Caroline Voaden (Oral answers to questions 26 June – link)

(South Devon) (LD)

“Devon and Torbay combined county authority will receive just £40 million between 2026 and 2030 in local transport grant funding—less than half the amount awarded to York and North Yorkshire and a fraction of the billions given to the city regions, despite Devon having the longest road network in the country. A large local operator says that just £1 million a year would make a transformational change in Devon, where rural deprivation is well hidden. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issues facing the bus network in Devon and the Government investment that is needed?”

Simon Lightwood,

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport

“Our long-term bus investment will support rural areas to improve local bus services. That is on top of the £712 million we have allocated to local authorities in 2025-26.”

Owl wonders if this week’s story about Labour’s proposal to scrap city mayors in favour of multi authority ones (aka mayoral strategic authorities) as part of its devolution deal, gives us a glimpse of what might lie in store.

Under Labour’s plan only strategic mayoral authorities will get serious devolved powers and funds. Unitary Plymouth now finds itself in the front line.

The immediate context is that a wealthy “businessman, entrepreneur and philanthropist” from Australia, Angus Forbes who came to Plymouth in 2019, has garnered sufficient signatures to require Plymouth City Council to hold a referendum on July 17 on whether or not to elect a mayor for the city. 

Labour have now frozen that process (see below), though Forbes has indicated he will fight the decision through the courts. Reform UK’s Plymouth branch has thrown its support behind the referendum (if it is held). 

If the referendum passes, Forbes has indicated that he will be a candidate.

Worth noting that Torbay voted to abandon its mayor in 2019. Similarly, Bristol abandoned its mayor in 2022.

The Plymouth referendum proposal has cross party opposition under the banner: “Plymouth knows better”

It has also got a bit nasty with Police issuing a Community Resolution Order against an individual following City Leader Tudor Evans claims to have received “serious threats of violence”.

The government preference for strategic mayoral authorities is for these to have a population in excess of 1.5 million. I.e. something bigger in scale than geographical Devon. 

Candidates will need huge resources or, organisational or political backing, to campaign over such a dispersed area.

In Owl’s opinion the examples of choosing Crime Commissioners and Leaders of Local Enterprise Partnerships are not encouraging. No inspired leader has emerged. The result has been mediocracy.

City mayors to be scrapped in Plymouth 

Alison Stephenson, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

A question mark hangs over whether a referendum will take place in Plymouth next month after the government confirmed that city mayors will be scrapped if a new act of parliament is passed.

Minister of state for local government and English devolution Jim McMahon said in a statement this week that Labour wants regulations to “freeze processes that are underway” as it plans to simplify local government.

He said the 13 directly elected local council mayors currently in place across the country would continue but no new ones would be created.

“We must ensure precious time and resources are not spent moving Plymouth to a new governance arrangement while parliament is considering legislation that would prevent new council mayors,” he said.

But whilst any election for a directly elected mayor in Plymouth has been delayed by a year to 2027 to allow the English Devolution Bill to pass through parliament, the referendum to decide whether Plymouth residents want a mayor instead of a council leader and cabinet could still go ahead on 17 July.

The government’s move is to avoid confusion caused by establishing new regional mayors for strategic authorities which are set to be at the top of a forthcoming change to local government structure.

These authorities would oversee a small number of unitary councils in Devon  responsible for all local services, and the current two tier structure of county and district councils would disappear.

The Mayor for Plymouth campaign, spearheaded by businessman Angus Forbes, got enough support from the public to trigger a referendum at the cost of £410,000.

Mr Forbes said it wanted strong accountable leadership directly chosen by all Plymouth voters with politics taking a back seat.

Earlier this year he said his interpretation of the white paper was that Plymouth could have an elected mayor provided it is part of a strategic authority.

A ‘coalition’ group called Plymouth Knows Better was set up to urge the public to vote against it in the referendum.

It said it welcomed the confirmation today from the minister that no new city mayors will be created.

“This decision confirms that the government won’t create any new city mayors – making Plymouth’s referendum not just unnecessary, but now entirely redundant,” it said

A spokesperson added: “Local people will be rightly angry that public money is being spent on a vanity project that never had any future, all because the lead petitioner and millionaire Mr Forbes wouldn’t take no for an answer.

“The cross-party Plymouth Knows Better coalition has, from the start, tried to inform people that this position was being scrapped – and today’s news proves we were right.”

Plymouth and Sutton MP Luke Pollard said the money should be spent on filling potholes or looking after children in care.

The Mayor for Plymouth campaign has not yet commented on the minister’s statement.

Closer to home, Exeter Reform’s facebook page appears “unpaused” but its local Chair Cllr Ed Hill is claiming (25 June):

I’m still banned from the Reform UK Exeter Branch page (by Matt Sykes), so if you’re looking for updates from me, this is the place.

Please invite others to this page so they don’t miss anything important – especially those who may still think I’m able to post elsewhere.

Let’s keep the truth flowing.

The recently elected leader of Warwickshire County Council has resigned, leaving his 18-year-old deputy in charge.

Elizabeth Glinka Political Editor, BBC Midlands www.bbc.co.uk

Reform UK councillor Rob Howard released a short statement in which he said he had made the decision with “much regret”.

Howard was elected in May, when Reform made unprecedented gains in the local elections, becoming the largest party in Warwickshire and forming a minority administration.

The outgoing leader cited his health as the reason for his decision, adding: “The role of leader is an extremely demanding role and regretfully my health challenges now prevent me from carrying out the role to the level and standard that I would wish.”

He also confirmed that his current deputy, George Finch, would serve as interim leader until the council confirmed a new leader in due course.

Speaking to the BBC earlier this month, Howard said he was “not intimidated” by the challenge of running a local authority with £1.5bn of assets and a revenue budget of about £500m.

Despite resigning the top job with immediate effect, Howard confirmed he would be staying on as a county councillor.

“I am honoured and privileged to have held the role, even if only for a short time. I remain committed to my continued role working as a county councillor for the benefit of Warwickshire residents,” he said.

Extracts from Cllr Ed Hill’s social media reports on “Life as a Devon County Councillor”

19th june

…I’ve just spoken directly with Reform UK Head Office and can confirm that they were unaware of the way I’ve been treated by certain individuals in the Devon branch management.

To clarify:

I remain the Chairman of the Exeter Reform UK Branch
I remain a Reform UK County Councillor for Devon…..

20th June

..I’m still banned from the chair.exeter@reform email account, so anything sent there will go to the regional coordinator, Matt Sykes. I’m also still locked out of the Reform UK Exeter Branch Facebook page—so if you know anyone over there, send them this way for updates.

On the investigation into me allegedly bringing Reform into disrepute: due process is now underway. I gave my witness statement to Reform HQ Investigations about an hour ago—so as they say, it’ll all come out in the wash...

 21th June

..I am still banned from the Reform UK Exeter Branch Facebook group.

So, until the penny drops, any updates that would normally be posted there will be shared here instead.

Transparency and accountability matter — and I’ll continue doing what I’ve always done: keeping members and residents informed...

Is this a lockout? – Owl

South West Water manages 27, or 35 per cent, of all of England’s Blue Flag beaches, it occupies 50 per cent of the top 10 list for spills and 60 per cent of the top 10 worst performers for hours of sewage discharges.

Budleigh Salterton (264 sewage discharges), Exmouth (228) and Sidmouth (158) made up the top three.

Here is what “On the same page” David Reed is doing, posted a day after David Parsley’s article below.

Revealed: Water firms dump sewage 2,380 times at iconic Blue Flag beaches

David Parsley inews.co.uk 20 June – (Extract)

Using the Government’s official data, The i Paper has found that 26 of England’s Blue Flag beaches discharged sewage into seas more than 30 times in 2024, while nine dumped waste more than 100 times.

In all there were at least 2,380 sewage spills at Blue Flag beaches over a total period of 15,291 hours last year.

Visitors to Devon, which has more Blue Flag beaches than any other region, were most likely to experience sewage spills.

The latest figures, which could threaten the Blue Flag status of the worst offending beaches, follow claims from water companies that they are investing in improvements to mitigate sewage spills.

However, last year’s spills at Blue Flag beaches were up on 2023’s figure of 2,101 discharges, while the total hours of spills were up from the figure of 14,834.

Many of the top 10 worst performing Blue Flag beaches in 2024 were covered by South West Water, which manages water and sewage services in the holiday hotpots of Devon and Cornwall.

The beachside towns of Budleigh Salterton (264 sewage discharges), Exmouth (228) and Sidmouth (158) made up the top three.

Exmouth, which pumped sewage into the sea for 2,279 hours in 2024, tops the list in this category. The town, which has been awarded Blue Flag status seven years in a row, saw 214 sewage spills over 1,983 hours in 2023…..

……While South West Water manages 27, or 35 per cent, of all of England’s Blue Flag beaches, it occupies 50 per cent of the top 10 list for spills and 60 per cent of the top 10 worst performers for hours of sewage discharges.

South West Water said: “It is important to address that there are many factors that contribute to whether or not a beach is awarded Blue Flag status and water quality is only one of them.”…..

A new bill which the government says aims to speed up housebuilding has been described as “catastrophic for wildlife” by a nature charity.

This reinforces the point already made to the labour government but tossed aside. – Owl

Janine Jansen www.bbc.co.uk

Devon Wildlife Trust’s chief executive Nick Bruce-White has said it will give developers an open door to pay “cash to trash” the environment.

Labour says it wants to build 1.5 million homes during this parliament and 150 large infrastructure projects.

The government says the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill will deliver a “win-win” for the economy and nature by ensuring builders can meet their environmental obligations faster.

Devon Wildlife Trust has said it wants part three of the bill, entitled Nature Restoration Fund, scrapped.

Mr Bruce-White said it would be “catastrophic for wildlife by effectively giving developers licence to trash wildlife habitats”.

He said it “represents one of the most significant threats to nature that we’ve faced in decades”.

“We’ve worked really hard with government to try and make sure environmental protections are kept within the planning system, so we can both grow the economy and restore nature at the same time.

“All our work behind closed doors has been met with platitudes and false reassurances and we feel like we are being completely ignored,” he added.

‘Environmental improvements’

The government says the Nature Restoration Fund “will ensure there is a win-win for both the economy and nature by ensuring builders can meet their environmental obligations faster.”

“These changes will remove time intensive and costly processes, with payments into the fund allowing building to proceed while wider action is taken to secure the environmental improvements we need.”

At the bill’s third reading, the Minister for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook said: “To those who believe this government might buckle and scrap part three of the bill entirely, I simply say, “You have underestimated the resolve of this government and this minister.”

“The case for moving to a more strategic approach that will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, is compelling.”

Devon Wildlife Trust says often great crested newts and bats are blamed for delaying planning developments, but its own research shows they represent just 3% of planning application appeals.

The charity says sensitive and protected nature sites could be at high risk of damage or destruction under the new planning framework, with species like curlews, water voles, and the High Brown Fritillary butterfly at risk.

Members of the House of Lords will now debate the bill.

Richard Foord takes up the plight of business hampered by slow broadband speeds

He has previously criticised Devon County Council for its failure to ring-fence money clawed back from a previous scheme to connect rural areas. The county earmarked the money instead for services for young and vulnerable adults.

Owl can’t help associating the history of slow broadband speed with two prominent Tory politicians, now consigned to history.

The first is Richard Foord’s predecessor, Neil Parish, whose genuine attempts to raise this in parliament over the years have since become the butt of ribald comment, such as: “The Tory MP under investigation for allegedly watching pornography in the Commons chamber, has mentioned broadband in the Commons 58 times – mainly concerning slow connection speeds.”

Then there is the long historical connection of former Honiton councillor Phil Twiss, rejected by voters in May, to schemes that have repeatedly failed to deliver over many years.

Five years ago under a post entitled “Search begins for superfast broadband provider in Devon and Somerset”. Owl laid down this challenge to readers of “East Devon Watch”:

“Searching the archive using a combination of these terms: Twiss; broadband supremo; omnishambles, how far back can you go?“ [Answer: to the beginnings of the “Watch” in 2014 when Phil was an EDDC councillor claiming to be something of an expert, advocating an EDDC “go it alone” policy.]

The spotlight has fallen on ‘disappointing’ broadband speeds holding back East Devon businesses, raised by Honiton and Sidmouth MP Richard Foord speaking in Parliament.

Local Democracy Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk

Businesses in rural areas like East Devon are facing ‘extraordinary barriers’ to success because of poor broadband connections, writes local democracy reporter Guy Henderson.

Digital businesses are at risk as the government delays a drive to connect the countryside to high-speed networks, it’s been claimed.

In the recent spending review, a target to get 99 per cent of the country fully switched on by 2030 was put back to 2032, an announcement which Honiton and Sidmouth Liberal Democrat MP Richard Foord said is ’disappointing’.

He told a Westminster debate on rural businesses that ordinary medium-sized and small businesses in Devon face extraordinary barriers, including being held back by a lack of reliable broadband.

Only 56 per cent of premises in mid Devon have access to full-fibre broadband, he said, which is well below the national average.

Mr Foord cited the example of one constituent, Daniel Lennox of Sidbury, who runs a home-based digital business showcasing regional theatre productions.

“It is exactly the kind of enterprise that we want to be encouraging,” he said. “It is creative, based in the community and part of the future digital economy.

“However, it cannot run properly, given the lack of a decent internet connection to Daniel’s property, which has been left with a part-copper line that is unreliable, slow and not sufficient for a digital business.”

He said the case was far from unique, and while he welcomed the government’s £5 billion investment in Project Gigabit, the rural roll-out of fast connections, the delivery is falling behind.

“We must ensure that rural businesses such as Daniel’s on the edge of villages succeed, and that they do not fail because of unreliable or unavailable broadband,” he said.

Mr Foord has previously criticised Devon County Council for its failure to ring-fence money clawed back from a previous scheme to connect rural areas. The county earmarked the money instead for services for young and vulnerable adults.

People living in a seaside town have welcomed the rejection of a developer’s bid to allow four new luxury flats being sold as second homes.

Jonathan Morris www.bbc.co.uk

A planning inspector has upheld a principal residency condition on all new build dwellings in Salcombe which means the flats are for sale only to people who live there.

“It’s about keeping Salcombe a lived-in town, not just a postcard,” said Salcombe Town Council after the ruling by a planning inspector on the flats at Brewery Quay.

Developer Valentine London said the condition made the flats “unsaleable” because potential buyers were put off.

Residents of Salcombe said overturning the ban would create a “dangerous precedent” in holiday towns like Salcombe where nearly half of all dwellings are already second homes or holiday lets.

The inspector said removing the principal residency condition would “undermine” the purpose of the policy to “redress the balance of an unquestionably high proportion of second or holiday homes in Salcombe”.

The inspector concluded the condition was “reasonable and necessary in the interest of ensuring the properties are only occupied as a principal residence”.

The town council said: “We want our streets to stay alive all year round, the school well-used, neighbours sharing a coffee and local shops and services supported by residents who call Salcombe home.

“Other coastal communities, like us with a substantial visitor economy and many houses not permanently occupied, have been closely watching this appeal.

“This decision helps reinforce the shared importance of protecting space for permanent communities in areas under intense second-home demand.”

‘Not about exclusion’

The council added: “We welcome everyone who loves Salcombe, whether you’re here all year, some of the year, or just visiting.

“What matters is that we work together to ensure Salcombe stays vibrant, resilient, and inclusive.

“Supporting principal residence new homes is not about exclusion, it’s about keeping the heart of Salcombe beating for generations to come.”

Valentine London declined to comment.

All comments on Reform UK Exeter facebook page have been “paused” following two county councillors and an election agent being reported to police by an Exeter colleague over election expenses.

Owl has previously reported that the report to police was made by Ed Hill, who was also elected for Reform in May and was the chairman of the Exeter branch but was removed from the post for what the party says was bringing it “into disrepute”.

Cllr Ed Hill posted this on social media:

“I’ve learned that I’ve been suspended from Reform UK Exeter and as a Reform councillor on Devon County Council. According to Matt Sykes, I’ve brought the party into disrepute.

It’s disappointing, especially given that the only communication I’ve received about it today was the same email sent to all members. Not even a phone call or a text.“

Yesterday he posted this follow up:

Statement from Cllr Edward Hill

I’ve just spoken directly with Reform UK Head Office and can confirm that they were unaware of the way I’ve been treated by certain individuals in the Devon branch management.

To clarify:

 I remain the Chairman of the Exeter Reform UK Branch
 I remain a Reform UK County Councillor for Devon

I continue to serve the people of Exeter and Devon with integrity, and I will not be deterred from standing up for what’s right.

This has not been acknowledged on the Reform UK Exeter Branch facebook page (see above).

Meanwhile Exeter Greens have stepped in to fill the void:

Infighting in the Reform UK party in Devon has seen two county councillors and an election agent reported to police by a colleague over election expenses.

[Fratricide on Devon County Council as reform Reform UK, in a rush to judgement, removes whistle blower from his post and the party, without telling him, for bringing the party “into disrepute”! Read on. – Owl]

Miles Davis, Bradley Gerrard www.bbc.co.uk 

Neil Stevens and his brother Tony were elected for Reform in May and documents seen by the BBC allege Neil Stevens spent about £170 more than the campaign spending limit.

This was reported to police by Ed Hill, who was also elected for Reform in May and was the chairman of the Exeter branch but was removed from the post for what the party says was bringing it “into disrepute”.

Neil Stevens said he misunderstood the process and his election agent Rob Sheridan said he was “confident” there were no errors. Tony Stevens declined to comment.

The Reform UK party won 18 seats in the Devon County Council elections held on 1 May – becoming the second biggest party on the council behind the Liberal Democrats.

Neil Stevens won the Alphington and Cowick seat with 1,126 votes – 72 votes ahead of the Labour candidate Yvonne Atkinson, with the Liberal Democrats a close third on 1,030 votes.

In county council elections, spending limits are set in each ward according to the number of voters, external.

In Alphington and Cowick the limit was set at £1,827.04 – however the election expenditure return papers for Stevens show he spent £1,995.72.

Hill was previously the election agent for Stevens but papers seen by the BBC show Sheridan was appointed as election agent on 3 June, a day before the election expenses forms were submitted.

Hill also alleges that a £250 podcast recording expense claimed by Tony Stevens, who won his Exwick and St Thomas seat by 22 votes, should be split equally between the brothers – further raising the expenditure of Neil Stevens.

Hill said he reported his concerns relating to Sheridan and Neil and Tony Stevens to the police and to the Electoral Commission on 1 June.

He said he had made “a clear promise to the people of Exeter” to “hold our candidates and councillors to the same high standards we expect of others”.

A spokesman from the national Reform UK party told the BBC: “Ed Hill has been removed as chairman of Reform UK Exeter after bringing the party into disrepute.

“There’s currently an ongoing internal investigation into the matter so we won’t be commenting further.”

Neil Stevens told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) he believed the spending limit only related to the money he had personally contributed to his campaign – £1,703.60 – and not to donations of £292.12 he received, meaning he believed he was below the spending limit.

Sheridan told the LDRS he was “confident” there were no errors and that third parties had checked them.

He added further checks to the returns were now being made, and if there had been an error, then an amended return would be filed.

Exceeding limits on candidate expenses can lead to an unlimited fine, while making a false declaration attracts the same punishment and/or up to six months in prison for a less serious summary conviction, or up to 12 months on indictment, according to the College of Policing.

A spokesperson for the Electoral Commission said the spending limit applied “to all spending during the regulated period in the run up to the local elections” including any personal money spent and donations received.

It said: “Any allegations of spending over the limit would be a matter for the police.”

Devon and Cornwall Police did not respond to requests for comment.

Social Media records the spat

A flavour of the internal Reform row can be gained from Cllr Ed Hill’s facebook screenshots below, full link here!

So much for Nolan’s seven principles of public office: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership! – Owl

Cllr Ed Hill’s text reads:

I stepped away from the computer today and got stuck into replacing the wishbone on my car. Any mechanic will tell you—no matter how straightforward the job seems, if it’s a French car, it’s rarely simple.

Meanwhile, I’ve learned that I’ve been suspended from Reform UK Exeter and as a Reform councillor on Devon County Council. According to Matt Sykes, I’ve brought the party into disrepute.

It’s disappointing, especially given that the only communication I’ve received about it today was the same email sent to all members. Not even a phone call or a text.

That said, I’m now free to speak to the media without party restrictions. I’ll be on BBC tomorrow at 10:30, and later on LBC (time to be confirmed).

For the record, the two councillors who are actually under police investigation remain in post. I don’t think it takes an expert to see how that might come across.

Hopefully, in time, the party will reflect on this, recognise the facts, and do the right thing. Because I know I’ve acted with integrity and done nothing wrong

Owl has been receiving reports from East Devon NHS patients with hearing loss that they were told the Social Enterprise, Chime, would cease providing their audiology services from the beginning of April.

Information on how these services would be replaced has been patchy and mislesading.

Owl has discovered that the private Midlands based firm Scrivens, founded in 1938, is the replacement provider. 

Scrivens web site indicates that similar services eg repairs and replacement batteries will be provided at local East Devon health hubs as they were with Chime.

However, this appears to be misleading.

Richard Foord, who has obviously been getting similar reports from patients as Owl, has asked Secretary of State Streeting for these local services to be restored. Meanwhile it will have to be “on the bus”.

Topical Questions Health and Social Care – in the House of Commons on 17 June 2025.

Link to Hansard

Richard Foord Liberal Democrat, Honiton and Sidmouth

People in East Devon have been told that they must now travel to Exeter for audiology services that they previously received at their local community hospital. What steps are the Government taking to encourage new providers to restore accessible audiology services?

Wes Streeting Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

That has been a running theme this morning, which will not be lost on Ministers. We will ensure, as we deliver neighbourhood health services, that people can receive care closer to home, wherever they live. We have heard that message loud and clear today, and I think the hon. Member will see that priority reflected in our 10-year plan for health.

Government has a huge local government reform agenda, including finance and local audit systems, key social care services and an extensive reorganisation of local government structures; all happening at once. It is not clear whether local authorities will have the capacity to cope.

18 June 2025 sources: Committee of Public Accounts Local Government Financial Sustainability Thirty-First Report of Session 2024–25 and comments from the Chailr.

Local government finance is in a perilous state. Despite a real terms funding increase in central government grants, council tax and locally retained business rates of 4%, over the period 2015–16 to 2023–24, the amount per person fell over the same period. Funding has not kept pace with population growth, demand for services, complexity of need, or the rising costs of delivering services. As demand for targeted services such as social care, special educational needs, and temporary accommodation has grown, there has been a significant reduction in spending on commonly used discretionary services, such as street cleaning and lighting, parks and gardens, and leisure services. With exponential increases in demand for services they must provide, local authorities have less money for early intervention or preventative services, which can help reduce demand and deliver better outcomes for people. Yet government does not know if funding to local authorities is spent well, and there are signs that service quality is declining. At the same time local authorities’ ability to improve outcomes for people is made harder by having to navigate an overly complex funding system.

Local authorities fund their services from multiple sources including central government grants, council tax, locally retained business rates, commercial activities, sales fees and charges and their reserves. They spent over £72.8 billion in 2023–24, of which 58% went on adult and children’s social care. Some local authorities are spending as much as 80% of their budget on these services. Increases in national insurance contributions may have a significant impact on local service providers, particularly smaller charities. Yet neither the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) nor HM Treasury has assessed the impact.

With promised funding reforms delayed alongside rising demand, funding has not matched need nor local circumstances. Instead, MHCLG has implemented short-term and unsustainable approaches to keep local government afloat. Since 2020–21, 42 local authorities have received exceptional financial support from government to help manage financial pressures. Spending on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) has outstripped the money available from the Department for Education (DfE) to pay for it. Local authority deficits from these overspends are expected to be between £2.9 billion and £3.9 billion a year by the end of 2027–28. The mechanism which allows local authorities to keep these deficits off their books is due to run out in March 2026 and without it, many local authorities are at risk of effectively going bankrupt.

Government has a huge local government reform agenda, including reforms to the finance and local audit systems, and key services such as adult and children’s social care, SEND and homelessness. This is in addition to extensive reorganisation of local government structures. With reforms all happening at once, it is not clear what transitional arrangements will be and whether local authorities will have the capacity to cope.

• Read the report
• Read the report (PDF)
• Read all publications related to this inquiry
• Public Accounts Committee  

Chair comment 

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chair of the Committee, said:  

“Our inquiry heard that the government is concerned about local authority finances. But the lack of urgent action to come forward with a plan to address the fast-approaching cliff edge for under-pressure authorities would seem to suggest it is comfortable with the current state of affairs as normalised background noise. Alarmingly, scrutiny of council finances can now provoke a sense of déjà vu, with the same unfixed issues seen over and over. We would urge the government to use the funding announced in this spending review as a starting point for the paradigm shift required. 

“However, even with concrete measures to put councils back on a proper long-term sustainable footing, once again the government seems not to have taken a holistic view of the butterfly effect of its other policies. To introduce major changes to national insurance without taking into account the likely effect on an already tottering local government sector is a major misstep. Similarly, aspirations for wide-ranging reforms seem to be unengaged with a reality in which local authorities do not have good and strong capacity to fundamentally change the way they work.  

“Our report gives a wide overview of the various and severe challenges that local government face – for the sake of everyone who relies on local authorities’ services, we hope decision-makers begin to take a similar overview in how policy is delivered.” 

Almost £2m given to candidates in the 2024 general election has “essentially disappeared” from the public’s view of British political campaign finance, a report claims.

Henry Dyer www.theguardian.com 

It notes that 170 candidates received in total almost £2m more than they were legally allowed to spend locally during the election, raising questions about where the surplus funds went after the campaign. The donors who funded them are also tricky to identify, especially if the candidate was unsuccessful.

The effect is a lack of transparency around who is funding constituency campaigns and what subsequently happens to excess funds.

If a candidate received more money than they could spend, they might transfer the surplus to the central party. As a result, parties could use candidates as a “back door” for money from donors hoping to remain anonymous, the report says.

The report’s authors, an academic at the University of Antwerp and a Liberal Democrat peer, have recommended three solutions to make it easier for the public to see who is funding candidates.

“There is a lot of money flowing to candidates that essentially disappears from the readily accessible public record,” Mark Pack, the president of the Lib Dems and a peer, told the Guardian.

Details of donations to central parties and local associations are routinely reported by the Electoral Commission, with extra disclosures made during elections. But contributions given to candidates, and how much they spent, are not available for public inspection from council returning officers until more than a month after polling day.

The Electoral Commission publishes headline figures per candidate on donations and expenditure, without the details of who funded their campaigns, months after the election.

The report’s authors, Chris Butler and Pack, sought a sample of the spending returns submitted by the candidates from the Electoral Commission. The watchdog provided them, but removed the identity of the donors.

This results in an “illogical” situation in which donors who give directly to a party, subject to a minimum reporting threshold, appear in the Electoral Commission’s database, while donors to individual candidates are obscured.

Pack said he thought this was “hard to justify” on the watchdog’s cited grounds of data protection. “The point of there being a place to say who your donors are in the form is so that people can look it up and check,” he said.

Pack believes there are reasonable grounds for the Electoral Commission to revise its position. The government is expected to bring a new elections bill, which could be an opportunity to change the complicated rules on political financing.

As for the almost £2m surplus funds from the last election, “we don’t know what is happening to that money”, Pack said. He suggested that some may have been given to the central parties, which could use it against their national spending limit while benefiting the candidate’s local efforts, such as with target letters to voters in that constituency.

“There is not a clear ‘what did you do with your surplus’ box on the expense forms,” he said.

Butler and Pack also propose the Electoral Commission publish the details of the direct donations as part of its political finance database, and proactively share their data with the House of Commons authorities to ensure candidates who become MPs are properly registering donations.

A spokesperson for the Electoral Commission said: “While the Electoral Commission publishes information on candidate spending to aid transparency, we do not have the legal authority to publish donors’ personal data from candidate returns.

“We recognise that the current political finance framework could be strengthened further, and have recommended that our remit be extended to include candidates, which would simplify the regulatory process for candidates and improve transparency for voters.”

Environmental campaigners who took Shropshire Council to the High Court over the massive expansion of a chicken farm have managed to get planning permission overturned.

www.shropshirestar.com

River Action UK managed to get the approval of a 200,000-bird intensive poultry unit at Felton Butler, near Shrewsbury, in the River Severn catchment overturned after a two-day hearing at the High Court in Cardiff. 

It comes after activists dressed up in chicken costumes outside the court, holding placards with slogans including “kindly cluck off”, with bird excrement streaming into the river one of the big concerns.

Campaigners say the judgment marks a pivotal moment in the movement against factory farming in the UK and that planning authorities must assess the cumulative impacts of having multiple intensive agricultural developments in one river catchment before granting permission for another. 

They say councils must also consider how livestock production units dispose of the waste from treatment facilities downstream, including from anaerobic digestion plants.

“This ruling is a wake-up call,” said Emma Dearnaley, River Action’s head of legal. “For too long, councils like Shropshire have been rubber-stamping intensive livestock farms without fully considering the damage they do to the surrounding environment. There are already far too many chickens in areas like the Severn and our rivers are choking on chicken muck. Today, the court drew a line: no more megafarms without looking at the bigger picture.

“This landmark judgment means councils across the country must take the health of the wider area into account and look at the wider consequences when it comes to agricultural waste. It’s a big win for our rivers. The reckless spread of intensive agriculture must end now.”

The judicial review focused on Shropshire Council’s failure to lawfully assess the environmental impact of the development, including the widespread and damaging practice of spreading poultry manure or digestate on surrounding land.

Key issues upheld by the court included:

* Failure to assess cumulative impact: The council did not properly assess the reality of having multiple polluting poultry units in one area, especially in light of the high density of existing units in the Severn river catchment.

* Failure to assess the indirect environmental impacts of the development. The council failed to lawfully assess the impacts of spreading manure or digestate, as indirect effects of the development.

Dr Alison Caffyn, a campaigner from River Action UK, said: “There are nearly 65 chickens for every person in Shropshire and yet the council still thought we needed more. This ruling proves what we’ve said all along: the planning system has been putting our rivers at risk. This case is a win for communities across the UK who are standing up to the environmental degradation caused by industrial factory farming.”

 Ricardo Gama, solicitor at Leigh Day, the firm representing Dr Caffyn, said: “River Action and our client are obviously delighted about this result. 

“They and others have done a huge amount of painstaking work reviewing technical documents to bring to light the flaws in this planning application. 

“Dr Caffyn and River Action say that industrial agriculture has flown under the radar for too long, and it’s only through the tireless work of them and others that people are waking up to its massive environmental impacts. 

“A High Court judge has found that Shropshire Council failed to properly assess those impacts, particularly given their legal obligation to look at the impacts in the round alongside the huge number of other intensive poultry units in the Severn catchment. River Action hopes that this will serve as an example for other councils looking at similar applications.”

This judgment follows several recent challenges against industrial agriculture. In March, the High Court ruled in The National Farmers’ Union v Herefordshire Council that farming manure constitutes industrial waste in law, with significant implications for the sustainable management of manure-as-waste across the UK.

Earlier this year, a proposed megafarm in Methwold, Norfolk was rejected over environmental concerns including the need to take full climate impacts into account when deciding whether to grant permission and the need to properly manage waste to prevent air and water pollution.

Campaigners hope that today’s victory will be a turning point in agricultural planning and policy, putting environmental health at the heart of decisions, stopping the spread of unsustainable megafarms and delivering proper protection for rivers.

Work on a massive housing scheme on the outskirts of Newton Abbot has stopped following a major public protest and an urgent intervention from Teignbridge Council.

Protesters at Wolborough (image courtesy: Newton Says No)

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

Developer Vistry Homes has downed tools on the ‘NA3’ site at Wolborough, where permission has been given for 1,200 new homes.

At the end of April officers from Teignbridge Council stepped in to halt the work amid claims that Vistry had gone beyond the limits of the permission granted.

Work had got under way on a large drainage pond, and campaigners said they feared the works would cause irreparable damage to nearby Wolborough Fen, an official Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

A national newspaper recently named the fen as one its 10 ‘jewels’ of English nature at risk from development. Protesters walked onto the site with placards to see the pond for themselves.

Teignbridge Council said work to create the drainage pond fell outside the approved areas and issued a temporary stop notice, which is due to expire next week.

Vistry said at the time that it would continue to work with the council to resolve any concerns and ensure that recommended planning procedures were followed.

However, ward councillors have today received an email from council officers telling them that Vistry has confirmed in writing that it will stop work on the whole site, apart from ‘mitigation’ work to reduce soil erosion and make sure silt does not end up in the fen during storms.

Talks are understood to be in progress between the council and the developers.

The email goes on: “It has been made clear to the developer that regular monitoring of the situation will be undertaken, and it has been stressed to the developer that any continuation of works on the site itself  – other than agreed interim mitigation/remediation works – would likely necessitate the council having to formally serve a stop notice and enforcement notice.”

The news was announced on social media by the Newton Says No group which has campaigned against the NA3 housing project in its current form.

One group member posted: “Well done everyone, it just shows what we can achieve if we stick together and stay strong.”

Cllr Richard Daws (Ind, Ambrook) said: “This reinforces what we have been saying the whole time, which is please be sure that if you do anything, it is not to the detriment of the SSSI.

“And without doubt the residents putting forward such a strong and cohesive case made it difficult for the developers and the council to ignore.”

Vistry Homes has been invited to comment on the latest development.

Plans for a battery storage facility in East Devon have been unanimously rejected because of concerns about pollution.

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

The proposal for a battery energy storage system (BESS) at Blackpool Corner, Axminster had been submitted by Root Power, which hoped it would be able to store enough energy to power 100,000 homes for two hours.

Such sites are becoming more prevalent because they can store energy from renewable sources, such as wind or solar, and then feed it into the grid at times of high demand when there is little to no wind or sunshine to generate electricity.

However, members of East Devon District Council’s planning committee raised fears that a vital aquifer that provides water to local residents could be polluted in the event of a fire.

The applicant had proposed underground storage for run-off water that would be used to cool equipment if a blaze broke out. The storage is aimed at preventing the water entering watercourses, but planners weren’t satisfied with the details.

“The detail is just not in this one,” said Cllr Mike Howe (Independent, Clyst Valley).

“We have problems with not having the correct details, and problems with the possible damage to the aquifer.

“Also, they have put water storage in, but they don’t have enough storage to collect what would be needed to fight a fire.”

The report for councillors said the scheme proposed 500,000 litres of water storage to capture run-off from any firefighting, but that around five million litres was needed to deal with such an incident.

“My main concern is the aquifer, which has not been addressed properly by the applicant,” Cllr Brian Bailey (Conservative, Exmouth Littleham).

The Environment Agency said while it didn’t have an objection to the scheme, there was “no specific assessment on risks to groundwater”, and recommended the council “seeks more information in relation to the protection of groundwater”.

Committee chair Cllr Olly Davey (Green Party, Exmouth Town) noted that the applicant had “not sent a representative along to plead their case”.

Residents attended the meeting to speak out against the application, which had also been recommended for refusal by officers based on its “significant adverse landscape impact”.

Objector Elliot Jones, a member of the Hawkchurch Action  Group, said this was “the wrong location for this form of development”, noting an application on this site had previously been refused.

Dr Karen Goaman called the approach to water storage “disingenuous” and “inadequate”.

She referenced how the Planning Inspectorate had refused an appeal for a BESS at nearby Pound Road partly because of the size of water storage on site, which was believed to be insufficient.

The two objectors were among those who had just weeks earlier successfully lobbied for a similar scheme in a nearby location to be refused.

That scheme, submitted by Clearstone Energy for land near Hazelhurst Raymonds Hill, Axminster, was thrown out after a three-and-a-half hour debate.

Darwin Escapes, the operator of nearby Hawkchurch Resort and Spa, reiterated its objection to the latest development, emphasising the “tranquil” landscape would be disrupted.

It said its guests would be able to see the four-metre-high security lighting columns that had been proposed around it would ruin the area’s dark night skies, and a four-metre tall fence would also negatively impact the area’s natural beauty.

The committee voted unanimously to refuse the scheme.
 

A Devon farmer and county councillor has criticised the government’s latest Spending Review, warning that it offers “nothing for rural areas and no rural strategy.”

Ella Sampson www.themoorlander.co.uk 

Councillor Cheryl Cottle-Hunkin, Devon County Council’s Cabinet Member for Rural Affairs and Broadband and a fifth-generation farmer in North Devon, said she was “really disappointed” by the Chancellor’s announcements during the review, which she felt focused heavily on urban areas in the North and Midlands.

“There’s nothing for rural areas and no rural strategy,” she said. 

“The loss of the £10 million Rural Services Delivery Grant at short notice was a terrific blow to the county, and although the government has committed to an average of £2.7 billion per year from 2026 to 2029 for sustainable farming and nature recovery, this represents a real-term cut of 2.3 per cent, and within this the NFU has identified a £100 million reduction in farming and countryside programmes including the Environmental schemes.”

Cllr Cottle-Hunkin expressed concern over the future of the Environmental Land Management schemes, which many farmers rely on. 

“It appears likely that the Environmental Land Management schemes will be reduced, especially considering that the current SFI applications (which were reopened following the NFU’s legal challenge over the abrupt closure of SFI applications) were capped at £9,300 per year per farm business.”

She warned the government does not seem to understand the importance of rural communities. 

“The Government does not appear to recognise the vital role our farming and rural communities play in caring for and improving the environment, and supporting jobs and the economy in rurally isolated places, and this concerns me greatly.”

However, she did welcome one U-turn, following pressure from local government. 

“I am pleased that the Government has listened to campaigners including Devon councillors in relation to the winter fuel U-turn after a motion by my fellow Liberal Democrat councillor Alan Connett in September condemned this proposal.”

She said this shows ministers can be swayed: “This suggests that they will listen and are prepared to change when they make unpopular and ill-judged decisions, so we can only hope they do the same and see sense on the farm inheritance tax issue.”

Cllr Cottle-Hunkin described the inheritance tax proposals as “devastating” for farming families, saying: “From the very outset this has caused overwhelming stress and worry within the farming sector with no time to plan for many. Farming is not a job but a way of life, and many farms have been farmed and passed down, along with their inherent knowledge of the land and associated farming practices, through many generations – myself included as a fifth-generation Devon farmer.”

She backed the EFRA Select Committee’s recent call to pause and rework the policy and praised the NFU’s alternative proposal: “The NFU has put forward an alternative ‘clawback’ mechanism which is used in other European countries and would allow working farms to continue as they are, but close loopholes on those purchasing farms simply for inheritance tax reasons.”

“Central Government needs to sit up and listen and understand the disaster they are creating both in terms of food security and the wider impact on our rural areas across the UK if they continue with this devastating policy. We are not backing down on this one – the farming community is united and we won’t give up.”

Cllr Cottle-Hunkin added that ministers should spend more time in Devon to better understand rural issues.

“Perhaps if they spent more time in our beautiful part of the world and had a better understanding of rural areas and food production, they would know that it is our resilient farming communities who have many of the solutions to problems such as Britain’s food security, sustainability and environmental improvements.

“Devon has huge potential and could do so much more with a modest amount of support in the right places, but we are being desperately misunderstood by those making the big decisions in Westminster.”

Earlier this week, Conservative MP for Central Devon and Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride echoed these concerns, saying that the Chancellor “has barely mentioned farming”.

“It’s not enough to hit farmers with the family farm tax,” Mr Stride said during the Spending Review debate on Wednesday, 11 June. 

“Today the choice is to make further cuts to vital grants on which many farmers rely.

“It is a huge betrayal of the farming communities, and some of the government’s MPs in rural constituencies will have to explain this [to voters].”

Labour, however, defended its record, claiming the funding package demonstrates its “steadfast commitment to farming, food security, and nature’s recovery.”

Spending Review documents stated: “The government will invest more than £2.7 billion per year in sustainable farming and nature recovery from 2026–27 until 2028–29. Farmers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion through the Farming and Countryside Programme and up to £400 million from additional nature schemes.”

Parliament committee slams water company culture and urges tougher action.

Committees – UK Parliament

A failing water sector in which “water companies increasingly look like financial institutions rather than businesses servicing monopolised critical infrastructure” is in need of “root and branch reform”, according to a new report by Parliament’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

• Read the report [HTML]
• Read the report [PDF]
• Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

MPs say there is a cultural problem in the sector and call for “a major refresh of the incentives and drivers” and “much more regulated management of financial incentives for senior executives”.  

The report follows the Committee’s evidence sessions with the leadership of ten of England and Wales’ major water and sewerage companies in 2025.  

The MPs’ ‘Priorities for water sector reform’ report makes recommendations to the Independent Water Commission, ahead of its Chair, Sir Jon Cunliffe, publishing his final report next month. The Committee will put their findings to Sir Jon in an evidence session tomorrow (Tuesday 17 June). 

Culture, ownership, leadership and bonuses  

The report urges the Water Commission to consider a variety of models of corporate ownership, which they say “could offer a better culture of responsible leadership.” 

MPs want the Commission to “determine how regulators can better vet or veto potential owners of water companies to prevent bad actors from running critical national infrastructure”.  

The report notes that bonuses totalling millions of pounds have been repeatedly paid to senior executives over many years, despite poor performance, which they say “seriously diminish trust” and may fail to incentivise improvement. 

MPs want the Commission to consider reforms to “ensure that the right people are put into senior positions” as they call for greater oversight from Ofwat before appointments are made and bonuses are paid, as well as “clearer statutory expectations on the criteria for bonuses”.  

The report states that “privatisation has almost certainly weakened the accountability of the water industry to the public”, noting that water data is often not public in practice. MPs want water companies to be legally obliged to publish performance, environmental and financial data on a regular basis. 

Financial management and structures  

The report today says there has been “serious economic mismanagement of companies” and calls for greater regulation of debt accumulation and debt management, saying that “a culture of relying on debt must never be allowed to arise again”.    

On the issue of dividends, MPs call for safeguards “to prevent egregious dividend payments” and say that examples of excessive dividends contrasted with poor performance, are “symptomatic of a culture of profiteering over duties to regulators and customers”. 

Stating that “investors need to see stable but modest long-term returns”, the report stresses that the regulatory system should “ensure that services for customers and the environment take priority”. MPs say that dividends should correlate to a company’s performance. 

On the question of special administration, MPs believe it should be a last resort given the high initial cost to government but say “it is unclear whether allowing a failing company to struggle on and accumulate progressively more debt is a better outcome than assuming temporary national control more quickly, with the associated costs that it could incur”. 

The Price Review Process and the regulatory environment  

The Committee supports the Water Commission’s focus on creating a better regulatory framework, but says “a good framework is nothing without well-equipped regulators to act against bad actors and poor behaviours”.   

MPs want the Commission to ensure that data on water is as open as possible and believe that regulators should gain automatic access to water companies’ data relevant to their regulatory functions. 

They say that the current regulatory system, which has not incentivised enough investment in water infrastructure, impacts both short-term resilience against asset failures and long-term water security. The report cites that, despite well-known population and climate pressures, such as drought in the South and South East, efforts to ensure future water supplies are regarded by some stakeholders as insufficient.   

MPs say that if the price review process is to be retained, it needs to be reformed. They want the Commission’s proposals to result in a price review process and regulatory system that encourages better resilience, to protect customers from short term shocks and to ensure that water resources are protected in the future.   

Relationship with consumers and need for single social tariff  

During its inquiry, the Committee heard of instances of inadequate communication from some water companies during events such as water outages or raw sewage entering homes and was particularly concerned to hear of vulnerable customers not receiving the support they needed. MPs also say that “it is generally thought that levels of compensation after these events are too low and easy to avoid paying.”   

The report urges Defra and the Water Commission to address the issues of local coordination with key bodies and communication with customers, and to consider the introduction of statutory standards to “create a customer-first culture” among water companies.  

The Committee wants the Commission to make provisions to establish a single social tariff to protect low-income households and for the Commission to establish how effectively water poverty is being tackled. 

Chair comment (The Rt Hon Mr Alistair Carmichael is the Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland)

“The water sector has a serious culture problem. Water companies are the keepers of a vital national infrastructure. They exist to provide an essential service to the public and to protect the environment. But these primary functions seem to have been forgotten. Amidst growing public outrage at the poor performance of water companies, some companies have been paying out high dividends to shareholders and excessive bonuses to their senior executives.   

 “Water companies’ complex and sometimes impenetrable financial structures, with their myriad subsidiaries, holding companies and parent organisations, seem to suggest that their purpose is less to provide a good service to their customers and more to allow them to juggle their finances and their increasingly unsustainable levels of debt.   

“Meanwhile, an ineffective regulatory system has failed to protect customers, the environment and the financial stability of the sector. It has failed to ensure that companies invest in essential infrastructure and it has not encouraged long-term thinking.  

“This has got to stop now. Trust and accountability in the water sector are very low. It is not acceptable that it has fallen to commendable citizen scientists to expose issues with local water resources. Environmental protection and the delivery of a reliable and safe water must be the first priorities of water companies and regulators. 

“We want the country’s water sector to be fit for purpose. Now and in the long-term. The Water Commission has got the opportunity to draw up the root and branch reforms necessary to ensure that the issues plaguing the sector are resolved. It must not shy away from bold proposals.”  

Richard Foord speaking at the end of one of the debates on Lib Dem ammendments but the Government bulldozed them all away.

Only one or two Tories bothered to speak.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill Tuesday 10 June 2025

…….I wish to put it on the record that Devon, which is rightly celebrated across Britain for its rugged coastline, its rolling farmland, its spectacular moorlands and its ancient woodlands, is subject to the diggers of developers who are encouraged by this Government. Although we all need houses and we all need the protection that they afford, this Bill, if enacted, will only damage nature. Nature in Devon is part of who we are and we face a nature crossroads. The Devon Local Nature Partnership tells us that the loss and decline of Devon’s wildlife has accelerated rapidly over the past 50 years. The wooded valleys of the Blackdown hills and the wildflower meadows of East Devon are priceless, but once they are gone, they cannot be brought back.

Yesterday in the Tea Room, we were talking about the darkening clouds of the international system and how this Government are having to deal with such grave matters of state. Somebody then pointed out that, never mind grappling with wars and conflict, we cannot even create a system where a £44 swift brick is put in a new house to encourage nature in our rural areas.

Healthy natural systems underpin our economy and our communities, but unless we restore nature, we will have nothing left. Building homes does not need to come at the cost of nature. We must build in the right places with nature embedded at the heart of planning.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves did not mention Send deficits in her spending review speech, but documents released later pledged clarification in the autumn.

Devon’s accumulated deficit of more than £130 million is greater than the council’s cash reserves.

Audit committee to hold an extraordinary meeting next month to discuss the issue in more detail.

Bradley Gerrard, Local Democracy Reporter www.devonlive.com

Fears have been raised about Devon County Council’s ability to start its budget-setting process amid ongoing uncertainty around its huge special needs deficit.

Many councils across the country, including Devon, were hoping for clarity from the government about what it will do about roughly £6 billion of special educational needs and disabilities (Send) deficits nationwide.‌

The previous government allowed councils to effectively ringfence these deficits out their annual accounts, but that permission – officially called the statutory override – ends next March unless it is extended or an alternative solution created.‌

What that means is a council’s Send deficit will be moved back onto its balance sheet.

In Devon’s case, at more than £130 million, it is greater than the council’s cash reserves.

Addressing the audit committee this week, the council’s finance director Angie Stewart said if no government action is taken it would put its finances at risk.

“This is not unique to Devon, but we have to deal with our own issues,” she said.

“We must be mindful of what the government is going to do with the end of the statutory override approaching.”

Chancellor Rachel Reeves did not mention Send deficits in her spending review speech, but documents released later pledged clarification in the autumn.

Donna Manson, the council’s chief executive, said the lack of any clarity is worrying.

“I have concerns about the ability of the council to set a budget for next year, as there are question marks on whether the Send deficit will be moved or not, and that has a significant impact on what we look at as an organisation,” she said.

“I consider this a matter or urgency as we did not hear what we expected to in the spending review.”

Committee’s chair Cllr Alan Connett (Liberal Democrat, Exminster & Haldon) expressed his frustration given the Send deficit “entirely wipes out our reserves”.

“It is the single-biggest risk to this council that has no mitigation as the government has done nothing to say whether the current arrangement carries on or what they expect us to do,” he said.

“The Safety Valve agreement does nothing to limit the demand that has to be met by the council.”

Devon secured £95 million from the Safety Valve rescue scheme run by the previous government, with funding paid over nine years.

But the current government halted new applications for such grants, meaning the future of existing agreements is unclear.

Cllr Connett agreed to hold an extraordinary meeting next month to discuss the issue in more detail, after worries from some councillors that it would be too long to wait until the next scheduled meeting in September.

Deputy chair Cllr Paul Hayward (Independent, Axminster) said: “I feel a little bit ill at ease given the chief executive’s point, because if the audit committee considers this in September, we will be well into budget preparations [for the 26/27 financial year], and waiting until then could cause problems.

“The item is so significant to this authority that I would be happier with an extraordinary meeting when the government provides clarity [to the council].”