Cllr Jess Bailey: “Judging both from the fictitious title and the lack of Conservative branding, it is designed to give residents the false impression that this is a genuine and independent local newspaper when it most definitely is not. I’m not at all impressed by this type of antics, especially when confidence in politicians is already at rock-bottom.”

Has the label “Conservative” become so toxic that Simon Jupp fears campaigning under the banner? – Owl

Simon Jupp defends ‘fake newspaper’ campaign leaflet

The MP for East Devon, Simon Jupp, has been criticised over a Conservative campaign leaflet designed to look like a local newspaper.

Philippa Davies www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

The ‘East Devon Echo’ is being posted to addresses in the new Sidmouth and Honiton constituency, where Mr Jupp will stand for the Tories in the next General Election.

It contains a selection of articles highlighting Mr Jupp’s activities and campaigns in East Devon, along with items on the Conservative party’s policies.

In what appears to be a national Tory campaign strategy, similar publications imitating the appearance and names of local newspapers are being circulated around the country.

Concerns were raised about the ‘East Devon Echo’ by a Herald reader, who received a copy in the post.

He said: “It’s fake news and needs to be called out as such. The advertisement on the back serves to make the rest feel like genuine news.

“It doesn’t at any point say it’s published by the Conservative party!

“These publications seem to be a deliberately misleading attempt to fool voters by presenting partisan political propaganda as independent news. It’s knowingly cynical.”

Jess Bailey, the Independent county councillor for the Otter Valley, agrees that the East Devon Echo is misleading.

She said: “Judging both from the fictitious title and the lack of Conservative branding, it is designed to give residents the false impression that this is a genuine and independent local newspaper when it most definitely is not. I’m not at all impressed by this type of antics, especially when confidence in politicians is already at rock-bottom.”

Simon Jupp, a former journalist himself, has in the past spoken out about the importance of local news and ‘proper journalism’, while criticising ‘pseudo websites masquerading as legitimate sources of news’.

The Herald asked him whether he is comfortable with his party distributing this kind of campaign material.

He said: “Such publications are used by most major political parties, including the Liberal Democrats and Labour. In response, I have had many positive conversations on the doorstep and emails offering support for my campaign in the new Honiton & Sidmouth constituency.”

In the run-up to the 2019 General Election all three main parties were criticised by the Electoral Commission for distributing campaign material imitating local newspapers.

But the Commission said it does not have the power to regulate this material, which is legal if it carries an ‘imprint’ identifying who is responsible for producing and promoting it.

The East Devon Echo does have this in very small print at the bottom of the front page, indicating that it is being promoted by the East Devon Conservative Association.

Government is ignoring the watchdog created to replace the EU in enforcing environmental law.

Surely this is a resigning issue for anyone with a shred of self respect – Owl

Plans to rip up pollution rules for housebuilders are a “regression” that will degrade England’s rivers, the government’s environment watchdog has said.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

An amendment tabled by the government to the levelling up bill orders local authorities to ignore nutrient pollution from new developments in ecologically sensitive areas in England, including the Norfolk Broads and the Lake District. These nutrients, when untreated, cause algal blooms that choke the life from rivers.

Under the current system, which is derived from EU law, developers are not allowed to add more pollution to already-polluted protected areas, unless they buy “credits” that are used to improve nearby wetlands.

In a letter to the secretaries of state Thérèse Coffey and Michael Gove, the chair of the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), Dame Glenys Stacey, said their proposed amendment, which they claim will unlock 100,000 new homes, would degrade the environment.

She wrote: “The proposed changes would demonstrably reduce the level of environmental protection provided for in existing environmental law. They are a regression. Yet the government has not adequately explained how, alongside such weakening of environmental law, new policy measures will ensure it still meets its objectives for water quality and protected site condition.”

Campaigners have previously called the OEP, which replaces the EU in enforcing environmental law, “toothless”. It has written to the environment secretary and her predecessors on numerous occasions to express concern that her department’s plans will contravene environmental law.

However, Coffey has been able to ignore it and proceed with her plans regardless.

Stacey has demanded the ministers face parliament to explain themselves and tell colleagues how they plan to prevent rivers being choked by pollution.

The solicitor and civil servant said the ministers were contravening their promises to parliament, referring to “Gove’s statement to parliament, under section 20 of the Environment Act 2021, that ‘the bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law’”. She said the “amendments now run counter to these commitments”.

She said: “It is essential to clarify the section 20 statement made to parliament in light of the government’s intention to weaken the habitats regulations. If necessary, ministers should make a statement equivalent to that required by section 20(4) and confirm that they are no longer able to say that the bill would not reduce the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law, but that the government nevertheless wishes parliament to proceed.”

She said England’s important wildlife areas were already at risk, writing: “Many of England’s most important protected wildlife sites are in a parlous state, with their condition well below where it needs to be. This is often due to nutrient pollution, and development can be a significant contributor to this.”

Officials at a briefing for journalists on Tuesday confirmed that if the amendment passed, there would be no legal obligation for developers in sensitive habitats to avoid nutrient pollution, and that the EU-derived legislation would be replaced by some extra funding for Natural England, the nature watchdog. They still said there would be no regression in environmental standards, despite the ditching of the legislation, because Natural England would be able to offset any pollution with the new funding.

The government has faced a backlash from nature groups since the announcement, with the RSPB calling Gove and Coffey “liars”. The charity accused them of breaking their promises that Brexit would improve the UK’s environment and that they would not weaken EU-derived environmental laws.

A government spokesperson said: “We’ve always been clear we will never compromise our high standards and we are fully committed to our ambitious and legally binding commitments on the environment. The reforms we’ve set out will see us tackle pollution at source in a way that these legacy laws never addressed through a significant package to restore waterways and leave our environment in a better state than we found it.”

An annual swimming race in Devon has been cancelled after sewage was discharged into a harbour for five hours. The Lynmouth Richie Berry Cup was due to be held on Sunday, September 3.

Fingers crossed that it doesn’t rain between now and the rescheduled event on September 15 or it may have to be cancelled again! – Owl

Jamie Hawkins www.devonlive.com

However, organisers say the race has been cancelled after sewage was discharged from South West Water on Saturday, August 26.

It’s now hoped the race will take place on Friday, September 15. Race organiser John Arbon said the swim was cancelled over health risks.

He told the BBC: “We were extremely disappointed. We stood there and thought: ‘What if someone gets sick?’ We couldn’t take that risk.”

“They (South West Water) need a massive investment now instead of saying they will do it at some time in the future.”

In a post on their Facebook page, the Lynseals swimming club said: “Our safety team met at the harbour today (Saturday) and due to the sewage discharge by South West Water into Lynmouth Harbour we are not prepared to risk the health of swimmers.

“We also have not received confirmation from SWW if there will be further discharges or up to the minute data on the quality of the water. The winds are also WNW blowing the sea directly onto the harbour which will not aid clearing the discharge.

“We apologise for the cancellation but hope you will understand our concerns.”

Data from South West Water’s website showed a pumping station overflow that started in Lynmouth at 5.14am and stopped at 10.48am.

In a statement, South West Water said: “We can confirm there was storm overflow activity in Lynmouth over the weekend following heavy, localised rainfall.

“Storm overflows are pressure relief valves built into our network that are an essential way to stop homes and businesses from flooding during periods of heavy rainfall.

“However, reducing the use of storm overflows is a priority for us and we are investing record levels to do so.

“In Lynmouth specifically, we are investing over £4.25m to March 2025 to reduce the risk of environmental impact from our sewerage network and maintain excellent bathing water quality.”

Ministers (including the Prime Minister) on top of their game would have realised that such an inquiry was the only option from the start.

But they failed to read the mood of the country or understand the gravity of the case and opted, initially, for the politically comfortable fudge of a “toothless” non-statutory inquiry .

We really are at the fag end of a dying administration. – Owl

Ministers agree to give inquiry full statutory powers after families criticised current investigation

www.theguardian.com 

The inquiry into how Lucy Letby was able to murder seven babies will now be able to force witnesses to give evidence.

Ministers agreed to give the inquiry full statutory powers after families said the current investigation would not go far enough in uncovering the truth.

Letby was found guilty earlier this month and an independent inquiry was immediately launched, but it was not given full powers.

How many times have Alison Hernandez and Simon Jupp announced their personal involvement in securing a “new” police station for Exmouth?

Perhaps they could enlighten us on why the much hyped plans for one have been withdrawn (see below)?

Could it be that the plans have turned out to be unaffordable?

It’s now pretty clear that Exmouth will not have a new police station before the election.

As a perceptive correspondent to the Exmouth Journal wrote a couple of weeks ago:

“The last two years seem to prove her [Alison Hernandez] vision has been a fantasy at considerable cost to Council Tax payers.”

[In February, Simon Jupp quoted himself as saying: “After the success of securing a new police station for Exmouth which will be open to the public, I want to make sure the east of the district also has access to a police station front desk. I would warmly welcome a front desk opening in either Sidmouth, Ottery St. Mary or Honiton. These rural communities have very different characteristics than Exmouth or Exeter. Extra front desks, focusing on the needs of rural communities and market towns, would give people increased awareness and confidence in their local police force, especially during the tourist season. I know our Police & Crime Commissioner listens to communities and I hope she will consider re-opening another front desk in East Devon.”]

Promises, promises. – Owl

Plans to demolish Exmouth Police Station have been withdrawn

Previously submitted plans to demolish Exmouth Police Station have been withdrawn by developers this week, (August 24).

Adam Manning www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

No reason has been stated on the withdrawal form. The £5 million pound project included knocking down the ‘ageing station complex’ in Exmouth’s North Street includes a disused magistrates court and a mothballed civil defence shelter.

The site is currently occupied by officers but currently members of the public cannot enter without an appointment and Crime Commisioner Alison Hernandez says that “maintenance costs over the next 25 years have been estimated at more than £3m.”

The plans would see the 0.4 hectares of the site sold for redevelopment and a two-storey building built on 0.2 hectares of the site. 

The station will be the operational base for about 60 officers and staff including response officers, neighbourhood officers, Police Community Support Officers, and Special Constables and will include a new public enquiry front desk.

The Commissioner’s estates team is preparing to seek expressions of interest from contractors who may be interested in submitting a full tender for the project.

Commissioner Hernandez, at the time the new station was announced said: “This project makes sense from every angle. Exmouth is Devon’s largest town and sees a huge increase in its population in the summer months. The teams based there, and the community they serve, deserve a station which is fit for the 21st Century, less harmful to the environment and cheaper to run.

She said improving public access to the force was a ‘non negotiable’ part of the project, adding: “When I carried out a public survey to determine which of the 58 possible locations the public would most like to see, a police enquiry office opened once again in Exmouth came eighth. People love the idea that they can walk into a station and talk to a real human being to report crime, receive advice on crime prevention and seek help for victims, so there is no way I am going to miss the opportunity to give this town back its front desk.”

Assistant Chief Constable Glen Mayhew, Force Lead for Local Policing said: “Our officers and staff are part of the local community, and this investment supports them to achieve this. They need a modern base to ensure that we deliver a local service that is effective and accessible to our communities. We are all looking forward to this development taking shape.”

Build back beautiful – Owl

The number of UK homes sold this year is expected to fall to the lowest level in more than a decade, as the soaring cost of mortgages puts off homebuyers.

Mark Sweney www.theguardian.com 

House sales reaching completion are expected to fall 21% year-on-year to about 1m in 2023, the lowest level since 2012, according to a report from the property website Zoopla.

Annual house prices fell at the fastest rate in 14 years in July, by 3.8% according to Nationwide, as higher interest rates weighed on people’s ability to buy a property with a mortgage.

The number of house sales completed securing a mortgage is forecast to fall by 28% this year, while cash sales will remain relatively resilient, falling just 1% in 2023, according to the report.

A typical two-year fixed mortgage was 6.73% on Tuesday, and the average five-year fix was 6.21%, according to Moneyfacts. Some lenders have cut rates in recent weeks, however, as competition returns.

Zoopla said: “Mortgage rates have started to fall slowly but rates need to fall below 5% before we see an increased appetite to move home in the second half of 2023.”

It also said that over the last four weeks, demand for homes had been 34% lower than the average for the same period over the last five years.

The report estimates that the cost of renting is on average 10% cheaper than making mortgage payments, despite high growth in rental rates in recent years.

Lack of affordability is affecting the housing market the most in southern England, where average house prices are highest, meaning buyers need larger mortgages, bigger deposits and higher incomes to buy.

Levels of market activity are holding up better in more affordable parts of the UK, including parts of Scotland.

“These trends will continue over the rest of 2023 and into 2024,” said Zoopla.

The report found, however, that affordability was improving relative to earnings, with wages up 7% over the last year. The report forecasts that the UK house price-to-earnings ratio will fall back into line with the 20-year average by the end of this year, at 6.3.

“Surprisingly, affordability has improved most in London where the price to earnings ratio will move to single digits for the first time in 11 years as house price growth continues to lag earnings growth,” the report said.

The average price of a property in London is £542,400, compared with £267,000 in Edinburgh, £253,900 in Cardiff and £167,900 in Belfast.

• Visitor numbers are believed to be down by up to 20%
• Industry representatives say they believe the weather has played a part
• Visitors are also believed to be spending less

Visitor numbers in Devon and Cornwall are down by up to a fifth for the summer, figures suggest. www.bbc.co.uk

The South West Business Council said feedback from businesses along with traffic analysis suggested visitor numbers were down between 17 and 20% over summer 2023 to date.

Visit Devon also estimated visitor numbers were down 16 to 20% while Visit Cornwall estimated numbers were down by about 10%.

Some businesses have suggested tourists are also spending less.

Sally Everton, head of Visit Devon, said: “If we’d had a really cracking start weather-wise to the summer holiday we’d have done very well… but that didn’t really materialise for us.

“That said, we did have some good pick-up in the first two weeks of August… so that did give us a hand but it isn’t where we wanted to be in all honesty”.

Keith Richardson, a Torquay hotelier, said: “We’ve already got 20% less people but our food sales are less by 40%, so there’s a significant change there.

“This year has been pretty awful across the board.”

The handling of a major Tory housing policy announcement to rip up environment laws around river pollution in order to build more homes has been branded “cack-handed” and a “farce” by developers.

Ben Gartside, Daniel Capurro inews.co.uk

Industry sources fear changes to housebuilding laws in England to stop environmental legislation blocking developments could fail because a poorly handled announcement has already triggered a major backlash from green groups.

Housing industry insiders told i that the Government’s apparent failure to warn environmental groups about the new policy had only served to hand more momentum to them.

“It’s cack-handed how [the policy] has been handled,” one industry executive said. “The narrative has got out badly, and now environmental campaigners are treating it poorly. We’re expecting backlash, as we’re now being targeted for the failure of water companies.”

He also hinted that the policy had come too late. “This is not an overnight solution… Inflation, lack of demand and the cost of living crisis has meant we won’t see the same level of building we could have,” the source said.

Government plans to tear up EU-derived requirements on pollution from housebuilding have been years in the making, with fears over an environmental backlash stymieing previous proposals.

Builders have been complaining publicly about the policy since 2021, which require new housing developments not to increase the amount of nutrient pollution in protected rivers.

Developers are required to offset any new pollution, for example by contributing to the development of new wetlands which naturally filter surface run-off. Offsets can cost up to £15,000 per home.

The law, which was retained during the Brexit period, halted development in a number of counties following interventions from Natural England. The policy has been a popular target for reform, with former prime minister Liz Truss pledging to scrap the policy last year, and Levelling Up Secretary, Michael Gove, touting reform in July.

The current rules have proved controversial with claims developments have been blocked where the rules have been applied too stringently and that builders have bought up trout farms to shut them down in order to meet nutrient neutrality rules.

Despite the long-touted reforms, the housing industry and environmentalists appeared to have been blindsided by the announcement on Tuesday morning, with the executive labelling it a “farce”.

An announcement was rushed out following briefings to a number of papers, while some environmental groups and housebuilders were unaware any reforms were due.

Environmental activists accused the Government of lying over pledges not to weaken EU environmental legislation.

Housing industry sources are also concerned the issue could become a lightning rod for river campaigners, who are dissatisfied with the Government’s attempt to tackle it.

Housebuilders argue that they contribute a very small amount to river pollution, compared to water companies and farmers.

Sources have pointed the finger at Tony Juniper, the chairman of Natural England, as the driving force behind the current strict interpretation of the law.

Mr Juniper has denied claims that Natural England or nutrient neutrality was causing a blockage in housebuilding, defending the policy regularly.

In an interview with i last month, Mr Juniper called on housebuilders to stop complaining and to “see the bigger picture” of the legislation.

Housebuilders have privately questioned whether his role is still tenable, given his spirited defence of the rules. It is understood Mr Juniper has tried to blocked any attempts to loosen nutrient neutrality rules in order to aid development when asked by central Government.

Industry pressure on Mr Juniper also extends to the Housing Secretary. While Mr Gove has been recently supportive to builders over the changes, he had previously been criticised for a lack of action.

Mr Juniper’s appointment to Natural England was made by Mr Gove during his period as environment secretary in 2019.

An industry source told i that some housebuilders had refused to provide supportive quotes for the Government’s announcement, on account of a hostile relationship with Mr Gove. They remain frustrated with him over a policy requiring developers to pay for dangerous cladding.

One developer said that the relationship between the industry and minister were “non-existent” following prolonged antagonism between the parties during cladding negotiations, with Mr Gove labelling the housebuilders a “cartel”.

Mr Gove said in a statement: “We are committed to building the homes this country needs and to enhancing our environment. The way EU rules have been applied has held us back. These changes will provide a multi-billion pound boost for the UK economy and see us build more than 100,000 new homes.

“Protecting the environment is paramount which is why the measures we’re announcing today will allow us to go further to protect and restore our precious waterways whilst still building the much-needed homes this country needs.

Don’t all flush at once!

1. Repeal of the pollution law by amending the “Levelling Up and Regeneration” bill may not pass in time for the King’s speech, and therefore may not be enacted before the election. – see below

2. Even if it does, developers say repeal of pollution rules won’t solve England’ housing crisis. – see below

3. Even if it did, no material increase in house building is likely before the election kicks off!

4. Sound and fury from environmental groups will be huge.

So is this the real reason?

Money talking just before the conference season? – Owl

Repeal of water pollution rules won’t solve England’s housing crisis, say developers

Michael Gove’s plan to repeal water pollution rules in an attempt to kickstart housebuilding will not solve England’s housing crisis, developers have warned, thanks to delays in implementation and other planning burdens.

Kiran Stacey www.theguardian.com 

The housing secretary announced on Tuesday he intends to remove the regulations regarding nutrient levels in rivers, prompting outrage from green groups but relief from housebuilders, whose shares promptly rose.

But while developers have campaigned for years for an end to the rules, they warned that amending the levelling up bill to do so risked months of delays given opposition to numerous parts of the expansive legislation.

A spokesperson for the Home Builders Federation said: “After four years the proposals are a welcome step towards a solution, but clearly the bill still has some way to go and we are potentially many months from unlocking sites and starting construction work.”

They added: “Whilst this ultimately may remove one major barrier to housing supply, it is no silver bullet and the government’s approach on planning remains an even greater constraint alongside mortgage availability in the current economic environment.”

Gove said on Tuesday he would use the levelling up bill, which is being debated in the House of Lords, to remove rules blocking new development if it is forecast to add to levels of nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates in rivers.

Those nutrients, which are contained in waste products, can cause algae and other plants to grow so quickly that they choke off aquatic life.

However, housebuilders say the rules have been enforced so strictly by Natural England that it has become impossible to build on large parts of the country. The regulations have meant no houses being built in the past four years in large parts of the Solent and the Lake District for example.

Under the new regime, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. Instead, the government is spending an extra £140m to offset extra pollution, shifting the burden from the polluter to the taxpayer.

Gove told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme: “After all the measures we’ve announced today have been enacted there will be fewer nutrients going into British rivers.”

Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “Scrapping the rules may reduce the costs for big businesses, but those costs don’t disappear. Instead, the public will pick up the bill for pollution reduction, and the environment will bear an unbearable cost of yet more pollution in our most sensitive rivers and streams.”

Some Conservatives also expressed concern. Sam Hall, the director of the Conservative Environment Network, said: “It is disappointing that the government has chosen to exempt housebuilding’s nutrient pollution from the habitats regulations, rather than seek a holistic reform with developers paying proportionally for their pollution.”

Conservative MPs, however, were broadly supportive, including those who have opposed Gove over housebuilding in the past.

Theresa Villiers, who has previously led rebellions against plans to liberalise the planning system, said on Tuesday: “For a long time the nutrient neutrality rules have been operating in a very inflexible way, and have all but stopped development in a number of places.”

Shares in big developers rose on Tuesday, with Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, Barratt Developments and Berkeley Group all performing well.

However, industry executives warned that Gove’s attempts to repeal the pollution regulations could still fail given the tortuous process behind passing the levelling up bill.

Lords have debated dozens of amendments already, covering everything from education policy to electric vehicle charge points. The government also wants to use the bill to push forward new measures to allow councils to opt out of low emission zones such as London’s Ulez.

“This bill has become a Christmas tree with various members using it to advance their chosen policies,” said one supporter of the move to repeal the nutrient neutrality rules. “The worry is now that it simply doesn’t pass in time.”

If the bill is not passed in time for the king’s speech in November, it will have to be reintroduced for the next session, where it will fight for legislative time with the rest of the government’s priorities for what is likely to be the final session before an election.

And even if the bill does pass, officials admit it will be months before the pollution regulations are formally removed.

The last pretence that this govt gives a hoot about the environment finally blown asunder.

Greenest govt ever? Lie. Not lower enviro standards? Lie. leave rivers in a better state? Lie. All of it Lies.

NOTE: You cannot offset a dead river. Feargal Sharkey

Easy, get govt to bin nutrient neutrality laws for house builders exactly what the likes of Persimmon PLC, Barrat Developments PLC and Taylor Wimpey did this morning & that’s exactly how much richer they are this afternoon. Feargal Sharkey 29 August on “X”

No longer will the polluter have to pay!

Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.

If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com (Extract)

“Now instead of the polluter paying, the costs have been dumped on the environment and the taxpayer,” Craig Bennett, the chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts said. “Time and again the costs go on the environment and the taxpayer as a result of lobbying by industries and what we have seen here is another example of very effective lobbying from the construction industry.

“It is not only terrible value for money for the taxpayer but it’s breaking promises to the environment made only weeks ago by Rishi Sunak. How can we ever trust environmental promises he makes again?”……

….Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “What the government is proposing here is to remove legal protections for nature, throw away requirements for polluters to pay, and instead use taxpayers’ money to try to fill the gap. But a single, short-term capital injection will do nothing to make up for the harm that our rivers and wildlife will suffer as a result.

“Scrapping the rules may reduce the costs for big businesses, but those costs don’t disappear. Instead, the public will pick up the bill for pollution reduction, and the environment will bear an unbearable cost of yet more pollution in our most sensitive rivers and streams.”

Anyone believe increasing wetland funding will actually mitigate the damage this amendment will cause? – Owl

A picture is worth a thousand words – owl

Grant Thornton implicated in allegations of “Blame Deflection” – Owl

A critical report into how a mental health trust mismanaged its mortality figures was edited to remove criticism of its leadership, the BBC has found.

By Nikki Fox & Matt Precey www.bbc.co.uk

In June, auditors Grant Thornton revealed how the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust (NSFT) had lost track of patient deaths.

But earlier drafts included language around governance failures that were missing in the final version.

NSFT and Grant Thornton said the changes were due to fact-checking.

A number of drafts of the report were produced, with the first dated 23 February this year.

The first version described “poor governance” in the way deaths data was managed, with governance also being called “weak” and “inadequate”.

But many of these critical words were missing from the report released to the public, with “governance” also being replaced with “controls”, according to leaked documents.

NSFT said: “We responded to requests from the auditors to check the factual accuracy of their early draft report and to provide further information. This is a standard process to make sure that such reports are evidence-based.”

Grant Thornton said: “It is not uncommon for findings and language to be refined before being finalised.

“After the initial draft the engagement team at the trust changed, who then provided further information around controls and internal processes of which we were previously unaware.”

But campaigners have described this as blame deflection.

After losing her son Tim in 2014, Caroline Aldridge has been highlighting what she and others claimed had been the trust’s undercounting of deaths.

“I think people need to know what was removed and what was changed, because I suspect that the first report is a lot nearer to the truth,” she said.

Ms Aldridge added: “It takes all responsibility from governance, removing the words ‘inadequate’, ‘poor’, ‘weak’ governance, removing significant pieces of information that’s not factual accuracy.

“We cannot have people watering it [the report] down when it’s about deaths.”

Another section that did not make the final version highlighted a “culture of fear” among some staff, who reported anxiety around how the data was used.

It is understood this was removed after the trust challenged the number of clinicians Grant Thornton had spoken to.

The auditor said the trust had demonstrated its governance was “in line with national expectations”.

‘Single truth’

The review was launched at the behest of local NHS commissioners in October over confusion about the number of people in contact with the trust who had died.

In August last year, Norwich South Labour MP Clive Lewis cited claims from local mental health campaigners that there could have been as many as “1,000 avoidable mental illness-related deaths” – a figure the trust said it did not recognise.

Deputy chief executive at the trust, Cath Byford, told a local health scrutiny panel that Grant Thornton’s review had been established to find a “single truth” regarding the number of deaths.

But the review instead looked at the trust’s mortality data processes, finding that it could not provide assurance over the trust’s figures.

‘Demand just exceeds capacity’

Referrals to mental health crisis teams across the country were up 30% since before the pandemic, according to NHS England.

The number of people aged under 17 receiving NHS-funded support had increased to 702,000 since 2019.

NSFT’s most recent annual report stated referrals to its children and young people’s services had more than doubled in the same period.

Two NSFT clinicians, who asked for their identities to be protected, described how there were not enough staff to deal with demand.

“The service I work for, we’re just not able to support as many people as we’d like to. We’re only supporting around 66-65% of the people that are contacting us,” one said.

They added: “One of my managers came up to me and said, ‘Don’t complete the patient incident forms,’ and they were actively encouraging us to not do that, because they’d have to do more work and it looked badly on them as a team.”

The other said: “Services have always been under pressure, but now it feels like demand just exceeds any capacity available.

“Staff don’t have time to be recording things as they would want to so they might not record every incident on the patient safety records, which should be highlighting any risk incidents up the chain to more senior management.”

Stuart Richardson, NSFT’s chief executive officer, said: “Over the last year we have introduced safer ways of working and supported colleagues to raise concerns or ask questions so that we can address and help resolve them at the time.”

The BBC showed the different versions of the report, and the responses from the trust and Grant Thornton, to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman.

Rob Behrens said: “I’m concerned at the difference between the draft report and the published reports, and because the differences in the texts at key points are so huge that this is not just a bureaucratic drafting issue.”

Grant Thornton said: “Whilst the overall findings of the report did not change, the new evidence did adjust our assessment of significance in some areas. In addition, wording changed in some areas to highlight areas of good practice that were brought to our attention and which we believed could be broadened out to help resolve issues.

“We maintain that the final public report is an entirely independent, robust and thorough assessment of the historic matters at the trust.”

Mr Richardson, from the trust, added: “We have been open and honest about the failings highlighted in this report, and are committed to bringing about the improvements that our service users and staff deserve.”

“Let’s get on and get the job done,” councillors in Teignbridge said this week as they agreed more changes to decision-making in order to speed up delivery of a £9-million project to transform Newton Abbot’s high street.

Alison Stephenson, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Dogged by delays after the government awarded cash from its Future High Street Fund four years ago , Teignbridge District Council has decided now it will delegate decisions to officers but that the executive committee will keep overall control.

Liberal Democrat council leader Martin Wrigley (Dawlish North East) proposed that ‘delegated authority’ to be given to the head of place and commercial services so they can make decisions provided they have obtained approval from an executive member and that all decisions are reported to the executive.

He said decisions can be made effectively by officers but it is important to remember the executive was “making the bigger decisions on this project”.

Cllr Wrigley, who had previously put forward a motion for the executive to make all decisions alone – leading to an accusation of “control freakery” by Cllr Andrew MacGregor (South Devon Alliance Independent, Bishopsteignton) – said progress on the market hall regeneration and the cinema had been disappointingly slow.

It was likely that changes to these projects may be required because of inflation and economic changes since 2019 and delays since last November.

“The cinema has yet to obtain planning permission after nearly four years of the project. The council is concerned that the projects are progressing without detailed oversight,” he said.

Councillors were told this week that the whole scheme could be in jeopardy if decisions were made solely at executive committee meetings.

They also heard that there was now some flexibility in how the money could be spent after Michael Govem secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, announced that changes  of up to 30 per cent could be approved locally.

Cllr Huw Cox (Lib Dem, Ashburton and Buckfastleigh) said: “I agree with the move to give officers authority to move things on a bit quicker but it’s been going on forever. We need to stop chattering about it and get the job done. We need to get it finished one way or another or we could still be here talking about it in ten years’ time.

Cllr Daws (South Devon Alliance, Ambrook) said the new flexibility was welcome. “I think now we need to grasp the nettle, reform the cinema application size and scale, since the demise of Cineworld, Empire cinemas going into administration and the lack of interest by local operator Scott Cinemas,” he said. “If there is one company that should have the handle on the viability of cinema in Newton Abbot, it is Scott Cinemas.”

“Let’s take this forward with a transformational plan which is in the community interest of the district. The Queen Street development can move forward, but it does not have the support of the retailers and we need to address that if there is to be a lively town centre.”

Cllr Jackie Hook (Lib Dems, Bushell) said plans to change Queen Street, including widening pavements , improving crossing, more planting and public seating and an introduction of a 20 mph speed limit between The Avenue and Courtenay Street, went through three stages of public consultation.

“The last one was close, but ultimately the residents of our town and district support that and they will be the people spending the money in Queen Street and that is what we have to remember.”

Cllr Gary Taylor (Lib Dem, Kenton and Starcross) said he is positive:  “I am looking forward to transformational change within Newton Abbot town centre and I am am confident we will see it, albeit with some changes to the original plans. I am pleased we have flexibility now, with the economic conditions we have floating around us it is  important we have that flexibility.”

But he added that the closure of Wilko was a blow. “I am very sad we will be losing one of major anchor stores, not least because it’s a tenant of ours, also because it provides a very good service to people of the town.

“It’s a huge shame to be losing them and whilst it does give us another opportunity, I do hope somebody comes along and continues to do something similar to what Wilko did for our high street as it took over from Woolworths when it came.”

Cllr Wrigley agreed it was a sad loss to the high street: “No doubt we will have decisions to make in the future regarding what happens there,” he said.

Four years on and no “Prime Contractor” yet appointed, only 5 of the 40 are actually new builds anyway, and in “most of the schemes the issue of affordability had not yet been considered” (NAO).

Place no credence on a Tory “pledge”. – Owl

Ben Gartside, Hugo Gye inews.co.uk

The Government’s flagship ’40 hospitals’ project is set to face further delays, piling further pressure on Rishi Sunak over missed Tory pledges.

An industry insider told i the Government appears to have “abandoned hope” of making significant progress before the general election next year.

The fresh delays raise the prospect that a future Labour administration will have to decide whether to continue with the project, or to abandon it and draw up new plans for hospital construction and upgrades.

The pledge to build 40 new hospitals by 2030, originally promised by Boris Johnson in the 2019 Tory manifesto, has been beset by delays and claims that some of the ‘new’ sites are just extensions to existing healthcare centres.

i has been told the latest delay relates to the appointment of a building firm to serve as the ‘delivery manager’ – a construction industry term to describe the lead contractor responsible for the overall progress and completion of a major project.

Insiders on the project told i that this crucial appointment has been delayed twice, with firms recently being told a hiring process will not begin until the new year. They fear little progress will be made before the next election if it is held in October or November 2024.

One told i: “It feels like the Government has abandoned any hope of moving the project on any time soon. Hiring a delivery manager has been delayed, and it feels like all big projects have been put on ice.

“We have a full team ready to work on the project, but we keep being told of delays to the procurement. We can’t keep waiting for the Government to start forever.”

Another company told i: “There’s no way the process will be completed much before October next year, by which point we might be dealing with a new Government.”

The next general election must be held no later than 24 January 2025.

Labour is committed to continuing with the construction of dozens of new hospitals if it wins the election, but insiders say the party may need to review the way the project works. Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting said: “The programme is already over-budget and behind schedule. Many are not ‘new’, others are not ‘hospitals’, and there aren’t 40 of them.

“If Rishi Sunak has now abandoned the Conservatives’ promise to build 40 new hospitals, then it is further proof there is no point of him or his government.” Labour is understood to be concerned about whether enough funding is available. A party source said: “It is about making it work, rather than ripping it up and starting again or allowing it to continue how it has. We’ve got to see what state it is in at that point.”

The Department of Health and Social Care said it is “on track” with appointing the lead contractor. Ministers admitted in May that eight of the “new hospitals” they pledged to build by 2030 would be delayed into the next decade.

At the time, Health Secretary Stephen Barclay stressed that they were still committed to meeting the pledge, highlighting how the refurbishment of five hospitals in urgent need of repairs and the building of three mental health hospitals would be added to the programme and prioritised instead.

In July, the National Audit Office warned that the New Hospitals Programme (NHP), the project’s official title, is “highly dependent upon [delivery] partners outside the direct control of the NHP, including the construction industry”.

Despite this, little progress has been made on appointing a lead contractor nearly four years after Mr Johnson first made the pledge, with two firms currently acting as interims.

The appointments process was set to begin in September but insiders said this has now been delayed until the new year.

The Government faced a stern rebuke from spending watchdog the National Audit Office earlier this summer, as it was revealed at least eight hospitals were expected to be completed after the initial 2030 goal.

The report stated that under Mr Johnson, in “most of the schemes the issue of affordability had not yet been considered”. i reported in October that cheaper prefab construction would need to be used for parts of the scheme due to a potential budget shortfall under the Liz Truss government.

Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, warned in the report that progress had been slower than expected and that the Government had failed to achieve good value for money. He said that cost-cutting and inaccurate modelling could also mean new hospitals are too small.

The Department for Health and Social Care said: “We are on track with the appointment of a programme delivery partner, and remain committed to building 40 new hospitals in England by 2030, which is now expected to be backed by over £20 billion of investment.”

The ’40 hospitals’ plan: a timeline

30th September 2019: Boris Johnson pledges to build 40 “new” hospitals during the 2019 election campaign, pledging £13bn in spending, with £2.7bn in the first 5 years.

However, initial praise for Boris Johnson’s landmark 40 hospitals pledge quickly became sceptical scrutiny due to the definition of ‘new hospitals’ used by the Government.

1st December 2021: Johnson defends policy

Mr Johnson addressed criticism that the Government had exaggerated the number of completely new hospitals. He said at Prime Minister’s Questions: “You obviously don’t go around building on greenfield sites… you rebuild hospitals and that is what we have said for the last two-and-a-half years.”

4th July 2022: Only 5 completely new hospitals?

The BBC reported that only five of the 40 would actually be completely new hospitals. Laurie Rachet-Jacquet, an economic analyst at The Health Foundation, told the BBC: “They are not all ‘hospitals’ as most people would recognise them.”

21st December 2022: Costs mount

i reports on costs spiraling on the project, with the Government looking at cheaper ‘prefab’ construction as a method of lowering costs. Rising inflation and material shortages looked set to cause significant strain on Government budgets.

May 2023: Stephen Barclay admits some projects will be delayed

The Health Secretary said that eight of the 40 original schemes would be completed after 2030 to prioritise five other more urgent developments.

He insisted the Government would still meet its manifesto pledge by prioritising the five hospitals that are at risk of collapse and the building of three mental health hospitals by the deadline.

17th July 2023: NAO report published

The National Audit Office since raised concerns about the project, with questions over the funding of the policies and the ability for the Government to meet it’s 2030 deadline for the hospitals.

The NAO report said that at least eight “hospitals” would miss the 2030 target, and that while Mr Johnson’s government had said the plans were “fully funded”, funding for some hospitals had still not been confirmed.

The quango also said the Government’s prefab plan to save time and money was as yet “unproven”.

Using an amendment to the “Levelling Up and Regeneration” bill!

Remember, Thérèse Coffey said there are more important things than beavers, and Simon Jupp keeps telling us that “I would never vote to pollute our water”. – Owl

“Not content with the levels of pollution in our rivers already, scrapping nutrient neutrality is a disgraceful act from the government. The Conservatives seem happy for Britain’s rivers to get even worse.” – Tim Farron

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

Michael Gove is planning to rip up water pollution rules that builders have blamed for exacerbating England’s housing crisis but which environmental groups say are essential for protecting the country’s rivers.

The housing secretary, alongside Thérèse Coffey, the environment secretary, will announce the move on Tuesday, according to several people briefed on the plans, alongside hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of extra funding to mitigate the potential impact on England’s waterways.

The decision will spark anger among environmentalists, who say it will further add to water pollution, as water companies are already dumping raw sewage into rivers and seas. Political advisers say water pollution has already become a major political issue in coastal areas, and has the potential to cost the Conservatives important seats at the next election.

However, it will please major developers, who say the rules are being applied so strictly that they are unable to build new homes in large parts of England. Building industry projections say housebuilding in England is forecast soon to fall below levels not seen since the second world war.

Doug Parr, policy director at Greenpeace UK, said: “Who would look at our sickly, sewage-infested rivers and conclude that what they need is weaker pollution rules? No one, and that should include our government. Scrapping or weakening limits on chemicals from sewage and farm run-offs would be a sure sign that ministers have completely given up on saving our great waterways and the precious wildlife they host.

“Instead of allowing housebuilders to cut corners, the Sunak administration should make sure we have the right infrastructure to handle our sewage so we can build new homes without sacrificing our rivers’ health. But that would require them to do what they’ve spectacularly failed to do so far – forcing water firms and housebuilders to invest their profits in upgrading treatment plants and pipes to a standard that a modern, functional country would expect.”

However, one source in the housebuilding industry said: “This is undoubtedly good news for Britain’s housing supply. The only question is why it has taken so long for the government to get round to doing something about this.”

The nutrient neutrality rules were put in place in 2017 when the UK was still a member of the EU. They say that in dozens of protected areas across England, local authorities should not give the go-ahead to any new development that is projected to add to river nutrients such as phosphates and nitrates, either through wastewater from new homes or run-off from building sites.

The regulations were first enacted by the EU in an attempt to prevent damaging buildups of algae and other plants, which can choke off aquatic life.

Developers, however, say they are being enforced by Natural England in such a strict way that they have been forced to put as many as 120,000 new homes on hold, and argue that farmland is a far bigger contributor to the pollution in question.

Under the existing rules, builders have to mitigate new nutrient loads caused by new populations in housing either onsite or elsewhere within the same catchment. They can do this by investing in new wetlands or by creating buffer zones along rivers and other watercourses. Builders have complained that doing so was costly and time-consuming.

In response to developers’ complaints, ministers launched a mitigation scheme in 2022 under which builders were allowed to buy “credits” to gain approval for their schemes. But those developers say that the process of purchasing such credits has occasionally led to unintended consequences, such as buying up farmland to take it out of use in an attempt to reduce water run-off.

Despite these changes, ministers say there is still a problem. Gove recently told the Sunday Telegraph that the rules should be changed as they get the “balance wrong”. In his announcement on Tuesday he will say the repeal of the rules is a “Brexit bonus”.

Those briefed on the plans say the government will try to change the law through an amendment to the levelling up and regeneration bill, which is currently in the House of Lords. Ministers might yet find it difficult to secure enough support for the bill, which must pass by the autumn or have to be reintroduced in a new bill in the King’s Speech in November.

The government is hoping to nullify some of the opposition with a package of hundreds of millions of pounds to reduce water pollution in other ways. They will give around £400m in grants to farmers and water companies to improve slurry infrastructure to make leaks less likely, and spend around another £300m helping builders mitigate the impact of their schemes.

Opposition parties are preparing to oppose the plans nevertheless.

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrats’ environmental spokesperson, said: “Not content with the levels of pollution in our rivers already, scrapping nutrient neutrality is a disgraceful act from the government. The Conservatives seem happy for Britain’s rivers to get even worse.”

Shaun Spiers, head of Green Alliance, said: “It’s hard to see how the law can be enforced without nutrient neutrality. Is the government proposing more pollution or that someone else (other than the housebuilders) pays for it? The trouble is, housebuilders always oppose proper regulation if they think they can get away with it, and governments are so desperate for more housing (and so unwilling to invest in it themselves) that they always believe them.”

Katie-Jo Luxton, director of conservation at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said: “If nutrient neutrality rules are scrapped, pollution will accumulate unchecked and our rivers face total ecological collapse.

• Proposed agricultural building. Land North West Of Scouse Lane Hawkchurch AxminsterRef. No: 23/1802/AGR | Validated: Fri 18 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed conversion of existing attached garage, addition of roof lights, new gable window, replacement of existing windows and changes to external parking area with construction of new garden wall 96 Mill Street Ottery St Mary Devon EX11 1AFRef. No: 23/1803/FUL | Validated: Fri 18 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of proposed oak frame car port. Bovetts Farm Sidbury Devon EX10 0QNRef. No: 23/1796/FUL | Validated: Thu 17 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Pine : complete removal Chanters House The College Ottery St Mary Devon EX11 1DQRef. No: 23/1792/TCA | Validated: Thu 17 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for use of dwelling in breach of occupancy condition. Thornfield Tytherleigh EX13 7BGRef. No: 23/1793/CPE | Validated: Thu 17 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of associated structures and the creation of charging zone, erection of EV chargers, erection of canopy, sub-station enclosure, LV panel, meter cabinet and associated forecourt works. Kilmington Cross Service Station Kilmington Axminster EX13 7RBRef. No: 23/1800/FUL | Validated: Thu 17 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, lime – pollard to previous pollard points. Madeira Court Douglas Avenue Exmouth Devon EX8 2BURef. No: 23/1791/TRE | Validated: Wed 16 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development for a two storey rear extension.45 Primley Road Sidmouth Devon EX10 9LFRef. No: 23/1789/CPL | Validated: Wed 16 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T001 – Western Red Cedar: fell to ground level. (Located within 2.5m from the property.) T002 – Western Red Cedar: Fell to ground level. (Located within 2m of the property.) T003 – Scots Pine: Fell to ground level. (Located against garage/workshop.) Valkyrie Road From Sowton Lodge To Court Lodge Sowton Devon EX5 2AGRef. No: 23/1786/TCA | Validated: Wed 16 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing reservoir tanks and construction of new dwelling house The Old Reservoir Ridgeway Lane ColytonRef. No: 23/1785/FUL | Validated: Thu 17 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Silver Birch : prune eastern primary branches by 2m, to maximum diameter cuts of 500mm; prune west primary branches by 1m; crown thinning and reduction by 1.5m. T2, T3, T4, Himalayan Birches : crown lifts to max 2.5m above ground level; crown thinnings if required; crown reductions by 1m max. T5, Silver Birch : remove (possibly replace with smaller tree – type to be discussed) 20 Victoria Place Budleigh Salterton Devon EX9 6JPRef. No: 23/1788/TCA | Validated: Thu 17 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• G1 – Beech trees: 1) stems nearest the house – crown lift to a height equivalent to the eaves of the house, removing small branches up to approx. 25mm in diameter. 2) reduction of lateral canopy extent over the garden on the south side by up to 2-3m, maximum diameter cuts of 45mm. 3) Height reduction by up to 2m, maximum diameter cuts of 45mm. G2 – beech trees: 1) crown lift above access road to approximately 5m for vehicle access. 2) remove stems directly opposite oak tree to allow more space for vehiclular acess. 3) thin out stems 138mm in diameter at chest height and remove stems up to 200mm at chest height. Upper Heights Burscombe Lane Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9SFRef. No: 23/1775/TRE | Validated: Tue 15 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Oak – fell. Applelands Bickwell Valley Sidmouth Devon EX10 8RFRef. No: 23/1781/TCA | Validated: Tue 15 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1: Holly – remove dead stems and re-shape remainder to encourage better form. 23 Victoria Place Budleigh Salterton Devon EX9 6JPRef. No: 23/1783/TCA | Validated: Tue 15 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T2: Beech; T3, T19: Oak; T4, T13, T30: Cherry; T5: False Acacia; T6: Silver Maple; T7, T9, T15: Hornbeam; T12, T16, T36: Sycamore; T17, T23: Norway Maple; T28, T35: Silver Birch; T33: Holly; T34: Red Horse Chestnut – crown lift to 5m over existing road. T10: Judas Tree – cut back minor branches overhanging road, back to road edge. Council Offices Knowle Sidmouth Devon EX10 8HLRef. No: 23/1782/TRE | Validated: Tue 15 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed 2No. holiday glamping pods. Higher Coxes Farm Weston EX10 0PGRef. No: 23/1769/FUL | Validated: Tue 15 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of existing tin flat roof, extending length of garage to incorporate garden office, pitch new roof over existing garage and new garden office. Greendale Cottage White Cross Road Woodbury Salterton EX5 1EWRef. No: 23/1768/FUL | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement garage/storage building Little Pacehayne Shute EX13 7QERef. No: 23/1767/FUL | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• G2A1 – Crown lift to 6.5m above ground level by removing 2 branches back to mother branch. G2O1 – Crown lift to 4m above ground level by removing 3 branches back to trunk. G2O2 – Crown lift to 4m above ground level by removing 1 branch back to mother branch. G2O5 – Crown lift to 5.5m above ground level by removing 1 branch back to trunk. G2O9 – Crown lift to 2.5m above ground level by removing 3 branches back. G1O2 – Crown lift to 3.5m above ground level by removing 1 branch back. G1O3 – Crown lift to 4.5m above ground level by removing 1 branch back to trunk and, 2 smaller branches back to mother branch. 123 St Johns Road Exmouth EX8 4EHRef. No: 23/1766/TRE | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a general purpose agricultural building Blackenfields Farm Luppitt Devon EX14 4UBRef. No: 23/1770/AGR | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Monterey Cypress: install a static wire rope brace rated to at least 5000kg 3 to 4m above top of union. Reduce lowest limb to the west by 2-3m making pruning cuts up to 75mm in diameter. The Seagulls 235B Exeter Road Exmouth Devon EX8 3EDRef. No: 23/1774/TRE | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, T2 & T3 (English Oak) – remove to ground level and treat the stumps to prevent regrowth. 72 Masey Road Exmouth EX8 4ARRef. No: 23/1772/TRE | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed single storey extension. 12 Prestor Axminster Devon EX13 5BRRef. No: 23/1758/FUL | Validated: Tue 15 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• External deck to allow additional seating to a busy takeaway to allow sit down waiter service. Units 6 And 7 Sideshore Queens Drive Exmouth Devon EX8 2GDRef. No: 23/1752/FUL | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed side and rear extension and internal alteration along with additional 1 floor through roof conversation. 7 Freelands Close Exmouth Devon EX8 4AERef. No: 23/1751/FUL | Validated: Thu 17 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of a new garden SEN room stand-alone building. Beacon C Of E Primary School Beacon Place Exmouth Devon EX8 2SRRef. No: 23/1738/FUL | Validated: Tue 15 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• The erection of a single storey rear kitchen extension, which would extend beyond the rear wall of the original house by 4.5m, for which the maximum height would be 2.8m , and for which the height of the eaves would also be 2.8m. Little Silver Clyst Hydon Devon EX15 2NFRef. No: 23/1735/GPD | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of barn and construction of new dwelling and access, following grant of Class Q Prior Approval (ref. 22/2797/PDQ). Oakfield Sanctuary Lane Woodbury Salterton Exeter EX5 1ETRef. No: 23/1687/FUL | Validated: Tue 15 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of 210 solar photovoltaic (PV) on the north-west and south-east roof Bright Farming The Grain Store Ridge Honiton EX14 9ENRef. No: 23/1683/PVJ | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Notification of a proposed change of use of an agricultural building to a dwelling. Agricultural Building At Houndbeare Court Oak Road Aylesbeare EX5 2DBRef. No: 23/1664/PDQ | Validated: Thu 17 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Re-slate roof; replace lead flashing and underlay; re-pointing of chimney stacks and replace guttering on rear elevation 16 Newtown Sidmouth Devon EX10 8QFRef. No: 23/1665/LBC | Validated: Fri 18 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace ceilings in bedroom 1 and 2 at first floor 2 Orchard Terrace Church Street Sidford Devon EX10 9RWRef. No: 23/1660/LBC | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Enlargement of existing business premises Axehayes Farm Units A1 A2 Yeo Business Park Clyst St Mary EX5 1DPRef. No: 23/1653/FUL | Validated: Wed 16 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of arched sash window on rear elevation De La Pole Court Fore Street Seaton EX12 2ADRef. No: 23/1624/LBC | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective permission to retain replacement shed Sid Abbey West Sid Road Sidmouth Devon EX10 9HNRef. No: 23/1615/FUL | Validated: Thu 17 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of 1 No Existing Dwelling (Little Orchard) and Replacement with 3 No Dwellings Little Orchard West Hill Road West Hill Devon EX11 1UZRef. No: 23/1581/OUT | Validated: Wed 16 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Re-plastering of walls on ground, first and second floor; remove chipboard flooring and replace with reclaimed floorboards on ground, first and second floor; replace bolts on Juliette balcony; replace interior doors at first floor; repointing of flint walls in kitchen; install limestone flag paving in kitchen and entrance hallway; line chimney; repointing of roof ridge; replace damaged roof slates; install new vent in south west elevation and replace fencing; replace workshop doors and strengthen attic rail 1 The Stables Shute EX13 7NYRef. No: 23/1507/LBC | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace 1no. door on front (south east) elevation 231 High Street Honiton EX14 1AHRef. No: 23/0126/LBC | Validated: Mon 14 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision