rot has set in.

Because if we don’t – and if we don’t then clear it all out – then we may as well accept that Tory corruption is here to stay; it isn’t only part of the fabric of political life – it is the heart of the UK’s politics.

The Times carried the story under the heading: “Failed Flybe turned into Flymaybe by vulture fund”. The article also pointed out that Flybe operated just over half of domestic flights outside London and carried eight million passengers in 2019, flying between 71 airports in the UK and mainland Europe.

William Telford www.devonlive.com 

South West businesses would welcome the return of newly resurrected airline Flybe to the region – but there is no guarantee it will even fly again let alone to the West Country.

A new company called Flybe Ltd has bought assets of the failed Exeter-headquartered airline from administrators and hopes to start flights in 2021.

But there is no indication the new firm will operate from the South West or even fly to it – if it even sees aircraft in the sky at all.

While the venture currently has an operating licence (OL), the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) actually revoked this and it is only still in place because an appeal has been lodged. A decision will be taken by transport minister Grant Shapps.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence as yet that the new company, connected to hedge fund Cyrus Capital, will be based in the South West or even run services to it.

Administrators have already sold the Exeter training academy to Devon County Council for £3.6million and have returned 65 leased aircraft.

The new company has so far declined to add to an initial statement which said that, subject to vaccination programmes and relaxation of travel restrictions, it plans to launch the new Flybe in Summer 2021 on many of its former routes.

It said the new company will initially be smaller than the original Flybe, which employed 2,000 people, but intends to grow and create jobs.

However, industry insiders say that may be done far from the South West, possibly at Manchester or Birmingham, which Flybe used to serve, and one insider said: “There will be regional support to encourage them to come back to the South West, but we have no idea whether they will or not.”

And Tim Jones, chair of the South West Business Council, said that while there is no guarantee the new company will base itself in the region, it would, however, make sense to do so.

“The South West should be the location of the new business,” he said. “We have the credentials, skill sets and infrastructure that can support it. There is a strong case to say the origin of Flybe is in the South West and it would be welcomed back and we could make this a successful business and will vote with our feet by supporting it.”

Kim Conchie, chief executive of Cornwall Chamber of Commerce, said it would be good if the new Flybe could operate from the Duchy’s Newquay Airport.

He said: “Cornwall needs regional connectivity. We are a business area bursting with opportunities to build back better- to pick up on a G7 theme.

“We want to showcase to the world our floating offshore wind, our geothermal, our digital, marine and agritech businesses creating and doing things differently.

“There isn’t a booming economy in the world that doesn’t have a functioning airport. We need Flybe operating from Newquay and working with Cornwall’s entrepreneurs to make flying greener, efficient and easy so we can get clients and investors in and out quickly.”

The original Exeter-headquartered Flybe Ltd collapsed into administration in early 2020 after the Government withdrew a £100million rescue package.

The firm, which operated about 4% of UK domestic flights to numerous cities including Newcastle and Cardiff, saw the vast majority of its 2,000 workers made redundant.

But administrators at restructuring firm EY have now completed a deal with will see an unspecified number of jobs transfer from FBE Realisations 2021 Limited (in Administration), as the old Flybe was renamed, to the new company, previously known as Thyme Opco Limited, but now renamed Flybe Ltd.

In October 2020, EY struck a deal with Cyrus Capital, which was one of three partners alongside Virgin Atlantic and Stobart Group that had taken over Flybe before its demise in 2020.

However, the CAA began steps to revoke the operating licence (OL) in January 2021 and two months later actually revoked it. EY administrators have appealed against this but during the appeals process the licence remains valid.

An EY spokesperson said: “An appeal has been lodged against the CAA decision to revoke the operating licence held by FBE Realisations 2021 Limited (in Administration). Currently, and during any appeal process, the operating licence continues to remain valid.”

A spokesperson for the CAA said: “The UK Civil Aviation Authority can confirm that Flybe (formally known as Thyme OpCo Limited) has been granted an operating licence.

“This licence allows Flybe to undertake commercial air transport and was granted subject to the company meeting the qualifying legislative criteria and requirements of a new applicant.”

Missed deadlines or a change in demographics? – Owl

Richard Adams www.theguardian.com

Birmingham and London have recorded steep falls in demand for primary school places next year, with local authorities reporting that disruption caused by the Covid pandemic, as well as the falling birthrate and migration after Brexit, may be behind the decline.

London’s boroughs had a 7% fall in applications for reception class places in September, while Birmingham had 9% fewer applications compared with 2020. Major local authorities in the south-east of England reported declines of 2% or more, including Essex, Kent, and Brighton and Hove.

Local authority representatives said some of the fall was due to parents simply missing the deadline for applications on 15 January, when schools were closed to most pupils and the post-Christmas wave of infections was rising. The pandemic prevented schools and councils from carrying out traditional marketing such as open days.

The Pan London Admissions Board – which administers state school applications for the 32 London boroughs – said the “turbulence caused by the Covid-19 pandemic” may have led to families not being aware of or missing the application deadline. Parents applying late after the deadline are not guaranteed a state school place.

London Councils, the umbrella group for the 32 local authorities, said: “The boroughs are expecting more late applications this year as many parents were not accessing childcare, where they would usually have had reminders about the application deadline, or have just been too busy dealing with the disruption caused by the pandemic.”

But the decrease was “also likely to reflect a wider set of factors”, it added.

“Other factors, such as the announcement of Brexit and subsequent drop in EU migration, have been cited by some boroughs as having an impact on demand for primary school places,” the councils said.

“Covid-19 is also already having an impact on London’s demographics as boroughs report that more families in London are choosing to move to less urban areas due to changes in circumstances and working patterns.

“These factors vary from borough to borough and are very hard to quantify in terms of numbers, therefore making it increasingly difficult for local authorities to be able to plan school places in the medium to long term.”

But outside London, some local authorities also reported steep declines, with Birmingham seeing applications for school entry fall from nearly 14,400 last year to 13,000 this year. Applications in Oxfordshire were down by more than 6%. A survey of 71 councils in England by the Press Association found that 63 had seen a fall in applications while just eight had seen a rise.

In England children are encouraged to enrol in full-time schooling from the age of four. Births in England peaked in 2012, with applications for primary school places reaching 641,000 in 2016. But since 2012, births have declined by more than 12%, with applications falling to 612,000 in 2020.

The fall in demand meant less pressure for places in popular schools, with most parts of the country reporting a rise in the proportion of families given places in their first preference.

In Birmingham nearly 92% of applicants received their first choice, up four percentage points compared with 2020. In London, 87% of applicants – 79,343 children – secured their first-preference school, compared with 85% last year.

Kensington and Chelsea remained the most difficult London borough to secure a first-preference spot, with just 66% achieving it this year – worse than last year, when 70% did so.

In Doncaster, the local authority said that 97% of families were given their first preference of school.

A study commissioned by Unlock Democracy from De Montfort University.  Unlock Democracy is campaigning to reverse the centralisation of power from local government to central government in England and restore it back to local communities. 

Executive summary

Communities thrive best when those who serve them locally are accountable, engaged, listen to residents’ concerns, and have a vision for their area with the power to implement it. This is what local authorities have the potential to deliver. But when autonomy is denied, not only are elected representatives left disempowered, but community voices are stifled and expectations dashed too. 

1. CENTRAL-LOCAL RELATIONS: CENTRALISATION ON STEROIDS? 

To deliver this vision, a balanced relationship between central and local government is essential. Yet, over time, the balance has increasingly tilted towards the centre, leaving local government and the communities it serves weakened.

•  Until the late 1970s, councils could be defined as ‘sovereign’: they had jurisdictional integrity, a high level of autonomy on key services, and democratic legitimacy. The lack of constitutional protection for local government has allowed a shift from a model of the ‘Sovereign Council’ to a more disempowered local government.
•  Central government has been deploying a wide range of ‘tools of central control’. Central-local relations have been ‘juridified’; secondary legislation has been increasingly used as an indirect, yet powerful mechanism of re-centralisation; contractualisation and ‘conditional localism’ have become the norm.
•  The combined use of these tools has had damaging effects. Local government’s autonomy and power – and that of the communities it serves – have been eroded by the centre.

2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE: WEAKENED BY A THOUSAND CUTS 

Central control over funding is key to the character of central-local relationships in England and determines local government’s degree of autonomy. 

• Since the late 1970s, different administrations have used the tool of funding controls in different ways. But the direction of travel has been clear: loss of financial autonomy has led to a loss of local government autonomy. 
• In recent years, there have been attempts at reversing this trend – with councils being able to raise and retain more income locally. And yet, this has coincided with severe financial constraints and centrally prescribed targets, meaning more local discretion over inadequate funding can, in turn, exacerbate a ‘postcode lottery’ in service delivery.
• The Covid-19 crisis has now put additional strains on an already fragile system of funding. Many local authorities were already on the brink of collapse after 10 years of austerity: the lack of adequate support from the centre is now leaving them with no choice but to cut further essential services for the communities they serve. Meanwhile, many councils may not be able to survive the ‘perfect storm’ generated by the Covid-19 crisis.
• As reflected in recent research (NAO 2021; IFS, 2020) the system of local government cannot be fixed anymore with short-term interventions, and requires to be stabilised in the long term.

3. DISMEMBERING LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 

Until the late 1970s, local government was recognised as the principal local player, with relative discretion and autonomy. This trend has radically changed over the past decades.

•  Councils have been stripped of many of their primary service delivery roles. At best, local authorities are now one provider amongst many, and face increasing difficulty in maintaining strategic oversight on key services.
•  Councils have, at the same time, faced financial pressures and the imposition of additional duties which have perpetuated the trend to outsourcing and alternative methods of delivery.
•  As a result, councils now have responsibility without power in many, crucial, policy areas – such as education, housing and social care. l Changes have been complex and fast paced, creating a ‘tangled web’ of management, delivery, fragmentation, lack of clear lines of accountability and muddled structures.

4. SQUEEZING DEMOCRACY OUT OF THE LOCAL: REPRESENTATION DEFICITS AND ‘TANGLED WEBS’ OF ACCOUNTABILITY 

The role of local government as representative of a community, as well as provider of collective services, has been steadily weakened through central government reforms implemented over the past decades. 

• Local government’s representation and legitimacy has been reduced: the size of councils has grown, the number of councillors has fallen, and the introduction of ‘backbench’ councillors has left many local representatives playing only residual roles.
•  Within councils, the introduction of the executive/cabinet model was meant to improve accountability. Instead, it has arguably introduced a more managerial model, while also fostering the creation of ‘two tribes’ of councillors, with very different leverage over local affairs. As a result, the influence of the average councillor has been reduced, and the role of the councillor has been increasingly ‘managerialised’ and ‘depoliticised’.
•  Councillors now also sit at the centre of a maze of multiple accountabilities. They are under increasing pressure to develop different skills, capabilities and modes of oversight that are often difficult to ‘juggle’. In this way, there is a risk that ‘accountability gaps’ emerge, leaving communities disempowered. 
• New ‘tangled webs of accountability’, especially over service delivery, have also coincided with local government being bypassed by a ‘new magistracy’ of unelected bodies, and having to operate within an organisational and institutional arrangement with fuzzy boundaries. 

The erosion of local democracy has been substantial, putting into jeopardy local government’s ability to continue providing a vital democratic link for the communities it is elected to serve. For the sake of local democracy the tide must be turned. 

That is the conclusion of a CNN analysis of the David Cameron/Greensill scandal published a few days ago. The drip feed of examples continues, and there are now seven inquiries in progress, so CNN’s judgement could be premature.

However, what caught Owl’s attention was the chilling reasoning: “the public repeatedly shows that its priority is getting through the pandemic at all costs. If at a time of crisis that means giving contracts to friends to get the job done, it’s unlikely to make a significant difference to support for the government.”

Analysis: A political scandal is swirling in Britain. But Boris Johnson is unlikely to drain the swamp

Analysis by Luke McGee,  edition.cnn.com (Extract)

“It’s hard to find any way in which this doesn’t look phenomenally grubby, from the inside or outside. That might explain why current Prime Minister Boris Johnson has failed to publicly support Cameron, and has ordered an independent inquiry into his behavior.

However, anti-corruption campaigners in the UK are skeptical that any good will come of this inquiry.

“The UK’s real problem is that whilst we do have procedures in place to regulate lobbying and post-government appointments, they are just woefully inadequate,” says Daniel Bruce, chief executive of Transparency International UK.

Bruce points out that the two specific mechanisms that are relevant to the Cameron scandal are particularly weak.

First, the Register of Consultant Lobbyists, the only formal list of those lobbying the UK government, only captures people lobbying for companies or bodies who are external consultants. Bruce’s organization estimates that the vast majority “of lobbying is done by people who work directly for the person they are lobbying on behalf of,” says Bruce.

In the case of Cameron and Greensill, Cameron was a contracted employee for the firm, so sidesteps the register policy — which was introduced by Cameron’s government in the first place.

Second, Bruce points to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which advises whether or not people like Cameron should take postings once they have left office.

“This one is absolutely unfit for purpose. Even if it does find any wrongdoing, the worst punishment it can deliver is a strongly worded letter,” says Bruce.

Any inquiry into Cameron’s behavior is likely to find that he breached no rules. And if that inquiry fails to look at the broader issues surrounding lobbying — and the toothless bodies that regulate it — future scandals remain inevitable.

The inadequate rules on elected officials possibly cashing in on their position sadly extend to those who are currently in government, not just ex-officials who are looking to get rich post-office.

“The only real protection we have from government sleaze is an apolitical civil service telling ministers what they can and cannot do,” says Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, a non-profit organization that uses law to protect public interest.

“Yes, we have a ministerial code, we have registers of financial interest. But breaching the ministerial code doesn’t mean you’ll get sacked. And very few MPs have stopped filling their pockets because of public shame,” Maugham adds.

The fact that the UK doesn’t have a codified constitution to protect against this kind of alleged abuse is a constant source of irritation for many. Maugham points out that “America is a modern country whose founders foresaw the potential for abuses of power, but the UK has never really had anything like that.”

The Cameron scandal comes at a time when there is pressure for Johnson’s government to address stories that during the coronavirus pandemic, it more often awarded lucrative government contracts to people connected with the administration. So, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Sunak’s involvement would be an extra source of aggravation for ministers trying to shake accusations of cronyism.

Indeed, the opposition Labour Party is already using the scandal to attack Sunak, a man who has variously enjoyed positive press for much of his response to the pandemic.

Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, says that the Chancellor “is happy to stand in front of a camera when it suits him and splash public cash on boosting his brand, but won’t answer questions about his involvement in the biggest lobbying scandal for a generation.”

However, neither of these stories are likely to give Johnson the appetite to drain Westminster’s lobbying swamp.

“The public rarely pays attention to these stories because they already assume this level of corruption is happening,” says Ben Page, chief executive of polling firm Ipsos MORI. He adds that even in the case of the Covid cronyism, “the public repeatedly shows that its priority is getting through the pandemic at all costs. If at a time of crisis that means giving contracts to friends to get the job done, it’s unlikely to make a significant difference to support for the government.”

Government sources say that their own internal research shows similar results and that if the UK’s pandemic is over sooner rather than later, these sorts of scandals will be a minor issue compared to the public relief. A minister told CNN that they are confident that even if stories emerge that people connected to the government won contracts in a public crisis, they will be forgiving of the fact these were not normal times, especially in areas that have been successful, like the vaccine rollout.

Washington DC’s reputation for influential lobbyists is obviously justified. If it wasn’t, Trump’s anti-swamp rhetoric wouldn’t have found such a keen audience. But in reality, for all the money that exists in American politics, the UK trails behind when it comes to stamping down on this type of grubbiness.”