The human cost of yet another NHS reorganisation Letters

NHS England’s abolition makes us reflect on disastrous 2012 reforms, writes Dr Michael Cohen, while Jeremy Wainman decries the dismantling of a skilled workforce, Nigel Turner explains the reorganisation cycle, and Martin Shaw invites the health secretary to visit his local hospital

Tue 18 Mar 2025

As the Labour party plans yet another costly NHS reorganisation, we should reflect on the former health secretary Andrew Lansley’s disastrous and expensive reforms in 2012 (Keir Starmer scraps NHS England to put health service ‘into democratic control’, 13 March). I worked as an NHS GP and hospital specialist for 25 years. Those of us working in the service could see where many of the major problems lay, but rather than listening to those working at the coalface, David Cameron seemed to be seduced by Lansley’s ideas.

The disastrous effects of the reorganisation were seen most clearly when the Covid pandemic struck, with respect to provision of personal protective equipment and the test-and-trace debacle. Effective public health pathways had been changed and there was no joined-up thinking whatsoever.

Now we have elderly patients fit for discharge lying in hospital beds as plans for social care reform are again kicked down the road. Patients awaiting hospital admission lie in corridors, where care is clearly substandard despite the heroic efforts of doctors and nurses. It is scandalous.

What happens if we have a new administration in four years, another reorganisation? We must stop the NHS becoming a political football and have some cohesive and effective forward planning before it really is too late.
Dr Michael Cohen
Bristol

 The cuts to integrated care boards are yet another example of short-term cost-saving measures that will weaken our economy, public services and workforce (30,000 jobs could go in Labour’s radical overhaul of NHS, 14 March). Good jobs are not just expenses; they are investments in a stable, productive society.

Beyond the numbers, there is a deep human cost. Many of those losing their jobs are the very people who worked tirelessly to keep the NHS from collapsing after years of underfunding. To reward them with redundancy rather than support is an insult. What’s even more troubling is that a Labour government, supposedly the party of workers and vulnerable people, is making these cuts instead of pursuing fairer ways to raise revenue. Rather than increasing taxes on those who can afford it, they are targeting NHS staff while ignoring the system’s deeper issues.

The NHS is inefficient, but not because of its workforce. The real causes are years of deliberate underinvestment and the unchecked power of NHS trusts, which act as bureaucratic fiefdoms obstructing modernisation.

Frontline staff today are less efficient than their predecessors, not due to lack of skill but because they are trapped in an outdated, fragmented system.

If Labour is serious about fixing the NHS, it must invest properly, break down power imbalances, and implement long-term change. Instead, it is choosing the same failed austerity playbook. The UK cannot afford to dismantle its skilled workforce under the guise of fiscal responsibility.
Jeremy Wainman
Pontefract, West Yorkshire

 When I joined the NHS as a manager nearly 35 years ago, my boss explained to me that there was a fundamental rhythm to the reorganisation of the NHS. Incoming governments, he said, centralised things, believing that they could “fix the NHS”, and then, when they discovered that they couldn’t, they decentralised again to avoid the blame. Here we go again…
Nigel Turner
London

 Matthew Weaver (How did Andrew Lansley reorganise health and create NHS England?, 14 March) misses one change that had a big impact on communities: the transfer of the ownership of many health service buildings to a company, NHS Property Services (NHSPS), charged with obtaining national market value from them. In Devon, community hospitals paid for by local donations became the property of NHSPS without anyone being informed, and wards were closed with the intention of selling sites for housebuilding.

In Seaton, more than a third of the hospital – a wing funded entirely by local people – has been empty for nearly eight years, partly because NHSPS won’t vary its rental charges to allow for new uses, despite a huge local outcry and lengthy discussions. Wes Streeting should look into NHSPS, and would be welcome in Devon to see the problems for himself.
Martin Shaw
Seaton, Devon

At the beginning of February Devon claimed it was on “the fast track” to create a single unitary authority as part of Angela Rayner’s local government reorganisation plans. But it lost  its bid to cancel the May elections and has now come up with FIVE alternative options, demonstrating quite clearly that it was never in a position to make such a claim.

Here are the county proposals, the eight district councils, have all coalesced around one idea known as the 1-5-4 proposal which will be published separately.

The government has opened a can of worms. Owl doesn’t expect them to make a quick decision.

Data ‘vital’ in council shake-up as Devon poses reorg options

Bradley Gerrard www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Data has to be the driving force behind Devon’s upcoming local authority shake-up, according to the county council’s outgoing leader who has warned against hopes of “massive savings”.

A report outlining five potential ways that Devon’s 11 existing main councils could be merged into either two or three new, larger ones has been published, with a special meeting of Devon County Council planned this Thursday (March 20) to debate the proposals.

A sixth option of one Devon-wide council is acknowledged, but “only for benchmarking purposes” rather than being viewed as a viable option.

Cllr James McInnes (Conservative, Hatherleigh and Chagford), the outgoing council leader, said his plan is for all five options to be submitted to the government this week, with a pledge that data would be gathered over the coming months to help identify which make the most sense.

Jim McMahon, minister of state for local government, had asked councils to submit interim reorganisation plans by Friday, but Cllr McInnes said Westminster’s emphasis had changed slightly in recent weeks.

“The government has shifted its position, which I’m aware of as I wrote to Mr McMahon asking various questions, one being whether 21 March was a decision point,” Cllr McInnes told the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

“But he quite clearly said that it was not a decision point and that he merely wanted to know what we had been up to so far.”

Different strategies

The move to submit five proposals differs from the strategy of Devon’s eight district councils, which have all coalesced around one idea known as the 1-5-4 proposal.

That would see Plymouth remain a unitary council with potentially expanded boundaries compared to now, while Devon’s other councils would be merged into one of two new unitary councils.

That idea is included as one of Devon’s five suggestions.

Cllr McInnes said third parties are collating data for the county council to work out which proposal would be the most effective, and this would be shared with district councils.

“I support the principal and advantages of a unitary in terms of residents knowing who to go to and get support, or complain to, and it would be better for one organisation to oversee housing and social care, for instance, compared to it being split between two different councils now,” he said.

“But we need to use data to make sure we make the right decisions for the long-term sustainability of services.”

Fears have been raised that the government views reorganisation as a way to save money, but Cllr McInnes said that is optimistic.

“If you think how much money has been taken from local government since 2009/10, through austerity, the pandemic and now the cost-of-living crisis and the spike in inflation we’ve had, there simply isn’t the meat on the bone to make massive savings,” he said.

“I think we can make efficiencies in terms of having one front door and integrating services [that are currently split across two councils] but we cannot make savings and if someone thinks they can take millions of pounds out of local government, it’s already been done.”

The government announced in December that it wants to abolish the two-tier system of local government whereby district and county councils are responsible for different services in the same geographic area.

Devon’s five suggestions for local government reorganisation are:

• Two unitary authorities – one covering Plymouth and another covering the rest of Devon.

• A two unitary north Devon/South Devon split, with one council for Plymouth, Teignbridge, South Hams and Torbay, and another for Exeter, East Devon, North Devon, Torridge, West Devon and Mid Devon.
• A two unitary south west and north east split, with one council for Plymouth, South Hams and West Devon and another for Exeter, East Devon, Torbay, Teignbridge, North Devon, Torridge and Mid Devon.
• A three unitary option of Plymouth, greater Exeter (formed of Exeter, East Devon and Mid Devon) and the rest of Devon.
• A three unitary option, with Plymouth remaining on existing boundaries, a new unitary council formed of Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon and Torridge and another made up of Torbay, South Hams, Teignbridge and West Devon.

Last week, the Leader of the Tories in East Devon District Council (EDDC), Mike Goodman, published a letter denigrating the conduct of Paul Arnott, the Council leader. Inevitably, Paul Arnott used his right of reply. Both letters are published below.

Owl recalls Mike Goodman’s chequered history both in Sidmouth and Surrey

He became leader of the Tory minority in EDDC after his predecessor, Phil Skinner, was kicked out in the May 2023 election. This seemed to Owl to be a surprising choice as he was a Surrey County Councillor as recently as 2022 but perhaps they had little remaining talent to choose from.

As Owl reported during the 2023 general election campaign, he was the publisher of a “fake” local newspaper, the “East Devon Echo”, receiving a formal rebuke from the Press Watchdog.

Mike Goodman has a history of previous “angry outbursts” in EDDC, and of provoking outbursts in others in Surrey (two fingers and the “f” word). 

Could his “robust” form of politics have contributed to the LibDem gain in his Bagshot patch of “True Blue” Surrey Heath in the general election?

Mike Goodman www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Letter: Does the East Devon Council leader value democracy?

In last week’s paper, we had the leader of the Lib Dem-led East Devon District Council writing about the need to protect democracy and reminding residents about elections for Devon County Council in May.

We agree that democracy needs protecting, but I do wish he’d act in the same spirit as he writes.

However, we know he’s standing for the county and probably wants to present a good image.

Sadly, if you scratch the surface at EDDC, the good image tends to rot away – and it seems some have an eye towards the local elections in May, where both the leader and deputy leader of the council want to win more influence as part of Devon County Council.

I want to take this opportunity to highlight examples of how the leader of the council has tried to silence me as an elected representative.

Firstly, at the most recent cabinet meeting on March 5, I was called “discourteous” because I dared to ask a question.

I was elected to ask questions in a democracy.

They were two important questions, and despite both the directors and one of the portfolio holders being in attendance, they were silenced and stopped from speaking.

The first question was a clarification on the ongoing challenges and problems of the condition of council housing stock.

In November, the stock condition survey results were presented to councillors privately, and the intention was for the details to be made public.

I first raised this matter in January, and no answer has yet been forthcoming.

It doesn’t look good, does it?

The second question, which was first asked and not answered on February 25, was around the council’s plans to hike the price of some rugby and football pitch fees by up to 50 per cent.

At the budget meeting on January 15, I asked for this policy to be reconsidered.

However, when the item went to full council, the fees had not been amended, and no explanation was given.

No response to my concerns was forthcoming, either.

Democracy in action?

I think not.

This policy is totally unacceptable and goes against encouraging people to play sports.

It will hurt so many clubs in a cost-of-living crisis, and there is no justification apart from lining council coffers.

I can only hope the council reduces the fees and makes the survey of the stock condition of our council housing public, like they said they would.

Hundreds of tenants across the district know the truth, and it shouldn’t be hidden away with legitimate questions shouted down.

I agree that democracy matters, let’s see more of it within East Devon District Council.

Councillor Mike Goodman
Sidford

Cllr Paul Arnott www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Letter: In response to Cllr Goodman’s ‘untrue’ letter

By Cllr Paul Arnott

In this week’s papers, the East Devon Conservative district councillor, Michael Goodman, who joined the Sidmouth Conservatives on relocating from Surrey to Sidmouth in 2022, mentions me. I would be grateful for the right to reply.

In essence, Mr Goodman states that officers “were silenced and stopped from speaking” when he asked two questions at a Cabinet meeting I chaired. This is untrue.

Both questions required complex answers, one confidential as he well knew, and instead of Mr Goodman being allowed to stage his own personal interrogation he was advised by me that he would receive written answers.

This is common practice, completely constitutional, and what is happening. It may be that as a Surrey councillor Mr Goodman was allowed to push officers with not a moment’s notice of his question to satisfy him. In East Devon it is more courteous than that.

I am sorry that Mr Goodman has taken your readers’ time with yet another ad hominem attack on me, and also sorry I have to bore them with a reply for the record.

Paul Arnott
East Devon District Council leader and councillor for the Coly Valley ward.

This selfie taken by Conservative David Reed MP shows him campaigning with “Build, build, build” Phil Skinner in support of the latest failure to get veteran candidate of many wards, Patsy Hayman, elected in the Exe Valley by-election.

Why is Owl surprised?

Only last week David Reed was falsely claiming that the level of housing in East Devon was down to the Lib Dem-led East Devon District Council. Here is what he wrote on 13 March, on his facebook page:

“We all know that our current sewage network in #ExmouthandExeterEast cannot cope with our current level of housing, let alone the tens of thousands of extra houses that the Lib Dem-led East Devon District Council are proposing for our area.“

This attribution to the Lib-Dem District Council couldn’t be wider from the mark. The real culprit is the man on his left – Phil Skinner!

Philip Skinner’s record as a primary architect and driving force behind the long standing Tory policy of building in East Devon is copiously recorded on “The Watch”. His, and his EDDC Tory colleagues’ policies, resulted in the current Local Plan having a development target of 950 houses/year. This was driven by the adoption of an aggressive “jobs led policy on” scenario.  Comprehensive studies showed only around 580 houses/year would be required to satisfy purely demographic and normal migration growth trends. 

This policy, therefore, resulted in an uplift of 370 or 64% on what is strictly necessary and is the target that the current EDDC coalition has inherited and the basis on which the government thinks reasonable to set its own growth strategy. Owl has already pointed this out to David Reed in a post last September.

Phil Skinner was also one of the drivers of the now defunct “Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP)” which tried to get green field sites in East Devon to take the lion’s share of Exeter’s housing needs. It seems that there were always farmers in East Devon willing to “sacrifice” their land to this end. At the time planners confirmed that the GESP targets would over-ride East Devon’s local plan.

When the Tories lost control of EDDC, one of the first things the coalition did in August 2020 was to vote, by a massive majority, to pull out of GESP. Exeter is now having finding sites elsewhere to satisfy their needs.

To be fair, David Reed hasn’t been in East Devon all that long. Like his predecessor, Simon Jupp, he’s a “Blow in”. He still needs to read himself in before sounding off like this.

Here is puppet master Phil with David Reed’s predecessor as featured on Tory mailshots in the old Devon East constituency.

Phil Skinner was the leader of the Tories in East Devon until he was kicked out by the electorate in the May 2023 local election.

Despite this he is still pulling the strings.

Is this an omen for the Tories in Devon and the reason they tried to cancel this May’s County elections? – Owl

East Devon District Council – By-election 13 March 2025

Declaration of results for East Devon District Council Exe Valley Ward 13 March 2025

Name of Candidate	Description (if any)	Number of votes	Elected?
BENNETT Julie	Labour Party Candidate	54
HAYMAN Patsy	The Conservative Party Candidate	137
KING Fabian	Liberal Democrat	256	ELECTED
VANSTONE Nat	Reform UK	135

Electorate: 2,042
Ballot Papers Issued: 582
Rejected Ballot Papers: 0
Turnout: 28.7%

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”

The proposed planning bill, yet to be drafted but intended to produce the “biggest building boom’ in a generation, obviously needs a lot more time and thought. Here is an example that caught Owl’s eye from the list of eight key measures announced by Angela Rayner on Monday.

Strategic Planning

“The Bill will introduce a system of ‘strategic planning’ across England known as spatial development strategies, which will help to boost growth by looking across multiple local planning authorities for the most sustainable areas to build and ensuring there is a clear join-up between development needs and infrastructure requirements. These plans will be produced by mayors, or by local authorities in some cases, and will ensure the level of building across the country meets the country’s needs.”

We have been here before with so little impact that Owl suspects that few will remember. 

Strategic planning for each of the nine English regions became formalised from the 1990s.

Regional Assemblies

1.  1999 The South West Regional Assembly (SWRA) was established in 1999. It was not a directly elected body, but was a partnership of councillors from all local authorities in the region and representatives of various sectors with a role in the region’s economic, social and environmental well-being. It was made up of 119 members.

Worth noting that there was much opposition to the formation of the South West Regional Assembly with critics saying it was an unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable quango, and the area covered was an artificially imposed region and not natural. This opinion was based upon geography, arguing that having the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall in the same region as Gloucestershire would be comparable to linking London with Yorkshire.

Spatial strategies

2. 2004 Regional spatial strategies (RSS) to provide regional level planning frameworks for the regions were introduced in 2004. 

3. 2010 The functions of regional assemblies were planned to pass to regional development agencies in 2010 but the new Conservative/Liberal Democrat government abandoned spatial strategies and revoked regional development agencies in favour of the equally “unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable” Local Enterprise Partnerships.

4. 2024 In April, the government abolished Local Enterprise Partnerships transferring the functions to local authorities.

What does a coherent planning system need to recognise?

In 2010 under the heading “Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum” the House of Commons committee on Communities and Local Government put their finger on the nub of the problem:

A coherent, efficient planning system has to recognise and relate to issues from the point of view of a range of players operating at different levels: individuals, developers, community and resident groups, businesses, local authorities, and the Government. Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) bridged the gap between planning issues determined by local policies and concerns, and those subject to nationally-determined policy aspirations, such as housing or renewable energy. Views are mixed on the merits of Regional Spatial Strategies: opposition to them has highlighted the length and complexity of their preparation; the undemocratic nature of the bodies preparing them; the difficulty of influencing their outcomes; and the ‘top-down’ housing development targets they contained. Support for them has highlighted their comprehensive, strategic view of planning across each region and their ability to deal with controversial and sometimes emotive developments, such as waste disposal, mineral working and accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. 

Who drives the strategic plan?

Not only do these problems remain but the government is only just starting to consider how to create the Mayoral Strategic Authorities intended to carry this forward. Bigger than counties, these will sit as a new top tier of local authority presiding over a single tier of unitary authorities created from an amalgamation of counties and districts. This process inherently presents dangers of recreating the artificially imposed regions of the abandoned regional assemblies.

Given the lack of impact these regional bodies have had since 1999 and the transfer back and forth of the strategic planning function, we have to start afresh. Where are the teams with the appropriate skills? Who now holds the local economic and social data? How long will it take and how much will it cost to produce the first spatial development strategy? We must be talking years rather than months.

In the interim where are we going? – Owl

Government press release in full (with hearty endorsement from developers)

‘Biggest building boom’ in a generation through planning reforms 

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government www.gov.uk

• HOMES AND KEY INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE BUILT FASTER UNDER PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE BILL
• ENERGY SECURITY WILL BE BOLSTERED WITH CHEAPER, CLEAN HOMEGROWN POWER
• BILL IS KEY TO DELIVERING ON OUR PLAN FOR CHANGE TO BUILD 1.5 MILLION HOMES, MAKE BRITAIN A CLEAN ENERGY SUPERPOWER AND DRIVE UP LIVING STANDARDS

Homes and key infrastructure that hundreds of thousands of hard-working people and families need will be built quicker thanks to transformative reforms to get Britain building, tackle blockers and unleash billions in economic growth.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will be introduced to Parliament today (11 March), will see significant measures introduced to speed up planning decisions to boost housebuilding and remove unnecessary blockers and challenges to the delivery of vital developments like roads, railway lines and windfarms. This will boost economic growth, connectivity and energy security whilst also delivering for the environment.

By ensuring shovels can be put in the ground more quickly and projects are freed from unnecessary bureaucracy, these measures will help deliver a building boom that will deliver a major boost to the economy worth billions of pounds, and create tens of thousands more jobs as houses and infrastructure are built. It will make Britain a more attractive prospect for investment and development with a planning process that works for the builders, not blockers.

This Bill comes alongside wider planning reforms including the new National Planning Policy Framework and is at the heart of our Plan for Change missions to deliver the 1.5 million homes this country needs alongside 150 major projects, ensure Britain can become a clean energy superpower through building the necessary infrastructure, and help to raise living standards by ensuring working people have more money in their pocket.

People living near new electricity transmission infrastructure will also receive up to £2,500 over ten years off their energy bills, ensuring those hosting vital infrastructure benefit from supporting this nationally critical mission.

Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Angela Rayner said:

We’re creating the biggest building boom in a generation – as a major step forward in getting Britain building again and unleashing economic growth in every corner of the country, by lifting the bureaucratic burden which has been holding back developments for too long.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will unleash seismic reforms to help builders get shovels in the ground quicker to build more homes, and the vital infrastructure we need to improve transport links and make Britain a clean energy superpower to protect billpayers.

It will help us to deliver the 1.5 million homes we have committed to so we can tackle the housing crisis we have inherited head on – not only for people desperate to buy a home, but for the families and young children stuck in temporary accommodation and in need of a safe, secure roof over their heads.

These reforms are at the heart of our Plan for Change, ensuring we are backing the builders, taking on the blockers, and delivering the homes and infrastructure this country so badly needs.

KEY MEASURES

Planning Committees

Housebuilding will be backed by streamlining planning decisions through the introduction of a national scheme of delegation that will set out which types of applications should be determined by officers and which should go to committee, have controls over the size of planning committees to ensure good debate is encouraged with large and unwieldy committees banned, and mandatory training for planning committee members. Councils will also be empowered to set their own planning fees to allow them to cover their costs – with the stretched system currently running at a deficit of £362 million in the recent year. This money will be reinvested back into the system to speed it up.

Nature Restoration Fund

A Nature Restoration Fund will be established to ensure there is a win-win for both the economy and nature by ensuring builders can meet their environmental obligations faster and at a greater scale by pooling contributions to fund larger environmental interventions. 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.

Compulsory Purchase Reform

Land needed to drive forward housing or major developments could also be bought more efficiently thanks to reforms to boost economic growth and drive forward local regeneration efforts. The compulsory purchase process – which allows land to be acquired for projects that are in the public interest – will be improved to ensure important developments delivering public benefits can progress. The reforms will ensure compensation paid to landowners is not excessive and the process of using directions to remove ‘hope value’ – the value attributed to the prospect of planning permission being granted for alternative development – where justified in the public interest is sped-up. Inspectors, councils or mayors where there are no objections, will take decisions instead of the Secretary of State. 

Development Corporations

Development Corporations will be strengthened to make it easier to deliver large-scale development – like the government’s new towns – and build 1.5 million homes alongside the required infrastructure. They were used in the past to deliver the post-war new towns and play a vital role when the risk or scale of a development is too great for the private sector. Their enhanced powers will help deliver the vision for the next generation of new towns – a new programme of well-designed, beautiful communities with affordable housing, GP surgeries, schools and public transport where people will want to live.

Strategic Planning

The Bill will introduce a system of ‘strategic planning’ across England known as spatial development strategies, which will help to boost growth by looking across multiple local planning authorities for the most sustainable areas to build and ensuring there is a clear join-up between development needs and infrastructure requirements. These plans will be produced by mayors, or by local authorities in some cases, and will ensure the level of building across the country meets the country’s needs.

National Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP)

The Bill will ensure a faster NSIP regime that delivers infrastructure projects faster. It will make sure the consultation requirements for projects – such as windfarms, roads or railway lines – are streamlined, and ensure the national policies against which infrastructure applications are assessed are updated at least every five years so the government’s priorities are clear. Other changes will be made to the Highways Act and the Transport and Works Act to reduce bureaucracy so transport projects can progress quicker.

The government will further overhaul the process by which government decisions on major infrastructure projects can be challenged. Meritless cases will only have one – rather than three – attempts at legal challenge. Data shows that over half – 58% – of all decisions on major infrastructure were taken to court, including windfarms in East Anglia which was delayed by over two years as a result of unsuccessful challenges.

Clean Energy

Further changes will make sure approved clean energy projects that help achieve clean power by 2030, including wind and solar power, are prioritised for grid connections. Some projects currently face waits of over 10 years. A ‘first ready, first connected’ system will replace the flawed ‘first come, first served’ approach to prioritise projects needed to deliver clean power, unlocking growth with £200 billion of investment and protecting households from the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets, while reforming the grid queue will accelerate connections for industrial sites and data centres.

Around twice as much new transmission network infrastructure will be needed by 2030 as has been built in the past decade and Britain’s electricity grid needs a 21st century overhaul to connect the right power in the right places.   

Bill Discounts

People living within 500m of new pylons across Great Britain will get money off their electricity bills up to £2,500 over 10 years, under these plans. Alongside money off bills, separate new guidance will set out how developers should ensure communities hosting transmission infrastructure can benefit, by funding projects like sports clubs, educational programmes, or leisure facilities.   The new community funds guidance means communities could get £200,000 worth of funding per km of overhead electricity cable in their area, and £530,000 per substation.

This would mean an upcoming project like SSEN Transmission’s power line between Tealing and Aberdeenshire could see local communities benefitting from funding worth over £23 million. Developers will closely consult with eligible communities on the funds and how best to spend them, to ensure a fair and consistent approach across Great Britain.

Mark Reynolds, Executive Chair of Mace Group and Co-Chair of the Construction Leadership Council, said:  

For too long the UK’s planning systems have inhibited growth, with layer upon layer of checks and balances stifling productivity, confidence, investment and jobs. 

These proposed changes show this government is listening to industry and taking reform seriously; recognising that new homes and infrastructure are necessary to inject life into the economy. 

Our construction industry is ready to meet the challenge, and the measures highlight how mindful growth can support communities and our net-zero ambitions.

Neil Jefferson, Chief Executive of the Home Builders Federation, said: 

The swift moves to address the failings in the planning system are a very welcome and positive step towards increasing housing supply. Removing blockages, speeding up the decision-making process and ensuring local planning departments have the capacity to process applications effectively will be essential to getting more sites up and running. If the other constraints currently preventing house builders delivering more homes can be tackled, the changes made to planning will really allow output to accelerate.

Brian Berry, Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders, said: 

The new Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a crucial first step in getting Britain building again. In the 1980’s around 40% of new homes were built by SMEs, yet today that figure is around 10%. Small builders across the UK stand ready to play their part in delivering the homes we need, but time and time again we’ve seen barriers keeping them out of the market.

We know from research carried out by the FMB that around three quarters of small builders view the planning system as the number one issue holding back the delivery of new homes, while lack of viable and available land are also major challenges. Supporting small builders through the planning system and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy will be key to opening up small sites, and today’s announcement will be welcomed by many across the industry.

Kate Henderson, Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation, said:  

At a time when the housing crisis continues to blight lives across the country, it’s welcome to see the introduction of this bill. With more than 160,000 children in temporary accommodation, it’s never been more urgent to build the social homes we need. 

Planning reform is an essential part of solving the housing crisis, and a return to strategic planning is welcome. A focus on certainty and enabling local areas to work together to plan for the homes, jobs and infrastructure needed in communities will ensure every area benefits from growth. Measures to reform compulsory purchase orders in the bill are also welcome, and will support the delivery of affordable housing and other local infrastructure such as GPs and schools.

David Thomas, Chief Executive of Barratt Redrow, said:  

It has been clear from day one that government is serious about tackling the housing crisis, and it continues to take strong action to unlock stalled projects and reshape the planning system to deliver the high-quality homes and sustainable places the country needs.  

We share government’s ambition to build more homes, to create good quality jobs and to drive economic growth. We look forward to supporting them on this mission and will respond positively to the bold reforms set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.  

Other measures included in the Bill:

• Streamlining the process to install EV charging infrastructure to help meet our net-zero ambitions
• A new scheme to unlock billions of pounds of investment in long duration electricity storage (LDES) to store renewable power and deliver the first major projects in four decades.
• Changes to the outdated planning rules for electricity infrastructure in Scotland that will streamline the consent process to enable decisions to be made faster.  
• An extension to the generator commissioning period from 18 to 27 months to reduce the number of offshore wind farms requiring exemptions when applying for licences to connect to onshore cables and substations.  
• Allowing forestry authorities in England and Wales, including the Forestry Commission, to bring forward development proposals, on the land they manage, relating to the generation of electricity from renewable sources– and to sell resulting electricity.

The Bill builds on work the government has already carried out to get Britain building including overhauling the National Planning Policy Framework, including new and higher mandatory housebuilding targets for councils, a comprehensive modernisation of the Green Belt, and far greater support for growth-supporting development such as labs and datacentres.  

South West “abandoned by the government” – Richard Foord MP

Last week the government announced £1.5bn in funding to tackle deprivation in 75 areas across the UK, to “restore pride in Britain’s neighbourhoods and boost local growth” at £20m a throw. But only one of these was in the South West: the unitary authority of Torquay. Bear in mind the South West covers: Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Devon, Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire.

Readers may recall that Torquay was one of the leaders in using “iconic” developments on the seafront to drive “regeneration”, closely followed by Exmouth’s Ocean Bowling Alley.

Living Coasts, built on the site of the former Torquay Marine Spa, opened to the public on 14 July 2003. It officially closed in June 2020,

How East Devon had to take over the Ocean Bowling Alley to avoid the same fate can be found in the post “The sad planning history of Exmouth’s Albatross”

Sidmouth and Honiton MP praises East Devon towns in debate

Adam Manning www.midweekherald.co.uk

Richard Foord is calling on the government to think again after East Devon towns miss out on rejuvenation funding.

The statement from the MP for Honiton and Sidmouth comes after a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons last Tuesday (March 4).

Mr Foord said Axminster, Honiton, Ottery St Mary, Seaton and Sidmouth all have special and important features and would significantly benefit from the £20m per area designed to ‘tackle deprivation and turbocharge growth.’

He is is calling on the government to think again on its decision last week to plough funding into 75 areas, that he said saw the South West almost entirely excluded from the £1.5bn announcement.

The UK government announced £20 million was being given to 75 areas selected across the UK.

The only community in the South West region earmarked for funding was in south Devon.

Mr Foord said: “Many businesses and organisations in market towns across Mid- and East Devon feel abandoned by successive governments and the distribution of additional funding has meant the South West and Devon has been almost entirely forgotten. Funding for vital local projects would revitalise our towns and ensure they are fit for the future.”

Mr Foord has long called for better funding for towns in the South West, and has described the region as “abandoned by the government.”

In Parliament, Mr Foord has demanded better funding by the government to ‘rejuvenate market towns.’

Mr Foord spoke warmly of the six market towns located in the area that he represents: Axminster, Cullompton, Honiton, Ottery St Mary, Sidmouth and Seaton.

In 2022, he visited a Honiton maker of a lace jabot and cuffs with the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsey Hoyle. The speaker then wore them at King Charles’ coronation in 2023.

During the debate last Tuesday, Mr Foord talked about how market towns “tell a story of resilient, creative and proud communities”.

He cited Ottery St Mary – one of Devon’s oldest market towns – and its tar barrels festival; also Axminster, for its fine carpets. 

Following the debate, Mr Foord highlighted how market towns need investment in order to flourish in future.

He said: “Market towns are the hubs for our communities, and provide us with much of our history and culture.

“We have a rich heritage here in Devon, but we can’t rely solely on that for future prosperity.”

Complete list of neighbourhoods receiving £20m

Scotland

• Arbroath
• Elgin
• Kirkwall (Orkney Islands)
• Peterhead
• Dumfries
• Irvine
• Kilmarnock
• Clydebank
• Coatbridge
• Greenock

Wales

• Barry
• Wrexham
• Rhyl
• Cwmbrân
• Merthyr Tydfil 

Northern Ireland

• Derry/Londonderry
• Coleraine 

North East England 

• Blyth
• Darlington
• Eston
• Hartlepool
• Jarrow
• Spennymoor
• Washington 

North West England

• Accrington
• Ashton-Under-Lyne
• Burnley
• Chadderton
• Darwen
• Farnworth
• Heywood
• Kirkby
• Leigh
• Nelson
• Newton-le-Willows
• Rawtenstall
• Runcorn 

Yorkshire and the Humber

• Barnsley
• Castleford
• Dewsbury
• Doncaster
• Keighley
• Rotherham
• Scarborough
• Scunthorpe
• Grimsby 

East Midlands

• Boston
• Carlton
• Chesterfield
• Clifton (Notts)
• Kirkby-in-Ashfield
• Mansfield
• Newark-on-Trent
• Spalding
• Worksop
• Skegness 

West Midlands

• Bedworth
• Bilston
• Darlaston
• Dudley
• Royal Sutton Coldfield
• Smethwick 

East of England

• Canvey Island
• Clacton-on-Sea
• Great Yarmouth
• King’s Lynn
• Thetford
• Wisbech
• Harlow 

South East England

• Bexhill-on-Sea
• Eastbourne
• Hastings
• Ramsgate
• Ryde 

South West England

• Torquay

Town hall leaders condemn ‘ill-thought-out’ plan to merge English councils

Patrick Butler www.theguardian.com 

Ministers’ plans to shake up the structure of English local government by merging councils are “ill-thought-out”, “insane” and a “bizarre diversion” that will fail to deliver savings, according to a survey of town hall leaders.

The depth of unhappiness with the plans is revealed in an annual poll of senior councillors and executives, most of whom said the changes would be costly, time-consuming and do little to address the dire financial crisis facing councils.

Most local authorities are preparing to cut local services from April while increasing council tax, fees and charges, as they battle with cost pressures that could put up to 19 town halls into effective bankruptcy over the next year, the survey found.

The Local Government Information Unit (LGIU), which carried out the survey, said the scale and speed of the proposed reorganisation had added a “new layer of uncertainty” to a sector already in a “state of crisis management”.

The government defended its plans on Wednesday night, saying it was prepared to take “tough choices” to rebuild the local government sector. It insisted it had thoroughly consulted local leaders and its ambitious timetable was intended to provide certainty for councils and increase their resilience.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “Reorganisation is a tough choice but it is the right one to end the two-tier premium and create streamlined, more accountable local government.

“We know the challenges councils are facing, which is why despite the inheritance we have been left we are making available £69bn of funding to councils across England and working with them to drive forward the government’s plan for change.”

The government’s devolution plans, published in December, include abolishing the current two-tier system and creating a smaller number of unitary authorities covering large geographical areas. Critics have called these “mega councils”.

Ministers have previously argued that effectively abolishing scores of smaller district councils would help drive economic growth, deliver significant financial efficiencies and improve accountability, despite cutting the number of elected local politicians.

The LGIU said its survey showed the vast majority of local government leaders were not onboard with the government’s plans. Many were unhappy with the costs of the changes – put at £16m per area, according to one estimate – and the amount of time and resources it was taking up.

One unnamed senior district council leader told the survey: “Reorganising local government to save money is insane. Local government has already had a 40% real-terms cut since 2010. Reorganise to deliver more local outcomes, sure, but not to save money.”

An unnamed county council treasurer said: “Local government reorganisation will be a distraction from needing to balance the books for all councils … It is making everything much more uncertain and challenging.”

A deputy mayor of a unitary council described the changes as “rushed, ill-thought-out and potentially undeliverable”, while other respondents called them a “bizarre distraction” and “the last thing we need at the worst possible time”.

Labour made no manifesto promise to reorganise councils, and many in local government are baffled about why it has embarked on such extensive and disruptive changes when most town halls are fully focused on the rising demand for social care, temporary accommodation and special educational needs spending.

There are also concerns among Labour councillors and backbench MPs that the creation of councils with target populations of 500,000 will result in areas such as Norwich, Ipswich, Brighton and Hove and Oxford that often vote centre-left being subsumed into neighbouring Conservative-voting areas.

Jonathan Carr-West, the LGIU chief executive, said: “To put it bluntly, respondents are not happy with the way that reorganisation is being carried out. The vast majority feel that the government is not providing enough clarity, enough genuine involvement for councils in the process, or realistic timeframes.”

Council tax will rise in 94% of town halls from April, the survey found, while nearly nine out of 10 councils reported they would increase fees and charges in areas such as car parking, household green waste collection, school dinners, and burials and cremations.

Nearly two-thirds (63%) of councils said they planned to reduce spending on services from April. The areas most commonly sought out for cuts were parks and leisure centres, local business support, arts and culture, adult social care, and libraries.

One unitary council leader told the survey that local authorities would find it increasingly hard to justify council tax rises as an ever-greater proportion of resources was spent on social care at the expense of more visible “public realm” services such as parks and street cleaning.

They said: “The burden of paying for services continues to shift to our residents … In short, residents are paying more for worse public services – they can’t understand why.”

The LGIU survey, which informs its annual state of local government finance report, received 186 responses from senior elected and executive leaders at 150 unique councils in England.

Not only is Labour planning to make access to local councillors more distant by abolishing districts, they now want to strip councillors of planning powers at the same time.

In 2020 Boris Johnson proposed making planning more technocratic by introducing a land zoning system where land would be divided into three categories – “growth”, “renewal” or “protected”.

For land designated for “renewal” councils would have to look favourably on new developments. In “growth” areas, new homes, hospitals and schools will be allowed automatically.

This is what Sir Keir Starmer said at the time: “This is a developers’ charter, frankly, taking councils and communities out of it.

“And on affordable housing, which is the critical issue, it says nothing. In fact it removes the initiatives that were there for affordable housing.”

The Local Government Association has written to ministers to express reservations, pointing out that it is already “larger or more controversial schemes” that are taken over by councillors.

“This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded,” it warned.

Cranbrook is a good example of what happens with developer led planning. – Owl

Councillors to be stripped of powers to block planning schemes

Chris Smyth www.thetimes.com 

Councillors will be stripped of powers to block all but the biggest and most contentious building schemes under plans to turbocharge development.

Ministers will next week set out plans to ban councillors from interfering in the vast majority of planning applications in an effort to push through more houses, offices, factories and other large development projects.

Experts said the changes could lead to tens of thousands more homes a year and offer a “holy grail” to developers exasperated with political delays in building projects. But councils warned they risked eroding local democracy because residents would be denied the chance to use the ballot box to oppose unpopular schemes.

Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, will next week publish a planning and infrastructure bill designed to liberalise rules as the government promises to build 1.5 million homes this parliament and speed up infrastructure and other development projects to boost growth.

Sir Keir Starmer has made overhauling planning the foundation of his push for growth, attacking the current rules as “ruinous” and promising to take on “nimbys” who have held Britain “to ransom” and “choked” the economy.

Last year, ministers signalled that they wanted to overhaul local authority planning committees, where councillors can take decisions on local applications for development. At present councils can make their own decisions on which projects are decided by such committees, and which by professional planning officers.

Next week, Rayner will promise to go significantly further than originally thought, setting a national rule that would stop committees of councillors playing a role in all but the biggest projects and those that most clearly go against local development plans.

Exact details are still being finalised, but the threshold below which councillors cannot step in is expected to be set somewhere between ten and 100 houses. Once a project has outline permission, councillors will also not be given a say on details of housing style and layout.

Ministers are keen to use the rules to encourage small and medium developers to put forward more mid-sized schemes, and will also set a minimum size threshold for councillors to intervene in commercial development.

“We will modernise how planning committees work, making sure they are focused on key applications for larger developments rather than small scale projects or niche technical details,” a government source said. “This is about making sure the right decisions are taken at the right level.”

Matthew Spry, of the planning consultancy Lichfields, said that delegating more applications to officials “helps move us towards more consistent, policy-driven decisions: for many, the holy grail of England’s planning system. Some councils already delegate a lot to their officers, but in others, committee members expect even small schemes, and those that have been approved previously, to come before them. This means uncertainty — which is an enemy of investment — delays, some poor decisions, and wasted public money.”

While in some councils barely any applications go to planning committees, at others 20-30 per cent of decisions are made by councillors, often including almost all schemes beyond simple kitchen or loft extensions.

Spry said the change “could make a real difference” and mean more and quicker approvals, but said the definition of “major” development to be sent to councillors was crucial. “Ten houses might be a big deal in a small rural council, but is almost de minimis in large urban areas.”

Developers complain of having to repeatedly ask local councillors for permission, with their decisions far less predictable than those taken by planning officers. “Every time you have to engage with a committee of politicians is an enormous risk that could end up setting your project back years and costing you millions of pounds,” said Zack Simons KC, a leading planning barrister.

“The fundamental problem is that the way the system is set up at the moment is that if you’re bringing forward a new scheme of development of any sort you have to run it through a democratic process with input from local politicians multiple times.

“In the meantime you can have a change in administration and it’s the members who were running in opposition to the [previously approved] plan who are now judging the outline application.”

He said the proposed change would be “enormous because it would give us more certainty”, potentially leading to tens of thousands more homes. But he said “it will be incredibly important where they set the threshold”.

However, the Local Government Association has written to ministers to express reservations, pointing out that it is already “larger or more controversial schemes” that are taken over by councillors.

“This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded,” it warned.

“Many councillors stand for election on the basis of the role they could play in positively supporting the growth or protection of the environment and community in which they stand. Potentially removing the ability for councillors to discuss, debate or vote on key developments in their localities could erode public trust in the planning system and local government itself.”

Councillors will be stripped of powers to block all but the biggest and most contentious building schemes under plans to turbocharge development.

Ministers will next week set out plans to ban councillors from interfering in the vast majority of planning applications in an effort to push through more houses, offices, factories and other large development projects.

Experts said the changes could lead to tens of thousands more homes a year and offer a “holy grail” to developers exasperated with political delays in building projects. But councils warned they risked eroding local democracy because residents would be denied the chance to use the ballot box to oppose unpopular schemes.

Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, will next week publish a planning and infrastructure bill designed to liberalise rules as the government promises to build 1.5 million homes this parliament and speed up infrastructure and other development projects to boost growth.

Sir Keir Starmer has made overhauling planning the foundation of his push for growth, attacking the current rules as “ruinous” and promising to take on “nimbys” who have held Britain “to ransom” and “choked” the economy.

Last year, ministers signalled that they wanted to overhaul local authority planning committees, where councillors can take decisions on local applications for development. At present councils can make their own decisions on which projects are decided by such committees, and which by professional planning officers.

Next week, Rayner will promise to go significantly further than originally thought, setting a national rule that would stop committees of councillors playing a role in all but the biggest projects and those that most clearly go against local development plans.

Exact details are still being finalised, but the threshold below which councillors cannot step in is expected to be set somewhere between ten and 100 houses. Once a project has outline permission, councillors will also not be given a say on details of housing style and layout.

Ministers are keen to use the rules to encourage small and medium developers to put forward more mid-sized schemes, and will also set a minimum size threshold for councillors to intervene in commercial development.

“We will modernise how planning committees work, making sure they are focused on key applications for larger developments rather than small scale projects or niche technical details,” a government source said. “This is about making sure the right decisions are taken at the right level.”

Matthew Spry, of the planning consultancy Lichfields, said that delegating more applications to officials “helps move us towards more consistent, policy-driven decisions: for many, the holy grail of England’s planning system. Some councils already delegate a lot to their officers, but in others, committee members expect even small schemes, and those that have been approved previously, to come before them. This means uncertainty — which is an enemy of investment — delays, some poor decisions, and wasted public money.”

While in some councils barely any applications go to planning committees, at others 20-30 per cent of decisions are made by councillors, often including almost all schemes beyond simple kitchen or loft extensions.

Spry said the change “could make a real difference” and mean more and quicker approvals, but said the definition of “major” development to be sent to councillors was crucial. “Ten houses might be a big deal in a small rural council, but is almost de minimis in large urban areas.”

Developers complain of having to repeatedly ask local councillors for permission, with their decisions far less predictable than those taken by planning officers. “Every time you have to engage with a committee of politicians is an enormous risk that could end up setting your project back years and costing you millions of pounds,” said Zack Simons KC, a leading planning barrister.

“The fundamental problem is that the way the system is set up at the moment is that if you’re bringing forward a new scheme of development of any sort you have to run it through a democratic process with input from local politicians multiple times.

“In the meantime you can have a change in administration and it’s the members who were running in opposition to the [previously approved] plan who are now judging the outline application.”

He said the proposed change would be “enormous because it would give us more certainty”, potentially leading to tens of thousands more homes. But he said “it will be incredibly important where they set the threshold”.

However, the Local Government Association has written to ministers to express reservations, pointing out that it is already “larger or more controversial schemes” that are taken over by councillors.

“This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded,” it warned.

“Many councillors stand for election on the basis of the role they could play in positively supporting the growth or protection of the environment and community in which they stand. Potentially removing the ability for councillors to discuss, debate or vote on key developments in their localities could erode public trust in the planning system and local government itself.”

East Devon leader Paul Arnott writes about upcoming elections

Paul Arnott 

March has arrived, a hint of Spring is in the air, and it’s County Council election season.

The last ones were in 2021, and although the Conservatives at Devon County tried to cancel those due on May 1st 2025, on some feeble pretexts about proposals to reorganise councils, the government didn’t allow them.

Ironically, many of those Conservatives shooting their hands up at the Devon County meeting in January to cancel the May 1st elections – giving themselves a bonus year, possibly two – will be pleading for your votes in May. In Exmouth, Sidmouth, Honiton, Whimple and the Blackdown Hills, they’ll be putting leaflets through your doors for the very election they wanted to scratch from the fixture list.

It’s not great, is it? It could be ventured that even Trump would hesitate at that, but let’s face it, he’d leap at the chance.

Cynical self-interested ploys like these do so much to harm local and national faith in politicians. This creates a void which Putin apologist Nigel Farage fills with his dodgy anti-migrant offer.

Reform has had a terrible week. Farage needed to condemn Trump for bullying Ukraine’s President Zelensky. Instead, he puffed that Zelensky should have worn a suit and is repeating the canard that Zelensky is dodging his electorate.

Well, while Devon’s Conservative excuses to try and swerve the county election were wafer-thin, most might say that, as we did in World War Two, Zelensky can be forgiven for holding on. Russian missiles are raining down on his country much of which Putin illegally occupies.

Farage is now walking a tightrope between two “strong leaders/men”. Trump is holding one end and Putin the other. What could possibly go wrong?

Meanwhile, at East Devon District Council last week we passed a motion to demand that Devon County Council get its act together about highways, and holes in the road in particular. During the debate, one councillor asked how many of us had punctures this year caused by a crater in the road and a fifth of our hands, including mine, shot up.

But with roads, you can tell its election time here too. Suddenly, chasms in the tarmac are being filled, the most visible ones anyway, some even by Conservative candidates in hi-vis jackets.

This comedy spectacle happens every four years as county elections loom, often absurdly. There has been a bit of welcome patching here in Colyton, but electrical contractors are going to dig Dolphin Street back up a fortnight after the elections!

The other comedy tradition honoured by Conservative candidates recently is them posing with outsized cheques (paid for by your money through their localities funding) for local organisations. Their purses and wallets have been clutched tight for three years, but all of a sudden with votes up for grabs they can’t wait to splash our cash.

If the last few weeks have taught us anything, it is about how precious it is to honour democracy. Don’t try to cancel elections, or play with tarmac when you’ve failed. Democracy for all its flaws is a precious freedom; it needs protection not cynicism.

Dear Susan Davy, 

I have just received my water bill with an enclosed leaflet stating 

INVESTING IN WHAT MATTERS TO YOU: how water bills are changing. 

The investment will : 

Provide reliable safe water supplies 

Support healthier rivers and seas. 

And of course I will be paying extra on my water bill until 2030 for this to occur. (A rise of 22.7 % excluding inflation, and in addition the government contribution of £ 50.00 will cease next year) 

But will we have  healthier sea and rivers In Budleigh Salterton and Exmouth? 

NO. I am deeply unhappy, because your answer to the almost 10,000 hours of untreated sewage into the River Otter in 2024 is not to upgrade the Maer Lane Treatment Works.  

No, your answer is just to dump any untreated sewage unable to be treated at Maer Lane when it rains 200 METRES OUT FROM STRAIGHT POINT. 

Lyme Bay will still suffer from Victorian technology in 2030. We must also keep our fingers crossed that wind and tides do not send untreated sewage back into our beautiful bays. 

Allison Hernandez is reported to be “incredibly frustrated”. – Owl

Double police chief suspension costs taxpayers £60,000 a month

Ben Ellery www.thetimes.com

Taxpayers are funding a police force to employ three chief constables at a cost of more than £60,000 a month after the original and his replacement were both suspended.

The huge costs are being paid by Devon and Cornwall police after it suspended its chief constable, Will Kerr, from his £197,000-a-year role in July 2023 when an investigation was begun into “serious allegations of sexual offences”.

He denies the allegations, which are understood to relate to before he joined the force.

His deputy, Jim Colwell, stepped up to become acting chief constable but in November last year he was suspended and placed under investigation for alleged gross misconduct following claims that he misused his work phone.

Colwell’s £197,000 a year salary has also been supplemented with employer pension contributions of about £50,000 a year. His salary will fall to £162,573 next month when his role is reduced back to deputy, though he will still be suspended.

James Vaughan has been leading the force as interim chief constable since December. He is entitled to £197,000 a year plus around £50,000 in pension contributions.

According to as yet unpublished figures, the monthly cost of employing the chief constable, acting chief constable and the interim chief constable is £63,913. This includes pension contributions and all remunerated allowances.

Devon and Cornwall’s police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, expressed her “incredible frustration” at the huge amounts of money being paid and she plans to write to the Home Office to ask for support in covering these costs.

The period when the force was paying salaries for three chief constables will come to three months in total. It will continue to pay two chief constable salaries while Kerr is suspended, plus Colwell’s deputy salary.

Kerr, who was a police officer in Northern Ireland for 27 years before leaving in 2018, is being investigated by the region’s police ombudsman. During Kerr’s time with the Police Service of Northern Ireland he led on both serious crime and counterterrorism.

He was appointed OBE in 2015 and was awarded the King’s Police Medal in the 2023 new year’s honours. An investigation into allegations against him has also been opened by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, but that has been halted while the ombudsman carries out its inquiries.

Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service (PPS) said the investigation was at an “advanced stage”.

The PPS said: “A file received from the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland on May 30, 2024, reporting an individual in relation to allegations of serious sexual offences is at an advanced stage of consideration. The PPS recently received further information and material from the investigation team which was required before a decision as to prosecution can be taken. A decision will issue once consideration of that material is complete.

“The case has been dealt with expeditiously upon receipt and there has been no avoidable delay on the part of PPS.”

Hernandez said: “I remain incredibly frustrated by the length of time the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland has taken to investigate the allegations against chief constable Will Kerr.”

She said that she had made representations to the ombudsman, the PPS, the chief inspector of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Home Office and the policing minister “in an effort to encourage a swift and efficient conclusion to this case”.

She added: “The fact that the taxpayer is now footing the bill for two chief constable salaries is far from ideal and resolving this issue, and providing robust leadership for the force, remains a top priority for me, and is why I took the decision to appoint an interim chief constable.

“I believe this experience demonstrates that police and crime commissioners should be granted investigatory powers relating to chief constable misconduct allegations, so the resources and timeframes of such investigations remain within their control.

“I will be writing to the home secretary to ask that the government consider granting commissioners these powers.”

The Independent Office for Police Conduct said: “We are progressing our investigation into misconduct allegations against the acting chief constable as swiftly as possible. Our investigation into misconduct allegations against chief constable Will Kerr has had to remain suspended pending a decision in Northern Ireland on potential criminal proceedings.”

The Home Office said: “Devon and Cornwall police funding will be £457.2m in 2025-26, an increase of up to £27.8m when compared to the 2024-25 police funding settlement.

“Police and crime commissioners facing unexpected costs may request additional funding through the police special grant, in line with the published guidance.”

Taxpayers are funding a police force to employ three chief constables at a cost of more than £60,000 a month after the original and his replacement were both suspended.

The huge costs are being paid by Devon and Cornwall police after it suspended its chief constable, Will Kerr, from his £197,000-a-year role in July 2023 when an investigation was begun into “serious allegations of sexual offences”.

He denies the allegations, which are understood to relate to before he joined the force.

His deputy, Jim Colwell, stepped up to become acting chief constable but in November last year he was suspended and placed under investigation for alleged gross misconduct following claims that he misused his work phone.

Colwell’s £197,000 a year salary has also been supplemented with employer pension contributions of about £50,000 a year. His salary will fall to £162,573 next month when his role is reduced back to deputy, though he will still be suspended.

James Vaughan has been leading the force as interim chief constable since December. He is entitled to £197,000 a year plus around £50,000 in pension contributions.

According to as yet unpublished figures, the monthly cost of employing the chief constable, acting chief constable and the interim chief constable is £63,913. This includes pension contributions and all remunerated allowances.

Devon and Cornwall’s police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, expressed her “incredible frustration” at the huge amounts of money being paid and she plans to write to the Home Office to ask for support in covering these costs.

The period when the force was paying salaries for three chief constables will come to three months in total. It will continue to pay two chief constable salaries while Kerr is suspended, plus Colwell’s deputy salary.

Kerr, who was a police officer in Northern Ireland for 27 years before leaving in 2018, is being investigated by the region’s police ombudsman. During Kerr’s time with the Police Service of Northern Ireland he led on both serious crime and counterterrorism.

He was appointed OBE in 2015 and was awarded the King’s Police Medal in the 2023 new year’s honours. An investigation into allegations against him has also been opened by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, but that has been halted while the ombudsman carries out its inquiries.

Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service (PPS) said the investigation was at an “advanced stage”.

The PPS said: “A file received from the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland on May 30, 2024, reporting an individual in relation to allegations of serious sexual offences is at an advanced stage of consideration. The PPS recently received further information and material from the investigation team which was required before a decision as to prosecution can be taken. A decision will issue once consideration of that material is complete.

“The case has been dealt with expeditiously upon receipt and there has been no avoidable delay on the part of PPS.”

Hernandez said: “I remain incredibly frustrated by the length of time the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland has taken to investigate the allegations against chief constable Will Kerr.”

She said that she had made representations to the ombudsman, the PPS, the chief inspector of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Home Office and the policing minister “in an effort to encourage a swift and efficient conclusion to this case”.

She added: “The fact that the taxpayer is now footing the bill for two chief constable salaries is far from ideal and resolving this issue, and providing robust leadership for the force, remains a top priority for me, and is why I took the decision to appoint an interim chief constable.

“I believe this experience demonstrates that police and crime commissioners should be granted investigatory powers relating to chief constable misconduct allegations, so the resources and timeframes of such investigations remain within their control.

“I will be writing to the home secretary to ask that the government consider granting commissioners these powers.”

The Independent Office for Police Conduct said: “We are progressing our investigation into misconduct allegations against the acting chief constable as swiftly as possible. Our investigation into misconduct allegations against chief constable Will Kerr has had to remain suspended pending a decision in Northern Ireland on potential criminal proceedings.”

The Home Office said: “Devon and Cornwall police funding will be £457.2m in 2025-26, an increase of up to £27.8m when compared to the 2024-25 police funding settlement.

“Police and crime commissioners facing unexpected costs may request additional funding through the police special grant, in line with the published guidance.”

In 2024, South West Water discharged untreated sewage off Otter Head over 10,000 times. That’s an average of 30 times every day.

The average discharge is over 18,000 litres per event and the discharge point is just 400m from the Lime Kiln tourist beach.

And it’s not over: 1,226 Lime Kiln discharges were registered by SWW in January 2025.

Lime Kiln sewage discharges: time to see South West Water in court!

Petercrwilliams fightingpoolution.com

In 2024, SWW pumped a mix of untreated sewage and brook water off Otter head, around 10,000 times. Each time, an average of up to 18,000 litres was dumped. This is NOT normal!

As a quick glance through the posts on this web site make clear, over the last 14 months, we have been pushing for this to be resolved. These actions have included many meetings and email exchanges with local councillors, our MPs, and with SWW themselves.

Since July 2024, SWW have known exactly what the problem is, and what sewer-pipe lining is required. All we want now is a full, published plan to fix Budleigh’s broken sewage system.

The last straw was the data for January 2025: 1,226 pumped discharges last month alone – and no sign of a full plan. You can see all of the discharge data – as published by South West Water themselves, here.

Daily sewage warnings and the associated email notifications cannot continue through Summer 2025.

We’ve resisted promoting the legal action up until now. We preferred to work with the stakeholders to resolve the situation.

But now it seems the only way to force SWW to fix this issue is by Budleigh folk joining the Leigh Day class action against SWW. We urge you to check the details, and sign up today.

Read all about the legal action, and add your name here.

For those in any doubt if this is the correct plan, here’s a recap of three critical issues which South West Water continue to inflict on Budleigh.

One regular question is whether any individual could be hit with any costs. See the attached response to this question, which should help with this concern.

It’s time we got our safe beach back!

---

Previous ChapterNext Chapter

The EFRA Committee continued its ‘reforming the water sector’ inquiry this week, with two evidence sessions on the mornings of 25 and 26 February. 

At 10am on Tuesday 25 February, MPs questioned the leadership of South West Water. A link to the video recording can be found here. 

MP criticises water boss for ‘not facing’ media 

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

South West Water’s boss didn’t do interviews during parasite outbreak

Exmouth MP David Reed has criticised South West Water’s boss Susan Davy for failing to talk to the media during incidents such as Brixham’s cryptosporidium outbreak.

Mr Reed, who has focused heavily on the company’s performance since taking office in July, said it is “unacceptable” that Ms Davy didn’t address the media during incidents and that this responsibility was given to other staff.

“For me, I find it outrageous that Susan Davy doesn’t face the media and take accountability for her company’s mistakes,” Mr Reed wrote on Facebook.

“Instead, Susan lets politicians, community leader and other people do it for her.

“I have said repeatedly that this is unacceptable and Susan must be the accountable face of her company; if she can’t do this basic task then she must let someone more responsible take over.”

This week Ms Davy was asked about her engagement with the media  by Labour MP Helena Dollimore (Hastings & Rye) at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee.

Ms Dollimore said she had heard that Ms Davy had refused to be interviewed by local media about the cryptosporidium outbreak in Brixham and Kingswear last year.

“Is it correct you have turned down media interviews at times of extreme panic among your customers,” Ms Dollimore asked.

Ms Davy said she wanted to support her colleagues and communities and ensure they were getting all the information they needed.

“I wanted to speak to my customers who were on the ground,” Ms Davy said.

“What I wanted to make sure that we did was get all our information out to our customers and make sure they were very clear what was happening.

“In that instance, I had my incident director and my customer services director, who was doing that twice a day to make sure that the information was [available].”

“So your team spoke to the media, but you as chief executive would not front that media in a time of severe crisis for your customers,” Ms Dollimore added.

Ms Davy said she spent her time “on the ground” in Brixham and Kingswear, and with the control room “making sure our teams were supported in doing what they were doing every day”.

Hundreds of people fell ill and several were hospitalised after a parasite called cryptosporidium got into water supplies at Kingswear. Thousands of homes across the village and nearby Brixham were told for months to boil their water before drinking it.

Tourism businesses were badly hit as reports of the outbreak spread.

Asked if she would pledge to speak to the media in future incidents, Ms Davy said: “The best reassurances I thought I could give customers at that point was to make sure they were getting all the information they needed from our incident director and the customer service team.”

Pushed for an answer, she added: “There are things that I regret around the Brixham incident and I should have, in retrospect, perhaps it would have helped if I had spoken to the media, but at the time I thought the right thing to do was to make sure everybody had the information that they needed.”

Mr Reed has previously met Ms Davy to discuss works in Exmouth following sewage spills that closed its beaches during the height of the summer season.

In October, Mr Reed said Ms Davy and Richard Price, the company’s managing director for waste water services, understood the “magnitude of anger felt by the local community” and were “willing to bring money forward” for repairs if they could get regulatory sign-off.

In December, the firm said it had completed a scheme to replace a section of sewer in Exmouth which would “protect customers and the environment from potential pollutions.

“The team have worked hard over the last eight weeks to replace over 300 metres of sewer entering Maer Lane Wastewater Treatment works to improve services for customers, businesses and visitors to the area following issues with the network over the last 12 months,” the statement said.

An update on Monday 24 February said that following completion of the first phase on the Maer Road rising main replacement “the system has been performing as expected”.

“We are currently carrying out enabling works as we plan to start construction of Phase 2 in the spring,” it added.

Is there any evidence?

There are widespread reports that Angela Rayner’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government [MHCLG] conducted no analysis of the proposal; nor any assessment of how Somerset, Cumbria and North Yorkshire are faring in their 2023 merger. 

The only evidence available comes from a report commissioned by the County Councils Network [CCN] in the second half of 2020, at the height of the pandemic [which is probably why it escaped Owl’s notice at the time].

The County Councils commissioned this report from Price, Waterhouse, Coopers [PWC] in the expectation that the then government was preparing a White Paper on English Devolution and Local Recovery. This White Paper was delayed at least four times and finally ground to a halt. [Too politically contentious? – Owl]

PWC  2020 conclusions with caveats 

This report concluded that single unitary councils could deliver £3bn saving over five years, a saving of £126m for a mid-sized county area. And ‘maximise’ the benefits of economic growth and housing policy. [The analysis, in the report, on benefits to economic growth and housing are pretty thin. – Owl]

“Now you see it: now you don’t”

However, creating two unitary authorities in each of the 25 shire counties would reduce the potential savings by two-thirds. Any further division would result in net costs. Remember: Devon has already been divided into three with the creation of Plymouth and Torbay unitaries. So are we already on the downhill side? 

Creating multiple unitaries for each area would mean splitting up children’s social services and adult social care departments, creating a risk at a time of a funding crisis. Similarly, disaggregating care services could result in different councils competing over scarce care providers, potentially destabilising local adult social care markets. 

Creating two or more unitaries in each county could potentially create and concentrate economic disparities, with one council benefiting from higher economic activity and local tax income.

Note, the report also argued that the creation of a combined authority alongside multiple unitaries to oversee growth and transport functions would be unprecedented and has no guarantee they will perform better in this new arrangement, nor that economic growth for the county is maximised.

2025 District criticism of 2020 County report

Before a more comprehensive summary, including links, of the County Councils Network 2020 report, here is a summary of criticisms from the District Councils Network published on the Local Government Lawyer website in January.

“According to the network, the Ministry for Housing Local Government and Communities (MHCLG) relied on just one report, which the DCN described as being “out of date”, to base its policy on.

The DCN said it asked MHCLG several questions about the evidence it holds to support the 500,000 figure.

In response, the ministry cited a PWC report from 2020, commissioned by the County Councils Network, as its only source of evidence.

However, in a statement on its correspondence with MHCLG, the DCN claimed that the PWC report is “out of date”, adding: “Many councils in two-tier areas have already delivered significant efficiency savings since 2020, for example by creating shared services or shared management teams.

“The report does not reflect the potential for councils to deliver further efficiency savings within existing structures.

“And it predates much of the surge in demand for adult social care, children’s services, SEND and temporary accommodation, which is expensive for councils to meet and reduces the scope for efficiency savings overall.”

The DCN went on to claim that the Government has not commissioned independent research to support its preference for large unitary councils and has done no analysis of its own.

It also claimed that MHCLG had undertaken no post-implementation assessment of the actual upfront costs to central and local government from creating new unitary councils in Somerset, Cumbria and North Yorkshire in 2023.”

County Council summary of 2020 County commissioned report from PWC

Introduction

Today [28 August 2020] the County Councils Network (CCN) publishes new independent evidence on the implications of local government reorganisation in two-tier shire counties ahead of the publication of the government’s ‘devolution and local recovery’ white paper.

With councils in shire counties facing billions in rising costs for care services, alongside financial deficits caused by the Coronavirus pandemic, the study from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) shows merging district and county councils in each area into a single unitary council could save £2.94bn over five years nationally.

Download the report “Evaluating the importance of scale in proposals for local government reorganisation” here. 

The report concludes a single unitary in each area would reduce complexity and give communities a single unified voice to government. It would provide a clear point of contact for residents, businesses and a platform to ‘maximise’ the benefits of strategic economic growth and housing policy; integral to the ‘levelling-up’ agenda and securing devolution.

However, the report shows replacing county and districts with two unitary authorities in each area would reduce the financial benefit by two-thirds to £1bn over five years, with three unitary authorities delivering a net loss of £340m over the same period. A fourth scenario of a two-unitary and children’s trust model in each county would deliver a net five year saving of £269m.

Alongside a minimum £1.9bn in additional costs from splitting county council services, the report outlines the establishment of multiple unitary authorities in each area creates the risk of disruption to the safeguarding of vulnerable children, while ‘instability’ in care markets could impact on the quality and availability of support packages and care home placements.

The report has been covered across BBC News today. Read an online write-up here. 

On the implications of a two-unitary and trust model, PwC conclude this would lead to additional cost, complexity and potential instability in how commissioning arrangements were managed. It also suggests there is limited evidence the implementation of these types of models can lead to immediate improvements.

CCN says that the report outlines a ‘compelling’ financial case for the creation of more  single county unitaries in areas where councils seek reorganisation. This will  help ‘safeguard’ council services in the wake of the pandemic, while ensuring councils are of the necessary size to drive forward the economic recovery and devolution agendas.

But the network warned that an arbitrary population limit in the White Paper would lead to a ‘missed opportunity’ and ‘worse deal for local taxpayers’, creating ‘significant risks’ and instability in vital care services, and holding back the levelling up agenda.

The report, ‘Evaluating the importance of scale in proposals for local government reorganisation’, reveals:

• A single county unitary in each of the 25 remaining two-tier areas could generate savings of £2.94bn over the next five years, a saving of £126m for a mid-sized county area. Creating two unitary authorities in each shire county would reduce the potential savings by two-thirds to £1bn over five years; £51m for a mid-sized county area. Three unitary councils for each area would cost £340m across all 25 areas over five years, a cost of £1.6m for the mid-sized county area.
• Creating multiple unitaries for each area would mean splitting up children’s social services and adult social care departments which are currently overseen by county councils. PwC concludes this creates risks at a time when demand for both types of care will rise post-Coronavirus, and that ‘the likelihood of performance dropping is high.’
• The report finds that disaggregating care services could result in different councils competing over scarce care providers, potentially destabilising local adult social care markets already under additional strain due to Covid-19. It would also make children’s social services costlier and undermine efforts to attract and retain high calibre directors with sufficient experience.
• PwC suggests that, for the scenarios explored in the report, creating two or more unitaries in each county could potentially create and concentrate economic disparities, with one council benefiting from higher economic activity and local tax income. PwC argues that the creation of a combined authority alongside multiple unitaries to oversee growth and transport functions would be unprecedented and has no guarantee they will perform better in this new arrangement, nor that economic growth for the county is maximised.
• In conclusion, PwC summarise that the “implementation of single unitaries in each of England’s two-tier areas would deliver significantly greater benefit” and if “an alternative approach be pursued the process of disaggregating current county services does present a number of material costs, but also non-financial risks and complexities”.

Cllr David Williams, chairman of the County Councils Network, said:

“The consequences of Coronavirus for local government finances, and the need to work quickly to support the economic recovery, means more councils want to look again at how local government is structured in their area.

“This government has already signalled that it wants to see many more unitary councils created and it is important we get it right for our residents – we do not want to look back on this period as a missed opportunity.

“The findings from PwC show there is a compelling financial case for the creation of more unitary counties where councils seek reorganisation. They will provide significant savings to support frontline services and the stability needed to safeguard care services as we continue to mitigate the impact of Coronavirus. Crucially, it will create councils of the necessary size to support local economies to recover from the pandemic and drive forward the devolution and levelling up agendas.

 “In contrast, an arbitrary population threshold that limits the size of any new council will cap our areas’ ambitions and create significant risks in delivering care services. This evidence shows it would mean a worse deal for local taxpayers, create confusion, costs, and complexity, and potentially deliver a postcode lottery for local services and the economic recovery.

 “Unitary counties won’t lead to a democratic deficit. Rather, as evidenced by authorities that have already made this journey, they have the potential to bring services closer to residents, developing new ways for residents to engage and shape service provision more effectively and enhance local democratic participation with empowered town and parish councils”.

Notes to editor

• An executive summary of the report can be downloaded here. 
• 25 county councils in England are responsible for between 80-90% of local expenditure on services, including social care, highways, transport and public health. 188 District councils across these areas provide services such as planning, waste and street cleaning. The report by PwC modelled the financial implications of merging county and districts across four unitary scenarios and explored in detail the policy implications of reform across 20 lines of enquiry.
• PwC’s analysis models four different scenarios for reform in two-tier council areas. All of these options include the abolition of all district councils and the county council in each of the 25 remaining areas. The four scenarios are: one unitary per county; 2 unitary councils per county; three unitary councils per county; two unitary councils plus outsourcing children’s services to be run by a children’s trust. For a detailed financial analysis of each scenario, see page 24 of the report.

• The figures cited in this report draw on input data from all 25 two-tier county areas. Each area has been modelled, differentiating this analysis from previous studies where averages have been used. In addition, calculations have been made for an example mid-sized authority. These calculations should not be misinterpreted as being based on the average. The mid-sized authority calculations take current variations in scale across all 25 two-tier areas in England into account (there are a large number of two-tier areas which serve relatively small populations).
• The financial assumptions used to calculate benefits and costs are based on data from a representative sample of county councils, supplemented by other sources of publicly available information, alongside PwC’s own work with individual councils on reorganisation projects.
• The payback period referenced in the report is the period whereby there is a net financial saving resulting from the reorganisation. For scenario one, it is less than a year for both the total figure and for a mid-sized county; for scenario two it will be two years for the total figure and 1.8 years for a mid-sized county; for scenario three it could be eight years for the total figure and 5 years for a mid-sized county; for scenario four it would be 3.7 years for the total figure and 3 years for a mid-sized county.

Salary UP, dividends UP, water quality DOWN – Owl

Water chief quizzed by MPs about crypto outbreak

Georgina Barnes, Lisa Young www.bbc.co.uk

A parasite contamination of water in Brixham, Devon, last year was “devastating” for some households, the chief of South West Water’s (SWW) parent company, Pennon, has admitted.

Susan Davy told a committee of MPs: “I absolutely understand how devastating that incident was for that community and for the customers who were poorly… it was a really horrible time for them.”

Ms Davy said her annual salary had been increased by about £300,000, leading to a £860,000 pay package last year, which included an increase from share awards, but that she did not take her annual bonus.

The outbreak last May left some people in hospital and hundreds of others ill after contamination of the water supply by cryptosporidium, a parasite which causes sickness and diarrhoea.

Dividend payments up 265%

Ms Davy said: “I am always sorry when something happens either to our customers or to the environment.”

When asked why she did not speak publicly at the time of the outbreak, Ms Davy said she “was wanting to speak to my customers”.

“I should have, in retrospect – perhaps it would have helped if I spoke to the media,” she added.

MPs asked the chief executive whether it was appropriate in January to have announced £45m in dividend payments for 2024-5, a 265% increase from the £12m in 2022-3.

Ms Davy replied by saying that, although the dividend had been announced, it had not been paid as the company “faced significant energy costs and pressures”.

‘Going to take time’

Cornwall MP Jayne Kirkham, who represents Truro and Falmouth, told Ms Davy bathing water quality was “getting worse”.

Ms Davy replied, saying “we have got to do better to eliminate pollution” but that “it is going to take time”.

She said there were 194 individual pollution incidents across the group between 2023 and 2024.

She told the committee: “I absolutely regret and do not condone those incidents and pollutions that we had.

“We have hundreds of treatment works and thousands of pumping stations and, from time to time, things do go wrong.”

Pennon was fined £2.2m in 2023 for illegal sewage spills spanning four years across Devon and Cornwall.

South West Water provides water and sewerage services to Devon and Cornwall, plus small parts of Dorset and Somerset.

Residents in the north look to Exeter; and to Plymouth in the south

A call has been made for West Devon to be sliced in half and aligned with separate cities in the forthcoming local government reorganisation.

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

Cllr Patrick Kimber (Con, Hatherleigh) told West Devon Borough Council that Okehampton and the north of the borough looked to Exeter for health services, employment, education and shopping, while Tavistock looked to Plymouth.

The government wants to abolish county and district councils in favour of larger unitary authorities.

Plymouth wants to retain its current unitary status but needs to expand to have the number of residents the government suggests future unitaries will need.

Exeter, which is currently a district council, also wants to be a unitary body.

The government expects future unitary councils to cover around half a million residents. Both Exeter and Plymouth will need to bring in other areas to reach that size, unless the government offers them wriggle room.

It has already suggested some exceptions, such as Exeter, may be allowed.

Plymouth’s natural partners are South Hams and West Devon, with which it shares a local plan, and Tavistock is a 30-minute drive away.

District and borough councils in the county together with the unitary council of Torbay are currently in talks about how Devon could be carved up. They have to present initial plans to the government by Friday 21 March.

West Devon is the smallest of the councils with just 58,000 residents.

The government says unitary structures must prioritise high quality and sustainable public services, including health.

Cllr Kimber said it was a three-hour round trip to Plymouth from Hatherleigh in the north and residents there are referred to the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, and North Devon District Hospital in Barnstaple and had no connection to Plymouth.

Equally residents of West Devon’s second largest town of Okehampton look to Exeter which is just over half an hour’s drive or 40 minutes by train.

Passenger services from Okehampton to Exeter were reinstated three years ago but there is no train line to Plymouth.

Mr Kimber said if Exeter becomes a unitary council, the north of West Devon should be included or be aligned with councils in the North like Torridge to “get the best for residents.

Cllr Tony Leech (Ind, Okehampton North) said putting the Okehampton area in with Exeter did make sense, but he suspected that this would not meet the government’s criteria about taking account of existing council footprints.

He said it would also mean getting the Boundary Commission involved, which would  “complicate things”.
 

A real effect or a statistical blip? – Owl

House prices in a county where the council has introduced measures to crack down on second homes have fallen by more than 12% year-on-year, according to new figures.

Felicity Evans www.bbc.co.uk

The local authority in Gwynedd, north-west Wales, recently introduced a requirement to obtain planning permission to turn residential properties into second homes or holiday lets.

It is also one of a number of Welsh councils which charges a 150% council tax premium on such properties, having upped this from 100% in 2023.

The council, Cyngor Gwynedd, said its aim was to “increase the availability of high-quality, affordable homes for local people”.

The fall in value represents the biggest annual drop of any region in the Principality Building Society’s Wales House Price Index, external, covering residential property sales in the final three months of 2024.

The average house price in Wales has remained broadly flat year-on-year and is now £233,194, according to the building society.

Tom Williams and his family, who live in Lancashire, are struggling to sell the second home they own in Morfa Nefyn, Gwynedd.

“I have four grandchildren who had a wonderful time there every summer and it’s been great, we’ve loved it,” said Mr Williams, who has owned the house for 20 years.

Mr Williams and his wife put the house on the market in April 2024 but said they had had little interest from potential buyers, despite dropping the price by £40,000.

“I put it down to all the other properties in the village that are up for sale at the moment,” he said.

Mr Williams believes some of the interventions by the council have prompted a lot of people to sell, while also putting off potential buyers.

Cyngor Gwynedd has been trying to address the shortage of housing for local people in tourist areas and has more than doubled the council tax charge on second and holiday homes.

The council also recently introduced Article 4, which requires property owners to obtain planning permission to turn residential homes into second or holiday homes.

“I’ve spoken to a lot of families who have had homes there for generations and they’re saying the same thing – how can we carry on with this?” said Mr Williams.

North Wales estate agent Dafydd Hardy described the housing market in Gwynedd as “mixed”, with local interventions on second homes leading to “more properties coming on to the market”.

But he said the price of a second home was often “outside the affordability of the local purchaser”.

“What we need to see is balance in the market,” he said, including “more house building as far as first-time buyers are concerned”.

What’s caused the price drop?

The new figures are based on seasonally-adjusted data from the Land Registry, but a lot of different factors can affect the picture that data ends up painting.

Factors such as interest rates, regional job opportunities, interventions in the local housing market by a council and even the number of transactions can all have an impact on house prices.

It means there is some uncertainty about what caused the drop in prices in Gwynedd in the year to December.

How have house prices changed in the rest of Wales?

Pembrokeshire saw the second biggest annual fall in prices at 8.9%.

The council there recently voted to reduce the council tax premium on second homes from 200% to 150%.

By comparison, Carmarthenshire saw the biggest year-on-year increase in house prices at 9.2%.

The council there is introducing a council tax premium of 100% on second homes from April.

Iain Mansfield of the Principality Building Society said the housing market across Wales had shown “resilience” over the past 12 months.

Sales were up by 28% year-on-year, which Mr Mansfield said demonstrated “greater consumer confidence” with lower interest rates making mortgages more affordable.

“I think we’re seeing a more positive outlook for those people who want to buy a house in 2025,” said Mr Mansfield.

Locals ‘priced out’

Mr Mansfield said the “sizeable” drop in prices in Gwynedd over the past year was reflected in “some of the other coastal areas in Wales”.

He said the drop could “potentially” be explained by “some of the interventions that have been made in the area around second home ownership”.

Cyngor Gwynedd said “over 65% of Gwynedd’s population was priced out of the housing market” and tackling the housing shortage was a “key priority”.

It said it introduced Article 4 to “gain better control over the existing housing stock” and they were “continuously monitoring its effects”.

It added some of the money raised by the council tax premium was used to enable “the development of new homes, the creation of supported accommodation for those facing homelessness and grants and loans to help local people secure housing, amongst many other projects”.

His dedicated contribution to the local community has been wide ranging and this award is well deserved. – Owl

Axminster councillor awarded recognition for community work

Molly Kirk www.midweekherald.co.uk 

AN Axminster Councillor has been recognised nationally for his “exceptional contributions to the local community” through the LGA Independent Group’s, “prestigious” Clarence Barrett Award.

Paul Hayward’s service to the community spans more than a decade. He was elected to the Town Council in 2011, becoming the Town Mayor between 2016 and 2017.

He also qualified as a parish clerk, previously working for the parishes of All Saints, Chardstock, and Newton Poppleford, before finally returning to Axminster Town Council, this time as the serving Town Clerk.

In 2019, he was elected to East Devon District Council (EDDC), a separate organisation, for the neighbouring Yarty Ward.

In 2023, he was re-elected to EDDC, but this time, to represent Axminster alongside Independent Councillors Sarah Jackson and Simon Smith.

At East Devon District Council, Cllr Hayward holds the position of Deputy Leader and Cabinet member responsible for the Economy and Assets Portfolio.

A spokesperson said: “His ongoing work with East Devon’s business sector has been instrumental in helping local enterprises access vital support, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic, where he chaired the funding panel at EDDC to distribute more than £13m in government support grants to help businesses recover.”

Beyond his formal duties, Paul has been involved in and supported numerous local community-led initiatives and charities.

Most notably, Paul is a founding member of Axminster Christmas Together (ACT), an initiative that has been running since 2016. ACT seeks to combat loneliness and social isolation by offering a free Christmas meal and entertainment for those who would otherwise spend the day alone.

Previously, he was also a founding member of the Axminster Christmas Lights Association (ACLA) in 2015. ACLA later became Light Up Axminster, which has given the town centre a much-needed lift through the dark winter months ever since. He is also a member of the Axminster Chamber of Commerce.

Paul has also championed the installation of Automated Emergency Defibrillators (AEDs) across Axminster and the surrounding parishes. He regularly conducts free defibrillator awareness and training sessions across the East Devon area to give as many people as possible the confidence they need to use this lifesaving equipment.

There are now 21 publicly accessible defibrillators across Axminster — potentially the highest provision per capita in the UK.

Paul was unaware he had been nominated for the award, which came as a surprise. He said: “Since 2011, I have tried my very best to improve services and amenities in the town, and across East Devon, for the collective benefit of everyone who lives in this wonderful part of the UK. I am honoured that my small contribution has been acknowledged but I know that there are a great many other unsung community heroes in Axminster who strive daily to do their bit in making the town fabulous.”

See “Devolution for dummies & shotgun weddings” for how this proposal fits within the government guidelines – Owl

A proposal about how Devon could be reshaped in the biggest overhaul of local government in 50 years looks set to suggest the county should have just three councils.

At present, the county has 11 separate councils.

Bradley Gerrard www.midweekherald.co.uk 

A so-called ‘1-5-4’ proposal is understood to have been agreed upon by several Devon councils, with details set to be announced in the coming days.

The model suggests that the ‘1’ is Plymouth, which will remain as a unitary authority but may expand its borders slightly east into the South Hams.

The ‘5’ in the proposal would be a combination of East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon, Exeter and Torridge into one large council, while the ‘4’ would be South Hams, Teignbridge, West Devon and Torbay merging into another.

The proposal comes as the government looks to sweep away the two-tier model of local government where two councils have responsibility for different services within the same area; for example Devon County Council being responsible for roads, but district councils collecting household waste within the same boundary.

Instead, the government wants areas to have fewer but larger unitary councils responsible for all the services in their area. It would prefer councils to cover areas of 500,000 people, but may allow so-called ‘growth areas’ to have smaller numbers.

Councils have been given until Thursday 21 March to submit initial proposals to the government about how their areas could be reorganised to create a smaller number of bigger councils.

A source with knowledge of the talks, who did not want to be named, said seven of Devon’s district councils are collaborating on the proposal, but that Exeter – the county’s eighth district council – still had ambitions of going it alone and becoming a unitary council.

However, leaders and chief executives of the seven districts in favour of it appear to agree that the 1-5-4 model could be viable.

One of the main aspects of friction, though, appears to be how Plymouth would expand its administrative boundaries, the source said.

Some believe it would make sense for Plymouth Council to assume responsibility for Saltash, but that notion is deemed controversial because it is in Cornwall.

The more likely expansion is into the South Hams, but exactly how far is likely to be a key part of any future debate.

It is also unclear whether Devon County Council would throw its weight behind the 1-5-4 proposal, or whether it will suggest an alternative.