New EU rules which introduce “polluter pays” principles to get pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies to pay for the pollution they cause in rivers will not be adopted by the government in England, as campaigners say the country is falling behind.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com

Lawmakers in Europe have signed off on an update to the urban waste water treatment (UWWT) directive, which is to further tighten restrictions on pollution. More nutrients from agricultural waste and sewage will have to be removed from waterways under the new rules. It also for the first time applies standards to micropollutants such as chemicals from pharmaceutical waste.

The update also introduces a crucial measure called “extended producer responsibility”, which means cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies will be asked to contribute to the cost of treating wastewaters if they are causing chemical pollution. The EU has specifically said it wishes to implement a “polluter pays” principle. This means costs for cleaning chemicals out of waterways will be partially covered by the responsible industry, rather than by water bills or public budgets. The new rule will require the most polluting industries to pay at least 80% of the cost for micropollutant removal.

The EU said this would “lead to cleaner rivers, lakes, groundwater and seas all around Europe”.

Chloe Alexander, a senior campaigner at the CHEM Trust, said: “The UK must urgently mirror EU measures to make polluters pay to remedy the problems they cause, as well as to ban the use of harmful chemicals at source, before they harm our health and pollute our environment. Currently, the UK public and environment continue to be exposed to a growing number of harmful chemicals that are getting banned in EU countries.

“The British public should not have to foot the bill for the huge potential costs of cleaning up our environment from chemical pollution caused by poor chemical management.”

England and Wales could end up lagging behind when it comes to water pollution, as other parts of the UK will adopt extra regulations on micropollutants. Northern Ireland, under the Windsor framework, has to adhere to urban waste water treatment updates as it is obliged to have some of the same environmental rules as the Republic of Ireland. The Guardian understands that the Scottish government is proposing to adopt similar regulations to UWWT as it is trying to keep regulations in line with the EU so the country could more easily rejoin the bloc in the event of Scottish independence.

Michael Nicholson, the head of environmental policy at the Institute for European Environmental Policy, said: “If the updated EU law on wastewater treatment comes into force in the next few months, as is likely, this would be a major step forward in tackling pollution from cosmetic and pharmaceutical products which enter our rivers and seas and endanger public health and aquatic life alike. It would also open up a significant divergence with the approach taken to clean wastewaters in the UK. The UK should take note and strongly consider following suit.”

The new rules will also introduce systematic monitoring of microplastics in the inlets and outlets of urban wastewater treatment plants as well as in the sludge, and there will be monitoring of “forever chemicals” such as PFAS. There are no plans for England to introduce any such compulsory monitoring at present.

Libby Peake, a senior policy analyst at Green Alliance, said: “The UK government acted quickly to ban some microbeads from wash-off cosmetics in 2018 and was rightly applauded for it. But that ban, which the government still refers to as world-leading, contained some gaping holes that plenty of microplastics continue to slip right through.

“In fact, the partial ban covers less than 10% of intentionally added microplastics. People will be surprised to learn that all sorts of cosmetics – lipstick, suncream, and so on – can still legally contain plastics in the UK, as can medicinal products, paints, detergents, and fertilisers. The EU is moving to ban a far greater range of these insidious plastic particles, and the UK should quickly follow suit.”

A UK government spokesperson said: “We already have a polluter pays principle in law under the Environment Act. Many of our statutory schemes also equal or go beyond EU targets.

“On top of this we are taking tough action to hold polluters to account, quadrupling water company inspections, fast-tracking £180m investment to cut sewage spills and changing the law so that polluters face unlimited penalties from the Environment Agency, which are quicker and easier to enforce.”

Devon to get £95m in instalments until 2031/2032.

Four more local authorities have reached deals with the Department for Education to reduce their high-needs deficits but five council areas have seen their payments put on hold.

Does Westminster understand the needs of the regions? – Owl

www.tes.com 

Bristol, Devon, Wiltshire and Bracknell Forest have had plans accepted to reform their high-needs provision and bring down cumulative deficits on their Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) under the government’s Safety Valve programme.

But the DfE has said the Safety Valve agreements with Bath and North East Somerset, Cambridgeshire, Dorset, Hillingdon and Norfolk are currently under review, with payments suspended until revised agreements are reached.

Under the programme, the DfE agrees to pay areas additional cash through the DSG if local authorities reform their high-needs provision, with the aim of tackling existing deficits caused by high-needs spending.

SEND: Councils’ high-needs funding deficits

Devon is forecasting a maximum DSG deficit of £153.4 million at the end of 2023-24, rising to a high of £160.9 million for 2025-26.

But the council is forecasting that this maximum DSG deficit will have reduced to £95 million by 2031-32 after action is taken.

The Safety Valve agreement sets out that the DfE will pay Devon County Council £95 million in additional DSG payments in instalments between this year and 2031-32 to help it get rid of its deficit.

The DfE will pay Bracknell Forest £16 million, Bristol £53.8 million and Wiltshire £67 million.

Action plans to reform high-needs provision differ between local authorities, but all four of the new agreements include action to improve early intervention and expand local special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision.

The agreements state that they are subject to review if DSG funding levels change from what was assumed, if there are significant changes to national SEND policy, if there is insufficient progress on reducing DSG deficit or if councils are awarded extra capital funding.

The review process for the five areas now under review will assess the impact of their changes in circumstances since the agreements were made.

The agreements for Hillingdon and Dorset were subject to review if they were awarded additional capital funding support. While Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Bath and North East Somerset’s agreements were subject to review if free school bids were successful.

Other areas with large deficits

The bailout programme is part of a range of government measures aimed at reforming support for pupils with SEND amid rising costs. Concerns have been raised that these measures will aim to “effectively ration education, health and care plans (EHCPs)”.

Tes reported earlier this year that five areas were in negotiations to make Safety Valve agreements with the DfE. These were Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP); Cheshire East; Wiltshire; Devon; and Bracknell Forest.

It was subsequently reported that Bristol was also in negotiations. BCP saw its proposals, which would balance the DSG within 15 years, rejected by the DfE last week.

The council remains in discussions with the DfE about joining the Safety Valve programme.

BCP chief executive Graham Farrant said: “We always knew the council’s recent Safety Valve proposal challenged the DfE’s criteria, and we have acted with integrity in making clear that we will not sign up to a deal that would see our services fall below the statutory requirements as set by government.”

A spokesperson for Cheshire East Council said conversations were continuing with the DfE and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to establish support in SEND transformation and how the high needs deficit will be resolved.

For the latest education news and analysis delivered directly to your inbox every weekday morning, sign up to the Tes Daily newsletter

[Women Against State Pension Inequality]

Yesterday, Owl reported that the Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that the government’s  Rwanda policy could cost £3.9bn over 5 years. That is more than the £3.6bn it would cost to give all the WASPI impacted women £1,000 compensation each.

At the moment the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are saying that a payment less than this would be “consistent” with prior payments. (Another way of saying that £1,000/ head is unaffordable.)

Matt Davies www.inyourarea.co.uk

A landmark ruling yesterday means millions of women impacted by changes to the State Pension age could be set for compensation of up to £3,000. On March 21, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) said the DWP had failed to adequately inform thousands of women about the change, throwing retirement plans into disarray.

It affects women born between 1950 and 1960, with some told about the change to their pension age less than a year prior to them turning 60 (the age they thought they’d retire). It means they didn’t have enough time to alter their financial plans, the ombudsman found, with the report saying the 3.6 million impacted women should have received a letter informing them up to four years earlier.

It’s almost ten years since the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) launched its campaign, with the report coming after a five-year investigation into alleged failures at the DWP. The PHSO said it believes ‘we have explained our thinking about where on our severity of injustice scale the sample complainants’ injustice sits’, and ‘we would have recommended they are paid compensation at level 4 of the scale’.

If you are a woman born between April 1950 and April 1960, you can use the interactive tool in the original article to see when the ombudsman says you should have been notified of the pension changes.

This level of compensation would be £1,000 to £2,950, according to the PHSO website. It says: “A case at level four will involve the person affected experiencing a significant and/or lasting impact, so much so that to some extent, it has affected their ability to live a relatively normal life. In these cases, the injustice will go beyond distress or inconvenience, except where this has been for a very prolonged period of time.”

The PHSO used a severity of injustice scale to decide upon a payment it believes is appropriate and proportionate. It has six levels, with the PHSO advising a Level 4 payout of £1,000 to £2,950 to recognise the ‘significant’ and ‘lasting impact’ suffered. If the Government agrees, it could result in a cost to the taxpayer of £3.5bn to £10bn.

However, the DWP said Level 3 (less than £1,000) would be ‘consistent’ with prior payouts, but the Government has not yet confirmed any level of compensation. WASPI campaigners have demanded ‘a proper compensation package’ at Level 6 (£10,000 or more), meaning a possible bill of £36bn for the Government. The PHSO said it had asked Parliament to intervene and hold the DWP to account.

In its discussions with the DWP, the PHSO said: “Because of what DWP has told us during this investigation, we have reason to believe it will not take steps to put things right. Complainants have also told us they doubt DWP’s ability or intent to put things right. Given the urgent need for justice, we are presenting our report to Parliament. We are asking Parliament to intervene and identify a way to provide appropriate remedy. We think this will be the quickest way to put things right.”

MORE ON PENSIONS

Rebecca Hilsenrath, the chief executive of the PHSO, said: “The UK’s national ombudsman has made a finding of failings by the Department for Work and Pensions in this case and has ruled that the women affected are owed compensation. DWP has clearly indicated that it will refuse to comply. This is unacceptable. The department must do the right thing, and it must be held to account for failure to do so.

“Complainants should not have to wait and see whether DWP will take action to rectify its failings. Given the significant concerns we have that it will fail to act on our findings and given the need to make things right for the affected women as soon as possible, we have proactively asked Parliament to intervene and hold the department to account. Parliament now needs to act swiftly and make sure a compensation scheme is established. We think this will provide women with the quickest route to remedy.”

 “These builders keep getting away with it, they say they’ll build a certain amount of affordable homes, which they’re never really going to.” Mikaela Tibbins

“It’s almost as if they prefer to promise these things then take them away once you’ve got all of the stuff you wanted.” Bernie Hawes

[The company and its directors are registered at an address in Exmouth] See earlier post.

Zero-carbon estate in limbo after plans row

The Times print edition 22 March

 A brand new housing estate in a Cornish village has been boarded up after a stalemate between developers and council planners (Lara Wildenberg writes).

Bridge View was envisioned as 33 zero-carbon homes in Calstock, a village overlooked by the Tamar Valley railway viaduct. Yet today some houses are boarded up and 15 affordable homes have not progressed beyond the foundations.

The directors of Construction Partners, Michael Wight, 59, and Adele Fulner, 53, claimed that delays and unexpected additions from Cornwall county council had cost the company £1.2 million in interest. The sum had “eroded” their budget to finish the 15 affordable homes without selling any of the completed properties to fund them, and their application to reduce the number of affordable homes to ten was rejected.

The company also had to amend the plans due to the steepness of the site, with a complex surface drainage system and a 9m high and 300m long retaining

wall costing £750,000. As a result, the developers have refunded deposits.

“The planning system is broken and it shouldn’t be allowed,” Fulner told The Times.

Wight added: “It isn’t the case that’s been painted that we’ve tried to get out of it, we’ve just been eroded and eroded down to zero.”

Locals had little sympathy. Mikaela Tibbins, 57, who owns Over the Top Cornish Pasties with her daughter, said: “These builders keep getting away with it, they say they’ll build a certain amount of affordable homes, which they’re never really going to.”

Bernie Hawes, 55, owner of the Limekiln Gallery, said: “It’s almost as if they prefer to promise these things then take them away once you’ve got all of the stuff you wanted.”

In January the council said 160 households were on the waiting list for homes in the parish.

Cornwall council said it was committed to working with developers to ensure “the agreed number of affordable housing homes” are delivered in line with the planning permission.

East Devon District Council Leader Councillor Paul Arnott sends a formal reply to Devon County Council Leader Councillor John Hart about the proposed devolution deal for Devon and Torbay.

Will this see the end of the unaccountable business led HotSW Local Enterprise partnership? – Owl

eastdevon.gov.uk 

Dear John,

Assessment of the Proposed Devolution Deal for Devon and Torbay

This letter provides East Devon District Council’s response to the proposed Devolution Deal for Devon and Torbay. The proposed Deal was discussed at Cabinet on the 28th February. This response captures the key points from this discussion and highlights areas that we wish to see strengthened as the proposals move forward. This is aligned with the issues and concerns identified across the network of Devon Districts.

Overall Support for Devolution

We welcome the potential of the proposed Devolution Deal as a positive step towards increased local control. The transfer of powers and resources from central government aligns with the principle of subsidiarity, allowing decisions to be made at the most appropriate level. We recognise the considerable time and effort that has been invested in to securing the offer of this Deal.

The provisions of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 mean that District Councils cannot automatically become full constituent members of the proposed Combined County Authority (CCA). Subsequently it is difficult to escape the impression that District Councils are starting from a position of being junior partners in the devolution proposals. We hope that this position can be corrected locally through the constitution for the CCA.

Our response focuses on three specific aspects to the proposed Deal;

1. Relationship with Design Principles
The nine design principles set out in the consultation document provide a useful framework against which to consider the proposals. A particular area of focus relates to the principle of subsidiarity and the importance of ensuring that specific activity happens at the lowest viable level.

• UK Shared Prosperity and Rural England Prosperity Funds: While the proposed deal routes these funds through the new Combined Authority (CCA), our strong preference is for continued devolution directly to District Councils. The remaining CCA remit should be to broker conversations about strategic commissioning of countywide (generic) business support activity, and to maximise the effectiveness of local investment aligned to the economic support activity newly-returning to the county council as part of the winding down of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). However, since the LEP failed on both its democratic mandate and often in its local relevance, we would wish the CCA to set off firmly on the right foot by committing to retain local delivery methods for business support where this is currently in place via districts.
• Heat Network Zoning Coordination: The proposal positions the CCA as the Heat Network Zoning Coordinator. Given the localised nature of heat networks, particularly in the Exeter and East Devon areas, we believe that District Councils are better placed to manage this activity.

2. Resources

The proposed £16 million of additional capital is a welcome development. We support the emphasis placed on ensuring investment in housing delivery and the transition to net zero.

• Housing Delivery: We support the potential for a shared strategic investment pipeline with Homes England. However, we emphasise the importance of utilising existing housing functions and groupings like the Devon Housing Task Force. We expect the CCA to enable and accelerate delivery with and through Districts and local housing associations. We specifically want to ensure that the District Councils relationship with Homes England be retained and built upon. The aims of the CCA should be to build on best practice and expertise; to provide a stronger platform and empower the excellent work being done across the Team Devon landscape, not to duplicate or add extra bureaucracy. We understand that this is the intention, however we would wish to be involved more fully in the discussions around ‘operationalising’ the CCA.
• Transport – Investment in transport infrastructure is crucial, including projects like the new passing loop on the Exeter-Waterloo line. We recognise that operational highway matters will remain with DCC and Torbay respectively. However, in the duty to produce a joint strategic transport plan across the CCA geography, we would urge inclusion of the District Councils in the formulation of this in order to ensure that vital land-use and housing plans are aligned with transport plans and that sustainable transport options are embedded – both in terms of strategic intent and future investment.

3. Governance and Decision Making

We acknowledge the constraints of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. We believe that enabling District Councils to also become full constituent members of the Combined Authority will be an important step towards improving the representative voice of Devon residents and in strengthening local democratic accountability.

• Constitution of the CCA – We ask that all opportunities to enable Districts to become full constituent members are considered to ensure that districts can have a voice on reserved matter issues. This is of particularly significance given that many of these matters are of relevance to districts and existing partnership ambitions are already in place, for example around carbon reduction and the Devon Climate Emergency.
• Team Devon – The proposed Team Devon statutory joint committee is a positive step towards collective decision-making which we firmly support. This will help to inform voting intentions at CCA meetings. However, further details regarding its operation and role in relation to the CCA are necessary. We would particularly welcome the opportunity to develop the detailed terms of reference for this committee.
• Community and involvement of local towns and parishes – the voice of the Devon Association of Local Councils (DALC) is a welcome one within the current ‘Team Devon’ arena, and we would strongly support the inclusion and recognition of town and parishes in the implementation and operationalising of the CCA. Housing, transport, jobs, skills and sustainability are strategic issues with often local or hyper-local solutions. The CCA should aim to be the bridge that demonstrates strategic intervention and scale, while empowering our communities’ ambition and aspiration.

Conclusion

We believe the proposed Devolution Deal presents both opportunities and challenges. Our focus is on ensuring it strengthens local democracy and empowers effective decision-making at the most appropriate level. We look forward to engaging further in discussions to refine the details and maximise the benefits for Devon and Torbay.

Yours sincerely
Councillor Paul Arnott
Leader, East Devon District Council