This is what a real constituency MP looks like – Owl

The Liberal Democrat MP Richard Foord launched his bid to be the next MP for Honiton & Sidmouth on Saturday (January 13) with a promise to fight for rural NHS services and be a voice for residents across East Devon. 

Philippa Davies www.midweekherald.co.uk 

He will be standing against Simon Jupp, the current MP for East Devon, who is now campaigning for election to the new Honiton & Sidmouth constituency. Mr Foord is the sitting MP for the Tiverton & Honiton constituency, which will no longer exist under the constituency boundary changes.

At his campaign launch in Ottery St Mary on Saturday, attended by more than 50 people, Mr Foord laid into the Conservatives for ‘letting down’ rural communities and criticised his Conservative opponent for ‘sitting back and toeing the party line’, while highlighting his own commitment to always speak out on local issues. 

At the rally Mr Foord was joined by Claire Wright, the former independent candidate for East Devon who received the support of more than 24,000 people at the last General Election, and former Devon County Councillor Martin Shaw – both of whom are supporting his election campaign. 

Mr Foord spoke about his focus on supporting rural health and social care services, cracking down on water companies to end the sewage scandal, and supporting the environment through protecting the countryside and biodiversity. 

When the launch event finished many supporters headed straight out to start knocking on doors and delivering leaflets for his campaign. 

Speaking after the launch, Richard Foord said: “At the next election, the choice facing people in our corner of Devon is plain. They either get a hardworking local champion fighting their corner, or yet another Conservative MP who is content to defer to the party whips and toe the party line. 

“Our country is in dire need of change. We have an NHS crumbling before our very eyes, our rivers and beaches are awash with sewage, and our rural market towns are at risk of becoming hollow shells of their former selves, as businesses and services wilt away. 

“The Conservatives have shown time and again that they simply do not care about areas like ours. They continue to take us for granted, preferring to funnel funding into the Midlands and North in a desperate attempt to shore up their ‘red wall’ seats. 

“My campaign is focused on showing people the real difference a hardworking local MP committed to fighting their corner can have. This is something we’ve seen since my election last summer – with new announcements secured in relation to Tiverton High School, and a pledge of the opening of a railway station at Cullompton.  

“I am humbled to have the support of people like Claire Wright and Martin Shaw, who have been real champions for our towns and villages. The message is plain: the only way to change things for the better is to vote Liberal Democrat and kick out this out-of-touch Conservative Government.” 

Simon Jupp, MP for East Devon, said: “I am proud to be standing where I live, something my Liberal Democrat opponent simply can’t say. My campaign was launched on May 3rd last year in Honiton and I have been knocking on doors across the new Honiton & Sidmouth constituency since March. I have opened a campaign office on Honiton’s high street, not far from the former Liberal Democrat office they closed days after winning the by-election. I’m fighting for every vote, because I care about where I live.”

Anyone wishing to find out more about Richard Foord or support his campaign can do so by visiting http://www.RichardFoord.org.uk 

Not to mention the “little beasts”; the “small fry” and “the minnows”. – Owl

[The poll referred to plays down the impact of tactical voting which Owl thinks could be large in the South West.]

The Conservative Party is on track to lose 196 seats at the next election, with multiple Cabinet ministers and senior MPs set to be unseated, new polling suggests

Eleanor Langford inews.co.uk

A survey by YouGov calculates that, if a general election were held today, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer would win 385 seats – a 120-seat majority over the Conservatives.

The poll of 14,000 people, revealed by The Telegraph and commissioned by the Conservative Britain Alliance, also indicates that the party is on track to lose almost all the “Red Wall” seats it gained in 2019.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps are among the 14 Cabinet ministers and senior Tory MPs who could lose their seats.

YouGov, who conducted the poll, has questioned some of The Telegraph’s analysis of their data, especially regarding the assumption that Reform UK voters would return to Conservatives if the party did not stand.

Polling from the group in October found that only 31 per cent of Reform UK voters would be willing to vote Conservative if Reform UK were not standing in their constituency.

Jeremy Hunt

Losing to: Lib Dems
Constituency: Godalming and Ash

The Chancellor’s current seat of South West Surrey has been largely abolished under new boundaries, but Jeremy Hunt has announced he will stand in the newly formed constituency of Godalming and Ash.

Mr Hunt has faced close competition from the Liberal Democrats in his current seat, where the party won 38.7 per cent of the vote to his 53.3 per cent in 2019.

Under the latest YouGov poll, Mr Hunt is now predicted to narrowly lose to the Lib Dems in his new constituency also, taking 32 per cent to his opponent’s 35 per cent.

If the Lib Dems are victorious, Mr Hunt would become the first Chancellor to lose their seat while in the post.

Penny Mordaunt

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Portsmouth North

Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt, who garnered international attention for her sword-carrying role at the coronation, has held her seat since 2010.

Considered a swing seat, it was held by Labour from 1997 to 2010 but now looks likely to return to the party.

Despite winning with a 15,780-vote majority at the last election, Ms Mordaunt is predicted to see her vote share to fall from 61.4 per cent to 33 per cent, giving victory to Labour, who are set to win 36 per cent of voters.

Grant Shapps

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Welwyn Hatfield

Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, took his current seat from Labour in 2005, and most recently held it in 2019 with a majority of 10,955.

But Labour looks set to regain the seat, taking 40 per cent of the vote to Mr Shapps’s 31 per cent – a swing of 21.2 for Labour.

Responding to the YouGov poll on Monday, Mr Shapps said he was “absolutely” confident the Conservative Party could turn things around despite the dire projection.

“The reason I think we can turn it around is because at least people know we have got a plan and we are working to it. There isn’t a plan under Labour,” he told Times Radio.

Gillian Keegan

Losing to: Lib Dems
Constituency: Chichester

Despite having a solid majority of 21,490 – the largest of any Cabinet minister on this list – Education Secretary Gillian Keegan is still considered at risk.

The Liberal Democrats came second in seat in 2019, and are predicted to narrowly win at the next election with 33 per cent of the vote compared to Ms Keegan’s 31 per cent.

Chichester has been considered a safe seat for the Conservatives, having been held by the party since 1924.

Alex Chalk

Losing to: Lib Dems
Constituency: Cheltenham

Cheltenham was held by the Liberal Democrats between 1992 and 2015, when it was won by Alex Chalk, who is currently Justice Secretary.

With a razor-thin majority of 981, Mr Chalk was always going to be considered at risk, and he looks set to lose to the Lib Dems at the next election.

The poll predicts they would win 42.6 per cent of the votes, with just 30 per cent going to Mr Chalk.

Victoria Prentis

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Banbury

Attorney General Victoria Prentis, who has been MP for Banbury since 2015, is set to narrowly lose to Labour. Ther poll shows Sir Keir Starmer’s party would overturn her 16,813 majority, winning 34.2 per cent to the Tories’ 33.7 per cent.

Reform UK is set to take 7 per cent of the vote, meaning Ms Prentis could keep the seat if the Tories can take some of their supporters.

Johnny Mercer

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Plymouth Moor View

Johnny Mercer attends Cabinet in his capacity as the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and has been the MP for Plymouth Moor View since 2015.

His seat was previously held by Labour from its creation in 2010, and the party looks set to unseat the incumbent.

He is predicted to win 33 per cent of the vote to Labour’s 40 per cent, but the constituency will also see a significant Reform UK presence, with the party winning 11 per cent of voters.

Simon Hart

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Caerfyrddin

Simon Hart, the Chief Whip and a close ally of Mr Sunak, will see his current Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire seat abolished under the boundary review, and he has been selected to stand in the new seat of Caerfyrddin.

Based on current polling, Labour is on track for a major victory, winning 40 per cent of the vote to his 27 per cent.

Lucy Frazer

Losing to: Lib Dems
Constituency: Ely and East Cambridgeshir

Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer will see her South East Cambridgeshire seat abolished at the next election, and will instead stand in the new constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire.

She is set to lose that battle to the Liberal Democrats, who came second to her in 2019, with the party winning 33.6 per cent of the vote compared to the Conservatives’ 31 per cent. Reform UK is predicted to take 8 per cent of the vote.

David TC Davies

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Monmouthshire

David TC Davies, the Welsh Secretary, will stand in the new seat of Monmouthshire after his current Monmouth constituency is abolished.

He is facing the prospect of a significant loss to Labour, with YouGov polling suggesting the party is on track to take 41 per cent of the vote to his 33 per cent.

Alister Jack/John Cooper

Losing to: SNP
Constituency: Dumfries and Galloway

Scotland Secretary Alister Jack has announced he is standing down from his Dumfries and Galloway seat at the next election, but his successor John Cooper looks set to lose the seat to the SNP.

The seat has been a three-way battleground since its creation in 2005, having been held by Labour for 10 years, the SNP for two years and, Mr Jack since 2017.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Chingford and Woodford Green

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a senior Conservative MP and former leader of the party, has been MP for the seat in north-east London since 1992.

But his time in Parliament could be brought to an end after three decades, with Labour set for a landslide victory. Sir Iain last held the seat with a majority of just 1,262 and he is set to win 31 per cent of the vote at the next election to Labour’s 50 per cent, according to the poll.

Lee Anderson

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Ashfield

Lee Anderson, the plain-spoken Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party first won his seat from Labour in 2019 when he unseated Gloria de Piero.

Prior to his victory, Ashfield, in Nottinghamshire, had been consistently held by Labour since 1979, and the party is predicted to win it back. Mr Anderson’s vote share is set to fall from 40 per cent to 23 per cent, with Labour taking the seat with 38 per cent of the vote.

Sir John Redwood

Losing to: Lib Dems
Constituency: Wokingham

Sir John Redwood, a veteran MP and former minister, has represented the “Blue Wall” seat since 1987, and it has only ever been won by Conservative MPs.

But that could be all about to change, with the seat in Berkshire a key target for the Liberal Democrats. The party is predicted to win with 37 per cent of the vote to Sir John’s 31 per cent.

“The UK landscape is littered with similar hybrid bodies which are fundamentally unaccountable. Universities that pay top management like businesses, but don’t run like businesses. Privatised water monopolies that have spent years illegally dumping sewage into our water, killing fish and making people sick. Their executives are part of the apparatchik class and so is the regulator, Ofwat.”

Camilla Cavendish www.ft.com

The Post Office scandal was uncovered not by officialdom but by dogged, independent-minded heroes. These included journalists at the BBC, Computer Weekly and Private Eye; an engineer who blew the whistle at Fujitsu; several MPs; and Alan Bates, the sub-postmaster whose determination to get justice is now legendary. These people, now celebrated in an ITV drama that has pushed the issue to the top of the nation’s agenda, were up against a self-serving apparatchik class which despises the little people, is adept at covering its tracks and is an increasing feature of modern Britain.

The number of postmasters affected, and the vindictive way in which the Post Office pursued them, makes it especially shocking. But we have seen the same pattern in other tragedies where public or quasi-public bodies either fail to join the dots or actively conspire in cover-ups. The deaths of babies at Morecambe Bay hospital were uncovered by a father, James Titcombe, who was repeatedly fobbed off in getting answers about why his baby died. The sexual abuse of girls in Rotherham was revealed by The Times, despite extensive obfuscation by Rotherham council. Failings in the care of Baby Peter Connelly, who died under the noses of social workers, were brought to light by Kim Holt, a paediatrician who was suspended for her pains by Great Ormond Street. 

One of the reasons the Post Office saga took so long is that it was a state-owned entity which was also independent. It wasn’t accountable to anyone, and even part-funded the postmasters’ representative body, effectively muzzling it. The management culture assumed that many sub-postmasters, who were self-employed, were on the take — a view executives felt was confirmed when the Horizon software appeared to show high levels of fraud. It was protected by Whitehall, whose officials encouraged a succession of ministers not to meet Bates.

The UK landscape is littered with similar hybrid bodies which are fundamentally unaccountable. Universities that pay top management like businesses, but don’t run like businesses. Privatised water monopolies that have spent years illegally dumping sewage into our water, killing fish and making people sick. Their executives are part of the apparatchik class and so is the regulator, Ofwat.

A striking feature of this cadre is how they move from job to job around the system despite, in some cases, egregious failings. The NHS is littered with overpromoted managers who get recycled from one hospital trust to another. Paula Vennells, Post Office chief executive between 2012 and 2019, was in post when failings in the Horizon software became unavoidably evident, yet she continued to preside over prosecutions until 2015. The MP James Arbuthnot, who forced Vennells to agree to the external review of Horizon that helped to break the scandal open, has described an appalling level of management groupthink — and malice. Yet in 2019 Vennells went on to another job on the circuit, chairing a large NHS trust. And Fujitsu, the technology company behind Horizon, which has so far been untouchable, has won £5bn more in government contracts since its software was found not to be robust by the High Court in 2019.

This is how the system operates. Individuals may occasionally be caught out, but the machine just rolls on. Indeed, any government that is minded to abolish arms-length bodies discovers that it can’t — they are often statutory. The level of effort and political capital you would need to expend trying to get rid of any of them is too much for the average minister. 

This serves no one, including the brilliant young people who are recruited into the civil service. They arrive with great hopes of serving the nation, and are then trapped in meetings where no one knows much about the people they are supposed to serve. I have met health department officials who have never been inside a hospital or care home. I’ve met quango heads who hire management consultants rather than talk to customers. It’s not surprising we are so bad at procurement: the Fujitsu contract being an example.

What can we learn from the Post Office heroes? First, that momentum depends on spotting patterns. Bates’s determination to find others in similar trouble was a stroke of genius. Second, the importance of meticulous record-keeping. Arbuthnot, who became involved 15 years ago because one of his constituents was a sub-postmaster, has an office overflowing with paper relating to this fight. Third, that investigative journalists like Nick Wallis can crystallise a complex story, hard to understand. Fourth, that tenacity is essential because the system aims to wear you down and tire you out.

For all those on the other “side”, all the good officials, this saga shows the importance of keeping an open mind. Not everyone who claims to be a victim is genuine: I learnt this in years of campaigning on the family courts. But many real victims can also be initially hard to believe. They can be crazed with anxiety, or have a frustratingly vague handle on the chronology of events. Listening to them and extracting their stories takes time — something MPs are rather good at. True whistleblowers are also marked out by the fact that they rarely want fame or honours: what they want is justice. The contrast could not be greater with the senior executives who will spend any amount of taxpayers’ money, and condemn any number of ordinary people to misery, to avoid admitting mistakes.

The postmasters will be exonerated. But Fujitsu should be paying the compensation. And future ministers should consider meeting a few “troublemakers”: they might learn something.

Shortly before Christmas, on 19 December 2023, the Government published its long-awaited revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), following a year-long process of consultation. The revised NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies and how these will be applied.

The biggest change is that the revised NPPF introduces various reforms to housing delivery. The revised NPPF also includes new drafting on protection from “out of character” residential development, Green Belt alterations, energy efficient building improvements and allocation of agricultural land for development.

www.burges-salmon.com 

The key changes are set out below:

1. Reforms to housing delivery

The Government’s intention with these changes is to increase the delivery of new housing, by giving local planning authorities a strong incentive to update their Local Plans, amidst a supply shortage in many areas of the country.

Changes to the five-year housing land supply and delivery requirements

• Under the previous version of the NPPF, all local planning authorities in England were required to continually demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing land supply.

The updated NPPF states that local planning authorities will not need to meet this requirement as long as their adopted plan is less than five years old, and that it identified “at least a five year supply of specific, deliverable sites at the time that its examination concluded”.

• There is also a reduced requirement for some local authorities with an ‘in-progress’ Local Plan, i.e. where a Local Plan has been consulted on (under Regulation 18 or 19) or submitted for examination.

If the draft Local Plan includes a policies map and proposed housing allocations towards meeting housing need, those authorities will only have to demonstrate a four-year housing land supply. This particular change only applies for two years from the publication date, until 19 December 2025.

As a result of these changes, it is estimated that 40% of local planning authorities will no longer be required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

The reason that this is important is because if a local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, then in the process of decision-making, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.

That presumption means that planning permission should be granted for sustainable development (unless the application of NPPF policies to protect assets or areas of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusal, or the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits). This presumption (also known in shorthand as the “tilted balance”) changes the exercise of assessment that the decision-maker must carry out, and in general terms increases the prospect of planning permission being granted.

This means that those authorities who are no longer required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply will be better protected against unplanned or speculative development, because the “tilted balance” will not apply.

Practically, the changes provide an incentive to local planning authorities to keep their Local Plans up to date so that they do not continually need to demonstrate a five year land supply.

Changes to the assessment of housing supply

Under the previous version of the NPPF, all local planning authorities were required to build a buffer of 5% (by default), 10% or 20% into their calculations on five-year housing land supply. In the updated NPPF, the 5% and 10% buffers have been removed but the 20% buffer has been retained, where delivery falls below 85% of the requirement over the previous three years.

In addition, historic oversupply can be accounted for in the five-year housing land supply calculation and further guidance on this will follow. The expectation is that the removal of 5% and 10% will simplify the five-year land supply calculations for local authorities. There is a concern, however, that their removal will reduce a key incentive for local authorities to keep delivering housing supply and maintain accountability where delivery exceeds the 85% threshold.

Greater flexibility for local authorities in assessing local housing need

New text has been added to the NPPF at paragraph 60, clarifying that the overall aim of local authorities, in the context of delivering homes, should be to “meet as much of an area’s identified housing need as possible”.

Under paragraph 61, the revised NPPF also states that the standard method for calculating housing need, to establish the number of homes required, is now considered as an “an advisory starting point”. Under the previous NPPF, the standard method was not classified in this way and there was no similar explanatory text.

As a result of these changes, local authorities have greater flexibility to plan for fewer or higher number of homes than the standard method indicates, and where there are specific local circumstances that justify an alternative approach to assessing housing need, that is now explicitly supported.

Alteration of Green Belt boundaries

New paragraph 145 of the revised NPPF provides that local authorities may choose to (but are not required to) review and alter Green Belt boundaries (in the event that they consider that they cannot meet housing need) during the plan-making process, where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.

The changes do not explicitly describe how Green Belt boundaries are expected to interface with housing supply and do not represent a substantive change to the policy position.

Support for specific categories of housing

• Retirement housing need assessment – new paragraph 63 has been added into the revised NPPF which requires local authorities to assess a local need for retirement and care housing provision. Local authorities are then required to reflect this need in their policies. These changes reflect a specific concern identified by the Government; the consultation paper makes clear that they are prioritising sufficient housing supply for an ageing population, and in this context drafting has been included to explicitly and specifically support the provision of that housing.
• Support for small sites – at paragraph 70(b), the revised NPPF requires local authorities to support (through policies and in their decision making) small sites to come forward for community-led development for housing and self-build and custom-build housing. This reflects an objective of the Government to give greater confidence and certainty to small and medium sized builders, with a view to diversifying the housing market.
• Support for community-led development – the revised NPPF provides that local authorities should support the development of exception sites for “community-led development” on sites that would not otherwise be suitable as rural exception sites. This reflects the Government’s ambition to emphasise the role of community-led development, with a view to supporting locally-led housing.

The inclusion of express support for these categories of development should, in time, filter down into increased support for each category in Local Plan policies and local planning authority decision-making.

Protection against out of character residential developments

New paragraph 130 of the revised NPPF provides that a significant increase in the average density of residential development in an existing urban area may be inappropriate if it will result in developments which are “wholly out of character with the existing area.”

The effect of this change is to enable authorities to describe “out of character” circumstances in the process of preparing design codes and plan-making.

Support for mansard extensions

The NPPF provides that authorities should “allow mansard roof extensions on suitable properties” where their external appearance “harmonises with the original building”. This reform will offer the ability to enable new housing by extending upwards as long as these extensions are in keeping with the local character and context, particularly in conservation areas.

2. Energy efficiency of buildings

New paragraph 164 in the NPPF requires local authorities, in determining planning applications, to give “significant weight” to the need to support “energy efficiency and low carbon heating improvements” through adaptation of buildings. This represents strong in-principle policy support for energy efficiency.

When assessing applications for energy efficiency improvements, it is important that heritage protection is considered. Paragraph 164 in the revised NPPF provides for this by stating that where the proposals would affect conservation areas, listed buildings or other relevant designated heritage assets, local planning authorities should also apply the relevant policies, set out in detail in Chapter 16 of the NPPF.

3. Allocation of agricultural land for development

At paragraph 181, the revised NPPF requires local authorities to consider the availability of agricultural land used for food production when allocating sites for development. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.

It is important that developers take an evidence-based approach towards determining the condition of agricultural land, before a development scheme is proposed. This amendment means that the availability of land used for food production is now explicitly a part of that exercise.

4. Other general changes

• Planning conditions on design and materials – new paragraph 140 of the NPPF encourages planning authorities to use planning conditions to require clear and accurate drawings/details of a scheme’s design and materials. This is intended to provide greater certainty for those implementing a planning permission on how to comply with the permission.
• Integration of “beauty” – the latest NPPF revisions mean that “beauty” now features heavily as a consideration across policy. However the NPPF itself does not include substantial detail on how to assess beauty; this exercise will primarily be the role of design codes.

Concluding thoughts

The primary effect of the changes to the NPPF will be to disapply the presumption in favour of sustainable development (or “tilted balance”) for a variety of local authorities, by not requiring them to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The absence of the “tilted balance” will reduce the number of planning permissions which would otherwise be granted due to the lack of housing land supply.

The authorities excluded from the requirement include those with up-to-date Local Plans (within the last five years) and those who are partway through the Local Plan process, with significantly advanced plans. The latter category of authorities are only excluded temporarily, for a two-year period, enabling those authorities time to finalise and adopt updated Local Plans.

Excluding a large number of authorities from this requirement may reduce the amount of unplanned development in those authority areas, and authorities are incentivised to retain those benefits by updating their Local Plans. However the NPPF in itself does not address the hurdles which authorities face in undertaking the process of updating their development plans.

This update was co-written by Matthew Tucker and Sofiya Yerokhina. Should you have any queries about the changes to the NPPF or planning generally, please do not hesitate to contact either Matthew or Gary Soloman.

South West Water has been accused of not being honest with the government about its drought preparations after parts of the country almost ran out of water in 2022, it has emerged.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com

The Environment Agency (EA) told the water industry regulator Ofwat that SWW was “not honest” with regulators about the risk a drought posed to the company’s water supplies and was inadequately prepared for the heatwave.

People in Devon and Cornwall were affected by months of hosepipe bans as reservoirs ran dangerously low during the dry spell in 2022. Three of SWW’s reservoirs fell to record lows during the drought.

The agency said the company showed complacency before the drought and “a lack of understanding of their own supply system”.

Documents obtained by Greenpeace’s investigations website Unearthed under freedom of information laws revealed the environmental watchdog’s scathing assessment of the water company’s drought preparedness. “SWW were not honest, open and transparent with regulators about their drought projections and potential risks to security of supply,” the EA wrote in a July email to Ofwat. The email said “SWW acted too late” in response to the drought, and that this “presented a genuine risk of loss of supply in west Cornwall”.

The EA said the company had a misunderstanding of its own supplies and thought it had so much water that it could pipe it to other regions. The agency told Ofwat SWW that showed “a lack of understanding of their own supply system, considering themselves as a potential water donor in the future, only to find the reverse is true”. The company’s latest plan states that it needs to close a gap of more than 200m litres of water a day by 2050 to meet demand.

Water was so scarce in 2022 that drastic saving measures banning all non-critical use were almost put in place. This would have meant a ban on ponds and swimming pools being refilled, people washing their cars and non-residential buildings being cleaned.

No new reservoirs have been built in the UK since the water industry was privatised in 1989, and some water companies have added to their profits by selling off existing facilities. Water companies have paid out £72bn in dividends since privatisation, borrowing £56bn and increasing bills by 40%.

The EA told Ofwat that new water sources need to “be considered, applied for and permitted during the drought instead of planned in advance”.

Megan Corton Scott, a political campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: “South West Water have failed in tackling the sewage crisis, failed to prepare for drought, failed to even understand their own supply system and failed to be honest with the regulator, but they did succeed in raising shareholder dividends at the end of last year.

“Rishi Sunak promised tough enforcement and a more resilient water infrastructure. Given this platform of incompetence and blatant money grabbing, how long can the government stand idly by and let this company continue to control such a critical part of the nation’s resources?”

A spokesperson for SWW said: “We strongly reject any suggestion that we were not adequately prepared for the risk of drought or that we did not operate in good faith with the regulators.

“Despite facing a once-in-a-generation drought in the south-west, no customer went without water supply and we successfully maintained a robust supply of water to over 3.5 million customers and 10million visitors to the region.”

The company was fined over illegal dumping of sewage last year after investigations by the EA.

Last week, the owner of SWW, Pennon Group, bought Sutton and East Surrey Water in a deal worth £380m.