Yesterday’s Strategic Planning Committee which considered the responses to the working draft of the Local Plan 2020-2040, drawn up after a first round of consultation, lasted for over 6 hours.

This is just a snippet from the early part of the meeting that caught Owl’s attention.

Unlike under the Old Guard, the New Guard is trying to make the compilation of the Local Plan more transparent and open to public consultation, a difficult task given the contentious nature of Local Planning. 

In previous rounds the process had been cloaked in secrecy. The last plan was driven by the Old Guard’s choice of adopting a high growth jobs-led “policy-on” scenario. This time the New Guard has to respond to housing figures dictated from Whitehall.

The process starts with a call for sites from landowners to establish what land is potentially available. This appraisal of the amount of land available for housing and economic use is called a Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), and the potential sites are referred to throughout the meeting as HELAA sites. These sites are given scores for suitability and not all will enter the final plan.

For the 2020-2040 Plan EDDC has used sites that were put forward for the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) in 2017, which EDDC has now withdrawn from, and from a new appeal for sites earlier this year.

At the point of the meeting (36.31) when each committee member made the usual declaration of interest. Councillor Skinner declared that he had a piece of land in Talaton that was in the “process” and also a longstanding interest with F W Carter and Sons. 

Questions from councillors started after a presentation on the Draft Plan at around 57min. At this point Councillor Skinner asked for clarification on the status of sites “found”. He received an answer from Ed Freeman that all those sites identified as appropriate and acceptable for development from both the 2017 and 2021 HELAAs still left a shortfall of 900 houses.

At this point Councillor Paul Arnott intervened on a point of order asking  the Chair for confirmation that Councillor Skinner had declared a land interest. Through the Chair, Councillor Skinner replied that he had declared ownership of a site that was in the HELAA process. Councillor Arnott then raised the point that such an interest was a pecuniary one and not personal and therefore presented possible difficulties in subsequent debate. 

The Chairman pointed out  that declarations were up to individual Councillors and that the advice of Mrs Shaw (Legal Officer) could always be taken. Councillor Skinner immediately agreed to take the advice of  Mrs Shaw. 

Her advice was that a registered interest in land would amount to a disclosable pecuniary interest in this case. She read out various sections of the constitution, and pointed out that Councillors with pecuniary interests, and without any dispensation from either the Monitoring Officer or Standards Committee, should declare, withdraw from debate and leave the chamber. She also said that as this particular debate was wide ranging, Councillor Skinner would need to consider at what point it would be appropriate for him to “step away” from this debate. 

Councillor Skinner decided that he would step away immediately and take further advice from the Monitoring Officer on this matter.

Owl copies below the relevant section from the rules governing members conduct:

19.4 Disclosable Pecuniary Interest 

Unless a dispensation has been granted, a member shall not participate in any discussion of, or vote on, any matter in which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and having first declared to the meeting the existence and nature of that interest shall withdraw from the room where the meeting is being held at the commencement of the consideration of that business, or (if later) the time at which the interest becomes apparent. 

Where the Disclosable Pecuniary Interest is sensitive (as defined on the Member Code of Conduct of the respective Councils) the member need not disclose the nature of that interest but must still state there is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and otherwise follow the requirements of the previous paragraph.

Currently the experts are in the realm of trying to make sense of limited data on Omicron.

It is quite proper in these circumstances to look at possibilities or “scenarios” that cover the range from pessimistic assumptions to optimistic ones. But at all times infection projections must be subject to common sense “reality” checks, as Professor Spieglehalter points out.

It looks like the Health Secretary has failed this test, to the detriment of government credibility at a critical time.

www.independent.co.uk

A Covid expert has poured scorn on government claims that omicron infections have reached 200,000 a day, branding the figure implausible.

Ministers have failed to explain how the estimate – announced by health secretary Sajid Javid one day before a huge Tory revolt against the Plan B restrictions – was calculated.

Now David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at the University of Cambridge, has attacked the sudden use of the figure – suggesting the real daily tally was 45,000 new cases on Monday.

“It’s bit naughty to give this number without having a justification behind it,” Prof Spiegelhalter said.

“It’s not based on the published modelling that came out from UK Health Security Agency a few days ago.

“If you put that through their model it comes to 45,000 infections yesterday – which is high, but does seem more plausible.”

The professor of the public understanding of risk, and a regular commentator on pandemic modelling, added: “From what has been made public, I can’t see how you can derive this number.”

The latest estimate is that omicron cases are doubling every 2-3 days – the reason why Plan B curbs are coming in – which implies 1.2 million new infections by Christmas Day.

But Prof Spiegelhalter suggested a tailing off is inevitable, telling BBC Radio 4: “Whatever the line is, it’s got to curve over sometime – because we are not going to get up to these vast numbers of millions of people getting it every day.”

After the shock of the 200,000 figure put out by Mr Javid, his officials were unable to explain how it had been calculated, other than to say it is based on “modelling”.

Omicron is believed to make up around one-fifth of all Covid cases, but as many as 44 per cent in London, the UK hotspot for the new variant.

It is expected to become the dominant strain in the capital by the end of Wednesday at the latest, Mr Javid told MPs on Monday.

However, the government is struggling to persuade its own MPs to back curbs already introduced – let alone more severe measures many are calling for before Christmas.

Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, warned the cabinet to expect a “significant increase” in hospitalisation, while hospital leaders warn parts of the NHS are already “beyond full stretch”.

But around 70 Tory MPs have signalled they will vote against Covid passes for crowded venues – with less opposition against the extension of mask-wearing to cinemas and theatres.

It is not the first time Prof Spiegelhalter has criticised the government’s use of Covid statistics as the pandemic is progressed.

Last May, he attacked the announcement of “unreliable” daily test totals, as “number theatre”, when the public was crying out for “proper detail”.

In the three Covid votes last night, Simon Jupp voted against covid passes, abstained on mandatory vaccination of NHS staff, and even abstained on the retrospective extension of mandatory face coverings.

A Tory MP who voted for the measures said it was “good of the nutters to self-identify”.

Fleur Anderson (Lab) asked why the Tories MPs opposed to the “papers please” aspect of Covid passes are not opposing the elections bill, which is requiring people to produce photo ID when they vote.

Will anyone be joining Simon when he next goes nightclubbing?

Neil Parish supported the Government and Opposition on all three.

Including from Industry:

And more from Happy Toast

Watch Happy Toast here.

A leaked image has revealed that Tory aides threw a Christmas party last year – during the middle of last years coronavirus lockdown.

Looks suspiciously like a gathering to Owl

Jonathon Manning www.devonlive.com 

The photograph shows around two dozen people crowded together in the Conservative party’s Westminster headquarters.

The event was organised by Shaun Bailey’s mayoral campaign and took place on December 14, 2020. At the time London was in Tier 2 lockdown, according to The Mirror.

Mr Bailey was approached for comment by The Mirror tonight. He then abruptly quit as the chair of the London Assembly’s police and crime committee.

The image shows 24 people, many wearing paper hats and eating party food at the Conservative campaign headquarters.

Shaun Bailey can be seen in the middle of the crowd of closely packed party-goers.

He is thought to have left the party early in the evening, soon after the picture was taken.

A spokesperson for Shaun Bailey’s campaign said: “On the evening of December 14 2020, at the end of the working day, the campaign hosted a post-work event to thank campaign staff for their efforts over the course of the year.

“This was a serious error of judgement and we fully accept that gathering like this as that time was wrong and apologise unreservedly.”

Also present was billionaire Tory donor Nick Candy, who is shown raising a glass of wine while the photo was taken. Another guest is thought to have been a senior figure within Boris Johnson’s leadership election campaign.

A spokesperson for Mr Candy said: “Nick Candy attended the office of the Shaun Bailey campaign for an end of year review on 14 December 2021. He gave a short thank you speech to the team and spent some time with Shaun Bailey to discuss campaign matters before leaving shortly afterwards.”

Those at the party are understood to have danced and drank wine late into the night, while the revellers also damaged a door at the “raucous” event.

But at the time, London was in the midst of Tier 2 restrictions. It meant that social mixing between households indoors was banned. The capital was later moved into Tier 3.

The Conservative Party has now launched disciplinary action against four of the CCHQ staff seconded to the campaign.

A spokesman for the Conservative Party said: “Senior CCHQ staff became aware of an unauthorised social gathering in the basement of [CCHQ] organised by the Bailey campaign on the evening of 14th December.

“Formal disciplinary action was taken against the four CCHQ staff who were seconded to the Bailey campaign.”

Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner has slammed Shaun Bailey’s campaign for deliberately breaking lockdown rules.

She said: “This is damning new evidence of a party, with a buffet, drinks, Christmas attire and absolutely no social distancing held at Conservative Party HQ.

“Shaun Bailey is an elected official that is clearly breaking Covid regulations in this photo and encouraging the same of his staff.

“Whilst everyone else was making sacrifices to keep their community safe, the chair of the Police and Crime committee in the Greater London Authority was partying.

“His position as chair was untenable and he knew that.”

This is the latest in a series of controversial stories regarding the Conservative Party that has suggested politicians have broken lockdown rules last Christmas.

It has been claimed that a Christmas party was hosted at Number 10 last year, while footage has also emerged of Boris Johnson hosting a Christmas quiz at Number 10 surrounded by colleagues.