EXMOUTH SEWAGE POLLUTION CLAIM AGAINST SOUTH WEST WATER 

As many readers will know, people in Exmouth have had enough of South West Water, especially as it had devasting effects on our beautiful seafront. For seveal days in the summer season, we had 

a deserted beach and angry visitors, residents and business owners. The reputational damage to Exmouth as a seaside resort could be considered immense. 

Nicky Nicholls, Community and Innovation lead at Sideshore spearheaded a campaign to bring an end to sewage pollution. Businesses, organisations and people affected by sewage pollution came together with the clear message, “Enough is enough.”

Last month, the upstairs room of Ocean on Exmouth seafront was packed full of people interested in finding out more about registering a group legal claim against South West Water. The legal firm who had been chosen to consider acting on their behalf was Leigh Day. 

This led to thousands of people affected by sewage in Exmouth, whether they are businesses or individuals registering an interest in making a claim.

I registered an interest as I’m not able to swim as frequently as I would like to in the sea. I’m reluctant to take my dog for a walk on the beach, as other pets have been ill and their owners have had to pay vet’s fees. I’m also concerned about the effects it’s having on our tourism industry. I heard about a taxi driver who had seen a decline in business as not so many people were visiting Exmouth. 

On 17th October, I received an email from Leigh Day stating they had now launched the sewage claim against South West Water in Exmouth! To be part of the claim, I had to complete a questionaire which they informed me would take only 2-3 minutes to complete.

Everything seemed straight forward and I was happy to proceed and be part of the no win, no fee group claim. 

I was invited to attend a zoom meeting with Leigh Day on Tuesday, 22nd October at 7 pm. to ask any questions that I may have. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to be in the meeting from the start due to technical reasons. However, when I joined the meeting, I was reassured from hearing the legal reprentatives that Leigh Day are a reputable firm of solicitors. It was clear that they will advise us all the way throughout the claim and work in our best interests. If things were going to get unaffordable the solicitors wouldn’t pursue it. If the claim isn’t successful (ie No Win) then the insurance would pay and not the individuals who are making a claim. 

Claim forms were sent out from Leigh Day to those who had registered an interest in making a claim on 17th October. By 22nd October they had already received 500 claims. 

Those interested in making a claim but are unsure about whether they would be eligible might find this slide helpful. 

Who can make a claim? 

Public Nuisance 

1) Impacted hobby eg kitesurfing

2) Impacted dog walker

3) Property owner with decreased house value

4) Business dependent on tourism eg hotel

5) Business reliant on water eg paddle board rental

Private Nuisance

1) Property on waterway

2) Impacted fishing rights 

The representatives from Leigh Day stated that people could contact them directly by email or phone if they had any questions about their individual circumstances. Email: exmouthsewage@leighday.co.uk   Phone: 020 7650 1111

On Tuesday 29th October there is going to be a drop session at the Community Hub, Sideshore, Queen’s Drive, Exmouth for people to ask questions to the Leigh Day legal team from 11.30 to 5.30.

Information for those wishing to join the Exmouth Group Sewage Pollution Claim: https://www.leighday.co.uk/our-services/group-claims/exmouth-sewage-pollution-claim/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGJqLJleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfn_Py5pXsjnQFxru6QP40k4WOWiK4aTs460fwc0NfbeVLVUrF5bMp1Sgg_aem_4I72h2D-DJe28ToITkkn4g

Those who have joined the group claim can also join the Exmouth Sewage Pollution Claim Facebook group. Please read the instructions regarding eligibility to be in the group when joining. https://www.facebook.com/groups/852651286856384

This morning, Geoff Crawford, one of the Admin and Group experts of ESCAPE (End Sewage Convoys and Poollution in Exmouth), posted on their Facebook page that there will be a meeting tonight. (Thursday 24th October, 2024.)

“ESCAPE are looking forward to attending the “on the same page”meeting tonight. MP, SWW, EA, ETC, BTC, EDDC, DCC, Sideshore, ESCAPE. Progress?”

MP – Mr David Reed, SWW – South West Water, EA – Environment Agency, BTC – Budleigh Town Council, EDDC – East Devon District Council, DCC – Devon County Council, Sideshore, ESCAPE. 

In the comments on this post, a member of the ESCAPE facebook page asked, “What is this please?”

Geoff Crawford replied, “Its a big meeting of “a limited number of interested parties and SWW and EA so that we can all be on the same page” arranged by David Reed MP. Fortunate that ESCAPE have been included though realistically it is we who have brought this about through pressure. The aim of the briefing session is to inform local elected representatives on the current situation, and to give councillors the opportunity to ask SWW about the feasibility and timelines around their delivery plan.

This will allow all of us to collectively assess and judge SWW’s plans and delivery, and to ensure that we are getting the local network upgrades that we so desperately need. None of us want a repeat of the summer we have just had.”

As a correspondent, it is reassuring that these different organisations are working together. It will be interesting to find out if the Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Steve Reed has replied to the letter that Exmouth Town Council sent him last month inviting him to Exmouth.  https://exmouth.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Letter-to-the-Sec-of-State-re-SWW-no-sig.pdf

Water companies in England could be banned from making a profit under plans for a complete overhaul of the system.

The idea is one of the options being considered by a new commission set up by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) amid public fury over the way firms have prioritised profit over the environment.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

Sources at the department said they would consider forcing the sale of water companies in England to firms that would run them as not-for-profits. Unlike under nationalisation, the company would not be run by the government but by a private company, run for public benefit.

The nonprofit model, which is widely used in other European countries, allows staff to be paid substantial salaries and bonuses but any profits on top of that are returned to the company.

Welsh Water, which runs under this model, has no shareholders and any surplus money is reinvested back into the business or into customer services.

Since Welsh Water was bought in 2001 it has reduced its debt substantially; its ratio of debt to equity has dropped from 93% to 58% since not-for-profit Glas Cymru acquired the company with debts of £1.85bn.

The environment secretary, Steve Reed, said: “Our waterways are polluted and our water system urgently needs fixing. That is why today we have launched a water commission to attract the investment we need to clean up our waterways and rebuild our broken water infrastructure. The commission’s findings will help shape new legislation to reform the water sector so it properly serves the interests of customers and the environment.”

The news comes as Ofwat considers how much it will allow companies to raise bills by, with water firms having asked the regulator to let them increase charges by up to 84% over the next five years. All options were on the table to reform the regulators, including abolishing Ofwat, Defra officials said on Tuesday.

Public anger has grown in recent years over the large sums of money made by water bosses in England while water supplies have dwindled and sewage has been spilled into rivers.

There has also been anger at the mismanagement of companies such as Thames Water, which have been loaded with debt and paid shareholders billions in dividends. Since privatisation in 1989, the English and Welsh water companies have collectively paid £78bn in dividends and accumulated £60bn in debt.

Reed said he was not considering nationalisation as part of the review, which would cost “tens of billions of pounds”.

But the commission, chaired by the former deputy governor of the Bank of England Jon Cunliffe, will consider all other options to ensure infrastructure is built and sewage stops spilling into waterways.

Cunliffe’s independent commission will draw upon a panel of experts from across the regulatory, environment, health, engineering, customer, investor and economic sectors. Water company representatives will not be on the panel but will be consulted for their views.

Environmental groups have expressed concern after Defra said the key aim of the commission was to reform the regulators so they encouraged investment and growth. They have said the environment should be prioritised over economic growth, but Defra sources said that without investment, the reservoirs and sewers needed to tackle the climate and nature emergencies could not be built.

James Wallace, the CEO of campaign group River Action, said: “We must not see the environment sacrificed on the altar of economic growth. The water commission must stop vampiric business interests and international investors sucking the lifeblood and money from our waterways and communities. It must deliver a fully funded national action plan to end pollution for profit, enforce laws, and reform regulators.

“Taking a look at our neighbours in Europe shows a range of approaches from wholly nationalised to not-for-profit organisations including a blend of private, public and mutualised models. The key is effective economic and environmental regulation that incentivises operating for public benefit and makes polluters pay.”

Doug Parr, policy director of Greenpeace UK, said: “Too much emphasis on making the sector attractive to big international investors like Macquarie is the exact reason why our waterways are in such an appalling state today. With a natural monopoly on an essential resource like water, we need a regulatory system that forces the industry to provide an acceptable minimum level of service, including an end to the routine discharges of raw sewage.

“If big international investors are unable to make sufficient profit in that environment, then clearly this is not a problem that can be solved by big international investors, and the government will have to do what every other country in the world has done and look at other ownership options.”

Decisions made by the independent commission will not come into force until the 2029 price review. For this year’s price review, which sets water bill levels over the next five years, water companies on Tuesday made requests to increase bills by more than they had at the beginning of the process.

Thames Water is now asking to raise bills by 53% to an average of £667 a year by 2029/30, making them the most expensive water bills in the country. Southern Water is seeking the biggest hike at 84%.

Ofwat will make its final decision for how much water bills can rise on 19 December, but its interim decision made in July said the average bill could rise 21% a year. Government sources confirmed on Tuesday that this number could rise.

The prime minister’s spokesperson said: “Clearly no one wanted to see a situation where water bills are rising, where the water sector has got into the situation that it has, with record levels of sewage spills and ageing infrastructure. From the government’s perspective, our priority is making sure that money goes where it’s needed and ensuring that water companies are putting customers first. If money isn’t spent, it will be returned to customers.”

Southern Water wants to raise bills by 84 per cent to £772 by 2030, compared with the £603 the regulator proposed. The UK’s biggest water firm, the embattled Thames Water, is seeking a 53 per cent increase in bills. The industry body Water UK has argued that Ofwat’s proposed limits would slow down efforts to clean up rivers and seas with more storm tanks and other measures.

Figures published by Ofwat on Tuesday show that water companies want to raise average bills by 40 per cent by 2030, compared with the 21 per cent, or £94, increase the regulator suggested in a draft ruling in July.

Out of the 11 water companies in England and Wales, it is just Wessex Water that has not requested higher prices since the decision was made in July. On average, companies have called for a 40% increase in bills on average instead of the proposed 21%, as reported by Sky News and www.thetimes.com

Plans for new homes in an East Devon village will have to be brought back to planners after votes to approve and reject the scheme failed.

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

Thirty-four homes south of Windmill Lane in West Hill, near Ottery St Mary, came close to being approved as long as additional requirements on renewable energy were stipulated.

But when this vote at East Devon District Council’s planning committee failed, another motion to refuse the scheme emerged, largely based on the premise that too many homes were planned, out of kilter with the character of West Hill.

Before that could be put to the vote, though, it was withdrawn once a third motion emerged to defer a decision, with council officers tasked to work with the developer, Strongvox, on a proposal with fewer properties.

Cllr Sarah Chamberlain (Liberal Democrat, Broadclyst) said she believed it was overdevelopment. “There are too many houses on the plan,” she said.

“I do think the site can be developed but that 34 is too much, and so if the proposal to reject the scheme can be withdrawn, then I would propose a deferral so that the council can consult with the developer to see if the numbers on the application can be adjusted.

“I would rather do that than risk the applicant appealing.”

When refusing applications, councils must be confident they can defend their reasons in front of a planning inspector because if they lose, they are liable for the costs of the proceedings and have to approve a scheme they wanted to block.

West Hill Parish Council is also worried about overdevelopment. It said the village had already provided around 80 dwellings, more than it needed in order to comply with East Devon’s local plan.

“In addition to the current proposal, there are two other significant planning applications in West Hill, as yet undetermined, which could provide a further 54 dwellings,” comments provided by the parish council stated.

“Excessive levels of new house building will put pressure on the infrastructure of the village – notably primary school provision, secondary school provision, health services, and public open space and recreation facilities, and also on community cohesion.”

The developer had proposed 35 per cent of the homes on the site be ‘affordable’, together with a cash payment to the council in lieu of an additional 15 per cent affordable properties. It is not clear whether that will be impacted if the developer brings forward a scheme with fewer homes.

Earlier, some councillors had been encouraged by the renewable energy aspects of the scheme, with all homes set to have air-sourced heat pumps.

A proposed stipulation to ensure solar panels had also been considered and installed where suitable also proved popular with some councillors.

But the motion to approve the scheme failed because seven members voted against.

A correspondent comments:

Excessive pollution, excessive blah, blah blahing from those responsible

The ultimate solution must be the ducking stool – in and out of the polluted waters until those responsible admit their guilt. Put the results on YouTube and earn tax payers some compensation.

Reinforcing failure amongst the “Captains of Industry” (again) – Owl

Water company executive bonuses have increased despite the fact sewage spills into British seas and waterways hit record levels last year, an analysis has found.

Kyriakos Petrakos inews.co.uk

Bonuses paid to executives of water companies across England and Wales increased to £9.1m in 2023/24, rising by more than £120,000 from 2022/23, even though sewage was dumped into waterways for 3.6m hours last year, research by the Liberal Democrats has revealed.

Thames Water executive bonuses nearly doubled, rising from £746,000 in 2022/2023 to £1.3m in 2023/2024, despite its chief executive quitting halfway through the year as the company teetered on the edge of bankruptcy.

Severn Trent bosses received the biggest payout, with three executives earning an eye-watering £3.3m in bonuses.

This was followed by three executives at United Utilities, who were paid nearly £2.5m in bonuses, and four executives at Yorkshire Water, who received almost £1.1m.

“It is a national scandal that these bonuses are being paid out by firms who disgustingly pollute rivers, lakes and beaches,” said Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat’s environment spokesperson.

“These executives are pocketing more every year whilst sewage levels rise. Frankly, the whole thing stinks.

“The last Conservative government shamefully let these disgraced firms get away with it, and now the new Government has to step up.

“These bonuses are an insult to the British public and must be banned straight away. The Liberal Democrats will push for a vote in Parliament to ban these bonuses whilst sewage continues to flow.”

A spokesperson for the industry representative Water UK told i: “Almost all of these bonuses were paid by shareholders, not customers, but all companies recognise the need to do more to deliver on their plans to support economic growth, build more homes, secure our water supplies and end sewage entering our rivers.

“We now need the regulator Ofwat to fully approve water companies’ investment plans so that we can get on with it.”

Water company executives’ pension contributions also rose to a new high of nearly £1.7m in 2023/24, marking an increase of more than 8 per cent over the previous year.

Thames Water alone paid its executives £754,000 in pension contributions in 2023/24, despite the fact the firm was placed under “special measures” by Ofwat as it struggled to address its £15.2bn debt burden, raising concerns that it would collapse into a publicly-funded administration.

Base pay for water company executives also remained at more than £9m in 2023/24, with the chief executive at Northumbrian Water paying themselves £483,000.

“How do any of them have the gall to accept a bonus in any shape or form with what is going on?” said Jo Bateman, a sea swimmer from Exmouth, Devon.

Ms Bateman, 62, is taking South West Water to court over sewage spills in her local bathing spot and will be starring in a documentary, Jo In The Water, about Britain’s sewage crisis.

She told i: “A bonus is a performance-related payment and the water companies are getting worse, year on year.

“Even if they weren’t getting worse, they should not be polluting our rivers and seas. As long as they continue to do that, I do not know how they could argue that they deserve performance-related bonuses.

“Whether they are legal or not, their behaviour is atrocious. It’s diabolical across the board.

“From a completely apolitical viewpoint, I think bonuses should be banned.”

An Ofwat spokesperson told i that, under current legislation, it lacked the powers to fully ban bonuses for water company executives.

“However, our powers do allow us to intervene to block customers from paying for these bonuses if we determine that they are not aligned to overall company performance for the benefit of customers and the environment,” the spokesperson added.

“We will soon be making an assessment of all companies’ decisions, and we will publish our findings in due course. This will be the first year these rules have come into force.”

Water companies are allowed to discharge sewage during periods of exceptional rainfall to prevent their systems from being overwhelmed, but concerns have been raised over how often this has been happening.

Caz Dennett, 53, of Weymouth, Dorset, has boycotted her bill payments to Wessex Water since April 2023 in protest of the firm’s poor wastewater services.

Commenting on the bonus increases, she said: “It’s shocking that they are on the increase when they should be zero.

“It’s outrageous and it would be good to know what is the basis for those benefits.

“I fail to understand how they are justified. What it will do is further enrage the public who are already massively fed up, angry and sickened by the level of sewage being discharged.

“It’s in every brook, stream, river and lake across our country and this is going to enrage people even more.”

Paul de Zylva, sustainability analyst at Friends of the Earth, said: “Water bosses are cashing in ahead of the Government’s promised crackdown on executive pay. There are too many loopholes in how bonuses are currently set.

“It seems the more they pollute, the more bosses are rewarded for failure. Now, as water companies push the regulator to allow them to charge consumers even more from 2025 onwards, this bonus bonanza looks set to flow on.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs said: “For too long, water companies have pumped record levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas.

“That’s why we are placing water companies under special measures through the Water Bill, which will strengthen regulation, including new powers to ban the payment of bonuses for polluting water bosses and bring criminal charges against persistent law-breakers.

“We are also carrying out a full review of the water sector to shape further legislation that will transform how our water system works and clean up rivers, lakes and seas for good.”

Ahead of the general election, i called on all the major parties to sign up to its five-point manifesto to tackle sewage pollution and save Britain’s rivers, seas and waterways.

Some of the measures laid out in the manifesto will be introduced in the new Water Bill, such as tougher powers for the regulator Ofwat and increased prosecutions against water companies.

But i is urging the Government to go further by raising EA funding in the Budget later this month as well as offer farmers grants to reduce agricultural pollution.

The Liberal Democrats and the Green Party have signed up to the manifesto, but Labour and the Conservatives are yet to back it in full.

Sir Keir Starmer praised the i manifesto, but stopped short of fully committing to its five pledges.

Text of the X post: Feargal Sharkey @Feargal_Sharkey

“South West Water ‘willing to bring money forward’ for Exmouth repairs, MP says. South West Water is willing to bring money forward to hasten sewer repair work in Exmouth, according to the town’s MP David Reed.” Oh dear. Yet another MP being played by the local water company. Wouldn’t that be right @David__Reed.

This is the source of Feargal’s commments:

Exmouth MP says SWW is willing to bring money forward for repairs

Bradley Gerrard www.exmouthjournal.co.uk 

South West Water is willing to bring money forward to hasten sewer repair work in Exmouth, according to the town’s MP David Reed.

Mr Reed says he met with the firm’s chief executive Susan Davy to urge her to speed up remedial work and improvements to Exmouth’s sewage infrastructure.

He said external consultants hired by the company had assessed the state of sewage pipes.

Sewage spills in August led to Exmouth’s beaches being closed at the height of tourist season, prompting anger from residents, while a burst pipe in Imperial Road near estuary in July also caused issues.

The company assured residents that no spillage had entered the water.

Mr Reed campaigned about sewage spills before the general election, and said he is working so the community can hold SWW to account.

“We’ve had a litany of mistakes over the past few months, with multiple burst pipes, local beaches closes, businesses affected and tourism hindered,” he told Radio Exe’s Devoncast podcast.

“We’re starting to get a reputation nationally for all the wrong reasons, and we’re in this position because of South West Water’s behaviour and unwillingness to put structural engineering funds in and to do the work over recent years.”

Mr Reed said Ms Davy and Richard Price, the company’s new managing director for waste water services, understood the “magnitude of anger felt by the local community” and were “willing to bring money forward”.

However, he acknowledged that SWW would need approval to do this from the Environment Agency and water regulator Ofwat.

He has asked a minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to meet with him and Ms Davy, so that “we have that other lever to make sure SWW is doing what it says”.

Mr Reed said the report on Exmouth’s sewage pipes, produced by Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers, would be shared with county, district and town councillors, as well as with campaign groups, such as Escape (End Sewage Convoys and Poollution Exmouth).

He hoped to convene a meeting with interested parties “to make sure everyone understands what’s happening”.

“It becomes a really difficult situation when there are multiple different narratives online and in person about what is happening, so I want to bring everyone together into one room to allow them to be briefed by the Environment Agency and SWW to get a balanced view,” he said.

“I want them all to be briefed on what the report says and what SWW’s plans are in the short- and medium-term to put the relevant fixes in.

“By doing so, that will allow us to collectively put pressure on SWW as we are speaking with one voice.”

SWW did not respond to requests for comment.

However, in an article on its website last month attributed to Mr Price, the firm said it had tasked “over 100 people working around the clock to fix the issue” after a pipe burst at Maer Road.

He added that the leak in the sewer from Maer Road pumping station to Maer Lane waste water treatment works on Wednesday, August 14 was stopped “within two hours so we could start work on a temporary solution to bypass the damaged main so that a permanent repair can be made”.

“We know how disappointed residents and visitors to Exmouth are,” he said.

“I would like to reassure you that we are doing everything we can, as quickly and thoroughly as possible, to ensure your local wastewater network is fit for the future.”

Water watchdog chief seeks to stem consumers’ sewage lawsuits

A director of England’s water regulator is spearheading  a campaign that could make it harder for consumers to sue water companies that breach legal sewage limits.

Oliver Wright, Adam Vaughan www.thetimes.com

Seema Kennedy, a former Conservative minister, is the executive director of a group that is trying to tighten the funding rules for class action lawsuits and end what it calls the “predatory claims culture”.

Critics have claimed that her role represents a conflict of interest amid a continuing legal battle between consumers and five of Britain’s largest water companies over untreated sewage.

Kennedy is also a paid senior adviser to the lobbying firm Global Counsel, which works for the industry body that represents all the UK’s big water companies. Global Counsel has also previously carried out work for the anti-class action campaign.

Government rules state that directors of public bodies must ensure that “no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between your public duties and your private interests, financial or otherwise”. In a statement Kennedy said there was “no conflict” with her position at Ofwat and other paid roles.

Kennedy was appointed as the executive director of Fair Civil Justice in 2022 — two years after being appointed by ministers as a non-executive director of Ofwat.

Fair Civil Justice campaigns for restrictions on third-party funding of class action that cover legal costs in exchange for a share of any awarded damages or settlements.

They describe such cases as “predatory litigation” that is a “drag on growth”. However, anti-pollution campaigners have said that such restrictions could potentially damage cases such as a class action being brought against Severn Trent water and potentially five other water companies.

Lawyers claim that the companies provided misleading information to Ofwat and the Environment Agency by under-reporting sewage pollution.

This, they claim, allowed the companies to charge bill payers more than they otherwise would have been able to. The claim is brought on behalf of twenty million customers, who may have been overcharged by between £800 million to £1.5 billion.

Professor Carolyn Roberts, emeritus professor at Gresham College in London, who is the lead claimant in the case, said that it had only been possible to bring the case because of outside funding. “It would not have been possible to bring my case and hold these companies to account without the support of litigation funders and the expertise of lawyers,” she said.

However, the Fair Civil Justice campaign said it had not had any involvement “whatsoever” with any water company and “had not commented on any ongoing litigation involving the water sector”. “We remain committed to speaking up on behalf of British businesses and consumers,” a spokesperson said.

Kennedy said she had “always complied with all legal and regulatory requirements, including regular disclosures in line with Ofwat’s conflicts of interest policy”.

She added: “I have provided some limited advice in my role as part-time adviser to Global Counsel, but this has never included any water company or mandate in which the firm is engaged  in.”

A spokesperson for Ofwat said: “Seema Kennedy has declared her role at Fair Civil Justice. We are satisfied that this does not present a conflict with her role at Ofwat.

“Seema acts as a senior adviser to Global Counsel, providing insight and advice on specific matters when requested. Again, this role has been declared. She has always made it clear to Global Counsel that she would not be able to provide advice in relation to the water sector.”

In a statement Global Counsel said: “Global Counsel manages potential conflicts of interest in accordance with all relevant legal and regulatory requirements.”

It comes as one large water company was issued with an unprecedented reprimand by the UK’s data watchdog for wrongly keeping sewage pollution data secret.

United Utilities become the first water company to be hit with a special enforcement measure by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) over failure to comply with transparency laws.

The watchdog said it had received “numerous complaints” from the public over compliance by the water company, which serves the northwest of England and illegally dumped millions of litres of sewage in Windermere in February.

The ICO said United Utilities had repeatedly claimed that information people had asked for under Environmental Information Request (EIR) rules wasn’t environmental, when it clearly was. The firm has previously refused requests by The Times’ Clean it Up campaign, arguing that timings of raw sewage spilt into waterways wasn’t environmental information.

“Any information that would enlighten the public about how United Utilities operates and the impact it has on the environment is, by its very nature, likely environmental — this includes data on sewage spills and the performance of its wastewater treatment works,” Warren Seddon, director of FOI at the ICO, said.

United Utilities said it was committed to being more transparent and would consider the recommendations set out by the ICO.

A spokeswoman said: “We handle hundreds of Environmental Information Requests (EIRs) every year and, in a handful of cases, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) clarified that the information we were asked to provide did fall under the scope of EIR. We have followed that clarification since we received it several months ago. We are receiving an increasing number and wider scope of EIRs and have recruited additional and dedicated resources to help us deal with these.”

More on Devon second homes council tax may be spent on highways

About £15m of extra revenue from doubling council tax on second homes in Devon could be spent on roads, according to a leaked letter seen by the BBC.

Miles Davis www.bbc.co.uk

District councils are responsible for collecting council tax but it is Devon County Council that decides where the majority of the money will go.

The leader of a district council that is introducing 200% council tax for second homes from April 2025 said he and other leaders were told most of the extra money would be spent on highways.

The leader of the county council told the BBC no final decisions had been made ahead of the budget being set in February.

Council tax will be doubled in areas covered by South Hams District Council, North Devon Council and East Devon Council from April 2025.

Julian Brazil, Liberal Democrat leader of South Hams District Council, said: “The tax was brought in because of the problem we have around housing that second homes create.

“So it only seems fair that the money we raise is spent on housing.”

Brazil said it was “incredibly disappointing” the county council had indicated the extra cash would be spent on roads.

“We’ve got a massive opportunity here and we can make a real difference – we know what we need in our communities and that’s genuinely affordable housing,” he said.

Brazil also pointed to a report carried out by the Devon Housing Commission, external which recommended “that Devon County Council utilise a significant proportion of receipts from second homes council tax to help meet the county’s housing and infrastructure needs”.

Emma Hookway set up the campaign group North Devon and Torridge Housing Crisis to raise awareness of housing issues in the area.

“When the revenue is being made off the back of saying we’re in the midst of a housing crisis and we’re going to target second home owners it seems absolutely wrong to then put that money into another pocket,” she said.

Ms Hookway said she would like to see the money used to improve standards in temporary accommodation.

The leaders of all eight district councils in Devon signed a joint letter to the county council leader, James McInnes, in August which said the extra council tax revenue arose “specifically from the fact that local people are being denied the opportunity to own or rent that home”.

The letter said: “We trust you will look at the challenges being experienced by local people facing housing issues and allocate these resources accordingly.”

In the written response from McInnes, he said the question of where to spend extra council tax cash would be “just one element of a complex juggling act”.

He said the council’s current priority was “tackling the problems with our highway and transport networks”.

‘Work together’

Speaking to the BBC, McInnes said: “I don’t think all the money will go into highways.

“Some district council leaders are saying we’re going to solve the housing crisis in Devon by doubling second homes council tax.

“You’re not going to do that – it’s far bigger than that. We need to work together with the district councils and with Homes England to put together a plan that’s likely to get money way beyond second homes council tax coming into Devon to really solve the housing crisis in the long term.”

• Removal of existing storm porch and replacement with enclosed front porch. 1 Greenhill Avenue Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5HWRef. No: 24/1967/FUL | Validated: Fri 20 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T28: Turkey Oak – prune back branches over property (Flat 30) by up to 4m. 30 The Laurels Sidmouth EX10 8UXRef. No: 24/1960/TCA | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of material on dormer from hanging tile to light grey Cedral cladding. 31 Willow Avenue Exmouth EX8 4QSRef. No: 24/1958/FUL | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Oak (T1) – reduce crown by a maximum of 1.5m. Reduction works via thinning with max diameter cuts of 30mm to achieve this. Carry out works on a 4 year cycle to contain size of tree. Ventonlace Cottington Mead Sidmouth EX10 8HBRef. No: 24/1959/TRE | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T2, Plum: Fell and treat stump with eco plugs. T3, Japanese Red Cedar: Fell close to ground level (approx. 50mm). Reason : To combat subsidence damage. Plymton House 59 High Street Honiton EX14 1PWRef. No: 24/1961/TCA | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed roof extension and new raised terrace on North West elevation, Dormer and single storey extension on North East elevation, single storey extension on South East elevation and extension to dormer on South West elevation. 3 Stevens Cross Close Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9QJRef. No: 24/1964/FUL | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed alteration to rear conservatory to form sun room and rendering brickwork. 2 Francis Way Colyford Colyton EX24 6QNRef. No: 24/1955/FUL | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of Condition for 23/1556/FUL: Condition 9 ( solar panels) Egremont Barn Payhembury Honiton EX14 3JARef. No: 24/1962/DOC | Validated: Fri 20 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development to re-model rear conservatory by installing a flat roof with roof light, and making changes to walls and fenestration.Appletree House Feniton EX14 3BERef. No: 24/1951/CPL | Validated: Wed 18 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of Condition for 21/2033/MRES: Condition 7 (Plant) Parcel TC4A Land South Of Tillhouse Road Cranbrook Town Centre CranbrookRef. No: 24/1950/DOC | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of Condition for 24/1327/FUL: Condition 3 (Tree Protection) Portlight Bunts Lane Seaton EX12 2HURef. No: 24/1948/DOC | Validated: Wed 18 Sep 2024 | Status: Unknown
• T005 Tag 1276: Common Beech – Section fell to ground level. St Josephs Rc Primary School Regents Gate Exmouth EX8 1TARef. No: 24/1954/TRE | Validated: Wed 18 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed Two Storey rear extension and shed / garden room 16 Hillside Colyton EX24 6NWRef. No: 24/1939/FUL | Validated: Tue 17 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Holm oak: crown raise by 2m and remove 6 branches (max. diameter 100mm) which are overhanging the garden of 14a Portland Avenue. 14 Portland Avenue Exmouth EX8 2BSRef. No: 24/1935/TCA | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of listed building consent 21/1616/LBC (Proposed internal and external alterations to building to include: internal layout changes (including removal of existing and replacement partition walls/staircases and relocation of skittle alley); removal of existing lean-to infill extensions, construction of balcony, installation of concealed flue, installation of glazed entrance way and new bin storage area on southeast elevation, and; removal of existing steps on northwest elevation and installation of ramp to provide disabled access) to allow alterations to internal layout of building and to the design of balcony previously approved and construction of bin store (partially retrospective) Colcombe Castle Hotel Market Place Colyton EX24 6JSRef. No: 24/1940/VAR | Validated: Tue 17 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of roof over existing open yardsAshe Farm Musbury Devon EX13 8ADRef. No: 24/1932/AGR | Validated: Tue 17 Sep 2024 | Status: Decided
• T1, Yew: radial crown lift to 2.5m from ground level and overall radial crown reduction by approximately 2m up to a maximum diameter cut of 75mm. St Giles Church Whitford Road Kilmington Devon EX13 7RFRef. No: 24/1934/TCA | Validated: Tue 17 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Agricultural shed for the feeding and storing sheep and the storage of hay approx size 465msqChineway Farm Putts Corner Sidbury Devon EX10 0QQRef. No: 24/1931/AGR | Validated: Tue 17 Sep 2024 | Status: Decided
• T1, Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) : remove tree. T2, Thuja plicata (Western red cedar) : remove tree. Elmcote Boughmore Road Sidmouth Devon EX10 8SHRef. No: 24/1920/TRE | Validated: Mon 16 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Minor amendment for 22/2343/MRES : Change proposal description from …”construction of 10 dwellings and associated infrastructure” to …”construction of up to 10 dwellings and associated infrastructure” Site Of Tillhouse Farm CranbrookRef. No: 24/1922/NMA | Validated: Mon 16 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of Condition for 24/0320/LBC: Condtion 3 (materials) 2 School Cottages Woodbury Salterton Exeter EX5 1PGRef. No: 24/1919/DOC | Validated: Mon 16 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Modern steel portal frame building providing clear span space for storage of hay, machinery and equipment.The Oaks Aylesbeare Exeter EX5 2DERef. No: 24/1925/AGR | Validated: Mon 16 Sep 2024 | Status: Decided
• Replace 3no. windows on ground floor and 3no. windows on first floor west elevation Wildwood Escot Park Ottery St Mary EX11 1LURef. No: 24/1923/LBC | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 24/0204/LBC: Condition 3 (materials)15 Harepath Road Seaton EX12 2RPRef. No: 24/1926/DOC | Validated: Tue 17 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Silver Birch Tree : Fell. Woodlands 2 Birch Grove West Hill Devon EX11 1XPRef. No: 24/1913/TRE | Validated: Mon 16 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension. Alterations to principal elevation to facilitate garage conversion3 Cherry Close Honiton EX14 2XTRef. No: 24/1894/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed two new garages The Oaks Harefield Drive Lympstone EX8 5TTRef. No: 24/1896/FUL | Validated: Fri 20 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• New rear dormer window; new front rooflights; new raised ridge, eaves and roofline; external alterations14 Nelson Drive Exmouth EX8 2PURef. No: 24/1879/FUL | Validated: Mon 16 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed new balcony facing north/westApartment 13 Elwyn House 2 Elwyn Road Exmouth EX8 2ELRef. No: 24/1842/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed part change of use from ground floor commercial shop / ground and first floor offices to a two storey residential dwelling; remaining ground floor space to be retained as a commercial shop. 1 Broad Street Ottery St Mary Devon EX11 1BRRef. No: 24/1817/FUL | Validated: Mon 16 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Beech: crown reduction via thinning; total crown removal between 20-25%; maximum intended cuts 125mm. Gaunts Sid Road Sidmouth EX10 9AFRef. No: 24/1784/TRE | Validated: Fri 20 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a car port including integrated solar panels on roof, renewal of previously approved application 21/2277/FULErica Seafield Road Sidmouth Devon EX10 8HERef. No: 24/1791/FUL | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for works to be considered commencement of planning permission 23/0463/FUL (Erection of an agricultural building). Land South Of Huxham Wood Farm PoltimoreRef. No: 24/1777/CPE | Validated: Wed 18 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of an acoustic enclosure for existing engine testing padLand At Exeter International Airport Clyst HonitonRef. No: 24/1762/CPL | Validated: Mon 16 Sep 2024 | Status: Approved
• Repairs to veranda. Re render front elevation with lime render. Tank and repair basement storage vaults. Repair first floor construction. Remove partition wall which crosses first floor, front room. Block up modern, first floor, front room doorway. Reinstate original first floor, front room doorway and door. Replace first floor front room fireplace. Repair railings, replace damaged railings and gate. St Davids 1 1/2 Fortfield Terrace Sidmouth EX10 8NTRef. No: 24/1755/LBC | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Garden works including replacement of boundary fence and construction of pergola Carpenters Cottage Causeway Beer EX12 3LFRef. No: 24/1732/FUL | Validated: Mon 16 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of garden studio (Retrospective) 7 Swan Road Seaton EX12 2USRef. No: 24/1713/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of garage block and outbuildings, construction of two storey extensions on the east and west elevations, single storey extension to the northern elevation and alterations to fenestration. 5 Fountain Hill Budleigh Salterton Devon EX9 6BXRef. No: 24/1707/FUL | Validated: Wed 18 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• New agricultural building for use as a straw store (SE4) Crealy Barton Sidmouth Road Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1DRRef. No: 24/1628/FUL | Validated: Tue 17 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• New agricultural building for use as a trailer and machinery store (NE3) Crealy Barton Sidmouth Road Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1DRRef. No: 24/1627/FUL | Validated: Tue 17 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• New agricultural building for use as a lockable fertilizer and chemical store (SW2) Crealy Barton Sidmouth Road Clyst St Mary Devon EX5 1DRRef. No: 24/1626/FUL | Validated: Tue 17 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of single storey flat roof existing side extension with pitched roof single storey extension and extension of raised patio.Oak Park Exe View Road Lympstone EX8 5AZRef. No: 24/1497/FUL | Validated: Tue 17 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Windows: Replace 7no. windows W1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 and repair W3, 4, 7 and 12; replace 1no. door on front and 1no. on rear elevation and replace grab handle on front elevation; Ground floor: remove boarding and re-instate window; Strip walls and re-line on ground floor; Install horizontal DPC to ground floor; Install 2no. fire doors at ground floor; Chimneys: remove render and re-render replace/install pots; Replacement of flue linings; Roof: repair and replace roof timbers and re-build wall plates; Replace all first floor ceilings; Replace staircase treads and structure where necessary; Replace any defective floor boards and joists throughout; Localised replacement of defective areas of plaster to walls and ceilings throughout; Renewal of felt and timbers over rear extension, re-tile and re-use where possible; Replace bargeboards on north elevation; Replace all rainwater goods; Install bat box under eaves and replace gutter boards on south elevation ; Attic: replace flat roof and timbers and replace gutter boards; Repair and re-point brick west elevation including installing helifix bars and works to stone garden wall including re-capping boundary wall; install new extract vent to first floor bathroom; Lifting of all floorboards throughout property for treatment of timbers for insect infestation. 58 High Street Honiton Devon EX14 1PQRef. No: 24/1432/LBC | Validated: Thu 19 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed detached dwelling and new driveway access to No 6 Peaslands Road Land Adjacent 15 Ascerton Road SidmouthRef. No: 24/0862/FUL | Validated: Fri 20 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Proposed single detached garage Lower Foxgrove Coreway Close Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9SDRef. No: 24/2024/FUL | Validated: Fri 27 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Extending front of garage to the line of the existing roof and fitting new garage door. 28 Maple Drive Exmouth EX8 5NRRef. No: 24/2027/FUL | Validated: Fri 27 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Prior approval application for conversion of 2 agricultural buildings including associated works to form 8 dwellings (C3 use) under Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (GPD) (England) order 2015 (as amended) Barns South Of Green Lane FenitonRef. No: 24/2012/PDQ | Validated: Thu 26 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• 2 no. illuminated signs, 1 no. illuminated projecting lantern, 1no. non-illuminated post mounted sign, 2no. non-illuminated signs, 11no. floodlights, 7no wall lights St George And Dragon Clyst St George Exeter EX3 0QJRef. No: 24/2018/ADV | Validated: Thu 26 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of Condition for 24/0230/LBC: Condition 4 (materials) Halls Farm Higher Metcombe Ottery St Mary EX11 1SSRef. No: 24/2017/DOC | Validated: Fri 27 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a single storey extension to rear and erection of a two storey extension to side of dwelling. 7 Henley Road Exmouth EX8 2LXRef. No: 24/2007/FUL | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• G1, Scots Pine: Remove major hazardous deadwood on all pines and deadwood from the central pine tree. T2, Sycamore: remove two eastern-most limbs growing towards property; maximum diameter of cuts 70mm. The Lodge House 7 West Hill Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 6AARef. No: 24/2008/TRE | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of porch on front (north west facing) elevation with new porch and WC 3 Westminster Close Feniton Honiton EX14 3DWRef. No: 24/2004/FUL | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed first floor addition to existing bungalow and raised terrace on the West elevation. 17 Westview Close Whimple Exeter EX5 2TWRef. No: 24/2005/FUL | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing extension and erection of new extension on the South elevation Southmoor Brampford Speke Exeter EX5 5DXRef. No: 24/2006/FUL | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• G1 – Sycamore, crown lift over neighbouring property (4 Rolle Road), including clearance from outbuilding and to 4m above ground level where overhanging garden . G2 – Holm Oaks, coppice all main stems leaving young growth. Holy Trinity Church Rolle Road Exmouth EX8 2ABRef. No: 24/1991/TCA | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of conditions for 21/1688/MFUL; Condition 13 (Lighting) Land South Of Lily Cottage Exeter Road WhimpleRef. No: 24/1996/DOC | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 21/1688/MFUL: Condition 22 (SI/Remediation) Land South Of Lily Cottage Exeter Road WhimpleRef. No: 24/1998/DOC | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 Robinia – remove dead wood and shorten back long branches by 1-2m to leave a natural form. T2 Crab apple – fell. Reason: dead. Brandon House 29 Douglas Avenue Exmouth EX8 2HERef. No: 24/1990/TRE | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of condition no. 2 (approved plans) of planning application 22/0178/FUL (Demolition of existing agricultural buildings and construction of 5 no. dwellinghouses (alternative to residential change of use of agricultural buildings to 5 no. dwellinghouses under Class Q approval reference 21/1887/PDQ)) to permit alterations to design previously approved (partially retrospective) at Western Mews (site formally known as Crosshill Farm), Weston, EX14 3PF Weston Mews Weston Honiton EX14 3PFRef. No: 24/1984/VAR | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of Condition for 21/1688/MFUL: Condtion 5 (Highways), Condition 14 (Envionmental Health) and Condition 25 (Phasing Plan) Land South Of Lily Cottage Exeter Road WhimpleRef. No: 24/1994/DOC | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of Condition for 21/1688/MFUL: Condition 10 (LEMP) Land South Of Lily Cottage Exeter Road WhimpleRef. No: 24/1995/DOC | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 24/1477/FUL: Condition 4 (Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement) Springfield Oil Mill Lane Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1AGRef. No: 24/2000/DOC | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condtion for 21/1688/MFUL: Condition 16 (Acoustic Fence) Land South Of Lily Cottage Exeter Road WhimpleRef. No: 24/1997/DOC | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• G2, Winter’s Bark (x2) – reduce by approximately 2m to level of adjacent Lawson Cypress. Carolcrest Bickwell Valley Sidmouth EX10 8SQRef. No: 24/1993/TCA | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Minor amendment for 21/2033/MRES to increase the number of EV charging points in the car park from 2 to 6 and to provide a secondary escape ladder to the roof of the supermarket. Town Centre Parcel TC4A Supermarket And Town Square CranbrookRef. No: 24/1992/NMA | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of a portal framed agricultural buildingCollwell Farm Buildings North Combe Road Offwell Honiton EX14 9SJRef. No: 24/1989/AGR | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Decided
• T1 – Lucombe Oak: crown reduce by an estimated 12 metres in height, Maximum Diameter of Cuts (MDC) 550mm. Reduce lateral spread accordingly, MDC 125mm. This will leave a tree with an approximate height of 12-13m and a radial canopy spread of 4-5m. 8 Grindle Way Clyst St Mary EX5 1DFRef. No: 24/1999/TRE | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed new first floor dwelling with garage to ground floor 58 East Budleigh Road Budleigh Salterton EX9 6EJRef. No: 24/1986/FUL | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1: Ash pollard – remove dead wood over 75mm and reduce height by 2-3m into live growth to encourage new shoots. Shorten back long limb over neighbouring property. 5 Deans Mead Sidmouth EX10 8XPRef. No: 24/2002/TRE | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Oak – reduce height by approximately 2m. Shorten back branches over neighbouring roof to a suitable pruning position to clear 2m. Re-shape remainder of crown by 1-2m to leave a natural form. Remove dead wood over 75mm. 24 Moorlands West Hill EX11 1ULRef. No: 24/2001/TRE | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of Condition for 24/1897/LBC: Condition 3 (Materials) Old Bakery Hawkchurch Axminster EX13 5XDRef. No: 24/1978/DOC | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 13/2392/MRES: Condition 3 (Landscaping) Land North Of Former Lyme Bay Holiday Park SeatonRef. No: 24/1975/DOC | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of Condition for 09/0022/MOUT: Condition 17 (landscaping) Land Adjacent Harbour Road SeatonRef. No: 24/1974/DOC | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Existing Lawful Use on the grounds that the Agricultural Occupancy Condition has been breached for a continuous period of more than 10 years Monterey Chaplehayes Farm Upottery Honiton EX14 9RQRef. No: 24/1973/CPE | Validated: Mon 23 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, T2 : Monterey Cypresses: outer crown reduction by 1.5 metres on selected branches, inner crown and failed branch removal. Haldon View Oil Mill Lane Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1AGRef. No: 24/1977/TRE | Validated: Mon 23 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1: Beech – prune extending limbs to give 2m clearance from house. Littlecourt House Seafield Road Sidmouth EX10 8HFRef. No: 24/1970/TRE | Validated: Mon 23 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of Juliet Balconies and Entrance Canopy Norcombe Court Harbour Road Seaton Devon EX12 2XNRef. No: 24/1930/FUL | Validated: Fri 27 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of side extension, layout changes and associated landscaping. (Resubmission of 22/0344/FUL) Little Holme Back Lane Newton Poppleford EX10 0EYRef. No: 24/1928/FUL | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 24/1429/FUL: Condition 3 (surface water) 66 Brixington Lane Exmouth EX8 4JGRef. No: 24/1972/DOC | Validated: Mon 23 Sep 2024 | Status: Unknown
• Single storey extension to the rear of the existing garage and conversion of existing garage into small annexe. Works to include removing the existing roof structure to raise the height of the roof and new roof structure over. 59 York Crescent Feniton Honiton EX14 3DQRef. No: 24/1909/FUL | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Agricultural storage building (resubmission of 23/1161/FUL) Land South Of Hillside Salcombe RegisRef. No: 24/1900/FUL | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Reconstruction of 3no. cottages after fire, to include new first floor extension on Thatch End (re-submission of 23/1834/FUL) Burnthouse Cottages Strete Ralegh Whimple Exeter EX5 2PPRef. No: 24/1897/FUL | Validated: Fri 27 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Agricultural building to house new milking facilities Highwood Farm Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4QJRef. No: 24/1876/FUL | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Rebuild suspended floors and walls; strip back and re-render first floor; replace joists and beams; insulate walls and floors. External cladding on southeast and northeast elevations. Bathroom: relocate and replace window on southwest elevation; remove and construct partition wall to increase bathroom size and create ensuite in master bedroom. The Lower House Payhembury EX14 3HARef. No: 24/1880/LBC | Validated: Thu 26 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of open porches on S/E, N/W & S/W elevations, new pitched roof above garage, change of external materials, extended patio and landscaping, new parking area Windrush Poltimore Exeter EX4 0ABRef. No: 24/1867/FUL | Validated: Fri 27 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development to remove existing garage and replace with new garage.1 Beacon Cottages Talaton Exeter EX5 2SARef. No: 24/1859/CPL | Validated: Mon 23 Sep 2024 | Status: Approved
• Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development for the removal of existing garage and replaced with new garage and office/store.Primrose Cottage Latchmoor Green Thorverton Exeter EX5 5LYRef. No: 24/1840/CPL | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Approved
• Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) on Planning Permission 21/0891/FUL (Demolition of existing public house and 3 residential apartments and construction of replacement bar/restaurant and 9 apartments) for amended design Hook And Parrot Inn East Walk Seaton EX12 2LNRef. No: 24/1831/VAR | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing single family dwelling and creation of 4 no. apartments. 10 Marine Parade Budleigh Salterton EX9 6NSRef. No: 24/1832/FUL | Validated: Mon 23 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed self-build dwelling. 10 Marine Parade Budleigh Salterton EX9 6NSRef. No: 24/1823/FUL | Validated: Mon 23 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed erection of 3no detached dwellings, stable block and paddock with associated hard and soft landscaping/access Land At Higher Metcombe Higher Mecombe EX11 1SLRef. No: 24/1761/MFUL | Validated: Mon 23 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace existing windows for similar style uPVC double glazing windows Flat 4 2 Major Terrace Seaton EX12 2RFRef. No: 24/1726/FUL | Validated: Fri 27 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of agricultural building Land Formerly Associated With Oak Lodge Holcombe Lane Ottery St Mary EX11 1PHRef. No: 24/1670/FUL | Validated: Mon 23 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of a static caravan to serve as an agricultural workers dwelling. Chilcotts Farm Chardstock EX13 7BURef. No: 24/1652/FUL | Validated: Tue 24 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Existing annex: new single storey extension on west elevation Little Thatch Monkton Devon EX14 9NPRef. No: 24/1602/FUL | Validated: Fri 27 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace 1no. window at ground floor and 1no. window at first floor on front elevation; replace 1no. window at ground floor, 1no. window at first floor and 1no. dormer window on rear elevation (no trickle vents) 66 Bicton Street Exmouth Devon EX8 2RURef. No: 24/1496/LBC | Validated: Mon 23 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Outline application (all matters reserved) for proposed new dwelling in rear garden. Meadow Bank Church Road Colaton Raleigh Devon EX10 0LHRef. No: 24/1503/OUT | Validated: Thu 26 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Outline permission sought with all matters reserved other than access for the construction of 2 semi detached dwellings 3 Sunnyside Back Lane Newton Poppleford Devon EX10 0HARef. No: 24/1308/OUT | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of new two-storey dwelling Land Adjacent Pencepool Cottages PlymtreeRef. No: 24/1212/FUL | Validated: Wed 25 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Application to the vary the Section 106 Agreement in relation to accessible and adaptable homes Land North Of Old Tithebarn Lane Clyst HonitonRef. No: 24/2133/V106 | Validated: Sat 05 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed rear single storey extension 12 Elmside Budleigh Salterton EX9 6RPRef. No: 24/2085/FUL | Validated: Fri 04 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawful development for rear door and window replacement and internal change to reduce garage.15 Franklea Close Ottery St Mary EX11 1BQRef. No: 24/2080/CPL | Validated: Fri 04 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Minor amendment for 10/1210/MFUL : Reduction of caravan units from 7 to 6 at parcel H as detailed within the masterplan in 10/1210/MFUL Devon Cliffs Holiday Centre Sandy Bay Exmouth Devon EX8 5BTRef. No: 24/2068/NMA | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of existing rear conservatory and replacement with single storey extension to the South West and South East elevations, construction of porch, existing garage enlarged and driveway extended. 104 Littleham Road Exmouth EX8 2RDRef. No: 24/2074/FUL | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed single storey rear extension (N.W.), side garage extension (N.E.) and revised roof including rear dormer (N.W.) to provide additional first floor accommodation. 6 Ryll Court Drive Exmouth EX8 2JPRef. No: 24/2075/FUL | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of conditions for 23/0174/FUL : Condition 3 (tree protection), Condition 4 (landscaping), Condition 5 (surface water drainage) Sunnylands Dalwood Devon EX13 7EARef. No: 24/2070/DOC | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 24/0823/FUL: Condition 5 (glazed balustrade details) Sidmouth Lifeboat The Lifeboat Station The Esplanade Sidmouth EX10 8BERef. No: 24/2069/DOC | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Unknown
• Proposed alterations to the existing roof and erection of a front dormer on the south west elevation. 4 Powells Way Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4XLRef. No: 24/2072/FUL | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 24/0161/LBC: Condition 4 (door details) Perhams Green Farm Plymtree Cullompton EX15 2LWRef. No: 24/2076/DOC | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Lime: Remove epicormics and thin by 10%, MDC 25mm. T2, Lime: Remove epicormics and thin by 10%, MDC 25mm. T3, Lime: Remove epicormics and thin by 20%, MDC 25mm. Prune eastern aspect to achieve a minimum 2m clearance from house. Prune southerly aspect for canopy separation with Holm Oak. T4, Lime: Remove epicormics and thin by 10%, MDC 25mm. Hafod Cricket Field Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 6PBRef. No: 24/2063/TRE | Validated: Wed 02 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing garden room and replacement two storey side extensionPineheath Rockbeare Exeter EX5 2HBRef. No: 24/2062/CPL | Validated: Wed 02 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 21/2834/FUL: Condition 3 (cladding) 30 Glebe Close Upton Pyne Devon EX5 5JBRef. No: 24/2065/DOC | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Unknown
• Certificate of lawful development for proposed extension to provide new ground floor W/C.3 Ash Cottages Wood Lane Exmouth EX8 4BZRef. No: 24/2061/CPL | Validated: Wed 02 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, T2 and T3, Eucalyptus: fell and remove. Bear Inn King Street Colyton EX24 6LFRef. No: 24/2055/TCA | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T4: Oak – fell. Windmill Garage Offwell Honiton Devon EX14 9RPRef. No: 24/2045/TRE | Validated: Tue 01 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 24/0665/FUL: Condition 3 (Solar Panels)The Water Shed Causeway Beer Seaton EX12 3FDRef. No: 24/2053/DOC | Validated: Wed 02 Oct 2024 | Status: Unknown
• Minor amendment for 22/2000/MRES: Amendments to the layout, house types, cycle path, boundary treatments, roof tiles, and location of affordable housing units Land North Of Tithebarn Green Phase 3Ref. No: 24/2035/NMA | Validated: Mon 30 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single garage with alteration to fenestration on existing garage Homedale Cowley Exeter EX5 5ELRef. No: 24/2042/FUL | Validated: Mon 30 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey extension to replace conservatory; new porch; two storey side extension and first floor extension. 18 Boucher Road Budleigh Salterton EX9 6JFRef. No: 24/2039/FUL | Validated: Mon 30 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 23/1482/LBC: Condition 3 (Render) The Priory Greenway Woodbury EX5 1LPRef. No: 24/2032/DOC | Validated: Mon 30 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of Condition for 23/1657/FUL: Condition 9 (Toilets) Sidmouth Drill Hall The Esplanade Sidmouth EX10 8BERef. No: 24/2038/DOC | Validated: Tue 01 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 23/2372/FUL: Condition 3 (materials) Ottery St Mary Cricket Club Strawberry Lane Salston Ottery St Mary EX11 1RGRef. No: 24/2029/DOC | Validated: Mon 30 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1: Oak – remove first 150mm diameter branch at 4m over garden. T2: Oak – remove three 100mm secondary branches at 5m over garden. T3: Cherry – fell (dying). The Vicarage Bendarroch Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1UWRef. No: 24/2028/TRE | Validated: Mon 30 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• New timber stables Tarka Barn Rawridge Honiton EX14 9PXRef. No: 24/2016/FUL | Validated: Fri 04 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Prior Approval application for conversion of agricultural buildings to flexible commercial use (Class E (commercial, business or service)) under Class R of the Town and Country Planning (GPD) (England) order (amendment) 2024 Barns South Of Green Lane FenitonRef. No: 24/2014/PDR | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed two storey extension, replacing single storey accommodation. 4 Hill House Yarcombe Honiton EX14 9AARef. No: 24/2011/FUL | Validated: Wed 02 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey extension to front elevation 17 Roman Way Honiton EX14 1PTRef. No: 24/2009/FUL | Validated: Sun 06 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Oak – Re-pollard (18/1955/TRE) leaving a trunk and lower stems of approximately 10m. 2 Sylvan Close Exmouth EX8 3BQRef. No: 24/2003/TRE | Validated: Tue 01 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of a concrete track along same footprint of an existing route Brookfield Farm Offwell Honiton EX14 9SURef. No: 24/1982/FUL | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Prior approval (Class Q) for change of use of 1no. agricultural buildings to 2no. dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) with associated works. Horriford Barn Holyford Lane ColyfordRef. No: 24/1985/PDQ | Validated: Wed 02 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T10: Ash – remove 9m long, lowest, SE branch back to main stem, maximum diameter cut 300mm. Land Adjacent 24 Glen Farm Crescent Honiton EX14 2GXRef. No: 24/1981/TRE | Validated: Tue 01 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Balcony extension to the existing dormer and internal alterations Flat A 32 Victoria Road Exmouth EX8 1DWRef. No: 24/1979/FUL | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey extension on the North West elevation. 51 Queens Road Budleigh Salterton EX9 6QJRef. No: 24/1971/FUL | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension, with access created from existing window 4 The Bothy Rousdon Lyme Regis DT7 3YDRef. No: 24/1947/LBC | Validated: Tue 01 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Excavation of front garden to create parking space 31 Church Hill Honiton EX14 2DBRef. No: 24/1949/FUL | Validated: Wed 02 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension 4 The Bothy Rousdon Lyme Regis DT7 3YDRef. No: 24/1946/FUL | Validated: Tue 01 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed New Freestanding Canopy, Out-seating Areas and two food/drink service containers Ladram Bay Holiday Park Ladram Bay Otterton Budleigh Salterton EX9 7BXRef. No: 24/1933/FUL | Validated: Wed 02 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• General purpose building and extension to staff car-parking area The Grazing Cow Offwell EX14 9RRRef. No: 24/1941/FUL | Validated: Tue 01 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Double sided internally illuminated with LED post sign A303 Services Yarcombe EX14 9NDRef. No: 24/1943/ADV | Validated: Mon 30 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed erection of a farm succession dwelling Land East Of Keepers Cottage TalatonRef. No: 24/1904/FUL | Validated: Tue 01 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing agricultural buildings to be replaced with five new dwellings. Oakhay Barton Stoke Canon EX5 4EDRef. No: 24/1830/FUL | Validated: Fri 04 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Creation of small layby within the residential curtilage Byways Upottery EX14 9PLRef. No: 24/1824/FUL | Validated: Mon 30 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace 2no. windows on ground floor and 2no. windows at first floor on front elevation and replace 1no. door on front elevation 20 Montpellier Road Exmouth EX8 1JNRef. No: 24/1828/LBC | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of the land for the permanent stationing of a caravan to provide living accommodation for a rural worker Caravan Otter Valley Stud Farm Rawridge Honiton EX14 9QPRef. No: 24/1782/FUL | Validated: Thu 03 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension, loft conversion and associated rear facing dormers. Gunnersbury Manor Road Sidmouth EX10 8RRRef. No: 24/1649/FUL | Validated: Sat 05 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace roof using cement fibre roofing slates, and re-clad dormer using white Upvc; replacement front door. 55 Bicton Street Exmouth EX8 2RURef. No: 24/1517/FUL | Validated: Tue 01 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposal for fenestration changes on south and west elevations, with additional first floor level timber cladding, and removal of external chimney. Removal of internal staircase and modern fireplace. Lower Woodmanton Farm Woodmanton Woodbury EX5 1HGRef. No: 24/1445/LBC | Validated: Tue 01 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposal for fenestration changes on south and west elevations, with additional first floor level timber cladding Lower Woodmanton Farm Woodmanton Woodbury EX5 1HGRef. No: 24/1444/FUL | Validated: Tue 01 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Enlarge existing side extension on south elevation, including new roof profile, rooflights, replace 3no. windows at first floor and 2no. windows at ground floor front west elevation; replace 2no. windows at first floor, 2no. at ground floor, replace 1no. door and 1no. French doors with window panels either side on east rear elevation; new slate roof, rooflights and windows to existing garden room at rear (east) elevation; Ground floor: new internal steps from side extension into main cottage; new partition to existing Utility room. First floor: re-locate partition walls/doors to create enlarged bedroom and shower room. Richmond Upton Pyne EX5 5JARef. No: 24/0875/LBC | Validated: Mon 30 Sep 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of Single Detached Dwelling, new access and associated works 1 School Cottage Clyst Honiton Devon EX5 2LZRef. No: 24/0691/FUL | Validated: Wed 02 Oct 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision

After the “wrong leaves on the line” stop the trains; we now learn that abrasive sand is the cause of the sewers wearing out!

Note: according to a report in the FT, less than 12 per cent of the sewage network in England and Wales was built in the 19th century, undermining water industry claims that outflows of raw effluent and storm water are a result of antiquated Victorian infrastructure.

The majority of the network was instead built in the years before privatisation, with approximately a fifth constructed during the 1960s and 1970s, according to data analysed by consultancy Arup and campaigners Windrush Against Sewage Pollution. – Owl

Sand and grit blamed for damaging pipes – some more than a century old

Bradley Gerrard, LDRS hellorayo.co.uk 

A new report on the state of Exmouth’s sewers largely blames sand and grit for causing slow but sustained damage to underground pipes.

The 24-page document by consultants Pell Frischmann was commissioned by South West Water in the wake of recent damage that caused untreated sewage to spill, leading to beach closures at the height of tourist season.

The red-flagged beaches prompted the town’s MP, David Reed (Conservative, Exmouth and Exeter East), to request a meeting with Susan Davy, the water company’s boss, with the four-week investigation by Pell Frischmann instigated shortly after.

A key conclusion of the report is that in most of the town’s rising mains – pipes which rise in level towards sewage treatment plants (STPs) – sand and grit is dragged up with the flow of effluent, scratching the inside of the pipes as it goes.

Once the pumps that push the sewerage up these rising mains stop, that very same sand and grit rolls down the same pipes, causing further scouring.

“Once the surface of the liner or pipe wall itself is compromised, failure becomes a matter of time,” the report states.

It added that with the exception of a rising main at Imperial Road, “the majority of the bursts show a similar pattern of wear and penetration of the pipe wall.

“It is noticeable that many pump stations that ultimately feed Maer sewage pump station are located in areas close to the seafront and collect flows direct from roads and hardstandings affected by wind-blown sand,” the report stated.

Exmouth’s sewerage system also deals with flows from Lympstone, the hamlet of Sowden, Sandy Bay Holiday Park and Budleigh Salterton, the majority of which can be affected by wind-blown sand because of their proximity to the coast or estuary.

Quantifying the problem

While 2024 has been a bad year for bursts in Exmouth, with incidents cited in the report at Imperial Road, Lime  Kiln, Maer Road and Phear Park this year alone, Pell Frischmann claims the town does not have an disproportionate  problem.

When comparing it to nine similar systems in Devon and Cornwall, the Maer Lane sewage treatment works has suffered an average 6.5 bursts per 100 kilometres of rising mains per year between 2018 and 2023, lower than 10.7  for comparative locations.

The figure for 2024 is 17.3, but Pell Frischmann said even if this was included in averages for 2018-2023, Maer would still come out below the average.

In terms of questions for SWW, the report highlights that pipes analysed from Maer Road and Phear Park did not have concrete linings, which can help lengthen their life.

Phear Park had a zinc coating on the outside, but did not have further protective measures such as plastic wrap.

Pell Frishmann said that since 1995, all ductile iron sewerage pipelines are internally coated with a thin layer of high alumina cement and the outer surfaces with zinc protective paints and “in particularly aggressive ground conditions, pipes can be sleeved with polyethylene and tape wrapped”.

Before 1995, however, there was no requirement for a standard protection.

Imperial Road’s rising main had an internal concrete lining and zinc protection on the outside as well as a polythene sleeve.

‘Constantly under attack’

The time taken to wear away part of a pipe depends on many factors, the report noted, including sharpness and hardness of debris inside, as well as the thickness of the pipes.

The first burst of the Phear Park rising main is thought to have happened in 2001, just eight years after being installed. The 10mm thickness of the pipe is possibly a key reason it failed far more quickly than Maer Road’s, which at a 22mm thickness lasted some 40 years before having its first burst in 2011.

“If sand and grit is constantly fed into the system (as is the case in Exmouth) there would be a continuous cycle of replenishment to allow the invert to be constantly under attack,” the report noted.

But Imperial Road’s pipe seems to have been corroded from the outside.

A contractor who previously replaced a section of it told Pell Frischmann that “various extraneous objects” were encountered during the excavation process to reach the pipe, “with a car chassis being one example”.

“It would therefore appear that the ground through which the main was laid was made ground and probably contaminated with a number of oils, chemicals or other substances that attacked the pipe,” the report said.

“This contaminated ground may have been identified during the design of the main as the pipes were wrapped in polyethylene, but it would appear that this protection was insufficient to prevent attack.”

Other factors

A previous surge analysis report recommended two air valves be installed in the Phear Park sewage pumping station to help manage pressure in the pipes.

Over-pressurisation, commonly known as surge, occurs in rising mains when pumps are stopped suddenly, or fail completely, or during sudden operation of valves.

“These two air valves have not been installed to date, due to construction constraints,” the report said.

“Pressure monitors are installed on both the Phear Park and Maer Road mains. The data for these has been requested but has not been received to date.”

Residents may want to know why those valves were not installed, and why the data from pressure monitors was not provided to Pell Frischmann, even though the contractor notes “there is little evidence that indicates that over-pressurisation of the rising mains is an issue or is a contributary factor to the mains failures”.

The report contains no details about around 15 bursts of the Underhill rising main prior to the early 2000s. Only two are said to have occurred since.

“Due to this apparent discrepancy, it is possible that the original main has been replaced or relined over the affected section, but South West Water have no record of any work being undertaken to replace or reline this main,” the report states.

Phear Park’s 2001 burst also has “no recorded information alongside it”.

Ageing systems

While critics may not see it as justification, most of Exmouth’s sewage pipes are also likely to be decades old and laid prior to South West Water taking on responsibility for them. Some could even be centuries old.

The Pell Frischmann report says the sewerage network accepted surface water run-off to reduce the frequency of flooding “especially when the railway was built in the 1860s and blocked run-off routes to the River Exe”.

Most of the 12 sewage pump stations in Exmouth’s system predate the formation of the South West Water Authority in 1974.

Only Phear Park (1993), Imperial Road (1996) and Lime Kiln in Budleigh Salterton (1994) were built under SWW’s ‘Clean Sweep’ programme, following privatisation in 1989.

In SWW’s favour, the report states that sections replaced in Exmouth in the past “have been undertaken using high performance polyethylene, and where this has been done, the burst profile has radically reduced”.

But looking into the future, Pell Frischmann said it is difficult to know how long the newer materials would last under the same conditions the iron pipes have suffered.

“High performance polyethylene pipelines are relatively abrasion resistant, but there is limited investigation on the resistance of polyethylene pipes to abrasion from different materials and, therefore, there is always a risk that the same damage mechanism may be at work within the replacement polyethylene pipelines,” the report added.

Councils have raised the alarm over what they describe as unrealistic government targets for new housing, saying these penalise local authorities when the fault often lies with developers sitting on sites that already have planning permission.

Land banking is always ignored by governments who like to blame sluggish planning authorities. – Owl

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

Local authorities have also complained that targets under the proposed new national planning policy framework (NPPF) for England are sometimes totally unrealistic, both in terms of what can be built and, in some cases, the amount of homes needed.

It follows earlier concerns that the wording of the NPPF, which is being consulted on, could result in large expanses of pristine green belt being built over so councils can reach their targets.

The leaders of every political group on one council, including Labour, have written jointly to Angela Rayner warning that councils are “being set up to fail” with a planning framework based on an overly simplistic view of the housing market.

Under the NPPF, set out in July with a blueprint to deliver 1.5m homes this parliament, all regions apart from London must plan for thousands more homes. Councils that fail to deliver could risk penalties or even a takeover by ministers.

The joint letter to Rayner, the housing secretary, by Arun district council in West Sussex says the authority has approved more than 8,000 planning permissions that have not been built by developers, and that simply adding new numbers to a target will not alter this.

“The proposed NPPF changes appear to rest on the premise that the planning system is solely responsible for the shortfall in housing delivery and thus continue to penalise councils for missing housing targets,” it reads. “This is simply not true.”

Martin Lury, the Liberal Democrat leader of the council, who signed the letter with the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Greens and two independent groups, said that while they all recognised the need for new homes, local infrastructure was “cracking at the seams”, and available land was limited by the South Downs national park and flood plains.

“The message is: stop penalising us for things that are beyond our control. It’s unfair. This isn’t about our planning system. We’ve delivered what they wanted,” he said. “If they are serious about increasingly affordability, they need to do what we did in the 1950s and invest very heavily in social housing.”

Mike Northeast, who leads Arun’s Labour group, said the centrally imposed targets ignored local factors, not least the 8,000 unbuilt approved sites.

He said: “We support what the government is saying about building more affordable homes – but not, when it comes to us, about councils dragging their feet. It’s developers land banking, and it doesn’t seem fair that it’s us who should be penalised.”

The leadership of another council in the south of England, Waverley in Surrey, has also written to Rayner to warn about the new planning targets, saying it was expected to deliver 3.4 times more homes in the next 20 years than in the previous two decades.

The Lib Dem-led council said the plan was “simply unachievable” in an area where building was heavily constrained by the Surrey Hills national landscape – the new term for an area of outstanding natural beauty – and that the planned new housing far exceeded projections for local population growth.

Joe Harris, the leader of the Lib Dem group on the Local Government Association, who is also the leader of Cotswold district council, said many councils he had talked to were increasingly concerned about the targets.

“We all want more affordable housing, but just setting a housing target and saying you’ve got to meet it isn’t addressing the core issues that strangle housing – land availability, developers land banking, and the perilous financial situation which many councils are in,” he said.

Harris described the target for his own council as “crackers – it’s not going to happen. It’s just not deliverable in terms of the land availability.”

He added: “Eighty per cent of my district is a national landscape, which means you can only build really strategic developments in the 20% which isn’t. And of course, that puts huge pressure on infrastructure.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “We are in a housing crisis so all areas of the country must play their part in ending it by building the homes we need.

“We will work in partnership with councils to deliver 1.5m homes over the next five years, and our new housing targets better respond to affordability pressures to ensure homes are built where they are needed most.”

It was due to be up and running in 2012 at a cost of €3.3 billion. Puts this call for more funds into perspective.

Those with long memories will remember that Hinkley C was considered one of the “golden opportunities” to regenerate and double our local economy in 20 years by “Heart of the South West (HotSW)” our Local Enterprise Partnership. – Owl

Jillian Ambrose www.theguardian.com 

The French energy company EDF is reportedly in talks with investors to raise up to £4bn to finish the delayed Hinkley Point C project in Somerset, Britain’s first new nuclear reactors in a generation.

The utilities company, owned by the French state, has approached investors to help cover the ballooning cost of constructing the nuclear plant, which is understood to have reached almost £50bn due in part to supply chain issues and struggles securing skilled engineers, according to Bloomberg.

EDF is reportedly engaged in talks with sovereign wealth funds and large infrastructure funds to raise the extra money through a bespoke financial instrument that would hand investors a stake in Hinkley while protecting them against the risk that the project is not finished.

Hinkley Point C is due to begin generating electricity by 2030, according to EDF – five years later than first planned and 12 years after construction began. The project’s costs have also spiralled, from £18bn when its contracts were signed in 2016 to £47.9bn in today’s money.

The cost overruns and delays are understood to be in part due to spending on extra safety measures to satisfy UK authorities, and trouble securing skilled engineers after Brexit.

A team of specialist engineers at the Hinkley site, represented by the trade union Prospect, voted to strike for 24 hours from Thursday after pay talks broke down. The union said the engineers had not had a pay increase in the last four years.

The financial pressure on the project has deepened after EDF’s partner, China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), a state-run company, declined to plough more funding into the project beyond its contracted term in 2023.

CGN has scaled back its interest in investing in the UK after tensions between Westminster and Beijing over security concerns made it clear that a Chinese company would not be given permission to lead a nuclear project in the UK.

In response, EDF has called on the UK government to stump up the cash to help finish the project, which will only benefit from bill payer subsidies once it begins generating, but the suggestion was rebuffed by the previous government.

One of the companies considering an investment in the troubled project is Centrica, the owner of British Gas, which has previously been linked to investment talks relating to EDF’s planned nuclear project at Sizewell C in Suffolk. The FTSE 100 company is reportedly in early talks to invest up to £1bn in Hinkley Point C, according to the Daily Telegraph.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Investing in new nuclear reactors would help to secure future electricity supplies for Centrica, which holds a 20% share in all five of EDF’s remaining UK nuclear power stations, four of which are due to close this decade.

Centrica is understood to be interested in investing in either Hinkley or Sizewell – but not both.

EDF and Centrica declined to comment.

The number of people admitted to hospital with Covid soared by 22 per cent in one week as the new XEC variant continues to spread, new figures show.

Tom Bawden inews.co.uk

Some 4.55 people per 100,000 were hospitalised with the virus in the week to Sunday, 6 October, compared to 3.72 the week earlier, according to the latest data from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

That compares to 2.0 per 100,000 in late August and 4.7 in late July.

The rise comes after cases rose sharply in October driven by the cooler weather, children going back to school and the new variant.

New infections typically take a week or two to cause a patient to be hospitalised as their health deteriorates.

On a more positive note, the UKHSA figures also showed that new Covid infections were stable in the same week, after rising for several weeks – although they remain at relatively high levels.

Rhinovirus infections – the main cause of the common cold – were also stable, again after sharp increases.

Flu cases, meanwhile, jumped by 27 per cent in the week but remain low for now – with scientists warning of further rises as winter approaches.

The new figures show the number of people with respiratory symptoms testing positive for Covid in hospitals was 13.4 per cent in the week to last Sunday – compared to 13.3 per cent the previous week.

Meanwhile, the so-called positivity rate for rhinovirus was 17.1 per cent and for flu it was 1.9 per cent.

Positivity rates among hospital patients with symptoms are typically much higher than infection rates in the general population – figures which are not available for the UK outside of winter. But scientists say they give a good indication of trends.

The new XEC variant is spreading so fast it looks set to become the UK’s dominant Covid strain this week, fuelling the current wave of the virus, experts predict.

XEC is thought to be significantly more contagious than the other variants and quickly grew to account for 21 per cent of UK infections on Saturday 28 September, according to the Gisaid Covid database.

The new figures also showed that the rate of Respiratory infections from the Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are soaring, albeit from a very low base.

The positivity rate for the virus more than doubled in the week to Sunday 6 October, from 0.7 per cent to 1.6 per cent – while hospital admissions jumped by 39 per cent to 0.39 per 100,000.

RSV is another common cause of coughs and colds that can occasionally be serious for infants and older people, where it can cause pneumonia and infant bronchiolitis.

Dr Jamie Lopez Bernal, consultant epidemiologist at UKHSA, said “Covid is continuing to circulate”.

“As winter approaches, we expect flu and RSV to increasingly circulate too, so if you’re eligible to get vaccinated against the three main winter threats – Covid-19, flu and RSV – now is the time to take them up and get winter strong,” he said.

He added: “Current information doesn’t suggest we should be more concerned about XEC but we are monitoring this closely. The most important thing to do is to get your vaccination as soon as possible if you’re eligible.

“If you are showing symptoms of flu or Covid-19 such as a high temperature, cough, and feeling tired and achy, try to limit your contact with others, especially those who are vulnerable.

Professor Lawrence Young, a virologist at Warwick University, told i: “It’s clear is that both Covid and flu infections are heading in the wrong direction. This is particularly worrying as we enter the winter months where infections are likely to get worse.

“This is even more reason for those who are eligible to get their Covid and flu jabs and for others to consider private vaccinations”.

Simon Williams, of Swansea University, added: “We can expect Covid, flu and RSV rates to rise over the coming weeks and months into winter – which will put extra strain on health services.”

“And although Covid doesn’t cause the kind of hospitalisations that it did earlier in the pandemic, it is we still putting another debilitating virus in the mix. Covid is a year-round virus but it does tend to spike during winter, in part because of the way we socialise indoors more.”

Dr Williams is also concerned about the low level of vaccine uptake for respiratory viruses in general, which, in the case of Covid, means that an estimated 70 per cent of the UK population over the age of 12 has not been vaccinated for at least two years – with the effects of the vaccine typically dropping sharply after three to six months, although they can continue to offer some protection for a year or more.

“Most concerning is the lower uptake of vaccines, for example the lower flu vaccine uptake among pregnant women. We need to emphasise the importance of boosters and flu jabs in eligible groups,” he said.

(or even a 15 mls tablespoon) – Owl

This is the question posed by Jo Bateman in response to this little piece of “Greenwash” on the Escape facebook page

Malcolm Green

 Hi. Are you aware that SWW are saying 97% of what they put in the sea is treated

Hello, sewage does not get dumped into the sea – I can appreciate that most people’s first experience of the wastewater network is through media portrayal, and this portrayal is often negative and can cause misconceptions.

Of the millions of litres of sewage that enters the network each day, over 97% of this is treated and we are working hard to lower the other 3%.

The network for this is vast and complex, with over 9000 miles of pipework and over 650 treatment works across the region, and part of this is an essential asset called a storm overflow.

These work as safety valves on the network and are used to prevent flooding into homes and businesses.

These are mostly used during heavy rainfall, and due to the size of the network, it can take many days for this rainfall to work its way through.

Blockages in the network can also see an increase in these, as it stops waste from being able to travel through the network and can cause issues elsewhere.

What is discharged from these overflows is mainly storm water, and any sewage is highly diluted.

You can see more how they work here – https://www.water.org.uk/protecting…/storm-overflows and what we are doing to lower their usage here – https://www.southwestwater.co.uk/waterfit – Kendall

Jo Bee

I think of it like this…

Suppose I filled a bath with 97 litres of water, then added 3 litres of raw sewage. Would you get in? Would Susan Davy?

Given the failings listed in this report Owl finds it hard to comprehend the mindset of a regulator who calmly grades water companies such as South west Water (SWW) as “average” (as in “average” in a bad lot). 

SWW features in the press report below as reporting the biggest increase (80%) in pollution incidents.

Here are some more examples of “average” SWW performance in critical measures.

[To add confusion Ofwat for the next couple of years will be reporting SWW-Bristol separately from the SWW-South West we are familiar with, following the amalgamation of Bristol water into SWW in Feb 2023.]

From the detail, SWW Bristol increased its water leakage despite being allowed enhancement expenditure for leakage reduction at the 2019 price review. 

The majority of non-compliant sewage treatment works (the number increased in the reporting period) were attributed to Anglian Water (13), Dŵr Cymru (12) and South West Water (12). The remaining eight companies all had less than five non-compliant works each.

Five companies have reported deteriorating performance on sewer collapses, including South West Water that had 65% more sewer collapses per 1,000 km of sewer in 2023-24 compared to 2022-23. 

Owl’s more detailed extracts from the report follows this press overall summary:   

Ofwat orders water companies to pay £158m back to customers

Adam Vaughan, Laurence Sleator www.thetimes.com 

Water companies will have to return £158 million to customers after their worst year for pollution incidents since 2020.

Water regulator Ofwat found that nine out of 11 water companies caused more pollution incidents than the year before. South West Water reported the biggest increase, up 80 per cent. United Utilities, which serves northwest England, saw a 71 per cent rise and Northumbrian Water was up by 65 per cent.

The performance across the water sector was so bad that a target for curbing water pollution now looks out of reach. Firms had committed to cutting their pollution incidents by 30 per cent by 2025. However, the dire record last year means that they have only achieved a 2 per cent reduction to date.

Water companies have previously blamed a wet year for a record number of sewage spills in England. However, Ofwat said wet weather was no excuse for pollution.

Helen Campbell, senior director for sector performance at Ofwat, said: “I hear that a lot from water companies. I hear a number of other excuses like it was too dry or it froze or our topography is different, we’ve got more valleys than other parts of the UK. My challenge back would be: that is known, and you need to manage your assets.” The Times’ Clean it Up campaign has been urging companies and regulators to tackle water pollution.

Only two companies, Hafren Dyfrdwy in Wales and Southern Water in England, reduced their pollution incidents. Hafren Dyfrdwy was the only one of 11 wastewater firms to meet its performance commitment set by Ofwat, recording 19.92 incidents per 10,000 kilometres of sewer against a pledge of 117.

By comparison, South West had promised to limit incidents to 22.40 per 10,000 kilometres of sewer but reported 111.24. The company is the furthest from meeting the 2025 goal to cut incidents.

Ofwat’s annual assessment of water companies’ overall performance breaks them down into three categories: leading, average and lagging behind.

For the second year in a row, not a single company achieved leading status. However, four companies moved from lagging to average: Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, South West Water (Bristol region) and South East Water. Southern Water, Anglian Water and Welsh Water remain lagging.

Steve Reed, the environment secretary, has written to the chief executives and chairmen of every water company, setting out the performance improvements he expects in the next year. “Our waterways should be a source of national pride, but years of pollution and underinvestment have left them in a perilous state,” he said.

The net £157.6 million penalty for underperformance across the sector is dominated by a £56.8 million charge for Thames Water, which Britain’s biggest water firm will have to return to customers through their water bills. Chris Weston, who was appointed chief executive of Thames Water in January, took a £195,000 bonus this year in addition to his £197,000 salary. Labour has promised to ban bonuses at egregiously polluting companies, and Ofwat is expected to begin consulting later this month on how the ban could be triggered.

Other big fines include £38.1 million for Anglian Water and £36 million for Yorkshire Water. However, four companies with better performance will be allowed to charge customers more. United Utilities will effectively gain £33.2 million, for example.

Today’s penalties compare to £177.6 million issued last year, which was later reduced to £114 million. The Times understands there is expected to be less movement in this year’s final figure.

Companies made some progress on leakage from pipes, which was down 6 per cent annually. But Ofwat has said more needs to be done. Almost a fifth of water is still lost from pipes before it reaches taps. Firms also made improvements on mains repairs and unplanned water outages.

Even the biggest penalty, of £56.8 million for Thames Water, will only equate to a couple of pounds off each customers’ bill. Most customers’ bills will fall by less than £10.

Experts said that the poor performance in other areas would concern households, who are being asked to shoulder an average £94 water bill increase by 2030 to pay for £88 billion of spending.

In Thames Water’s case, the regulator has suggested a £99 increase over five years — less than half of what the company has asked the regulator for. That means despite the missed targets, any discounts from Tuesday’s penalties will be more than cancelled out by the yearly growth in the price of water.

“Customers will rightly question why some companies should be trusted with more of their money for future investment, when they are struggling to deliver on their existing commitments,” said Mike Keil, chief executive of the Consumer Council for Water, a consumer watchdog.

A spokesman for Water UK said: “We know there is much more to do and companies are fully committed to boosting performance.” The industry body repeated its call for Ofwat to allow it to invest £105 billion by 2030 rather than £88 billion, before a final decision expected in December, but which could be delayed until January.

The fines are in addition to those imposed by an Ofwat investigation into failings at sewage treatment works, which has already lead to three firms being hit with a £168 million penalty.

Four performance measures where South West Water is particularly bad

Owl has extracted these four quotes from the Ofwat Water Company Performance Report 2023-24:

Water leakage

It is disappointing that four companies have reported an increase in leakage from 2022-23 to 2023-24; South West Water – South West region, Dŵr Cymru, Affinity Water and Northumbrian Water.

We are concerned that Anglian Water, South West Water – Bristol region and South East Water were all allowed enhancement expenditure for leakage reduction at the 2019 price review but have failed to meet the PCL again this year. 

Pollution

It is disappointing that nine of 11 companies have had an increase in pollution incidents between 2022 and 2023. The biggest increases were reported by South West Water (80%), United Utilities (71%) and Northumbrian Water (65%).

Anglian Water, South West Water, Southern Water and Thames Water have now failed to meet the performance commitment level for four consecutive years.

Sewage treatment works

Just over half of companies met the treatment works compliance performance commitment deadband in 2023,3 which is one more than in 2022. However, compliance is still lower than the peak in 2020, when 10 companies met the deadband. 

Across the sector, 57 wastewater and water treatment works were non-compliant with the relevant EA permit requirements in 2023. This is nine more than in 2022. The majority of non-compliant works were attributed to Anglian Water (13), Dŵr Cymru (12) and South West Water (12). The remaining eight companies all had less than five non-compliant works each.

Sewer collapse

Five companies have reported deteriorating performance, including South West Water that had 65% more sewer collapses per 1,000 km of sewer in 2023-24 compared to 2022-23. 

[Bristol Water’s regulated business was transferred to South West Water Limited on 1 February 2023, but the company will still report separately on performance in the pre-existing South West Water and Bristol Water areas against their performance commitments for the remainder of the 2020-25 price control period. This report shows South West Water – Bristol region performance and South West Water – South West region performance separately. ]

Right! – Owl

Tim Farron

Well…blimey! I think this could actually be the point when the Tory party ceases to be a movement contending for government. Lib Dems now have a very serious responsibility and opportunity to fill the gap.  This is our moment.