Plymouth is no exception – Owl

Crispin Blunt Told “Not Fit to Hold Public Office” By Councillor in Constituency Conservative Association

order-order.com

Just when the Tories hoped their expulsion of Imran Ahmad Khan from the party following his guilty sentencing this afternoon would end this latest chapter in party scandal, along came fellow MP Crispin Blunt. A few hours ago Blunt published a jaw-dropping statement in defence of Khan, in which he claimed elements of the proceedings were homophobic and said he hopes “for the return of Imran Ahmad Khan to the public service that has exemplified his life to date.” His statement has already resulted in three of Blunt’s colleagues on the APPG for LGBT+ rights resigning.

This evening Guido can reveal Blunt’s statement has outraged his local party, sparking a furious row in a local WhatsApp chat which Blunt has now quit. Crispin pre-announced his statement, which was greeted by demands for further clarity over his claim the result was a “miscarriage of justice”. Another chimed in asking their MP, “Do we really want to defend someone like this?? I agree with you completely [first incredulous responder]”. 

With his back against the wall, Blunt came out with the following two messages:

”As one detail you might like to reflect on the investigating officer in 2008 noted “this was not a sexual assault” There is so much more , that will hopefully ensure his appeal succeeds”

“I am deliberately giving a counter narrative to ask people to allow the appeal to take place before his reputation is wholly beyond recall, as everyone has rushed to judgement. I am adamant he should not have been charged, far less convicted 14 years after an event that was minor or any scale. 

I’m Sorry but this was a rotten day for British justice and I will stand up for truth as I see it before me.”

A councillor replied that while he didn’t doubt Blunt’s “sincere intentions”, “please think of your local association and Council colleagues who will have to answer to your actions on the doorstep – even more so if any appeal is quashed”.

When an irritated Blunt retorted with, “please don’t presume to lecture me on my competing responsibilities, I am well aware of them”, the councillor shot back with this devastating response:

Blue on blue just before the local elections – no doubt exactly what CCHQ wanted to see this evening…

UPDATE: Tory source tells Guido “Crispin’s views are wholly unacceptable. Following exchanges late last night we expect the statement to be retracted first thing this morning.” Tick tock…

The number of GPs in England has fallen every year since the government first pledged to increase the family doctor workforce by 5,000, a minister has admitted.

Denis Campbell www.theguardian.com

There were 29,364 full-time-equivalent GPs in post in September 2015, when the then health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, first promised to increase the total by 5,000 by 2020.

However, by September 2020 the number of family doctors had dropped to 27,939, a fall of 1,425, the health minister Maria Caulfield disclosed in a parliamentary answer. And it has fallen even further since then, to 27,920, she confirmed, citing NHS workforce data.

In the 2019 general election campaign, Boris Johnson replaced Hunt’s pledge with a new commitment to increase the number of GPs in England by 6,000 by 2024. However, Sajid Javid, the health secretary, admitted last November that this pledge was unlikely to be met because so many family doctors were retiring early.

Organisations representing GPs say their heavy workloads, rising expectations among patients, excess bureaucracy, a lack of other health professionals working alongside them in surgeries, and concern that overwork may lead to them making mistakes are prompting experienced family doctors to quit in order to improve their mental health and work-life balance.

The British Medical Association (BMA) said the figures Caulfield cited showed that the lack of doctors in general practice was “going from bad to worse for both GPs and patients”, and it warned that patients were paying the price in the form of long waits for an appointment.

“Despite repeated pledges from government to boost the workforce by thousands, it’s going completely the wrong way,” said Dr Kieran Sharrock, the deputy chair of the BMA’s GP committee. “As numbers fall, remaining GPs are forced to stretch themselves even more thinly, and this of course impacts access for patients and the safety of care provided.”

Dr Dan Poulter, the Conservative MP who tabled the question, said: “These figures are hugely worrying because they show that GP numbers in England have been falling, despite ministerial pledges to increase them.

“GPs’ relentless workloads are clearly a major factor here. Patients and the entire NHS desperately need more family doctors, in order to reduce waiting times and ensure people who are ill get care, and referral on to hospital if needed, as soon as possible.”

Although record numbers of young doctors are choosing to train as GPs, the persistently high rate of early retirement means moves to increase the workforce are faltering. Hunt has cited that as the key reason his pledge of 5,000 more family doctors was not fulfilled.

Poulter, a former health minister who works part-time as a psychiatrist in the NHS, urged the government to push through changes to help ease the pressure on GPs.

“As an immediate step, the pension penalties that see many GPs, hospital doctors and other healthcare professionals penalised simply for working should be scrapped to avoid many deciding that early retirement is the best option.

“In addition, as has been done successfully in Australia, incentives and relocation support packages need to be put in place to attract GPs to work in parts of the country where there are acute shortages.”

Prof Martin Marshall, the chair of the Royal College of GPs, said the Covid pandemic had exacerbated the existing “intense workloads and workforce pressures” that GPs face.

“GPs and our teams make the vast majority of NHS patient contacts, in turn alleviating pressures across the health service. But with the service buckling under staffing and resource pressures, workload is unsustainable, and this is leading to GPs burning out and leaving the profession earlier than planned,” he said.

“Good progress is being made recruiting more doctors into general practice but, if more GPs are leaving the profession than entering it, we’re fighting a losing battle.”

Marshall urged Javid to deliver as soon as possible on a separate government pledge to increase the number of pharmacists, physiotherapists, mental health therapists and other health professionals working in GP practices by 26,000 by 2024.

Sharrock said the growing population and workforce shortages meant that each GP in England was responsible for 300 (15%) more patients than they were in 2015.

The Department of Health and Social Care said Caulfield’s figures only related to fully qualified GPs, and that once trainees were included there were 1,672 more full-time-equivalent family doctors in December 2021 than December 2019.

A spokesperson said: “We are committed to growing the general practice workforce to ensure everyone receives the care they need and there has been an increase of more than 1,600 doctors in general practice over the past two years.

“To boost recruitment, we have increased the number of GP training places and in 2021/22 we saw the highest ever number of doctors accepting a place on GP training – a record-breaking 4,000 trainees, up from 2,671 in 2014.”

Natural England’s advice, issued last month, says new developments in the River Axe catchment area should be ‘nutrient neutral,’ effectively putting the brakes on any new properties in the area.

Do the right thing and stop killing the river or carry on with the Old Guard  “Build, build, build” philosophy? Owl thinks it’s a “no brainer” for those with brains. See what Old Guard and New Guard councillors say below.

Will East Devon MPs Neil Parish and Simon Jupp cooperate with EDDC and lobby to ensure the Environment Agency has sufficient funds to enforce environment protection? Remember both voted against the Lords recent proposals to toughen legal duties on sewage discharges. – Owl

www.midweekherald.co.uk

Developers have a ‘moral obligation not to ravage and rape East Devon, kill our rivers, kill our fields and our environment,’ says the deputy leader of East Devon District Council (EDDC).

Councillor Paul Hayward (Independent East Devon Alliance and Democratic Alliance Group, Yarty) made the statement at a meeting of EDDC’s strategic planning committee following stringent new advice from Natural England to clean up the River Axe.   

Natural England’s advice, issued last month, says new developments in the River Axe catchment area should be ‘nutrient neutral,’ effectively putting the brakes on any new properties in the area.

Though nutrients may not sound bad, they include nitrogen and phosphate which are used to speed plant growth. The term also refers to waste from septic tanks, livestock, arable farming and industrial processes.

These nutrients are being dumped into rivers across the country, including the River Axe, which is  a ‘Special Area of Conservation.’

Now 70 local authorities around the county have been issued with advice from Natural England to clean up their rivers and waterways, including EDDC.

Though only advice, the announcement effectively halts development near the River Axe until the council puts a plan in place to mitigate nutrients going into the river as a result of any new building. It will take time to put such mitigation in place.

“Our understanding is that it’s nigh-on impossible to provide adequate mitigation on the sites themselves,” said Ed Freeman, the council’s service lead for planning strategy and development management.

According to senior officers, the creation of a mitigation strategy will take around two years. They say it should be compatible with the council’s local plan, in which EDDC outlines its strategy to meet housing targets, including affordable housing, over more than a decade.

Mitigation efforts need to be long term and will probably involve natural solutions such as planting forests and reed bed systems, alongside new wetland areas. 

It could be that EDDC puts these systems in place and then charges developers to help pay for them, similar to strategies used previously to help improve River Exe and the Pebblebed Heaths near Budleigh Salterton. 

Mitigating the nutrient problem could also mean improving sewage networks. This would require further discussion with private water company South West Water, which was responsible for 42,000 sewage discharges into Devon’s rivers and waterways in 2020 alone.

It may also require changes to land use, including changing farming practices and taking land out of intensive livestock production – a move likely to be unpopular with farmers.

Up to 70 per cent of nutrient waste going into UK rivers comes from farming. The rest is from wastewater and sewage from residential buildings and businesses.

Councillor Philip Skinner (Conservative, Tale Vale), who is a  farmer himself, is wary of the plans.  At the council’s strategic planning committee, he argued that if Natural England’s advice was followed on other rivers around East Devon, it would ‘more or less shut us down from developing anything at all anywhere’.

He added: “It’s a balancing act. Farmers are the biggest part of this. We are going to have to work with farmers, but at the same time we are going to have to do something.”

Conservative councillor Andrew Moulding, who represents Axminster, added: “This could potentially lead to the stagnation of all my town’s future and I am desperately concerned about this.”

Cllr Paul Hayward issued a stark counter, he said: “Ultimately what we’re faced with is killing a river. This is a wake-up call.

“It’s an opportunity for us to do the right thing for the environment. 

“Yes, you can’t expect the farming community to change overnight – but we’re not expecting them to. We’re asking them to work with us, work with other districts and other planning authorities to come up with a solution to stop us from destroying watercourses. 

“Ultimately if we don’t the rivers will die and there won’t be any trout or salmon.”

There is a possibility that planning applications that already have outline planning permission may have to be reassessed under habitat regulations at the ‘reserved matters’ stage. Twenty-eight current planning applications may be affected. 

The council will contact those who may need to do more to reach the new ‘nutrient neutral’ requirements. It is not thought that house extensions will be affected by the change. 

The advice from Natural England isn’t entirely new. An EDDC report concludes that what is new ‘is the abruptness and directness of the advice that has been issued by Natural England and that we need to more fully understand’.

Some people wonder if the advice is worth the hassle of following if it is, after all, only advice. 

East Devon District Council technically has the right to make its own planning decisions. However, in making decisions, the council must also pay a ‘strong regard’ to environmental issues and the advice of Natural England. 

Commenting on the idea of rejecting Natural England’s advice, Ed Freeman, the council’s planning lead said: “I don’t think that’s a route we want to go down and obviously we want to ensure that we’re not having a detrimental impact in terms of phosphates on the river so I think we have to strongly follow the advice we’ve been given.”

Cllr Hayward added: “I don’t think we can ignore Natural England because I’m sure there absolutely would be legal challenges if we ask for their advice and then blatantly ignore it.”

Leader of the council Paul Arnott (Independent East Devon Alliance and Democratic Alliance Group, Yarty) said that members needed to think of the positive impact of the new proposals on the environment.

He blamed the weakness of the Environment Agency for the river’s current predicament and said it was not being funded enough by the government to deal with blatant breaches of environmental law.

The leader said he would be writing to East Devon’s Conservative MPs, Neil Parish and Simon Jupp, asking them to make sure immediately the agency has sufficient funding to enforce environmental protections. 

It is up to one of the local authorities in the River Axe catchment area to come up with a mitigation strategy. The government will pay £100,000 to help fund the development of such a plan to the local authority which takes on the responsibility.

Though the River Axe also runs through Somerset and the river rises in Dorset, most of it flows through East Devon. As a result, councillors at EDDC voted to request that the council comes up with the strategy. 

Senior officers will now meet with Dorset Council, South Somerset District Council and West Somerset and Taunton Council to formally agree to EDDC to become the leading authority.

Councillor Geoff Jung, portfolio holder for coast, country and environment said: “I certainly support the idea that we take the lead in this because we have the most to lose [due to] the lack of development in our area and also the effects of the pollution on the river.” 

Councillor Olly Davey (Green Party and Democratic Alliance Group, Exmouth Town) was keen to see Natural England’s advice as positive, adding: “This is a wake-up call, but we can also look at it as an opportunity. We should be developing low impact housing and low impact farming methods.

“It’s absolutely essential that we get on with the work and if we don’t take on these measures then other rivers could well follow.”

The council says it will be looking into how to reduce and mitigate phosphate pollution and will be publishing reports on the subject in the future.

The Environment Agency has produced a new film showing how it is working with farmers in the River Axe catchment in East Devon to improve water quality and compliance with environmental legislation. The film ‘Future farming in the Axe catchment’ is available now. [see below]

Lewis Clarke www.devonlive.com 

The River Axe is of national significance as a designated Special Area of Conservation. It is in poor condition due to degraded ecology, siltation and nutrient enrichment in the form of elevated phosphate. Since 2016 the Enviroinment Agency have been carrying out a regulatory project working with farmers in the catchment to achieve compliance with the aim to bring the river back to good condition.

Land management has changed dramatically in the Axe catchment over recent decades. The intensification of farming means that heavy agricultural machinery is on the land a lot more than it used to be, often at inappropriate times when the soil is wet. As many of the soils in the catchment have a high clay content, they are vulnerable to compaction, which generates run-off as little rainfall is able percolate through the soil.

Richard Smith, soils technical specialist for the Environment Agency said: “Because of the state of the land we have run off, and soil, phosphates, nutrients and dung are all washed into the backwaters of the river and deposited on the gravels. They then behave like an enriched field – certain things thrive, but sensitive plants don’t – so we end up with what is a muddy pond”.

Where farms are found not to be compliant with regulations – the Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil (SSAFO) regulations and Farming Rules for Water (FRfW) – the Environment Agency works with the farmer to draw up a plan to move them into compliance and offers advice on how they may be eligible for grants from Catchment Sensitive Farming.

Stuart Hunter, senior advisor for the Environment Agency, said: “We work with farmers to find the most efficient way of making them compliant and protect the environment. It’s made clear to the farmer that they need to be compliant, and that we expect progress to be made, if not we would look to regulation and enforcing the necessary improvements”.

The film illustrates how many farmers have taken on-board the Environment Agency’s advice and guidance. There are simple improvements, such as covering silage clamps to avoid rainwater draining into a slurry store. And other more long-term changes, such as changing to a completely grass-based system of feed or reducing the density of their dairy herd.

Stuart added: “With climate change, impacts are going to be more extreme – intense rainfall, drier periods – farming needs to adapt and change on the Axe, to become more sustainable as a business and to protect the environment We hope the film shows how we work with the people we regulate in order to improve the environment.

“People are often aware when they are not doing something right, which means they are not complying with the regulations. It’s not a surprise when we discuss what is required in order to comply. Most farmers react well to advice and take the right actions to become compliant, however with the minority who don’t engage and remain non-compliant we will not hesitate to use our enforcement powers – we want to work with farmers, supporting them to make changes and in doing so protect and enhance this precious river”.

• Single storey front extension, single storey side extension, single storey rear extension and two storey rear extension to replace existing garage, plant room and utility. 1 Sidlands Sidmouth EX10 8UERef. No: 22/0735/FUL | Validated: Fri 01 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension. 23 Featherbed Lane Exmouth EX8 3NERef. No: 22/0733/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a detached single garage with studio space above. 5 Cliff Road Budleigh Salterton Devon EX9 6JRRef. No: 22/0725/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for a single storey rear extension.4 Parsons Close Newton Poppleford Devon EX10 0DQRef. No: 22/0727/CPL | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey side extension. 10 Feniton Gardens Feniton Devon EX14 3DGRef. No: 22/0729/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Sycamore (T1) : selectively reduce and thin cluster of secondary branches on east side of main stem to provide clearance of neighbouring roof and guttering; reduction cuts no longer than 2 metres with a maximum diameter of 50mm; thinning cuts no greater than 75mm diameter with a maximum length of 3 metres. Works will balance lower canopy. 11 Cranford Sidmouth EX10 8UTRef. No: 22/0719/TCA | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 Reduce top of Scots Pine by approx 3 metres. max diameter 20cm; Bbranches on eastern stem reduce back to boundary Reason – neighbour is concerned the top of the tree twists in high winds, the tree has low vigour possibly from previous works carried out. Long Reach Boughmore Road Sidmouth EX10 8SHRef. No: 22/0713/TCA | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for a garage conversion and loft conversion with internal alterations.16A Stevens Lane Sidmouth Devon EX10 9ULRef. No: 22/0715/CPL | Validated: Wed 30 Mar 2022 | Status: Refused
• Proposed single storey extension and installation of Air Source Heat Pump and 16 solar panels. 5 Old Home Farm Rousdon Devon DT7 3YLRef. No: 22/0697/LBC | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey rear extension, alterations to fenestration and demolition of existing single storey rear extension. 55 Albion Street Exmouth Devon EX8 1JHRef. No: 22/0698/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Proposed single storey extension and installation of Air Source Heat Pump and 16 solar panels. 5 Old Home Farm Rousdon Devon DT7 3YLRef. No: 22/0696/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• G1, Sycamore : crown lift to 5m above ground level over access driveway only. Maximum diameter of cut (MDC) 100mm G2, Bay : coppice remaining stems following recent stem failure over driveway. G3, Cypress : reduce height by approximately 3m and trim both sides to contain. T4, Sycamore : dismantle in sections to near ground level. Reason for works: G1 – Access has become difficult for larger vehicles using the driveway to access the other properties. G2 – Safety, recent stem failure has left the remaining stems compromised G3 – Overgrown Cypress boundary hedge, reducing the entire line of trees to contain the height and spread, to encourage thickening for a screen. T4 – Weak union at base of the tree, compression fork with elements of decay on southern side. 1 Camden Elysian Fields Sidmouth EX10 8UHRef. No: 22/0705/TCA | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey side extension to include revised porch, change of roof material to slate and alterations to fenestration. Farthings Woodbury EX5 1JXRef. No: 22/0704/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side extension with glazed link, external alterations and demolition of existing outhouse Upper Cottage Rocombe DT7 3RRRef. No: 22/0701/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Battery energy storage scheme and associated development Axe View Solar Farm Wadbrook EX13 7ASRef. No: 22/0693/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of detached garage to habitable use with alteration to fenestration. Strete House Whimple EX5 2PLRef. No: 22/0706/FUL | Validated: Fri 01 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Creation of hardstanding area for forage storage Rydon Farm Rydon Lane Woodbury Exeter EX5 1LBRef. No: 22/0707/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Yew : Crown lift over road ensuring clearance of 5.2m T2, Holm Oak : Crown reduce by no more than 1/1.5 m or back to previous points is lesser and reshape tree ensuring a balanced and uniformed shape is retained. T3, Hormbeam : Reduce height down to approx 1m above current hedge line, as shown on attached picture. T4, Holm Oak : Crown reduce by no more than 1/1.5 m or back to previous points if lesser and reshape ensuring the tree retains balanced and uniform shape. T5, Yew : Fell to ground level. replacement with either Hawthorn/Crab apple or Judas Tree (preferred choice) Holm Oak Clyst St George Exeter EX3 0RERef. No: 22/0692/TRE | Validated: Wed 30 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of garage and proposed carport with store, front verandah with bays, front roof light and solar panels, two storey rear extension, two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and alteration to fenestration. 7 Copp Hill Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 6DTRef. No: 22/0703/FUL | Validated: Fri 01 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey rear extension, loft conversion including the increase of existing roof pitch, raising of existing ridge, rear dormer and front roof window and demolition of existing side extension. 20 New Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1EARef. No: 22/0689/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Scots Pine 1 : remove large limb; cut back two smaller limbs; crown thin 20% as indicated in planning statement Reason : to reduce overhang, needle accumulation and reduce fire risk fire (see planning statement) Fair View 1 Brackendown West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1NTRef. No: 22/0683/TRE | Validated: Mon 28 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed heifer cubicle building. Courtneys Farm Clyst Hydon Cullompton EX15 2NHRef. No: 22/0684/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Alterations to fenestration 2 Parsons Paddock Exeter Road Newton Poppleford EX10 0FDRef. No: 22/0687/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of shopfront. Salcombe House Fore Street Seaton Devon EX12 2LERef. No: 22/0675/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of sun room to the rear Brampford House Brampford Speke Exeter EX5 5DWRef. No: 22/0676/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed small balcony to existing first floor bedroom Russetts Oakhayes Road Woodbury Devon EX5 1JTRef. No: 22/0671/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey side extension, two storey rear tenement extension with alteration to fenestration and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer, front rooflights and demolition of double garage. 5 Dagmar Road Exmouth EX8 2ANRef. No: 22/0666/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of sun room to the rear Brampford House Brampford Speke Exeter EX5 5DWRef. No: 22/0677/LBC | Validated: Wed 30 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of 11 x solar panels on roof. Rivermead Cottage Whitford Axminster EX13 7NRRef. No: 22/0662/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of agricultural building. Courtneys Farm Clyst Hydon Devon EX15 2NHRef. No: 22/0668/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Proposed covered feed building 1. Courtneys Farm Clyst Hydon Devon EX15 2NHRef. No: 22/0667/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey rear extension. 27 Hale Lane Honiton Devon EX14 1HNRef. No: 22/0652/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey side extension, first floor rear extension with alteration to fenestration. Riverside Cottage Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4RHRef. No: 22/0656/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use from Office (Use Class E(g)(i)) and alteration of Willoughby House to create 2no. dwellinghouses (Use Class C3). Erection of 3no. dwellinghouses with integral garages, plus formation and layout of internal access road and parking. Creation of pedestrian access to Underfleet including construction of steps. Willoughby House Fore Street Seaton EX12 2ADRef. No: 22/0653/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed dwelling and removal of timber structures and a summerhouseIron Gate Gardens Nr Feniton EX11 1LURef. No: 22/0648/FUL | Validated: Fri 01 Apr 2022 | Status: Withdrawn
• Erection of a building to accommodate 5 stables and associated private equestrian storage spaces. Huxham Wood Farm Poltimore Devon EX4 0AARef. No: 22/0637/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of air source heat pump and removal of external oil boiler. 3 Talaton Farm Barns Talaton Devon EX5 2SARef. No: 22/0623/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective application for the replacement of access gate to applicant’s land. Ashfield Vicarage Road East Budleigh Budleigh Salterton EX9 7EFRef. No: 22/0647/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of a medipoint machine sign with vinyl wrap to the front 70 Exeter Road Exmouth EX8 1PYRef. No: 22/0610/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of a medipoint machine sign with vinyl wrap to the front 70 Exeter Road Exmouth EX8 1PYRef. No: 22/0631/ADV | Validated: Mon 28 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Demolition of existing annexe dwelling and construction of four bedroom annexe dwelling Newcourt Barton Clyst Road Topsham Exeter EX3 0DBRef. No: 22/0570/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Re-construct and replace mono-pitch roof on rear elevation facing onto Silver Street; replacement rainwater goods on rear elevation and replace gable verge board 79 High Street Honiton EX14 1PGRef. No: 22/0493/LBC | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Re-slate roof, Including battens and felting, replace rainwater goods and timber fascias Godfreys Farm Payhembury Honiton EX14 3HZRef. No: 22/0415/LBC | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Outline application for an exception site comprising of 4 affordable houses and 2 open market houses Kilmore House Poltimore Exeter EX4 0ATRef. No: 22/0349/OUT | Validated: Tue 29 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Outline application for the erection of a two storey 4-bed detached dwelling with all matters reserved Bussells Farm HuxhamRef. No: 22/0271/OUT | Validated: Wed 30 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a semi-detached dwelling 18 Minifie Road Honiton EX14 1NFRef. No: 22/0276/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed kitchen and restaurant extensions Bernaville Nurseries Three Horse Shoes Cowley Exeter EX5 5EURef. No: 22/0250/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

Simon, you used your press articles last week to promote tourism under the headline ‘Tourism is one of the things we do best!’.

1. Did you know that in all the years the Conservatives controlled EDDC they never bothered to have a Tourism strategy?
2. Will you, therefore, be giving the “New Guard” East Devon District Council your full support as they rectify this deficit by developing such a strategy?

If your answer to this question is “yes” then do you think it was wise to be quite so partisan as in the latest edition of the Tory leaflet, “In Touch”? 

As the elected Member of Parliament, you are supposed to be representing everyone in your constituency, whether they voted for you or not. That also implies working constructively with those they elected as their councillors.

In this leaflet you wrote: “East Devon deserves better than a district council which puts up council tax, doubles the price of parking and closes public toilets“. Isn’t this a little disingenuous?

All the local authorities have put their taxes up, and within limited options raised revenue for services, including the Conservative Devon County and the Conservative Devon and Cornwall Police Commissioner.

 Why?

Because of the austerity cuts imposed by George Osborne.

Central government grants – including retained business rates – were cut 37% in real-terms between 2009/10 and 2019/20, from £41.0bn to £26.0bn in 2019/20 prices.

Under current government policies this is only going to get worse.

In terms of value for money, readers might contemplate what they get for their Council taxes.

The biggest percentage rise was introduced by Alison Hernandez for policing this year, a “whopping” 4.2% (above the increase in pensions).

For every pound that Council Tax payer in East Devon pays for things like recycling, street cleaning and, yes, cleaning the loos and emptying bins three times a day for tourists, they pay an additional 60p for policing. (60% more) [For clarity for every £1 that goes to EDDC, £1.60 goes to policing]

Owl bets most residents see refuse collection and street cleaning more often than they see a “Bobby on the Beat”. How’s that for value for money?

Residents and visitors can enjoy cheaper trips around the far south-west of England after the launch of a cut-price bus fare pilot in Cornwall.

Steven Morris www.theguardian.com 

Ticket prices across the county have been reduced by between 20% and 40% in an attempt to encourage more people out of their cars and on to public transport.

The four-year scheme, which is backed by the government, will measure what impact lower fares have on the number of cars on the road. It is hoped it will make it easier for Cornish people to get around and also tempt visitors to visit the county’s beaches, moors, towns and attractions by bus rather than car.

Louis Gardner, the mayor of Newquay, was among those who welcomed the scheme. He said: “The bus fares pilot is a hugely positive step for the people of Cornwall. This will make it easier for young people to access jobs, education and training in towns such as Newquay.

“It’s important for rural communities to have access to affordable alternatives to the car. It will also benefit tourists this summer and could encourage them to use public transport, rather than going everywhere by car.”

Transport for Cornwall has set a goal of increasing bus usage by 10% and is using a £23.5m grant from the Department for Transport to fund the initiative.

The new fares will include:

• £2.50 a day or £10 a week for adults within Cornish towns.
• £5 a day or £20 a week for adults for travel across Cornwall.
• Adult singles from £1.60, and returns from £2.40.
• Family tickets for £10 a day (up to two adults and unlimited children under 16).

The transport minister Charlotte Vere said: “The launch of this excellent scheme across Cornwall is a significant moment in our ambition to level up transport links across the country. We want to place Cornwall at the leading edge of a national bus revolution.”

The largest bus operator in Cornwall, Go-Ahead Group, is leading the scheme, but under an initiative called “any ticket, any bus” the cheaper prices will mean benefits for customers of all the main companies.

While the scheme is scheduled to last four years, it cannot be guaranteed that the prices will stay at the levels set and they may be tweaked depending on how the services are used.

David Sidebottom, the director of the watchdog Transport Focus, said: “Cheaper fares are vital in winning passengers back and attracting new ones. Our research has shown that Cornwall’s bus passengers wanted better value for money fares. These plans should drive up passenger satisfaction and encourage more people to give bus a go. We will monitor the impact this has on passengers.”

8.9m People live in places that our index identifies as most vulnerable to the cost of living crisis

52% Are former Red Wall areas, with the North, Midlands, and London all highly vulnerable

78% Of the places that benefit the most from the council tax rebate are not those that are most vulnerable to the cost of living

A new index measuring the cost of living crisis

www.progressive-policy.net

The cost of living crisis poses a significant and immediate threat to the defining mission of this government, threatening to worsen living standards in the poorest places and further entrench unacceptably high place-based inequalities. In this edition of the levelling up outlook, CPP presents the results of a new index highlighting spatial patterns of vulnerability to this crisis to gain a greater understanding of which places will be worst hit without further government support.

To our knowledge it is the first index of this sort – and while closely related to existing measures of deprivation – it takes a broader view by incorporating a range of economic factors to determine:

1) a place’s relative risk of more people being pulled into poverty; and

2) the relative risk of those who were already hard up being pushed into destitution.

It finds that the North of England will be particularly hard hit by rising living costs with many local areas such as Kingston upon Hull and Blackpool doing badly on all of our indictors.

The prevalence of low pay and working age economic inactivity in coastal and rural communities in the South and the East of England also puts areas such as Hastings, Thanet and Dover at high risk. Meanwhile, very high rates of child poverty and food insecurity account for much of the vulnerability in several London boroughs.

Government support measures are insufficient and poorly targeted at vulnerable places

The Council Tax Rebate announced in February disproportionately benefits wealthier households in places like Rushmore, with low vulnerability, at the expense of highly vulnerable places like Redbridge. Covering the cost of April’s energy price cap rise (£693) for those in receipt of Universal Credit would cost £2.4bn – £600m less than the current Council Tax Rebate – and would result in more spending on the most vulnerable people and places.

Greater immediate spending on Universal Credit is necessary but not sufficient to support vulnerable people and places. Our index points to broader vulnerabilities including a high prevalence of low wages or

people have left the workforce early. Further interventions must be appropriately targeted to alleviate the threat of rising poverty, while aligning with the principles to reduce spatial inequalities as set out in the Levelling Up White Paper.

The Cost of Living Vulnerability Index

Survey suggests even Tory voters are unlikely to support Conservatives’ nuclear-first energy policy.

Toby Helm www.theguardian.com 

More than three-quarters of the public are in favour of windfarms being built in the UK. That is the key result of an Opinium poll carried out for the Observer in the wake of publication of the government’s controversial energy security plans last week.

Ministers backed nuclear power but shunned new onshore wind plants as the main means for protecting the UK against future energy crises. But the new poll indicates Tory voters’ backing for wind turbines almost matches that of Labour and Lib Dem supporters – suggesting the move against onshore wind, a result of backbench Conservative pressure, runs counter to the views of the party’s own voters.

In the Opinium poll, 79% of Tory voters said they were strongly or somewhat in favour of windfarms being installed in the UK, compared with 83% of Labour voters and 88% of Lib Dems. Two-thirds of all voters said they would be happy for a windfarm to be built near them.

By contrast, only 46% of all voters favoured new nuclear power stations in principle, while a mere 32% favoured gas power plants. Less than a third of voters would be happy with a nuclear power station being built near them, while less than a quarter would approve of having a gas power station in their neighbourhood.

Polling data for UK approval of windfarms

These findings suggest that government thinking is at some distance from the public’s perception of the need to ensure energy security while still working to achieve net zero emissions. It is also at odds with warnings from experts who say reliance on atomic power raises key concerns for the nation. They point out that the country’s next nuclear plant, Hinkley Point C, currently under construction in Somerset, was supposed to start generating electricity in 2017 but will not do so until 2026 because of delays that have raised the station’s cost from £16bn to £23bn.

“Instead of this wasteful nuclear plan, the government should invest in onshore wind to help lower people’s bills now,” said the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey. “Safely storing nuclear waste is also expensive, complicated and controversial.”

However, former Tory energy minister Charles Hendry – who now advises the energy industry – said he was pleased the government had committed to more nuclear but doubted whether the funding model for building new plants would attract enough private sector interest. The government needed to address whether it should take on the entire funding of the building of the plants, he said. “That happens in almost every other country in the world. Then if it chooses to, when they are built, it can sell them off to the private sector. That is the most assured way of getting the investment which is necessary and the partnerships which are necessary.”

But scientists are warning that heavy reliance on atomic energy is premature when the critical issue of nuclear waste disposal has yet to be tackled. The UK has still not selected a site to build an underground store for the spent fuel rods and radioactive cladding it has accumulated over the past seven decades of operating nuclear plants. Most of the nation’s nuclear waste is still stored above ground, at Sellafield in Cumbria.

“We need to build an underground store that is acceptable to local people, that is geologically stable, and which is big enough to store the 750,000 cubic metres of nuclear waste that we will have accumulated once all our current reactors are in operation,” said Prof Claire Corkhill of Sheffield University. “That will take another decade at best. Only then would I be happy to know another eight nuclear power plants were going to be built in the UK.”

In 2019, the UK relaunched its efforts to get agreement to build an underground nuclear waste facility. So far residents in four areas – three in Cumbria and one in Lincolnshire – have entered the voluntary process to explore whether it would be possible to have the store built in their neighbourhood. Drilling to test how subterranean water flow might damage a facility in each area will be carried out in the near future. Then, if the rocks there are found to be suitable, geologists will have to estimate if a sufficiently large underground store could be built in that location.

“We could find an area has good rocks but … not sufficient space to store all the waste we need to bury,” added Corkhill. “Then we might have to try to find a second, or entirely new site. This is not an issue we can rush.”

Sajid Javid: I was a non-dom for six years but now pay my full share.

(Between 2000 and 2006, before he began his political career.)

The governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, has warned that Britons are facing a “historic shock to real incomes”, with energy price rises this year larger than any single year in the 1970s. The disastrous impact this crisis will have on people’s livelihoods is clear: 600,000 could fall into poverty and millions will be unable to afford essentials. But so far the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, has only introduced halfhearted half measures.

Carsten Jung, senior economist at the Institute for Public Policy Research www.theguardian.com 

As we face an epochal challenge to living standards and energy supply, there are policies already in place elsewhere that Sunak could learn from: countries such as Germany and Ireland are doing more to protect the most vulnerable, doing more to switch to energy-saving measures and doing more to wean themselves off fossil fuels.

This year, the German government has provided a €200 boost for people on benefits, as well as a €100 topping up of child support and at least €270 for people on housing assistance, next to a €300 lump sum payment (pre-tax) to all employees. A low-income family with two children could receive at least €657, plus a possible heating subsidy of €490. With other measures this could fill more than two-thirds of the cash shortfall caused by increased energy prices. By comparison, the average low-earning UK family would receive less than half of that amount (£270, or about €325) plus bills support that will have to be paid back.

Elsewhere, France and Italy have moved much more decisively than the UK to limit energy price increases facing households. This has been done through measures including requiring the state energy company to sell electricity at well below market price and tax cuts on electricity.

Equally eye-catching are examples of innovative policies to encourage lower energy use. As petrol prices surge, public transport is one of the most effective ways of keeping costs for the economy down. For three months, Germany is offering all citizens the use of regional transport for only €9 a month. Some US cities have also shown that reduced or free public transport fares can increase use. And New Zealand is halving public transport fares for three months in response to high fuel prices. France has been experimenting with free public transport since 2018 and Paris just slashed its ticket prices.

This comes on top of European countries’ support schemes for home insulation. Ireland, for example, has just passed a grant policy that provides up to 50% of the costs of a deep retrofit. In contrast, the UK has nowhere near the same ambition.

All these international examples contrast with Sunak’s spring statement in which he announced almost no targeted support for lower earners. Analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank, where I work, shows that low-income households still face an average cash shortfall of £320 this year, with some facing up to a £700 hit. This would leave many of the UK’s poorest in poverty with no option but to miss out on essentials, such as food or home heating. As millions of households are having to cut back on spending, this will also drag down economic growth.

Staggeringly, what the chancellor did announce was heavily skewed towards higher earners. We estimate that, on average, high-income households received four times the support of lower-income households.

These were Sunak’s policy choices, but it’s not too late to change tack. His first priority should be to establish a livelihood guarantee for low earners. This means ensuring that their living standards do not fall below what they were last year.

The government could have achieved this by increasing benefits in line with inflation, to ensure people’s income stays in line with the price of products and services they need. This could be combined with an increase in child benefits and additional measures to alleviate pressure from household bills. With this, the chancellor would virtually fully maintain living standards for low and medium earners at a cost of £9bn – just £1.5bn more than what he spent on his poorly targeted policy package.

He could also learn from other countries’ energy saving measures. IPPR has proposed large-scale investment in home insulation, allocated via an easy-to-use “GreenGo” system. This would provide a one-stop shop for people to transition to cleaner transport, housing and consumption, with an initial focus on energy-poor homes, which require support the most.

All of this is eminently feasible and affordable. For instance, our proposed package to almost fully protect low and middle earners could largely be paid for by a windfall tax on energy companies – a type of tax that the EU is set to endorse soon.

So don’t let the government convince you that its hands are tied, because this is a crisis with global dimensions. In fact, it is precisely by looking overseas that we can see that better policy choices are possible.

A win for the Lib Dems, the Conservatives lost overall control in 2019 but run the council in coalition with “independents”. [In this case Owl puts independents in quotes as the picture is rather confused about aligned and unaligned councillors.] 

In Owl’s view, it isn’t sufficient for Independents just to claim “independence” they need to make clear where they are coming from, their priorities and what core values they hold.

To have any influence they will have to form groupings, alliances or align themselves with others and voters need to be able to assess which direction this might take.

www.radioexe.co.uk 

A former Cullompton mayor is now one of the town’s representatives of Mid Devon District Council, following a close by-election victory.

Liberal Democrat James Buczkowski, who also serves as a town councillor, secured victory in the Cullompton South by-election triggered by the resignation of 94-year-old Eileen Andrews [Independent]

He defeated Conservative candidate Rosemary Berry, herself a former district councillor, by 318 votes to 279 in Thursday’s poll [7 April] Labour’s Jason Chamberlain received 67 votes.

Turnout was just 21 per cent with 668 people voting. Four ballots were rejected.

Cllr Buczkowski’s campaign promised to put “Cullompton first” and accused the district council of not listening to the town’s residents.

His three-point plan focussed on ensuring “Cullompton residents are listened to and council ‘solutions’ are right” for the town, adding: “The ‘one-size-fits all’ thinking must come to an end.”

The plan says Cllr Buczkowski will “oppose all development without proper infrastructure and services” and that the town must have a “fair share of the district council resources.”

The result increases the opposition Lib Dems to 11 seats on the council, which is run by a coalition of independents and Conservatives. The Tories lost overall control in the 2019 election.

The Lib Dems had initially served in the coalition but were replaced by the Conservatives after a disagreement with independent leader Bob Deed over the future of the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.

Ahead of next year’s full local elections, when all 42 seats will be contested, the Conservatives have 20 seats followed by the Liberal Democrats (11), independents and non-aligned (9) and the Green Party (2).

Result: Cullompton South (Mid Devon District Council)

• James Buczkowski (Lib Dem): 318
• Rosemary Berry (Conservatives): 279
• Jason Chamberlain (Labour): 67

“Dominic Grieve, a former Tory MP and attorney general, told the newspaper: “The long list of untrue statements to parliament, and the failure to correct them as required both by the rules of the Commons and the ministerial code, should be of great concern to all who believe in the need for integrity from government. “

www.thelondoneconomic.com 

Boris Johnson and his ministers have lied to parliament dozens of times in the past two years amid a “crisis of honesty” in Westminster, it has emerged.

The prime minister has not lodged any corrections to the official House of Commons record, despite being repeatedly reprimanded by the statistics watchdog and having his falsehoods pointed out by opposition MPs and fact-checkers.

Labour has hit out at Johnson for disrespecting the public with a “litany of lies and falsehoods”, while the former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve told The Independent that the figures suggested “a disregard for both good governance and truth”.

‘Degrading his office’

As many as 17 false statements have been attributed to Johnson following an investigation by the newspaper, working with Full Fact, including misleading claims about Partygate, refugees, the pandemic and the economy.

Ministers have made at least 27 uncorrected false statements to parliament since the general election in December 2019.

Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, said Johnson was guilty of “degrading his office”. 

“This litany of lies and falsehoods show a total lack of respect for the public from this Conservative government and its ministers,” she told The Independent.

“The ministerial code is absolutely clear that mistakes should be corrected as soon as possible, and purposely misleading parliament should mean resignation.

“But ministers are instead taking their lead from the prime minister himself, who has no issue with repeating mistruths and conspiracy theories.”

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey added: “Every time Mr Johnson and his ministers have misled parliament is just another blow to people’s trust in his sinking ship of a government – those who mislead the public must be held accountable.

“It’s clear that Mr Johnson has already lost the trust of the nation. Now the very least we should do is be able to hold his Trumpian behaviour to account.”

Savile slur

Among the false statements made by Johnson was his claim that Sir Keir Starmer had “spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile”. The slur has still not been retracted, despite the Labour leader later being mobbed by protestors in Westminster.

In the same parliamentary debate on 31 January, the prime minister claimed that the government had “cut crime by 14 per cent”. He was reprimanded over that assertion by Sir David Norgrove, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, who said the figure was “true only if fraud and computer misuse are excluded”.

Other ministers guilty of making false statements in the same period include Matt Hancock, Priti Patel and Nadine Dorries.

Dominic Grieve, a former Tory MP and attorney general, told the newspaper: “The long list of untrue statements to parliament, and the failure to correct them as required both by the rules of the Commons and the ministerial code, should be of great concern to all who believe in the need for integrity from government. 

“It marks a major departure from prior practice and suggests a disregard both for good governance and truth.”

‘New and shocking’

It comes amid mounting calls for changes that would force ministers to correct false statements. The current process relies on the voluntary submission of corrections to Hansard.

Will Moy, head of fact-checkers Full Fact, told The Independent: “The problem isn’t people making honest mistakes, it’s people making mistakes and not being willing to correct them – that isn’t honest behaviour,” he told The Independent.

“It is ridiculous that you have a system where the speaker can throw an MP out of the House of Commons for accusing somebody of lying, but an MP who is lying cannot be sanctioned in any way.

“The only MPs who can correct the record are government ministers, and there’s no mechanism to make them do that when they don’t want to.”

Warning of a “crisis of honesty”, he added: “The persistent failure of the prime minister and other ministers to correct the record when they are clearly required to do so under parliamentary rules creates a crisis not just of their own behaviour, but of parliamentary accountability.

“In this case we’re seeing senior government ministers, and the prime minister, repeating claims that are not true, and that they have had every chance to get right, up to and including their own regulator of statistics telling them what they’re saying is not true.

“That is both new and shocking.”

Five key questions Rishi Sunak and Akshata Murty have yet to answer

Rupert Neate www.theguardian.com 

How much tax did the chancellor’s wife pay on her £11.5m annual dividends from Infosys – and where did she pay it?

Why did Sunak and Murty have US green cards and when did they give them up?

Did Sunak waive his salary as a minister in 2020 in order to avoid paying US tax?

Does Murty have other overseas income beyond Infosys – how much, what tax does she pay and where?

How much money is in Sunak’s blind trust, and where is it located?

As Akshata Murty bows to pressure to pay UK taxes because they are not compatible with her husband’s role as Chancellor of the Exchequer, new allegations emerge about him being a beneficiary of tax havens.

Are taxes only for the little people? – Owl

Anna Isaac www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak has been listed as a beneficiary of tax haven trusts while setting taxes in the UK as chancellor of the exchequer, according to documents seen by The Independent.

Trusts in the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, created to help manage the tax and business affairs of his wife Akshata Murty’s family interests, note Mr Sunak as a beneficiary in 2020, according to people familiar with Ms Murty’s financial affairs and evidence reviewed by this publication. Mr Sunak became chancellor in February that year, and had previously been chief secretary to the Treasury since 2019.

Documents seen by The Independent show trusts linked to Ms Murty, her family and companies linked to their businesses. In a number of them, Mr Sunak was listed as a beneficiary.

Pat McFadden, Labour’s shadow chief Treasury secretary, said Mr Sunak being listed as a beneficiary of tax haven trusts is “extremely serious” and called for answers.

He said: “We need urgent answers from the chancellor as to why he has been linked to a tax haven. We need full transparency about this and the other stories about the chancellor emerging over the past 24 hours.”

Questions about Mr Sunak’s financial arrangements have come to the fore since The Independent revealed on Wednesday that Ms Murty had non-dom status, meaning she is not obligated to pay UK tax on foreign earnings. Sources also claim that Ms Murty, whose family business is worth £3.5bn, had created a trust which would perpetuate some of these benefits of non-dom status beyond the 15-year limit.

In a U-turn on Friday, Ms Murty announced she will now pay UK taxes on all her worldwide income, saying she did not want her financial arrangements to be a “distraction” for her husband in his role as chancellor.

A spokesperson for Mr Sunak said they “did not recognise” the claims on use of tax havens, while a spokesperson for Ms Murty declined to comment. They previously claimed that she was a non-dom as a result of being an Indian citizen, though experts pointed out that use of the tax status was her choice.

On Friday, Mr Sunak admitted he had also held a US green card while living in Downing Street. Green card holders must pay tax in America and declare their intention to make the US their permanent home.

A spokesperson for the chancellor said he had used his green card for travel purposes until October 2021 on his first US trip in a government capacity, at which point he returned it after discussion with authorities. They added: “Rishi Sunak followed all guidance and continued to file US tax returns, but specifically as a non-resident, in full compliance with the law. All laws and rules have been followed and full taxes have been paid where required in the duration he held his green card.”

Last year she collected dividends of £11.5m from her estimated £700m stake in Infosys, the IT firm set up by her father, potentially saving around £4.5m in UK taxes through her non-dom status. She has previously stated that she “has always and will continue to pay UK taxes on all her UK income”.

It comes as Mr Sunak’s popularity with voters has sunk to an all-time low, according to polls, as increases in inflation and national insurance contributions (NICs), as well as energy bills, spark a cost-of-living crisis. Mr Sunak’s spring statement last month was criticised for not doing enough to help the worst off.

Sir Keir Starmer has accused Mr Sunak was guilty of “breathtaking hypocrisy” for raising taxes while his wife benefits from non-dom status. The Labour party, the Lib Dems and the SNP have all urged the chancellor to give further details of their financial affairs, and the extent to which he may benefit personally.

While the Treasury has said that Mr Sunak declared his wife’s tax status when he became a minister in 2018 and again when he joined the department, officials told The Independent they had not been informed, and felt “uncomfortable” about the implications. The Treasury and Cabinet Office did not respond to requests for comment concerning Mr Sunak’s alleged beneficiary status in the British Virgin or Cayman islands trusts.

Tax havens have no – or minimal – taxes on companies and other corporate structures and entities. They also often offer a high degree of financial secrecy often when companies are registered there, or trusts are created as beneficiaries of companies within their jurisdiction. Their use by British residents is entirely legal.

Ms Murty may be making use of a loophole left after the tightening of non-dom status by then chancellor George Osborne in 2015. By creating a trust as a non-dom, that entity can continue to have non-dom status even if its beneficiaries are no longer able to choose to use the option for tax benefits. The rules allowing this were brought into effect on 6 April 2017, and there is no suggestion of legal wrongdoing in this or her use of non-dom status.

Johnson’s political cowardice applies the brake to cheap energy as he bets nuclear 

Nils Pratley www.theguardian.com 

The two main criticisms of the government’s new energy security strategy are fair. The tiptoeing around onshore wind, which got gentle words of encouragement but no change to planning regulations, looks a case of political cowardice. It is perverse to apply a handbrake to “one of the cheapest forms of renewable power”, to use the government’s own description, when public opinion is broadly supportive of turbines on land. Objections from Tory backbenchers should have been ignored.

Equally, the lack of new measures on energy efficiency is bizarre since every serious body, from the International Energy Agency to our own National Infrastructure Commission, has been banging the drum for ages. “A gradual transition following the grain of behaviour” translates as a win for the cold hand of the Treasury.

There were two clear positives in the mix, it should be said. First, the target for more offshore wind is genuinely ambitious. A fivefold increase in capacity to 50 gigawatts by the end of the decade is a significant upgrade on the previous aim of 40GW. The target may even be achievable given the current rate of progress. And from the perspective of energy security – the focus of this policy, don’t forget – offshore’s bigger turbines and higher load factors are always going to score well versus onshore.

Second, solar was given a boost with the aim (though not a target, note) to increase capacity fivefold by 2035. It is illogical that the government seems more willing to flex planning rules for solar than for wind, but solar is the quiet success story of the renewables revolution. It has outpaced every cost projection over the past decade. Expansion looks the easiest to deliver.

Then, though, one comes to the meat of the plan. The big bet on nuclear is, to put it mildly, hopeful. The government is trying to replace current capacity that will largely go offline by 2050 and also double nuclear’s share of electricity supply versus today’s position. The plan strains credibility. Up to eight new reactors – call it four new two-reactor plants the size of Hinkley Point C – is an enormous undertaking.

The best that can be said is that it is possible to imagine how events could, possibly, run favourably. Hinkley could arrive within its revised timetable without further cost hiccups. Sizewell C in Suffolk, the next plant on the block, could attract the desired rush of private-sector investors under a new financing model that would allow the juice to be priced within the £60-£70 a megawatt hour range of political acceptability. And success in financing Sizewell could breed confidence and get the show rolling.

There are, though, a lot of assumptions in that list. The biggest unknown is whether the government is prepared to back the EPR design – the one used at Hinkley and set for Sizewell – for all the new plants. Logic says it should because mixing and matching designs is a recipe for higher costs and surprises, a point stressed by the energy analyst Peter Atherton. The productivity gain in constructing Hinkley’s second reactor, for example, is said to be 15%. In a complex process, replicating one design has demonstrable value.

The government is not, though, at the stage where it can have sufficient confidence to back EPRs wholeheartedly and mean it. Talk of “leading the world” in nuclear construction should therefore be filed under “believe it when you see it”. You have to know what you plan to build to make such boasts. There is an alarming nuclear-sized question mark at the heart of this strategy.

Seve Bell’s cartoon comment:

The Economist noted: Copy, paste,repeat

(It’s supposed to provide benefits)

Owl notes that the only EPR nuclear reactors generating any power yet are the ones built by the Chinese in China, operating commercially from 2018 and 2019.

The construction of the Olkiluoto 3 power station in Finland commenced in August 2005. It is late and over budget. Olkiluoto 3 achieved first criticality in December 2021. Grid connection has just taken place with regular generation finally expected in July.

Construction of the French EPR at Flamanville started in December 2007 is also late and over budget. After many problems, including the late discovery of welding issues, the revised schedule fuel loading is to take place in mid 2023. 

At Hinkley Point C, final government approval was given in September 2016 and, after the (now usual) set of cost increases and delays, has an expected operational start date of June 2026. In the light of Olkiluoto and Flamanville this still looks optimistic to Owl

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has proposed a two-year ban on some foreigners buying homes.

www.bbc.co.uk

The measure comes as the country grapples with some of the worst housing affordability issues in the world.

Prices have jumped more than 20%, pushing the average home in Canada to nearly C$817,000 ($650,000; £495,000) – more than nine times household income.

But industry analysts say it’s not clear a ban on foreign buyers will address the problem.

Data on purchases by foreign buyers in Canada is limited, but research suggests they amount for a small fraction of the market.

“I don’t think it’s going to have a huge impact,” said Ben Myers, president of advisory firm Bullpenn Research & Consulting in Toronto, who found foreigners accounted for just 1% of purchases in 2020, down from 9% in 2015 and 2016.

“It’s a fairly low number and let’s face it, the people that really want to buy … are going to find alternative ways to do it.”

Mr Myers said the soaring housing costs reflect strong population growth and a shortage of supply, due in part to rules that restrict development.

The issues have worsened since the pandemic hit in 2020, when policymakers in Canada and elsewhere slashed interest rates to stabilise the economy, lowering borrowing costs and boosting demand even further.

The moves have fuelled the soaring housing prices seen in many markets around the world, but in Canada the disconnect between home prices and incomes is one of the most dramatic, according to OECD data.

Campaign promise

Mr Trudeau pledged to tackle housing affordability during his campaign for election last year.

In addition to the temporary ban on foreign buyers, the budget proposal his government unveiled on Thursday sets aside billions to spur new construction and proposes new programmes, such as a tax-free savings account for first-time buyers.

Mr Trudeau has also discussed banning certain bidding processes that favour investors, who by some measures have accounted for about one in five homes purchased in Canada since 2014.

The proposed ban on foreign buyers would exempt permanent residents and foreign students and workers, as well as those buying their primary residence.

The proposal builds on actions such as special taxes that some parts of Canada have already taken against out-of-town and foreign buyers.

In Ontario, for example, provincial Premier Doug Ford recently announced plans to raise an existing tax on foreign buyers from 15% to 20% and expand it beyond Toronto to the entire province.

While foreign purchases are not the driver of the affordability issues, taxing them at least captures revenue that can be re-deployed to address such problems, said Steve Pomeroy, head of Focus Consulting, a housing policy firm.

“If you ban them, you don’t really have much of an impact on suppressing rising home prices and you give up the revenue,” he said.

New Zealand introduced a similar measure banning foreign buyers in 2018.

“It’s good politics because it’s easy to blame a victim that nobody cares about,” Mr Pomeroy added. “I don’t think it will have much of an impact.”

Paul Kershaw, professor at the University of British Columbia and founder of Generation Squeeze, also said he saw little in Mr Trudeau’s proposal likely to slow price increases or significantly address affordability.

“It’s not clear the housing measures will be sufficient to break Canada’s addiction to high and rising home prices,” he said, noting that for existing homeowners, the high prices help amass wealth.

Mr Pomeroy said he does expect price appreciation to slow in coming months, as the central bank raises interest rates. The Canadian housing market is particularly susceptible to such moves, since many buyers rely on five-year mortgages rather than the long-term ones common in the US and UK.

But higher interest rates will only make it less affordable for prospective buyers trying to break into the market, he warned.

Mr Myers said over the long-term, he expects hot markets such as Toronto and Vancouver to become dominated by renters, as regular buyers get priced out of the market, unless politicians address supply.

But Mr Pomeroy said high development costs means that adding supply will not necessarily reduce prices, unless the additions are dramatic.

“Unless you’ve got born into the right family … the prospects for young buyers are quite dim,” he said.

(This year the judges decided not to include Cornwall, in recognition of the problems caused in the county’s housing market by incomers buying second homes.) 

Pity they didn’t extend that to Devon as well. – Owl

Dan Wilkins www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

People of Budleigh Salterton already knew they lived in an idyllic part of East Devon, but now the whole country knows it. 

The seaside town best known for its pebbly beach and independent shops has been named in The Sunday Times Best Places to Live 2022, released today (Friday, April 8) and is one of the top 10 locations in the South West. 

A rather dull Sunday morning with very little sun but somehow Budleigh Beach is still just as beautiful. I just wish I had taken some money with me so that I could have bought some of the freshly caught fish straight off the beach! According to the judges, ‘unspoilt’ Budleigh is ‘no longer a sleepy retirement town’ and has become a ‘hotspot’ for young families, ‘lured by Colyton Grammar, one of the best schools in the Southwest’, as well as a ‘truly lovely’ beach. 

Judges also said the town’s literary and music festivals give Budleigh ‘intellectual bonus points’. 

The town has grown by 6 per cent since 2020 and for those looking to re-locate to Budleigh, the average house price is currently £445,000 – according to data supplied to The Times by Halifax. 

The national newspaper’s expert judges assessed a wide range of factors, from schools, transport and broadband to culture, green spaces and the health of the high street. 

The judges looked to celebrate improving towns, villages or city centres, attractive, well-designed homes and locations ‘bursting with community spirit’. 

Other South West locations named in the list include Bridport and Sherborne in Dorset, Bristol, Charlton Kings in Gloucestershire, Ashburton, Stroud and Wellow. Chalke Valley in Wiltshire was named top in the South West. 

Helen Davies, The Times and Sunday Times property editor, said: “The Sunday Times Best Places to Live list is necessarily subjective.  

“Leave it just to statistics and you will never capture the spirit of a place. For that, you need to visit to take into account that ‘you have to be here’ feeling. Is the pub dog-friendly, for example? Can you live car-free? What are the schools and houses like? Is it multicultural and multigenerational, and can it offer a good way of life to lots of different sorts of people?” 

To view The Sunday Times Best Places to Live 2022, visit https://www.thetimes.co.uk/best-places-to-live    

Exeter-based construction giant is in administration and assets are only likely to pay for small fraction of money owed, a new report reveals

William Telford www.devonlive.com

The fallout from the collapse of South West construction giant Midas is even worse than initially thought with more than £60m of debts now unlikely to be paid including £4.5m owed to its own employees. New figures from administrators reveal nearly £70m is being claimed by creditors with more than 1,500 of them likely to receive no cash.

Reports from global business advisory firm Teneo Financial Advisory Ltd show the two main companies in the Midas family – Midas Group Ltd and Midas Construction Ltd – have realisable assets of just £8,354,644. But when preferential and secured creditors are paid it means there will be a predicted shortfall of £60,290,904 for the hundreds of small firms and individuals in the supply chain.

This includes £4,578,369 owed to 300 Midas workers who were made redundant when the companies went bust. That’s an average of about £15,000 each. Although headquartered in Exeter, Midas was involved in huge construction projects across the South West and companies owed cash include several in Plymouth.

Midas Group Ltd and its subsidiaries Midas Construction Ltd, Midas Retail Ltd, Mi-Space (UK) Ltd, Mi-Space Property Services Ltd, Midas Commercial Developments Ltd and Falmouth Developments Ltd all fell into administration in January 2022 blaming a toxic cocktail of Covid, inflation, money owed to them but not paid, and cash flow problems for causing a financial doomsday.

Administrators at Teneo Financial Advisory Ltd have now revealed Midas Group Ltd owned two office blocks, in Newton Abbot, in Devon, and Newport, in Wales, which are expected to sell for £1m and £1.3m. But when preferential creditors have been paid it leaves just £844,169.

Once some secondary preferential claims are settled it will mean an estimated deficiency for creditors of £9,015,966. A list of those owed money shows 61 employees are claiming £1,407,669 of that sum.

But the vast majority of the Midas debt is with its commercial construction arm Midas Construction Ltd. A report by Teneo shows £7,329,500 is likely to be clawed back from customers who owed the firm money. But this is a fraction of the £48,560,404 it was owed when it went belly up, and included the £36,902,858 value of work in progress when Midas fell into administration.

Once preferential and secondary preferential creditors and floating charge holders have been paid it leaves a mere £3,394,786 for unsecured creditors. But £51,274,938 is owed to more than 1,500 of these creditors meaning there will be a shortfall of £47,880,152. The list of creditors shows Midas 239 employees are owed £3,170,700 of that sum.

Chancellor rejected calls to rethink £200 ‘heat now, pay later’ loan – despite fears it will pile up further debt

Rob Merrick www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak rejected proposals from a fellow cabinet minister to give more help to families hit by soaring home energy bills, a leaked document reveals.

The chancellor was urged to rethink a £200 loan that households will receive in the autumn, amid widespread criticism that the “heat now, pay later” scheme will pile up further debt.

The Department for Business put forward three options to ease the cost of living crisis, as part of the energy security strategy that aims to wean the UK off foreign fossil fuels.

Kwasi Kwarteng’s department suggested increasing the £200 payment to “£500 or more”, either for all households or for the poorest, an early draft obtained by the i newspaper shows. A second option would have delayed repayment of the £200, which the Treasury is saying must be repaid at the rate of £40 a year over the following five years.

Third, the business secretary’s officials proposed exempting the poorest homes from the need to repay at all, turning the loan into a grant.

A Treasury spokesperson did not dispute that the proposals had been rejected, after they did not appear in the strategy – which is under fire for failing to offer any immediate help with bills.

Mr Kwarteng admitted it would be at least “two or three years” before new infrastructure investments would have any impact on soaring fuel costs.

The price cap on annual domestic bills leapt by almost £700 this month to nearly £2000, and is expected to soar by up to a further £1,000 in the autumn.

Analysts have warned that the UK is heading for the worst plunge in living standards since the 1950s, along with an explosion in poverty that will push 500,000 more children below the breadline.

The End Fuel Poverty Coalition has warned that vulnerable families will be pushed further into debt by the loan, and criticised the decision to make it compulsory.

Labour has branded the loan a “scam”, arguing that around a million people who will not receive it – first-time buyers, separated couples, students and care leavers – will still be liable for the future charges.

Asked if Mr Sunak had rejected the proposed rethink, a Treasury spokesperson told The Independent: “We are not commenting on leaked documents.”

The leak also revealed that Mr Kwarteng’s hopes of dramatically increasing onshore wind farm investment had also bitten the dust amid the Whitehall wrangling.

The early draft proposed increasing output to 45GW by 2035, saying: “Onshore wind is currently the second-cheapest form of electricity generation.”

But Boris Johnson bowed to pressure from Tory MPs to keep the strict planning rules that act as an effective ban on new onshore wind farms.

Asked why, the prime minister said: “People feel that they affect the beauty of the countryside. I understand that.”