The planned revamp of Exmouth town and seafront will rely on round-the-table talks between town, district, and county councils for success, it is believed.

Local Democracy Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk

Exmouth’s regeneration vision can succeed more easily if it is not developed in isolation, proponents have claimed, writes local democracy reporter Bradley Gerrard.

East Devon Councillors want to create a steering group including all levels of local government to streamline the proposals.

Last week, members of East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) ‘placemaking in Exmouth town and seafront’ group suggested that the plans, which are at an early stage, may hit fewer challenges if town, district and county councillors work together.

East Devon’s leader Paul Arnott (Lib Dem, Coly Valley) gave the example of Exmouth’s Dinan Way extension, which has nearly £16 million of Levelling Up funding from the Government, as a project that could clash with the town’s regeneration plan if the different authorities don’t communicate with each other.

“In practical terms, we do need to have some form of political meeting with the county and town authorities,” he said.

“There’s an opportunity here with our plan, but there are also risks that we could diverge.

“And so, I think we should reach out in the next few days to the town and county councils to officially share our plan with them in its current form, start discussions and even form a steering group.”

Cllr Arnott’s suggestion was supported by the meeting’s chair, Councillor Nick Hookway (Lib Dem, Exmouth Littleham). The motion was approved.

The regeneration plans were presented by East Devon’s project manager Gerry Mills, and Gayatri Suryawanshi from WSP, a consultancy firm assisting with the plan.

Mr Mills stressed that any ideas in the plan at present were just that, and that nothing was confirmed.

Councillors debated competing issues, such as suggestions about further development on the seafront against the need for greater levels of sea defences, and encouraging more water sports activities in the town against the need to protect wildlife, the environment and ensure the beach remains accessible for all.

A key plank of the plan centres on making the seafront better connected with the town centre.

Councillors were generally in favour of this, however, some noted that if the area between the town and seafront was too open, then the effects of bad weather from the beach could make its way into the town.

Other suggestions included allowing development on some car parks and expanding others to help ensure the number of spaces remained the same.

However, Councillor Eileen Wragg (Lib Dem, Exmouth Town) said that one proposal to develop a car park into business units had existed for some time, but never got off the ground.

Cllr Wragg also balked at the suggestion of moving the leisure centre.

“I just can’t get my head around that,” she said.

“The cost of moving an organisation that has already had to have financial support from us and the government means that, at the moment, I think that’s a non-starter.

Suggestions of improving the entrance to the railway station, creating hubs of activity in different parts of the town, and considering reducing traffic in the town were broadly welcomed.

Councillor Olly Davey (Green Party, Exmouth Littleham), who chairs East Devon’s strategic planning committee, welcomed a focus on reducing cars in the town.

However, he questioned some proposals, including whether Exmouth Pavilion would make a better arts hub than the sports hub suggested in the current proposals.

“Also, if we are considering removing some parking along the seafront, this implies a loss of parking income for Devon County Council, so we would have to ensure we factor that in,” he said.

Mr Mills added that he had a strong relationship with the county council and that he and his team had been working to generate more regular dialogue with the authority in relation to various topics.

“Our plan will have to involved the county as we [East Devon District Council] don’t existing in isolation, and I’m quite sure that when they see our plan, they will see it as an opportunity,” he said.

Tension at a Devon local authority is escalating after claims that a vote on how it makes decisions could be illegal.

Bradley Gerrard, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Mid Devon District Council has agreed to enhance the decision-making system that it currently uses, but one councillor believes this at odds with a motion passed in February for a wholesale change.

Councillor Nikki Woollatt (Ind, Cullompton St Andrews) expressed her shock that an agreement earlier in the year to switch to a committee style of decision-making was ditched this month.

Cllr Woollatt tabled February’s motion to change from the current executive structure, which includes a leader and a cabinet, to a modernised committee system, and this was approved.

However, some who voted for it suggested they did not think it was a cast-iron agreement.

A committee system, which can be set up in multiple ways, is viewed by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) as enabling “more consensus decision-making,” with the leader-cabinet system less so, and a mayoral system less so again.

“The current leader, Luke Taylor, seconded my motion in February, and it was a momentous decision,” Cllr Woollatt said.

“It’s a very personal issue for me, as I have campaigned on it for 12 years, including with [the late] Councillor Jenny Roach, who died in 2018.

“This U-turn is very disappointing to say the least.”

Cllr Woollatt said her motion had been “clear and unambiguous”, and therefore was surprised that a report at this month’s meeting provided an option to essentially remain with the status quo.

“What we’ve been asked here I don’t think is legal, and I think it is highly irregular to vote on a decision that has already been made,” she said.

Confusion seemed to centre on what had actually been voted for in February.

Some felt that the motion was merely an indication that the council would investigate a possible move to a committee system, rather than a binding vote.

Councillor Polly Colthorpe (Cons, Way) said she felt officers had been asked to look at what would be required to change to a new system.

“Some of the wording in this report suggests a decision was taken by that council, but I do not consider that it was,” she said.

Councillor James Buczkowski (Lib Dem, Cullompton St Andrews) voted in favour of Cllr Woollatt’s motion in February, but said he did so in order for “further work with detailed options and a further final decision required by council.”

Monitoring officer Maria De Leiburne said she had made a “big caveat” at the February meeting as to the vote being an indication of what members might want, with the different options set to be brought back to full council another time for a proper decision.

Councillor Frank Letch (Lib Dem, Crediton Lawrence) raised the issue that most councillors this month were not present in February because a significant number were only elected in May.

Liberal Democrat leader Luke Taylor (Bradninch) supported Cllr Woollatt’s motion in February but said this was due to what he claimed had been “dictatorial practices” witnessed in previous administrations.

He said he preferred the hybrid-style the council uses now, which has policy development groups to support decision-making alongside the leader and cabinet. He also worries about potential “dither and delay” with the committee system.

He proposed to implement a more robust hybrid system, which was passed, although Cllr Woollatt, who voted against it, stated: “I believe that decision is illegal.”

A 2020 report by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) says if a change in governance structure happens by way of resolution, the council is “effectively locked in to the new arrangement five years.

Cllr Woollatt believes that means Mid Devon District Council has to adopt a committee-style system, and this has to be done at its next annual general meeting by law.

A Mid Devon District Council spokesperson said the question of how the council was set up had been a hot topic for years, with a decision in 2021 being made to retain the cabinet system.

They added that when the issue re-emerged last February, the monitoring officer was “crystal clear” that if members voted for the motion, it would need to be brought back to full council.

“In debate, councillors heard and discussed that there were lots of options about what a ‘modernised committee system’ could look like,” the spokesperson said.

“This was precisely why the monitoring officer advised, before members voted on the motion, that this would not be the final decision – since she would need to work up these options for members to consider what exactly they were minded to move to.

“Members heard this advice, every indication is that they understood this advice, and voted in the context of having received it.”

The spokesperson added it was “unfortunate” that recollections of this differed, but that the tape recording of the February meeting “captures the clear advice at the time” that a final decision would be needed in the future.

The current council has a Liberal Democrat majority after the party gained 21 seats in May’s local election, giving it 33 of the 42 seats.

“This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”

The new environment secretary, Steve Barclay, received a donation from a major funder of a climate sceptic thinktank just weeks before taking up his role, the Guardian can reveal.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

Barclay accepted £3,000 from Michael Hintze on 20 October, and is being asked by campaigners to reveal whether he has been lobbied on climate issues by those who seek to deny the extent of climate breakdown.

Lord Hintze has been one of the key funders of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK-based thinktank that has denied the legitimacy of climate science, and he was one of its earliest backers.

The thinktank focuses on questioning policy on the climate crisis, and was set up by the former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson, who has said that climate change is not a threat, but “happening very gently at a fraction of a degree per decade, which is something we can perfectly well live with”. The thinktank has produced reviews – at odds with mainstream science – that claim the climate emergency is not happening, or downplay the extent of it.

Tory MPs have at various times been trustees of the thinktank, including until recently the Northern Ireland minister, Steve Baker. He quit his trusteeship when he took up the ministerial post.

It has recently led the backlash against government net zero policies, and celebrated when Rishi Sunak recently announced announced his intention to roll back on climate measures. The Guardian revealed last year that the thinktank had received funding from groups with oil and gas interests.

The environment secretary already faces conflict of interest concerns over his wife’s job at a water company. Karen Barclay holds a senior position at Anglian Water as head of major infrastructure, planning and stakeholder engagement. As secretary of state, Barclay is responsible for overseeing the regulation of water companies. He is responsible for ensuring water firms make improvements regarding sewage pollution via the government’s storm overflow reduction plan.

Regarding the donation, campaigners have said it is inappropriate for someone charged with protecting the natural world to take funds from someone who is such a major backer of a climate sceptic group.

Jolyon Maugham, the director of the Good Law Project, said: “Steve Barclay is taking money from a man who has been a key funder of a climate change denial group and who has ties to Tufton Street. And he’s the environment secretary? Is this some kind of hilarious Conservative party in-joke? Because the younger generation aren’t laughing – and neither is the global south.”

MPs are expected to ask if Barclay agrees with or endorses the views of the GWPF.

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: “Steve Barclay has some serious questions to answer. When our natural world faces ever-increasing threats as a result of the climate emergency, we can’t have an environment secretary taking donations from a major backer of the climate-denying GWPF. I’d like to know why Barclay accepted this donation; what conversations with Lord Hintze he had before and since receiving it; and whether he agrees with GWPF’s climate-denying views.”

Hintze has been contacted for comment.

A source close to Steve Barclay said: “All donations to Steve’s office are declared in line with the MPs’ code of conduct.

“Lord Hintze is a Conservative peer and regular party donor who supports a number of Conservative MPs. Steve has never discussed environmental policy with him.

“Steve is fully committed to the government’s net zero aims. Protecting our environment for future generations is one of his key priorities and that includes urgently tackling climate change.”

“When the Conservatives broke their promise to match EU funding at £100m a year and gave us just £43m a year we warned this would be nowhere near enough. Now we have the stark proof. Cornwall was lied to. There will be a general election next year and council election early the year after. In the meantime no-one will be able to apply for any Shared Prosperity Funding because there isn’t any.” Cllr Tim Dwelly, Labour, the council’s shadow cabinet member for economy,

Lee Trewhela, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Cornwall Council has confirmed that the money it receives from the government to replace EU grants following Brexit will run out in a month’s time, leaving over £230m of fund applications by Cornish communities and businesses unmet.

The council’s shadow cabinet member for economy has said this is “devastating” and has accused the government of lying to Cornwall.

The government confirmed in 2021 that “total funding through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) will at a minimum match the size of EU funds in each nation and in Cornwall each year” and it was estimated that “no worse off” equated to an average of £100 million a year for the Duchy until 2025, with an additional three years to complete the spend of the investment. In reality, Cornwall has received around £43m a year.

The government has currently not made clear to Cornwall if the Shared Prosperity Fund will continue after 2025, when the current tranche of money is due to end.

Cornwall Council’s £138m Good Growth programme consists of the £132m Shared Prosperity Fund and a £5.6m Rural Prosperity Fund. As of October 2023, the programme received 1,395 expressions of interest which have resulted in 461 applications, requesting a total of £375m in SPF grant.

A total of 127 projects have been approved to date at a SPF value of £128m and a total project value of £189.4m. The council anticipates that the total £138m programme will be fully committed, with funding approved for specific projects, by the end of this year.

That means that over £230m of SPF requests will not be met, although they may have been rejected for a variety of reasons.

Cllr Tim Dwelly, the council’s shadow cabinet member for economy, said: “These figures are devastating. They show that Cornwall’s disappointing Shared Prosperity Fund allocation will have been all spent by next month. It’s depressing to see that over £230m of funds applied for will now be refused. The applications from Cornish community groups and businesses were for almost three times the amount Cornwall got.

“When the Conservatives broke their promise to match EU funding at £100m a year and gave us just £43m a year we warned this would be nowhere near enough. Now we have the stark proof. Cornwall was lied to. There will be a general election next year and council election early the year after. In the meantime no-one will be able to apply for any Shared Prosperity Funding because there isn’t any.”

Independent councillor and former leader of Cornwall Council Julian German added: “Cornwall needs Government to sort out its urban funding bias for local government services – urban areas get 38 per cent more in government funding spending power than rural areas. On top of this, it costs more to deliver services in rural areas.

“If government is serious about levelling up, then councils need certainty of regeneration funding over a number of years. For Cornwall, the starting point is the government promise of £100m a year for seven years. It’s very sad that this isn’t happening as it will harm people’s prospects and the vitality of our communities.”

When responding to questions about SPF post-2025, Government ministers have consistently pointed out the limits of any government in making commitments beyond the current spending review and indeed beyond the current parliament. Cornwall Council has not had clarity from Westminster on the fund beyond March 2025, largely due to the prospect of the general election which is due to take place no later than January of that year.

Conservative Cllr Linda Taylor, leader of Cornwall Council, has written to highlight the importance of an extension to the SPF programme beyond the 2025 cut-off date and Cornwall Council continues to make representations to the Government to seek clarity on how the SPF programme will be funded post-2025 and advocate for continued investment for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly including longer investment periods.

A Cornwall Council spokesperson said: “The current tranche of SPF funding is designed to cover the three financial years up to 2025 and we are on course to meet the timetable for allocating the funding, having considered each application in line with our Good Growth UK Shared Prosperity Investment Plan.

“We await confirmation from the government of how and when the next tranche of funding after 2025 will be delivered, and we will continue to push for a fair deal for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.”

The council’s leader Cllr Linda Taylor, deputy leader and portfolio holder for resources Cllr David Harris and Cllr Louis Gardner, portfolio holder for economy, have all been approached for comment but have not responded.