Oh dear, chickens coming home to roost as a result of failed property investments.

What was it that Simon Jupp said regarding failing local authorities and fitness to govern? – Owl

Michael Gove’s local council is warning that it faces effective bankruptcy within two years after racking up millions of pounds in debt for failed property investments overseen by its former Conservative administration.

Richard Partington www.theguardian.com 

Surrey Heath borough council is in the parliamentary constituency of Gove, who as levelling up secretary is the cabinet minister in charge of local government.

The tiny Surrey local authority – where the Liberal Democrats seized power in May after almost half a century of Conservative control – said its finances were under “severe pressure” as it struggles with debts worth £165m, while warning that high inflation and rising debt interest payments could leave it in “effective bankruptcy”.

“Clearly he [Gove] and his colleagues have been asleep at the wheel for a long time,” said Shaun Macdonald, the council’s new Lib Dem leader.

“You’ve ended up with this cosy Conservative club in places like Surrey, where the parish, borough, county, and national government representatives are the same people. You really have to question who’s overseeing these things.

“It feels as if people are going to the casino and putting it all on black.”

The comments come amid an escalating crisis for town halls across the country after years of budget cuts and local mismanagement, as growing numbers of English councils warn that huge debt piles are leading them to the brink of financial meltdown.

Birmingham city council, the largest local authority in Europe, became the latest to declare that it was in effect bankrupt last week, issuing a section 114 notice to signal that it does not have the resources to balance its budget.

Although Rishi Sunak has sought to capitalise on the meltdown at the Labour-run council as a sign that Keir Starmer’s party would “bankrupt Britain”, dozens of other local authorities from across the political divide are in financial distress.

Seven local authorities in Surrey, largely controlled by Tory or Lib Dem administrations, were included on a list of 20 councils with the highest levels of debt in England relative to their size this week by the rating agency Moody’s. It warned that more were likely to go bankrupt after a string of high-profile failures at Woking, Croydon, Thurrock and Slough.

Highlighting a financial crisis in Gove’s constituency, Macdonald said Surrey Heath’s debts would take decades to pay off, while rising borrowing costs, high inflation, and soaring demand for services had left its finances on an unsustainable trajectory.

In 2016, the then Tory council borrowed to invest £113m in a shopping centre complex and House of Fraser department store in the town of Camberley. However, the properties are now valued at £33m – a loss of £79m.

Macdonald said the previous Conservative administration had lumbered Surrey Heath with £60m in short-term debt that would cost millions of pounds to refinance, while suggesting the investment spree had been undertaken without adequate scrutiny.

He warned that without central government support, the council could be forced to make cuts to discretionary services – such as provision of swimming pools and grants to voluntary organisations – in a similar package of localised austerity to neighbouring Woking.

“It’s not just here, it’s other places. The deals have gone sour – and the taxpayer locally is left to foot the bill,” he said.

Gove was warned in writing about Surrey Heath’s financial woes earlier this year by its former Tory leadership. The council wrote to the secretary of state asking him to intervene to help it sack its auditors, after lengthy delays in the checking of its accounts.

The council’s last set of fully audited accounts was for the 2018-19 financial year. Lee Rowley, a minister in Gove’s department, replied on his behalf, saying the government could not intervene.

A Conservative source said: “Sadly, this is the Lib Dems playing politics. It looks like an attempt by the Lib Dems to justify huge council tax hikes on residents.”

Simon Jupp please note! – Owl

Devon County Council is expecting to overspend by more than £9m next year. BBC News www.bbc.co.uk

Senior councillors were told at a cabinet meeting the authority would also have a deficit of £36.6m in services to children with special educational needs.

There were angry exchanges at the cabinet meeting on Wednesday, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) said.

Adult social care and children’s services account for the majority of the overspend.

Conservative councillor Phillip Twiss outlined the figures and said the council was in a much better position than it had been this time last year when it was looking at a £35 million overspend.

He said savings could be made to create a £10 million “safety valve” to support the special educational needs deficit.

“This will signal to the Department for Education that we mean business and we will deal with it,” he said.

Liberal Democrat leader Julian Brazil said it was “incredibly frustrating” to hear that Devon’s problems were caused by Covid, inflation and the war in Ukraine when every council in the country was facing the same pressures.

He said: “If we continue along these lines of trying to pretend that everything is okay, we will go bankrupt.”

Independent councillor Frank Biederman added: “We are going to have to make savings, and it will be the most vulnerable people in our society that suffer.”

Rishi Sunak blocked plans to rebuild five hospitals riddled with crumbling concrete three years ago, prompting warnings of a “catastrophic” risk to patient safety, the Guardian has learned.

Pippa Crerar www.theguardian.com 

Just two of the seven hospital rebuilding projects requested by the Department for Health were signed off by the Treasury at the 2020 spending review when Sunak was chancellor and Steve Barclay, now the health secretary, was his chief secretary.

The other five were finally added to the new hospitals programme in May, when the government amended the list, but it has meant a three-year delay in starting to rebuild dangerous hospitals. In their most recent risk assessments, all five have been graded at “catastrophic” risk with warnings that an incident is “likely”.

The five hospitals are Frimley Park hospital, in Surrey; Airedale general hospital, Keighley, West Yorkshire; Hinchingbrooke hospital, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire; Leighton hospital, Cheshire; and the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk.

The revelations will revive the row over reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (Raac) which dominated the start of the new parliamentary session, with Sunak and his education secretary, Gillian Keegan, coming under fire for uncertainty and disruption over crumbling concrete in England’s schools.

NHS bosses have told hospitals across England to be ready to evacuate staff and patients if buildings containing concrete at risk of collapse start to fall down.

NHS England issued the instruction to all 224 health trusts on Tuesday in a letter from Dr Mike Prentice, the organisation’s national director for emergency planning and incident response, and Jacqui Rock, its chief commercial officer, telling trust officers that they should familiarise themselves with a “regional evacuation plan” drawn up by the NHS in the east of England so that hospitals can implement it in the event that buildings that contain Raac start to crumble.

The 2023-4 risk register of Frimley Park hospital, which serves Michael Gove’s constituency, reported widespread crumbling across its buildings. It warned: “There is a risk of injury or death to patients, visitors, and staff due either to delamination of a roof plank whereby a part of it falls, or a sheer collapse with no warning due to limited bearing on the concrete support beam.”

Across the five hospitals there were more than 100 incidents, according to NHS figures, where estate or infrastructure failures resulted in clinical services being delayed or cancelled in the year after the Treasury’s decision not to include them in the new hospital building programme.

Between them, they had a “high risk” infrastructure backlog – where repairs must be urgently prioritised to prevent major disruption – totalling £117m, but less than a third of that amount was spent. There were 21 patient safety incidents related to critical infrastructure risk in 2021-22 at the five hospitals.

An NAO report in July, Progress with the New Hospital Programme, suggested the risk of Raac to the five hospital buildings was known at the time of the Department for Health’s bid to the Treasury. However, the government decided against including all seven hospitals because “further assessment” was required.

Yet after a school roof collapse led to a national alert in 2019 about the risk of sudden failure, NHS England asked trusts to survey their estates for Raac. Forty-one buildings at 23 trusts contained the material, including the seven hospitals with Raac present throughout, which were at particular risk.

At a Westminster policy forum on Tuesday, Tim Phillips, director of Health Value for Money at the National Audit Office, said: “The NHS knew back in October 2020 that it had a lot of Raac across its estate, including seven hospitals that are to all intents and purposes constructed entirely of Raac.

“Back in 2020 the Department of Health actually proposed to the Treasury that NHP should be used to replace all seven Raac hospitals at that point, so in effect that all seven hospitals should be part of 40 new hospitals as early as 2020.

“But at that time, government decided that only two of the seven would be put in the programme. What we’ve seen since is that government has had to row back on that decision.”

Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, said: “Rishi Sunak and Steve Barclay are the guilty men of the crisis in our NHS. They literally failed to fix the roof when the sun was shining, putting patients and staff at risk and leaving taxpayers to pick up the bill.

“There is no image that better sums up what the Conservatives have done to our public services than the sight of crumbling hospitals and schools.”

A source close to Barclay suggested that as chief secretary to the Treasury he was responsible for setting the overall spending envelope, and that it was for the department to prioritise schemes.

A government spokesperson said: “These claims are untrue. The funding was not rejected by the Treasury, or the chancellor and chief secretary at the time, and there was an agreement to link these decisions into the wider new hospitals programme.”

They added that the full extent of Raac issues were not known until 2022 following an independent report by engineering consultants Mott MacDonald.

The government has lost its bid to relax rules around the pollution of waterways after a rebellion in the Lords.

Simon Jupp: “I would never vote to pollute our water” – watch this space if the government tries to introduce a new bill in the commons. – Owl

Jennifer Scott news.sky.com

Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove unveiled the plan last month, saying scrapping so-called “nutrient neutrality” measures would free up developers and lead to thousands more homes being built in England.

But the Tory amendment introduced in the Lords – which would have seen the policy tagged on to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill – was rejected by peers over the risk it would pose to the environment.

Nutrient neutrality rules were first introduced across the EU back in 2017, designed to stop developers from polluting local wetlands and waterways in protected areas when building homes.

In practice, it meant companies had to show how they would prevent or offset that pollution in order to win planning permission.

Developers claimed new homes only made a “negligible contribution to the river pollution”, so scrapping the measure would help ramp up projects – something Mr Gove and the government agreed with.

But opposition parties and environmental campaigners said it would lead to even more issues in the country’s waterways.

Putting the plan to peers, communities minister Baroness Scott said the powers were “necessary and proportionate”.

She said the current rules had “effectively stalled or blocked completely housing development in affected areas” and were “burdensome and expensive”.

But Labour’s Baroness Jones said scrapping the measure would set a “dangerous precedent”.

And Tory former environment minister Lord Deben – who chaired the Climate Change Committee until recently – said it was “one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen and I’ve been around a long time”.

After the vote rejecting the policy, shadow levelling up secretary Angela Rayner called the defeat “humiliating” for the government, and said the “flawed plan” was just an attempt to “score cheap political points”.

She added: “We stand ready to sit down with the government, housebuilders and environmental groups to agree on a workable solution to build the homes we need.

“If they refuse this opportunity, ministers have only themselves to blame.”

The Liberal Democrats’ Lords spokesperson, Baroness Pinnock, called the vote “a great victory”, adding: “The Conservatives have continually promised not to roll back our environment rules, it is deeply shocking that they can’t be trusted to keep their word.”

But posting on X – previously known as Twitter – the Conservative Party said: “Starmer and Labour just voted to block 100,000 homes.

“Why? Short-term politics over the needs of British families.”

The current government has pledged to build 300,000 new homes every year by the mid-2020s.

Parliamentary figures show housing supply has increased year-on-year from a low point of 125,000 in 2012/13, reaching a high point of 243,000 new homes in 2019/20 – but they have not yet reached the target.

Louise Laybury commented on Simon Jupp’s Twitter post moaning about car parking charges asking him whether Lib Dem’s blaming Conservatives for the lack of investment within council owned spaces and therefore the need to put up [parking] prices was fact or fiction?

He didn’t answer the question directly but said that it was an incoherent argument that he was used to from “our” poorly run council. He then added: “Increased parking charges should be invested back into car parks as per government advice. If they aren’t, I’ll look into their spending a little deeper…”

Unfortunately this statement has failed Owl’s fact checking team.

It is factually incorrect, false in other words.

Somewhat surprising since Simon Jupp is a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Transport!

Louise, the answer to your question is FACT, (and the government trousers 20% of the parking fees to boot). – Owl

Report from Owl’s fact checking team

In East Devon most of the carparks are run by  EDDC (East Devon District Council), and on street parking by DCC (Devon County Council).

DCC is responsible for “on-street parking”  and is restricted by Government legislation  to ensure  any surplus after expenditure from fees is required to be spent on enforcing parking, contributing to off-street parking provision and, if the provision of further off-street parking is unnecessary or undesirable funds can be spent on public transport or highway improvements only.

*20% VAT is not applicable to on street parking and therefore “0 rated”.

EDDC is responsible for “off-street parking” in their carparks under Government legislation  any surplus after expenditure can be used for “environmental improvement” which can  include.

(a) The reduction of environmental pollution (as defined in the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999)

(b) Improving or maintaining the appearance or amenity of a road or land in the vicinity of a road, or open land or water to which the general public has open access.

(c) The provision of outdoor recreational facilities available to the general public without charge.

Therefore, in the case of EDDC this could include waste collections, street cleaning,
public conveniences, recreational open space, expenditure on the countryside or commons.

*20% VAT is required to be charged for off street parking therefore 20p in the £ goes directly to Government.

Consultation for off street parking requirements

If parking charges are to be introduced  at new locations that were previously free, then under the RTRA Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 an Authority is required to  carry out a full “public consultation”.

If prices are to be changed, it is perfectly legal for a council to make a “parking order” and to simply provide a “public notice“ at each carpark and council office and website to inform the public of an intended price change.

Conservative government funding reduction

Since 2010 this Council along with all other authorities have seen significant cuts in general Government funding to support core service delivery, a reduction in funding of 50p in the pound since that point.

Summary of the facts

• East Devon is the only District Council in Devon not to borrow from reserves or cut services for this current year and we continually provide a balanced budget.
• There is not a government requirement that carpark charges are invested back into carparks.
• Government funding has halved in real terms since 2010.
• The Government benefit from carpark charges at 20p in the pound.

BBC News www.bbc.co.uk

The House of Lords has blocked the UK government’s plan to relax restrictions on water pollution to encourage housebuilding in England.

Labour led a rebellion in the Lords to defeat the government in a vote on removing the EU-era “nutrient neutrality” rules.

Ministers believe up to 100,000 new homes could be built by 2030 if water pollution regulations are loosened.

But environmental groups said the move would mean more polluted waters.

The government announced plans to scrap these rules through an amendment, or change, to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, currently going through the House of Lords.

Because of the late stage at which the government tried to introduce the change, it cannot try again in the House of Commons now it has been defeated.

Ministers would need to bring the proposal forward in a new bill.

The defeat is a victory for Labour, whose deputy leader Angela Rayner led opposition to the plan in her new role as shadow levelling up secretary.

Ms Rayner, who is also Labour’s deputy leader and shadow deputy prime minister, said the defeat showed “the Tories have utterly failed in their attempt to score cheap political points with a flawed plan”.

She added: “We stand ready to sit down with the government, housebuilders and environmental groups to agree on a workable solution to build the homes we need.”

The attempt to ease the rules, by amending the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill, was defeated by 203 votes to 156, a majority of 47.

Liberal Democrat Lords spokesperson for communities and local government, Baroness Pinnock, hailed the result as a “great victory”.

“The Conservatives have continually promised not to roll back our environment rules, it is deeply shocking that they can’t be trusted to keep their word,” Baroness Pinnock said.

Green Party peer Baroness Jenny Jones said the government should consult the public before they consider bringing back the plan to scrap pollution rules in a separate bill.

“They can then consult properly and justify it to a public who are already fed up with polluted local rivers and beaches,” Baroness Jones said.

Natural England rules currently mean 62 local authorities cannot allow new developments unless builders can prove their projects are “nutrient neutral” in protected areas.

The government said by removing the restrictions, housing developers will deliver an extra £18bn in economic activity.

But environmental groups and opposition parties opposed the plans, with Labour arguing the change would increase river pollution.

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Labour under Sir Keir Starmer could not be trusted to build more homes.

He said Labour’s opposition to the government’s plans was “typical of the principles-free, conviction-free type of leadership that he offers”.

Sir Keir’s spokesman rejected the charge, saying the government’s plans were “rushed and flawed”.

“We do have serious concerns about the way in which the changes the Tories are proposing will harm our waterways and ecosystems,” he said.

Angela Rayner, Steve Reed www.thetimes.co.uk 

After 13 years of Conservative government, England is facing a housing crisis. And things are set to get even worse thanks to Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove’s reckless decision to scrap mandatory housing targets and send housebuilding into freefall.

It is not in dispute that nutrient neutrality rules are making it challenging to secure consent for new housing development. The status quo is clearly not an option.

Yet the Conservatives are being thoroughly disingenuous in suggesting that the only way we can build the homes we need in river catchment areas is by weakening environmental law. No one should fall for it.

This is just the latest in the long list of Conservative failures on the environment. Their record speaks for itself.

They recklessly slashed enforcement and monitoring of the water companies that now routinely pump toxic raw sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas. The country is suffering from the highest levels of illegal discharges on record and the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) says the government itself may have broken the law in allowing this.

We must build the homes people need while also protecting the environment we live in. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The government’s proposed solution to this challenge is deeply problematic. It would allow councils to ignore environmental regulations and authorise new housing development without mitigation for environmental harm on the basis that the nutrient pollution problem will be solved by other means.

Their approach would not only significantly weaken environmental law and increase river pollution but would fatally undermine the emerging market in nutrient pollution reduction that developers are already making use of.

We know there are far better ways to build the new homes we desperately need than green lighting water pollution. To give just one example, the government could direct local authorities to approve planning applications held up by nutrient neutrality rules, subject to so-called Grampian conditions.

This would allow developers to start building homes that are stuck in the planning pipeline but would require them to put in place measures to counteract any environmental harm before those homes are occupied. Such an approach would allow time for Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme or other off-site mitigation schemes to bed in, while also providing certainty to the housebuilding industry that the wait would not be indefinite.

We fully appreciate the concern among housebuilders about the need for an adequate supply of mitigation credits to make it work. It is indeed a failure on the part of the government that more has not been done to identify and bring forward sufficient suitable sites to enable the credit market to flourish.

To ensure that enough mitigation schemes are available, the government would need to provide Natural England and local authorities with support to identify suitable sites and bring more credits to market. But any solution to the impact of housebuilding on nutrient neutrality in sensitive catchment areas is going to require the government to quickly get serious about strategically planning for mitigation.

The alternative is to place the entire burden of alleviating the impact of housebuilding on nutrient pollution levels on tackling the primary causes of nutrient pollution at source. But we know from the government’s failure over many years to tackle the impact of pollution from agriculture and water companies’ wastewater treatment works that we cannot rely on their promises to do so now.

To guard against the risk of developers being unable to find a mitigation despite their best endeavours to find one, Grampian conditions could be designed to lapse after a specific period of time.

Instead of taking time to explore and consult widely on workable solutions like this, the Conservatives’ approach is to weaken environmental law, ignoring the stark warnings of the OEP in the process. It is reckless and irresponsible.

This government has made the housing crisis worse by torpedoing housing supply. Now it is trying to cover up this failure by conjuring up a false narrative that pitches housebuilding against protecting our natural environment.

Like always this is the Tory solution, a quick sticking plaster here, no sense of what the impact is on the future. We do not accept this, and nor do we believe people want to see further harm caused to precious waterways the Conservatives have already flooded with raw, untreated sewage.

We have set out a credible alternative and will table our own amendment when this is put to a vote in the House of Lords later today. If they refuse this opportunity, we will vote against the government’s plans.

Labour knows we can build the homes we need without further damaging nature and the environment.

Here is another thing our PPS to the Secretary of State for Transport could be earwigging his boss about. – Owl

Pothole repairs on local roads in England sink to lowest level in five years

The mileage of local roads in England being resurfaced or treated to avoid potholes has fallen to its lowest level in five years, research has shown.

Gwyn Topham www.theguardian.com 

There has been a decline of almost one-third in the total amount of life-extending road maintenance by local councils, according to analysis of government data by the RAC motoring organisation.

Only 1,123 miles of roads were surfaced in 2021-22, compared with 1,588 miles in 2017-18, while only 3,551 miles, down from 5,345 miles four years earlier, were maintained with surface dressing – the more cost-effective preventative method, according to the road repair industry.

The RAC said the figures helped explain the decline in England’s roads – widely described as “pothole-plagued” this year with an estimated repair backlog of £12bn – and called on the government to do more to help councils maintain roads, including ringfencing funding.

It found that of 153 roads authorities surveyed, 31% did no resurfacing, while 51% failed to carry out any surface dressing.

Simon Williams, the head of policy at the RAC, said: “These figures paint an incredibly stark picture of road maintenance in England and confirm our worst fears about the overall decline in the state of the country’s roads.

“While the government has made more money available to authorities to fill potholes, it’s the general reduction in road improvement work that’s causing potholes to appear in the first place.

“It’s abundantly clear that councils in so many areas are barely scratching the surface when it comes to getting their roads up to a reasonable standard.”

He said local authorities should take a more preventative approach to make budgets go further, and called on the government to increase roads funding.

The Local Government Association (LGA) said the huge backlog was caused by years of funding cuts, followed by recent inflation in the cost of repairs.

Shaun Davies, chair of the LGA, said: “Decades of reductions in funding from central government to local road repair budgets has left councils facing the biggest ever local roads repair backlog. This has been compounded by recent extreme weather as well as rising inflation, pushing up the cost of materials such as bitumen.”

He said that the government should help motorists by working with councils “to develop a long-term, fully funded programme to bring our roads up to scratch”.

MPs also called on ministers to ringfence road funding and give long-term settlements to councils, in a report issued by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Better Roads.

The MPs said that road conditions had worsened since a dedicated pothole fund ended in 2021. Only 50% of England’s local roads are now classified as good, the lowest level since 2016, according to asphalt industry data cited in the report.

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “It’s for local authorities to maintain their highways, and to help them do that we’re investing more than £5bn from 2020 to 2025, with an extra £200m announced at the budget in March, to resurface roads up and down the country.

“We’ve also brought in new rules to clamp down on utility companies leaving potholes behind after carrying out street works.”

Ministers and regulators may have broken the law by allowing water companies to dump sewage into rivers and seas, according the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), a new statutory watchdog.

John Rentoul www.independent.co.uk 

It found the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Environment Agency (EA) and Ofwat may have misinterpreted the law and allowed water companies to pollute waterways when they shouldn’t.

Combined sewer overflows are only meant to be used in exceptional circumstances, such as after unusually heavy rain to prevent sewers backing up and flooding homes and businesses.

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey described the OEP’s findings as “environmental vandalism on an industrial scale” while “ministers and regulators are sitting on their hands”.

Therese Coffey, the environment, food and rural affairs secretary, has two months to respond to the findings and to set out what she intends to do about them. Her department’s initial reaction has been to concede that the volume of sewage discharged is “completely unacceptable” but to insist it has not broken the law. It argues that the OEP has got the law wrong. The OEP, meanwhile, says it has “reasonable grounds for suspecting” that the government has misinterpreted the legislation.

What is the Office for Environmental Protection?

The OEP is a kind of super-regulator, set up by the Environment Act two years ago, to supervise various public bodies responsible for protecting the environment. These include not just Defra but industry regulator Ofwat and the public body charged with regulating land and water pollution, the Environment Agency.

Helen Venn, its chief regulatory officer, said: “As a result of our investigations so far, we think there may have been misinterpretations of some key points of law. The core of the issue is that where we interpret the law to mean that untreated sewage discharges should generally be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, such as during unusually heavy rainfall, it appears that the public authorities may have interpreted the law differently, permitting such discharges to occur more often.”

Who might have broken the law?

The OEP has in effect put all three organisations in the dock, saying that they have all failed to force the water companies to prevent sewage discharges, which they are required to do by law.

So what will happen next?

The net effect of all this legal and regulatory action is hard to discern. All the organisations concerned strenuously declare that the failure of the water companies to reduce sewage discharges is unacceptable, and they all admit that it is difficult and expensive to do anything about it.

Ms Venn of the OEP says: “Improving the quality of water in our rivers and seas is a complex challenge. There are no quick fixes.”

Indeed, she goes further: “We recognise that a great deal is already being done to tackle the issue of untreated sewage discharges, and we welcome the intent of government measures such as the Plan for Water and storm overflow targets, as well as commitments to increase investment.”

In other words, all the regulators and the water companies are trying to sound as if they are doing everything they can to tackle the problem, but they know that they are lagging well behind public opinion.

“We don’t believe a spy would have been able to find any intelligence whatsoever in this administration”

Residents raise £20k for legal help

Devon villagers go into a fierce ‘grass not glass’ battle on Tuesday, with a barrister and a high-profile pressure group preparing to fight their corner.

Guy Henderson, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

The county’s branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) are backing residents of Marsh Green near Aylesbeare as they take on a company that wants to build a 60,000-panel solar farm across 27 fields.

Planning officers recommended the scheme should go ahead when it came before East Devon District Council (EDDC) last December, but councillors voted narrowly to reject the scheme.

The site was waterlogged when councillors went to visit, which supported the protesters’ argument that the land is not suitable for a solar farm.

Councillors are also concerned about visual impact, land classification and the impact on a designated heritage asset.

An inquiry will be held at the district council’s offices in Honiton, with protesters’ legal costs being paid for after a £20,000 crowdfunding campaign.

Cllr Todd Olive (Lib Dem, Whimple and Rockbeare), who is an expert witness on planning, is supporting residents. He said: “We’ll be fighting hard to make sure the democratic voice of residents is properly heard – and respected.

“It is an uphill battle for us. EDDC has dropped a couple of the reasons for last year’s refusal that the planning committee no longer felt were defensible, which is unfortunate.

“Impact on the landscape and heritage are the two main prongs of attack EDDC is pursuing. We are contributing quite substantial evidence on the landscape front and are continuing to pursue issues relating to flooding and concerns about bringing HGVs down tiny Devon lanes.

“The other point of contention that we are defending is the issue of agricultural land.”

The CPRE has a nationwide ‘grass not glass’ campaign which opposes what it claims are ‘industrial-scale’ solar farms like the one proposed near Aylesbeare.

Devon CPRE director Penny Mills said: “The Marsh Green application was turned down for the right reasons last year, and we hope the inspector will respect the wishes of the local community this time around too.

“Residents have clearly said ‘No, we don’t want this’. Will their voices be heard by the inspector or will the wishes of yet another small rural community be ignored? It’s a matter of democracy.” 

Solar farm developments have recently been permitted elsewhere in the east of the county, at Whimple and Clyst Hydon. Another is pending at Aylesbeare.

The government ignored its nature watchdog’s advice in weakening rules on pollution from housebuilders in England, the Guardian can reveal.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

Michael Gove, the housing secretary, and Thérèse Coffey, the environment secretary, recently announced they would be ending what they termed “defective” EU laws, which require developers to offset any extra nutrient pollution they cause in sensitive areas, under the habitats directive. These areas include the Lake District and Norfolk Broads.

Ministers are aiming to remove the legal requirement via an amendment in the House of Lords, which requires local authorities to ignore potential pollution risks when approving developments. It will be debated on Wednesday.

Gove and Coffey’s amendment proposes that instead of forcing housebuilders to invest in local wetland sites to soak up any extra sewage pollution and mitigate damage, this legal requirement would be scrapped and taxpayer money would instead be used to double the funds for a scheme by Natural England to reduce nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates in waterways. These nutrients choke the life out of rivers and cause damaging algal blooms.

Despite the increase in funding to Natural England, no officials from the quango came forward to endorse the announcement at the time. Now correspondence from the nature watchdog to Lady Barbara Young of Old Scone, a Scottish Labour member of the house, shows the watchdog said the rule changes were not necessary and that the current scheme was working to deliver homes and reduce nutrients.

The advice from Natural England recommends making developers pay for the pollution: “Our experience in similar schemes suggests that upfront, fixed-rate contributions from developers could be faster and offer more certainty in enabling planning permissions to be granted and support emerging green finance markets.”

It also said the European Union habitats regulations, which were carried over into UK law after Brexit, and which this amendment would undermine, had worked in delivering homes and reducing pollution. “There are a number of well-established schemes that implement the [habitats regulations] with regard to housing, where a case by case approach has been replaced by a more strategic scheme – familiar cases include the Thames Basin Heaths scheme, mitigating housing pressure operating across 13 local planning authorities, and the national district level licensing scheme which has replaced the need for individual newt licence solutions for great crested newts.”

Natural England pointed out that its nutrient mitigation scheme had thus far offered credits to developers to enable more than 3,500 homes and two temporary prisons, with a pipeline of schemes for a further 4,500 homes in place for this financial year. It said that in total all providers across England had created sufficient mitigation for approximately 16,000 homes, with a well-advanced pipeline to enable an additional 35,000 new homes.

Although the government said current rules choked small and medium housebuilders, Natural England said the scheme “has deliberately prioritised [small and medium-sized] housebuilders, so for example in the Tees catchment we were able to meet demand for credits for all small developments (50 homes or less)”.

Despite this advice, the government went ahead with plans for the amendment. Wildlife groups have accused ministers of ignoring Natural England. Craig Bennett, the chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, said: “The government brought forward outrageous plans to weaken environmental law in the final stages of the levelling up bill, without any public consultation. Now it is plain that they have ignored their own advisers as well. The result is poorly conceived plans that will not work, but will leave lasting damage to rivers and to UK environmental protection.”

Dr Richard Benwell, the chief executive of the environmental coalition Wildlife and Countryside Link, added: “Natural England’s advice reveals that this regression – which would expose protected river habitats to more pollution, while letting polluters off the hook – is totally unwarranted. Environmental charities are united in opposition to these plans, and we hope all parliamentarians who care about rivers and nature will resist them.”

Peers are trying to squash the bill. The Duke of Wellington, a crossbench peer, has laid an amendment that would nullify the government’s one, and he has support from other Tories. Lady Jenny Jones of the Green party is hoping to force a vote against Gove and Coffey’s amendment which would delete it from the bill. The Office for Environmental Protection has also written to the secretaries of state, calling the move a “regression” in environmental standards.

Young added: “The government’s proposal would force local authorities to ignore pollution, even when it is plain to see. In the process, it would take a wrecking ball to the habitats regulations, the UK’s most important nature laws. The advice I have received from Natural England shows that both are unnecessary and that effective other measures are available to release much needed houses and protect their environment. I plan to oppose these provisions when they come to parliament tomorrow.”

A government spokesperson acknowledged Natural England had suggested alternatives to ripping up the EU-derived law and said: “We believe the approach we are taking will best deliver our objectives of unlocking much needed homes, continuing to offset the small amount of additional nutrient pollution caused by new housing, and shifting our focus from mitigation to site restoration. Over 100,000 homes are held up due to retained EU laws and will be unblocked between now and 2030, delivering an estimated £18bn boost to the economy while protecting the environment.”

Richard Foord, Tiverton & Honiton MP 

The summer months are a time getting out to enjoy our beautiful countryside with family and loved ones. But as your Member of Parliament, the summer is also a useful time for me to take time far from Westminster, beyond Uffculme where I live – to spend time in the towns and villages in our corner of Devon.

That’s why, in addition to the various meetings and local community events I attended, I also launched my first ever summer tour. This saw me visit 36 different places across five weeks to host a series of open town and village hall meetings. I also took a break in the tour to visit the Honiton Police Station front desk that will open next year, thanks to your submissions to a Devon and Cornwall Police online poll.

Many people took up the opportunity to let me know frankly and directly about local, national and international concerns – what they and you would like to see me arguing for in Westminster. I am hugely grateful to the hundreds of people who turned out and for the many positive discussions we had.

Several issues came up time and again – the pressure on our health services and local schools; the difficulties accessing special educational needs provision; and the outrage that we rightly share about the scandal of the way we taxpayers and billpayers have been ripped off by water companies.

The meetings also offered a forum to discuss very specific local issues, such as the need for more social housing, the scale of potholes, and poor-quality broadband provision.

There are so many issues which need addressing. This has been caused in part by this Conservative Government repeatedly squeezing local authority finances – which has left many Councils struggling to deliver our core services. There also seems to have been a lack of focus on fixing the small things, which can grow and spread if not kept in check.

The job of a good MP is not simply to proffer our own opinions. It is to listen and act on what we hear. This autumn, if you tune into Parliament on your TV, I hope that you will see and hear me raising some of the concerns that you let me know about this summer.

Letter in today’s Times

Sir, Tomorrow the House of Lords will vote on government proposals to overturn nutrient neutrality laws, the last legal line of defence for precious river habitats. Nutrient neutrality rules are part of the habitats regulations, the UK’s strongest nature protections. Scrapping them would be the worst unwinding of environmental law for decades.

The rules stop pollution from new developments near sensitive rivers. The weak, non-statutory measures proposed in exchange will fall short and more habitats will be harmed.

The existing rules do not stop housebuilding, they require housebuilders to mitigate impacts. Where there is a short-term shortage of mitigation credits, the government could speed up development without weakening environmental law. Unfortunately, the government did not consult before bringing forward proposals in the dying days of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill.

We urge peers to vote against these damaging proposals, which are contrary to government promises to restore rivers and stop the decline of nature by 2030.

Hilary McGrady, director-general, National Trust; 

Mark Lloyd, CEO, Rivers Trust; 

Darren Moorcroft, CEO, Woodland Trust; 

Craig Bennett, CEO, Wildlife Trusts; 

Katie-Jo Luxton, executive director, global conservation, RSPB; 

Toni Pearce, director of advocacy, WWF-UK; 

Jamie Cook, CEO, Angling Trust; 

Richard Benwell, CEO, Wildlife & Countryside Link

(Apologies these are a little later than usual) – Owl

• Proposed single storey rear extension (previously submitted under application 20/0233/FUL) Clapp Mill Farm Broadclyst Devon EX5 3DNRef. No: 23/1882/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construct a new overhead line to facilitate a new development Kerswell Barton BroadclystRef. No: 23/1919/OHL | Validated: Thu 31 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective Rear Kitchen Window and 2 front elevation Roof Lights. Top Flat 32 Danby Terrace Exmouth EX8 1QSRef. No: 23/1871/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for an outbuilding to be used for a swimming pool.Honeywood Seaton Down Close Seaton Devon EX12 2JBRef. No: 23/1868/CPL | Validated: Wed 30 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• G2 : Fell 6 Lawson Cypress and the removal of one co-dominant stem from a Lawson Cypress from northern side of group. G4 : Fell 9 Lawson Cypress and 1 Western Red Cedar from eastern end of group. West Hayes West Hill Road West Hill Devon EX11 1UZRef. No: 23/1865/TRE | Validated: Tue 29 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed external spiral staircase with new door at first floor level, on side/west elevation 3 Barton Rise Feniton EX14 3HWRef. No: 23/1854/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Oak tree : removal of branch, that overhangs driveway, back to the trunk; remove small epicormic growth around trunk; carry out crown reduction by up to 20% – removing branch end lengths up to 3m, with cut diameter not exceeding 80mm. Terra Nova Higher Brook Meadow Sidford EX10 9SSRef. No: 23/1855/TRE | Validated: Tue 29 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey rear extension. 5 Eymore Drive West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1UNRef. No: 23/1862/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of roof over existing manure store Raddishayes Farm Combe Raleigh EX14 4ULRef. No: 23/1867/FUL | Validated: Fri 01 Sep 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing GRP hut and construction of new timber framed building with timber cladding and a pitched slate roof. Telecommunications Mast Fenny BridgesRef. No: 23/1860/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing single storey lean to kitchen, to be replaced with a slightly larger single storey lean to kitchen. Flat 3 134 Exeter Road Exmouth Devon EX8 1QGRef. No: 23/1861/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of roof over existing manure store Raddishayes Farm Combe Raleigh EX14 4ULRef. No: 23/1866/FUL | Validated: Fri 01 Sep 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1: Lime – pollarded to a height of approximately 8m (half the existing height). 24 Ryalls Court Seaton EX12 2HJRef. No: 23/1845/TRE | Validated: Wed 30 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a general purpose agricultural building. Northcote Hill Farm Northcote Hill Honiton Devon EX14 9UURef. No: 23/1839/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Reconstruction of 3no. cottages after devastating fire, to include new first floor extension on Thatch End Burnthouse Cottages Strete Ralegh Whimple EX5 2PPRef. No: 23/1834/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Non-illuminated board sign positioned at the driveway entrance to Poltimore House. Poltimore House Poltimore EX4 0AURef. No: 23/1832/ADV | Validated: Thu 31 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation and operation of PV Solar Panels measuring 98.44kWp Woodbury Park Hotel And Golf Club Woodbury Castle Woodbury Devon EX5 1JJRef. No: 23/1756/PVJ | Validated: Tue 29 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Front porch extension and two rear single storey extensions 4 Pikes Cottages Church Road Colaton Raleigh Devon EX10 0LLRef. No: 23/1762/FUL | Validated: Thu 31 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed refurbishment, improvements and extension to the rear of existing golf club house. Honiton Golf Club Honiton EX14 9TRRef. No: 23/1745/FUL | Validated: Fri 01 Sep 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Yew tree : pruning back from thatch by 2m or as per the annotated photo. The Old Manor Old Manor Gardens Colyford Colyton EX24 6TZRef. No: 23/1724/TCA | Validated: Thu 31 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Remove existing fascia signage, marketing signage, remove existing ATM and infilled with glazing to match existing windows and night safe plate to removed and replace window to match existing 11 Rolle Street Exmouth EX8 1HHRef. No: 23/1614/FUL | Validated: Fri 01 Sep 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision
• New external illuminated heritage fascia sign and projecting sign positioned to the side of fascia on the facade, 2no. free-standing illuminated poster signs and 2no. non illuminated poster signs in the windows; main entrance displaying A4 sign with opening hours and CCTV sign. Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc Trinity Square Axminster EX13 5ALRef. No: 23/1361/ADV | Validated: Thu 31 Aug 2023 | Status: Awaiting decision

The British housebuilder Vistry is to shift its focus solely to social housing as soaring mortgage costs hurt sales completions across its wider business.

So it can be done! – Owl

Mark Sweney www.theguardian.com 

The strategic shift was welcomed by investors, which sent shares in the company – which acquired the affordable housing specialist Countryside Partnerships last year – soaring by almost 14%, making Vistry the biggest riser on the FTSE.

Vistry said streamlining its operations would result in some job cuts, while promising investors a £1bn windfall over the next three years as a result of the strategic shift.

It said the UK was facing a “chronic shortage” of affordable houses.

“The scale of the social need for affordable mixed-tenure housing across the country continues to increase,” said the Vistry chief executive, Greg Fitzgerald. “Delivering on the acute social need for housing across the country and increasing the availability of affordable, sustainable homes is at the core of the group’s social purpose and vision.”

The housebuilder reported an 8% fall in pretax profits to £174m in the first half of the year, despite a 32% increase in completions.

Vistry said it continued to see “good demand” for affordable housing from bodies including local authorities. By contrast, private sales had slowed further since June, the company said, as mortgage costs continued to soar for prospective homebuyers.

“The step-up in mortgage costs and increased macroeconomic led to a drop-off in completions to the open market,” the company said. “In particular, we saw a significant decline in completions to first-time buyers whose ability to purchase have been most affected by the rate increases.”

As mortgage approvals and house prices continue to fall at the fastest rate since 2009, the company said it intended to merge its affordable and private housebuilding operations by the end of this year, to focus on its “high-return, capital-light, resilient” affordable housing model.

Vistry indicated that the merger of its businesses would result in job cuts, with plans to launch an employee consultation to reduce the total number of regional business units it operates from 32 to 27.

The company laid off 4% of its more than 3,000 staff when it completed its £1.27bn acquisition of Countryside Partnerships last year.

Vistry reiterated its full-year guidance of achieving £450m in profits this year.

Cllr. Mike Goodman submitted a request to review car parking charges at last week’s EDDC Scrutiny Meeting (which he chairs).

He claimed that they had doubled in 2022 making them the most expensive in the South West.

On cue, Simon Jupp launched forth on twitter about the impact of parking charges imposed by the “LibDem – run EDDC” (see below).

The claims made by Mike Goodman are misleading (see. Cllr Joe Whibley’s reply below.)

Conservative controlled Dorset unitary Council has particularly high charges, £3/hour, higher than East Devon!

Here is what Member of Parliament, Simon Jupp should be doing.

It is a little known fact that on-street parking (controlled by teetering on the brink of bankruptcy Devon County) is VAT free, whilst off-street parking (“Balanced Budget” EDDC’s only option) is subject to VAT.

Simon Jupp, PPS to the Secretary of State for Transport no less, would do us all a favour if, instead of moaning, he lobbied his boss for VAT on off-street parking to be removed. – Owl

Can you spot the (very) small print declaring who is actually publishing the fake “local paper”, The East Devon Echo?

Let Owl enlarge it for you:

Could this be Cllr. Mike Goodman, chair of EDDC Scrutiny Committee?

He discloses that he is a member of the Conservative Party but Owl can find no mention that he has ever disclosed that he publishes a local newspaper on behalf of former journalist Simon Jupp.

As chair of the Scrutiny Committee is this consistent with the Nolan Principles of: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and leadership?

Another own goal for the Tories! – Owl

The independent press regulator has written to the UK’s political parties – including Conservative Party chair Greg Hands MP – to oppose the use of party leaflets dressed up to look like newspapers. 

As Owl reports elsewhere, the publisher of the new “fake” local newspaper hereabouts, the “East Devon Echo”, is none other than the Tory chair of EDDC’s Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Mike Goodman.

Does this demonstrate the maturity and wisdom one might expect from someone in such an important role? – Owl

Josiah Mortimer bylinetimes.com 

Lexie Kirkconnell-Kawana, CEO of industry watchdog Impress, has written to representatives of each major political party to implore them to review this practice amid the “crisis of trust” that journalists and politicians face – and the negative impact it could have on democracy.

A spokesperson for the press standards body, which largely represents smaller and independent news organisations, said: “With an election just around the corner, this is a practice that should be addressed as soon as possible.”

Byline Times has seen dozens of examples of fake newspapers issued from Conservative Party HQ and distributed across the country in recent weeks – with many failing to identify which party is sharing the material on the so-called ‘imprint’ at the bottom of the publications. 

Don’t miss a story

The vast majority of voters believe fake newspapers being promoted by political parties – sometimes without making clear who they’re from – should be banned. 

Recent polling for this newspaper by independent pollsters Omnisis found that 62% of people in Britain think that the fake newspaper tactic should be banned if they do not make clear which party is behind it. 

The figure rises to 65% among Conservative voters, the same as for Labour voters. Liberal Democrats, who also have been known to use fake newspapers for election material, are less in favour of a ban (55%). 

The figure rises significantly among over 75s, some of whom may be more vulnerable to misleading campaign materials: 75% back a ban on the practice. And opposition sits at 71% among those with no formal qualifications.

Readers have responded with anger to the leaflets over the past few months. One wrote: “Many people will be fooled by this, especially older people who I would imagine tend to read the local papers more are also less likely to notice the microscopic small print in hard to find places.” Another branded it “Tory marketing deliberately disguised as independent news”, while one recipient dubbed it “dirty tricks” campaigning.

Some voters have been posting back fake newspapers sent by the Conservative Party to their head office – in a bid to cost the party in postage fees. One voter told Byline Times they had posted approximately half a kilogram of takeaway menus and junk mail to CCHQ, with a handwritten note saying “No more fake news please”. 

Legal Loophole

The ruse has previously been condemned by industry body the News Media Association among other press groups. But despite being discouraged by the watchdog, the Electoral Commission, it is not against the law. 

A spokesperson for the Electoral Commission told Byline Times recently that “generally speaking,” election materials require the name and address of the printer and promoter – but not the political party. 

Moreover, the candidate rules setting out transparency for who is publishing campaign materials don’t apply yet, as the general election date has not been announced. 

But the Electoral Commission figure added: “We encourage all parties and campaigners to include imprints on all material, to provide voters with transparency.”

The tactic of publishing fake papers was used successfully in Uxbridge and South Ruislip last month, with the party’s ‘Uxbridge and South Ruislip People’ urging people to “Stop ULEZ” (Labour London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone expansion). The fake magazine mirrored the title of the local council-run Hillingdon People, which is meant to be apolitical. 

Copycat Spat

Industry title Press Gazette reported that the Conservative Party was forced to apologise to the publisher of several Midlands newspapers after it distributed newspaper-style campaign literature in the area under trademarks owned by the company.

The Conservatives said it was a “genuine mistake” that three pamphlets resembled editions of MNA Media’s Chronicle Week. The party agreed to make a donation to charity as part of its apology, the title reported. 

The Midland News Association said the leaflets “were designed to mimic the style of a newspaper and they caused confusion among many who received them, who believed they were reading their usual Chronicle”.

However, they do not appear to have apologised after High Peak MP, Conservative Robert Largan, distributed a “newspaper” titled the High Peak Reporter – despite the name of the title being owned by an actual newspaper group, Quest Media Network. 

Chris Bird owns Quest Media Network, which owns the brand title High Peak Reporter, and told the Prolific North outlet: “I guess we should be flattered by this stunt, but we are not. Would Mr Largan have tried this with the Daily Mirror or Daily Telegraph? Absolutely not, because that would have cost him and his party a lot of money for the blatant breach.” 

And Lincoln Conservative MP Karl McCartney issued a leaflet to residents branded as the ‘Lincoln Chronicle’ – the same name as a weekly newspaper in the seat that was closed 15 years ago, and which many residents remember. The move was condemned by a former photographer for the real paper, Dr Mike Maloney OBE, one of the UK’s most decorated photographers. 

He told Byline Times that the fake newspaper was “typical of politicians”. He added it represented the idea of “never letting the facts interfere with a good story”.

Letter to Conservative Party chair

Dear Greg Hands, trust in journalism has reached a crisis point. Our research shows that less than half of the public trust news publishers, while journalists themselves are trusted by just 38% of the public; politicians are one of the few jobs to rank lower.

For democracy to flourish, it is essential that we have a thriving, healthy and trusted news media ecosystem. To achieve this, collaboration and transparency is needed between news organisations, the public and politicians.

It is entirely disheartening then to see the latter groups continuing to engage in the practice of distributing campaigning materials under the guise of local newspapers, misleading voters into believing what they are reading is the work of local journalists from independent publications.

Often, these are accompanied by either no clarification of their actual purpose or by only the smallest clarifying statements.

We are therefore asking that the Conservative Party, and all political parties, carefully review this practice among their candidates moving forward and the negative impact it will have on politics, journalism, and democracy.

If you do insist on continuing to produce these materials, we implore you to seek out rigorous and independent press regulation for them to ensure they meet robust standards.

Your sincerely,

Lexie Kirkconnell-Kawana, Impress CEO

The last section of the footbridge was hoisted into place soon after 8 am on Saturday, catching out many on social media who expected it to occur around 9 am.

Again Owl has been sent images.

Owl understands that the bridge will not be open for a few months whilst a 70m section of the 200 year old embankment is lowered and removed to allow the saline tidal water gradually to fill the reconnected estuary.