Burrington Estates Property Development Company!

From a Correspondent:

If you want to be aware of the epitome and personification of two-faced, hypocrisy, exhibiting double standards beyond belief . . . then read on!

How ironic it is to view the YouTube footage (below) of last week’s EDDC Planning Committee meeting (on 16th March 2022) where an Application (21/2989/FUL) for a demolition and re-build in West Hill Road, Ottery St Mary was recommended for approval by East Devon’s Development Manager and after discussion was subsequently approved by the Planning Committee.

(see Planning Committee Discussion/Decision on 21/2989/FUL – located 1hr/05mins into the meeting).

However, living next door to this new-build in West Hill Road, Ottery St Mary and vehemently objecting at the meeting to his neighbour’s proposals was a Director and Property Development Manager of Burrington Estates Limited.

He contributed as one of the opposition speakers, strongly objecting to this two-storey new build that he felt impacted on his adjoining property. He had previously instructed Burrington Estates’ associate professional planners (Avalon Planning) to object on his behalf to this application and consequently a complex list of executive-level planning objections had been prepared within an 8-page submission that was published on EDDC Planning Portal in the documents file for 21/2989/FUL.

Below are some of the objections included on the vast list submitted:-

Overdevelopment of the site with an appearance of cramming, resulting from the excessive scale, mass, height and form of the new development; inappropriate density and incongruous to the immediate surroundings; design is too contemporary with uncharacteristic design, shape, massing and finishes for the locality;  adverse effect on neighbouring property with overlooking, overshadowing and loss of daylight affecting both the home and garden by being too overbearing; too close proximity to existing neighbours detrimentally affecting the amenities enjoyed specifically concerning  privacy, outlook and artificial light spill; contrary to the character of the area; removal/loss  of trees that make a significant contribution to the character and ecological value of the local area; failing to protect the area’s cherished features; development in too close proximity to mature trees resulting in pressure to lop, thin or fell protected species in the future; loss of verdant character and appearance of the area; lack of respect for the key characteristics of the area, particularly the woodland character and the low density plots; detrimental removal of boundary vegetation/trees to provide additional access; unacceptable impact on neighbouring property with no thought minded to neighbours whose outlook and sense of comfort within their home and garden will be detrimentally impacted; increased heights creating additional viewpoints into private gardens and habitable rooms of neighbours; inadequate provision of parking for the new development;  contrary to the Neighbourhood and EDDC Local Plans et al.

At this point, Clyst Valley Road residents in Clyst St Mary will definitely have a feeling of déjà vu because the above objections are almost identical to those that the residents of Clyst St Mary have submitted in opposition to the 40 (equivalent to 5-storey) apartments, with associated service road and multiple parking spaces that Burrington Estates (including the above-featured Property Development Director) have proposed adjacent to residents’ Winslade Park homes and gardens that will tower above the existing woodland area (which provides screening to their homes) and encroaches adjacent to their boundaries  . .  and furthermore Burringtons intend cutting down significantly more TPO protected trees than one West Hill Road cherry tree to achieve these incongruous 40 multi-storey flats on a limited car park site!

Such behaviour seems to display a double standards attitude being practised by property developers and the old adage ‘Practise What You Preach’ comes to mind!

The residents of Clyst St Mary have always been of the opinion that appropriate quality development in a small rural village adjacent to existing homes is acceptable – but can anyone else highlight where 40 (equivalent to 5-storey) flats exist in a small East Devon pastoral settlement – because such designs are, surely, more fitting in an urban locality?

To end on a positive note, both Burrington’s Development Director and the residents of Clyst St Mary obviously are in complete agreement on what should and should not be built next to our homes both in West Hill, Ottery St Mary and the village of Clyst St Mary.

So this would seem a good place to point out that Burringtons should follow their own advice (that was voiced at the meeting on 16^th March) to withdraw the current application in favour of a new application that is far more suitable for the locality and apply those principles to their Winslade Park Zone D application.

In 2020 residents supported Burrington’s design proposals for 14 traditional homes for this Winslade Park car park (that were displayed to all at the Public Consultation at the Village Hall) as highly sustainable and appropriate – but unfortunately Burrington Estates subsequently decided to substitute the 14 homes with 40 towering (equivalent to 5-storey) multiple-occupancy flats, resulting in entirely different plans being submitted to East Devon Planners in this location. These inappropriate plans are still awaiting a decision by EDDC Planners but are due to be heard by Committee in the near future and it is hoped that elected and professional local authority planners will agree that looking forward multi-storey flats do have a developmental role and  place  –  but that place is not in the village of Clyst St Mary!

There is no doubt that when property development encroaches into anyone’s back yard – then it becomes a personal issue – people and, indeed, most species are innately territorial.  It is a human trait to passionately defend our homes (and that is seen as a worthy characteristic) and most people will display some NIMBYism in similar circumstances.

However, to inflict incongruous development on a community when you have a personal,  professional awareness of the plethora of detrimental issues that will harm other people is both unacceptable and totally hypocritical – so shame on you Burringtons – what goes around comes around . . . and sometimes fate will make you face your own personal nemeses! 

Surprisingly, Owl understands that the “New Guard” found that EDDC had neither a strategy for Tourism nor Culture, where various grants might be available.

Paul Arnott www.midweekherald.co.uk 

I don’t think I’ve ever asked readers before to be kind enough to take part in an online survey from EDDC, so this is a first. Curiously, a driver for this is that the administration I am lucky to be leader of wants to do all we can to help grow the local economy.

Now that may not seem consistent with a request to fill in our Public Survey to help us all develop a 10 Year Culture Strategy. But it is. I have been lucky enough to have worked in arts or entertainment, journalism and television or film production and publishing for nearly 40 years, and here is the single most valuable lesson I ever learned:

If you want to feel good about yourself, or be able to lord it over your peer group that your work is the bee’s knees, then get a review in The Guardian or The Independent. However, if you wish to carry on with your project on a sound financial footing, what you also need are good reviews in The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, because to be brutally frank the older readers of both are the ones with the disposable income and the available time to attend.

In other words, don’t ghettoise what you create, always think about how you can do the thing you believe in whilst making sure that the box office is still taking ticket money, or sponsors are happy to donate. This does not mean you have to only produce unchallenging work. Quite the opposite. It means you have a duty to the public to take great care to explain what you are doing, even if it is potentially controversial.

At the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, for every young person in the audience for even the most provocative of work, there is always another who looks at first glance like they most enjoyed a gentle amble around a National Trust house. Don’t judge a sausage by its skin – often this latter group may be comfortably set-up in their middle to later years, but that does not mean they do not have excellent critical faculties.

Which brings me back to the survey. The English language does not really help – even the term “Culture” strategy risks seeming a little elitist. But then that is what we all live in, a culture. It could as well be called an Entertainment strategy, or Arts strategy – all these things mean more or less the same thing.

So what might be considered Culture in East Devon? That’s for you to say. Perhaps a book group, taking part in am-dram or an art class. Private activity such as reading, crafting or knitting. Bouncing around an outdoor festival, or quietly watching a play. Watching or taking part in dance.

Classical or jazz concerts, going to an art gallery or looking at some outdoor art. Nipping to the Picturehouse or the Radway for a sub-titled film or the new Batman, or closer to home supporting film in a screening in your village hall. Folk music. As well of course as visiting our many historic houses, or scheduled monuments.

All of this is “Culture”, which also is “art” and also “entertains”. Crucially, it has the ability to create and sustain many worthwhile and skilled jobs, as well as benefitting our sense of well-being. In some aspects, the creation of something amazing, or just witnessing that, is a life-affirming, even spiritual experience.

Of course, we all get an awful lot from the superb output on British TV, but we are very passive in that context. What we would like to find out through the survey instead, please, is what the residents of East Devon are up to, what they particularly like and what they would love to see more of. The survey is open till March 27th. Please do give it a go. https://eastdevon.gov.uk/community-engagement/culture-strategy-consultation/

Government ignored warnings about Putin’s ‘march to war’ for 10 years, says ex-UK defence official.

In scathing remarks, Mr Scott said the warnings were “subjugated” to the City of London – and making sure financial capital remained a “safe haven for corrupt wealth”.

Is our defence safe in Tory hands? – Owl

Adam Forrest www.independent.co.uk

The UK government consistently ignored warnings that Vladimir Putin could wage war in favour of welcoming Russian money into London, Britain’s former defence attache to Moscow has claimed.

Retired air commodore Carl Scott said he and others warned of the “inevitability of conflict in detail, regularly” during his period in Russia between 2011 to 2016.

The former defence official said Putin’s “long, dark march to war was obvious”, having pointed out many pronouncements from the Kremlin about conflict ahead.

In scathing remarks, Mr Scott said the warnings were “subjugated” to the City of London – and making sure financial capital remained a “safe haven for corrupt wealth”.

In a letter to the Financial Times, he said the Russian president’s aims were “never concealed”, having instigated “colossal” militarisation, control over the media and clampdowns on dissent.

The former attache stated: “The list is remorseless, the consequences could not be ignored. But they were … We reported the inevitability of conflict in detail, regularly and with the despair of Cassandra.”

Mr Scott also said Brexit “emboldened” Putin’s regime. “It was not until I returned to the UK on the eve of our withdrawal from the EU, a manoeuvre which greatly emboldened those in Moscow, that I understood how our society had changed in the years I was serving overseas.”

The retired defence official added: “All was subjugated to the City, all served the interests of our lucrative status as a safe haven for corrupt, and corrupting, wealth. The values we were demanding of other nations had long since faded from our own actions.

“I despair at the decisions Putin has taken, but even more at the prospect of finding credible leadership at home in the UK among those who have compromised so long with his regime and the wealth it offered.”

Boris Johnson’s government has joined allies in imposing punishing economic sanctions on Russian banks and other crucial parts of the economy. But MPs have urged ministers to go further on individual sanctions aimed at targeting Putin’s cronies.

Doubts have been raised about the effectiveness of sanctions after a billionaire hit by an asset freeze earlier this month said he had already handed ownership of UK mansions over to trusts.

A spokesperson for Alisher Usmanov told the BBC and The Guardian that most of the businessman’s British properties and his yacht were “transferred into irrevocable trusts”.

Rachel Davies, Transparency International’s head of advocacy, recently told The Independent that oligarchs were using shell companies registered in Britain’s crown dependencies and overseas territories to hide their wealth in London.

MPs and campaigners are worried that the Economic Crime Bill rushed through parliament last week could still allow some wealthy property owners using overseas companies to hide behind trusts.

It comes as MPs warned that sanctions against Russia will come at a cost to the UK and the poorest households will be hit hardest.

A report by the Treasury select committee revealed the UK is not protected against the economic impact of unprecedented sanctions on Russian oil and gas and that soaring prices will intensify the cost-of-living crisis.

The cross-party group of MPs said the impact on the UK is a “cost worth bearing” to help Ukraine in fighting for its freedom and to damage Russia’s ability to fund the war.

Plans for a big increase in the size of a Devon village which one local claimed would cause “division and alienation” have been approved. Developer Baker Estates has won its appeal to build 60 homes on farmland in Chudleigh Knighton.

The scale of local development used to be set by local councils (remember the “old guard” EDDC “jobs on high growth scenario”), now it’s dictated by the government’s 300,000 houses a year. – Owl

Edward Oldfield www.devonlive.com

Hennock Parish Council objected to the original outline planning application, arguing that the scheme was too big and would increase the size of village by 12 per cent. The developer appealed after Teignbridge District Council failed to make a decision by a deadline set out in planning law. And the inspector has decided after a hearing that the development can go ahead.

The developer has offered 30 per cent of the homes to be classed as “affordable”, including homes for rent and shared ownership, and self-build plots. An agreement sets out financial contributions to public services, and the site will include public open spaces and a play area. Neighbouring farmland will be set aside for biodiversity, and there will be a series of measures to protect rare greater horseshoe bats and improve their habitat.

The outline application submitted in September 2020 is for 10 acres of two fields at Tollgate Farm, alongside the B3344 Plymouth Road at the north-eastern edge of the village. It includes the access onto the main road, a drainage pond and open space.

The planning application illustrates the tensions involved in finding acceptable sites for new housing, including affordable homes, to help solve the housing crisis. Thousands of families in Devon are on the waiting list for social housing as a shortage of accommodation drives up private rents, and the stock is further squeezed by second home buyers and owners switching to short-term holiday lets. Yet many people are concerned about the impact of greenfield housing developments on the landscape and wildlife, and the increased pressure on already stretched local services like health and education.

According to the 2017 census, the village of Chudleigh Knighton had a population of 1,155. Objectors said the site was outside the settlement and not zoned for housing in the Local Plan, and they raised concerns about the impact of the extra residents on village services. One local said: “I worry that this development will drive current residents out of our village if the school can’t cope with the extra influx.”

One Teign Valley resident said: “It is utterly ridiculous to countenance that number of houses in one small village. You’d be doubling the size of somewhere like Hennock and experience shows such actions cause division and alienation within a community as the incoming population take time to assimilate.”

Another local resident commented: “We need to nurture and protect our countryside. Too many of these soulless community devoid developments are being built in Devon, especially around Newton Abbot and Exeter.” Action on Climate in Teignbridge’s Ecology Group objected to the potential impact on greater horseshoe bats, which have special protection.

Responding to the comments, planning inspector Hollie Nicholls said she considered that conditions on the development would allow it to go ahead without harming the South Hams Special Area of Conservation, which gives protection to the greater horseshoe bats in the area.

Illustrative masterplan for around 60 homes on land at Tollgate Farm, Chudleigh Knighton (Image: Focus on Design/Baker Estates)

On the size of the scheme, she said she did not consider around 60 homes “should be considered out of scale or excessive.” On school places, she said she noted the comments from Devon County Council education department that the local schools had enough capacity to cope with the expected extra pupils.

The inspector said the benefits of the development included affordable housing in an area of housing need and an increase in demand for goods and services in the village. The benefits were not outweighed by significant harm, even though the scheme was outside the development plan. Given a shortfall of identified housing sites in the district, there was a titled balance in favour of development, so she allowed the appeal.

The next stage will be a “reserved matters” planning application to Teignbridge Council, including detailed designs of the homes and covering the layout and landscaping of the development.

Full time working mum Trudy Lincoln can’t afford the soaring rental prices which have been pushed up by holiday homes

Becky Dickinson www.devonlive.com 

A single mum and her four children have been left homeless after being evicted from their home in Hartland, North Devon, this week. Trudy Lincoln and her family are now ‘sofa surfing’ and Trudy says second home owners and Airbnbs are to blame.

The family, who had lived in the same property for eight years, were forced to leave after the landlord decided to sell. Trudy says she asked her landlord if they could remain in the house until it was sold, to give them more time to find somewhere else, but he refused.

She told DevonLive: “He says he wants to sell it but it wouldn’t surprise me if he wanted to Airbnb it. People are advertising Airbnb for over a £1,000 per week in North Devon.”

Despite working full-time in middle management, Trudy says she can’t afford the high rental prices in the area, which have been pushed up by second homes and Airbnbs. And she says many estate agents wouldn’t even let her have a viewing because she has four children and three dogs (who have been in the family for years.)

Trudy said: “I have applied for 45 houses since October and I’ve not been able to get one viewing. I’m now in a position where I don’t know what else I can do.”

The family are currently staying with a friend, but need to move out after tomorrow. All their possessions are being put into storage. On top of that, Trudy is trying to cope with juggling work and school runs.

“I’m having to manage it all as well as working full time and trying not to not disrupt the children’s schooling. I’m also having to sort out school transport as their school route changes, I am waiting to hear back from these as to what happens,” she said.

Unsurprisingly, she said the situation is taking its toll on family life. “We are all really struggling and tension is high between us all. Two of the children have been really upset all weekend,” she said.

Trudy said the council offered the family a room in a hostel with a shared bathroom, but she didn’t feel this would be a suitable option. “As I work full time, the children would be home alone for a while till I got home and I really wouldn’t feel safe knowing that they would be in a place with other people they don’t know.” On top of this, the family would have been forced to give up their beloved dogs.

Trudy added: “To all Airbnb and second home owners I would like to say thank you, thank you for making a housing crisis worse than it already is and thank you for putting pressure on families who are struggling to put a roof over their heads through no fault of their own.”

Despite working full time, Trudy said she felt like she was letting her children down by not being able to provide a roof over their heads. For now, the family are relying on the goodwill of friends and will continue ‘sofa surfing’ while they carry on the desperate search for a place of their own.

Our loyal members, Neil and Simon, had a busy day on Tuesday knocking down all those irritating Lords amendments to the borders bill. – Owl

Katie Neame labourlist.org

Yvette Cooper has criticised the “deeply shameful” votes of Tory MPs who have rejected House of Lords amendments to the nationality and borders bill after a parliamentary debate today.

Conservative MPs have scrapped all changes made to the legislation by peers, including an amendment that would have blocked government plans to criminalise asylum seekers arriving in the UK without permission.

Reacting to the votes, the Shadow Home Secretary said: “Tory MPs voted to make it a criminal offence for Ukrainian families to arrive in the UK without the right papers with a penalty of up to four years in prison. At a time when the British people have made clear that we need to help Ukrainian refugees, this is deeply shameful.

“The Conservatives also voted against the international Refugee Convention which Britain helped to draft in the wake of the Second World War, calling on all countries to do their bit to help those fleeing the horrors of war. This should be a source of pride, and for the British government to reject it when war is raging in Europe once more is inexcusable.

“More than three million people have left Ukraine since the Russian invasion, many of them children and elderly people. They need support and solidarity from all countries. The Home Office has already been far too slow to help. Today’s votes make that much worse. Britain is better than this.”

Results of House of Commons votes on House of Lords amendments today:

• Motion to reject amendment four, which proposed to remove a clause that would allow the UK to strip dual nationals of their British citizenship without notice, passed by 318 to 223
• Motion to reject amendment five, which sought to ensure the bill remained compatible with the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, passed by 313 to 231
• Motion to reject amendment six, which tried to force the government to drop its plans to treat asylum seekers differently depending on how they arrive in the UK, passed by 318 to 220
• Motion to reject amendment seven, which proposed to reduce the period asylum seekers are unable to work after arriving in the UK from 12 months to six, passed by 291 to 232
• Motion to reject amendment ten, which sought to make it easier for those already in Europe to be reunited with family members lawfully residing in the UK, passed by 305 to 230
• Motion to reject amendment 11, which would have required the government to commit to resettling at least 10,000 refugees each year, passed by 313 to 227
• Motion to reject amendment 13, which would have removed from the bill a new offence of knowingly arriving in UK without valid entry clearance, passed by 317 to 220

In a speech during the debate today, Labour frontbencher Stephen Kinnock said the bill “doesn’t only fail to meet any of the challenges our migration system faces” but “actively makes the system worse”.

He described the proposal to criminalise people seeking asylum in the UK without clearance as “a particularly disturbing aspect”, saying “we should not be seeking to criminalise refugees desperately looking for a new home”.

The shadow immigration minister also highlighted the proposal to allow asylum seekers to be offshored to overseas processing centres, calling it “perhaps the most unhinged element” of the legislation.

“It’s operationally illiterate because it’s so utterly impractical, and it’s economical illiterate because it costs an eye-watering amount of taxpayers’ money,” Kinnock told MPs today, calling Britain’s asylum system “utterly inflexible”.

The shadow minister said the bill represents “a catalogue of failure on immigration policy” and “a combination of incompetence and indifference from a government that is presiding over a system which is neither fair, compassionate nor orderly”.

Tory rebel Damian Green told the House of Commons that safe routes to the UK are unavailable for “far too many people”, including 87% of those arriving in small boats, as they come from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Fellow Conservative rebel David Davis slammed asylum offshoring as a “moral, economic and practical failure”, saying: “What we cannot do is basically put aside our ethical standards to drive people away from our shores”.

Tory backbencher Robert Buckland argued in the debate that asylum seekers “have a contribution to make to our society” through alleviating labour shortages and bringing revenue to the Treasury.

Andrew Mitchell, a former International Development Secretary, criticised the offshoring asylum seekers idea by noting that “it would be much cheaper to put each one in the Ritz and send all the under-18s to Eton”.

The controversial nationality and borders bill returned to the House of Commons today after the government suffered 19 defeats on the legislation in the House of Lords, where peers made a number of amendments.

Proposed changes to the bill from the Lords included scrapping plans to allow asylum seekers to be offshored to overseas processing centres, as put forward by former Tory immigration minister Lord Kirkhope.

Peers had also voted to reduce the amount of time asylum seekers have to wait before they can work in the UK from 12 months to six months, and to create a statutory resettlement scheme with a target of 10,000 refugees per year.

The House of Lords tried to force the government to drop plans to treat asylum seekers differently depending on how they arrive in the UK, as ministers intend to make arriving in the UK without permission a criminal offence.

Labour’s Lord Dubs – who fled Nazi Germany as a child – described the government move as “a complete nonsense” and “not workable”, highlighting that people often struggle to get to the UK via official routes.

Peers had also voted against plans to allow the UK to strip dual nationals of their British citizenship without notice. Tory peer Baroness Warsi said the proposal would make her and her children “second-class citizens”.

The bill was passed by MPs in December, with 298 for and 231 against, giving the government a majority of 67 votes. Ministers say the legislation will establish a “firm but fair” system and enable the UK to “take full control of its borders”.

Human rights organisation Amnesty International says the legislation would “create significant obstacles and harms to people seeking asylum in the UK’s asylum system”.

Saves his “War Chest” for a pre-election bonanza.

Do you remember the 50’s or will this be a new experience for you? – Owl (who is as old as the hills)

Real household disposable income forecast to fall at the fastest annual rate since 1956 – graphic

If the Tories hadn’t torn up the planning policies on land based wind farms in 2015 we would have had a seven year start to make ourselves less dependent on fossil fuels. There can be no quick fixes from nuclear power as the Hinkley saga demonstrates. Tories aren’t good at strategic planning. – Owl

Ione Wells www.bbc.co.uk 

Boris Johnson’s cabinet is split over proposals to ease planning rules in England to enable more onshore wind farms, sources have told the BBC.

Ministers are next week due to set out plans to produce more energy in the UK to tackle spiralling household bills.

Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is in favour of loosening planning regulations to make it easier to approve plans for more onshore wind.

But the BBC has been told other cabinet ministers strongly oppose the plans.

In 2015, planning laws were changed to give local councils tougher powers over whether onshore wind turbines were built in their areas. Labour have described this as an effective “moratorium” on onshore wind – and have called on the government to end it.

The government wants the UK to become more “energy independent”, as the West tries to wean itself off Russian gas and oil.

Its “energy supply strategy” will focus on:

• Nuclear energy
• Renewable energy
• Making homes more energy efficient
• Increasing North Sea oil and gas production

This week, Kwasi Kwarteng told the i newspaper “the prime minister has been very clear that onshore wind has got to be part of the mix and we’ve got to look at planning”.

Speaking ahead of Wednesday’s cabinet meeting – the last before the energy strategy is due to be unveiled – he said: “We are not saying we are going to scrap all planning rules and all of these things have got to be in line with community support.”

He described 2015 arguments against more onshore wind as “historic”, as the government had not then committed to achieving “net zero” emissions by 2050.

“The circumstances today with Putin, Russia, Saudi Arabia, all of those things, mean that we’ve got to have more energy independence and I think onshore renewables are absolutely part of that,” he added.

Downing Street sources told the BBC the government has “got to be open” to more onshore wind where it works, but that the “big wins are offshore”.

Boris Johnson is thought to be particularly keen on offshore wind and nuclear power, telling nuclear industry leaders on Monday that he was “insanely frustrated” that the UK has “so little” nuclear capacity and was “moving so slowly” on building new reactors.

But multiple cabinet sources have told the BBC they are against relaxing planning laws for onshore wind, with one saying there was “very, very little” support for the idea.

‘Fed up’

Another cabinet source said ministers were generally united on the need for more offshore wind and nuclear power, but onshore wind would cause a “bigger problem” and needed more discussion.

Among the cabinet ministers opposed to more onshore wind turbines is Scottish Secretary Alister Jack, but the BBC understands he backs offshore developments.

The majority of the UK’s large scale wind farms are in Scotland, and onshore wind is Scotland’s main source of renewable energy, with about 70% of electricity generated in Scotland coming from onshore wind in 2020.

Onshore wind farms have been controversial among Tory MPs in the past, with David Cameron saying in 2014 that people were “fed up” with onshore wind farms being built, and Conservative activists criticising the visual impact of them on the landscape.

But in recent years government surveys have shown public support for onshore wind, albeit not always in the areas where turbines are built.

Some cabinet ministers we spoke to were “sceptical”, rather than strongly against, more onshore wind.

Separately, the BBC has been told that Brexit opportunities minister Jacob Rees-Mogg would back whatever would bring “cheap and reliable” energy to the UK, but has long been frustrated by what he views as its unreliability as an energy source.

Collapsed airline Flybe has announced 23 new flight routes ahead of its return next month.

Exeter isn’t even on the map, let alone being a regional hub.

Natasha Meek www.winsfordguardian.co.uk 

The regional carrier will operate up to 530 flights per week across 23 routes, serving airports such as Belfast City, Birmingham, East Midlands, Glasgow, Heathrow and Leeds Bradford.

Flybe flights will resume on April 13, 2022. 

If you’re already planning an adventure, here’s the full list of flight routes for 2022.

New Flybe flight routes

• Belfast City to Birmingham from April 13: Up to 4x daily later in the year
• Belfast City to Glasgow from April 14: Up to 4x daily
• Amsterdam to Birmingham from April 28: 1x daily
• Amsterdam to East Midlands from April 28: 1x daily
• Belfast City to Leeds Bradford from April 28: Up to 3x daily
• Belfast City to London Heathrow from April 28: Up to 2x daily
• Leeds Bradford to London Heathrow from April 28: Up to 3x daily, no head-to-head competition
• Amsterdam to Belfast City from May 28: 1x daily
• Amsterdam to London Heathrow from May 29: Up to 2x daily
• Belfast City to Edinburgh from June 23: Up to 3x daily
• Belfast City to East Midlands from July 7: Up to 2x daily
• Belfast City to Manchester from July 7: Up to 4x daily
• Birmingham to Avignon from July 9: 1x weekly
• Birmingham to Brest from July 9: 1x weekly
• Southampton to Avignon from July 23: 1x weekly
• Southampton to Toulon Hyères from July 24: 1x weekly
• Belfast City to Southampton from July 28: Up to 2x daily
• Birmingham to Edinburgh from July 28: Up to 4x daily
• Birmingham to Glasgow from July 28: Up to 3x daily
• Aberdeen to Birmingham from August 18: 1x daily
• Aberdeen to Belfast City from August 25: Up to 4x weekly
• Belfast City to Inverness from August 25: Up to 4x weekly
• Belfast City to Newcastle from August 25: 1x daily

Flybe was pushed into administration in March 2020 with the loss of 2,400 jobs as the Covid-19 pandemic destroyed large parts of the travel market.

Before it went bust it flew the most UK domestic routes between airports outside London.

Its business and assets were purchased in April 2021 by Thyme Opco, which is linked to US hedge fund Cyrus Capital.

Thyme Opco was renamed Flybe Limited.

The airline will be based at Birmingham Airport.

Caroline Dinenage given approval to take up nonexecutive role at care home developer owned by Tory donor

Rowena Mason www.theguardian.com 

A Conservative MP and former social care minister has signed up for a second job working as a director for a care home developer, just months after Boris Johnson promised a crackdown on outside earnings.

Caroline Dinenage asked for formal approval to take up a job as a nonexecutive at LNT Group, a developer of new care homes owned by Tory donor Lawrence Tomlinson.

Many of her party colleagues have been offloading second jobs following a furore about MPs spending too much time on outside interests after the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal that forced him to resign.

The government pledged to bring in changes to the rules on MP jobs to tighten restrictions around lobbying and consultancy after a consultation held by the Commons standards committee, but last week No 10 quietly dropped support for capping hours and earnings.

Despite the lack of formal new rules, many MPs have cut back their work for private companies.

Julian Smith, a Conservative former cabinet minister, quit all of his private sector advisory roles, which had been earning him £144,000 a year, while Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, ended his advisory board role at Tunstall Healthcare, which had been earning him £20,000 a year.

In contrast, Dinenage, the MP for Gosport, was given approval for the new part-time role at the care home developer earlier this month by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), which noted that she had toured an LNT site while she was a social care minister but said her former department had no concerns about her taking up the job.

It said she must not lobby the government on behalf of LNT, draw on privileged information, advise on government contracts or use contacts from her time in office.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said: “Just as Boris Johnson breaks his promise to crack down on Tory MPs’ outside work, it emerges one of his former health ministers has a second job with a care home firm.

“This is a prime minister who has repeatedly allowed his own MPs to put their own private business interests ahead of their constituents and it must be stopped. Labour will set up a commission for integrity and ethics to make sure the British people’s interests always come first.”

The government’s pledge last year to put tighter restrictions on second jobs came amid a public outcry over lobbying breaches by Paterson, whom MPs were initially whipped to try to protect, and a furore over the former attorney general Geoffrey Cox being paid nearly £6m as a lawyer since joining parliament, voting by proxy on days he was undertaking paid work.

Two cabinet ministers, Dominic Raab and Anne-Marie Trevelyan, backed a time limit on second jobs last autumn, suggesting it could be 10 to 15 hours a week.

But with pressure off Johnson’s premiership because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, ministers submitted their view to the Commons standards committee that a time limit or ceiling on such earnings would be “impractical”.

At least 20 Conservative MPs have lobbied the standards committee investigating new rules on second jobs and their behaviour in the Commons chamber, with many saying they strongly disagreed with time limits on outside work.

Dinenage has been contacted for comment.

Data shows £11.8bn lost in support schemes

Harriet Line www.dailymail.co.uk 

Coronavirus fraud cost taxpayers almost twice the amount Britain lost on Black Wednesday, figures revealed last night.

A staggering £11.8billion was lost to fraud and error in the Government’s business support schemes during the pandemic, the House of Commons library estimates.

It said 1992’s Black Wednesday, when Britain crashed out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, cost £3.3billion – which in today’s prices is around £6billion.

Labour, which commissioned the analysis, accused the Chancellor of having ‘casually written off’ pandemic fraud.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak (pictured) has been accused of writing off pandemic fraud, which is estimated to have cost the taxpayer £11.8billion

Labour have been critical of Rishi Sunak’s response to the fraud, Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves (pictured) said the Conservatives have mishandled public finances

Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves added: ‘Coming on top of billions spent on crony contracts and billions more of unusable PPE burnt away, any claim the Conservatives have to careful stewardship of the public finances is well and truly gone.’

The scale of Covid fraud waste is equivalent to the £12billion expected to be raised each year by next month’s planned national insurance hike.

A Treasury spokesman said last night: ‘Fraud is totally unacceptable, and we’re taking action on multiple fronts to crack down on anyone who has sought to exploit our schemes and bring them to justice.’

Estimated losses due to fraud and error for the five business support schemes most susceptible to fraud are between £8.6billion and £16.3billion. 

The House of Commons library used a central estimate of £11.8billion, which it compared to Treasury estimates for the cost of Black Wednesday.

It estimated the crash cost £3.3billion from August 1992 to February 1994, which in today’s prices is around £6billion.

Rishi Sunak has resisted a clamour of calls for a rethink on the tax rise, insisting the money it will raise is needed to provide long-term funding for the NHS and social care.

But campaigners fear it will exacerbate the cost of living crisis, and insist the Chancellor could afford to delay its introduction.

He is under pressure to deal with the worsening crisis when he delivers his Spring Statement in the Commons tomorrow.

Landfill site in AONB withdrawn just before planners make decision, Owl hopes that it would have been refused. Although planning policies always allow the subjective assessment of “economic benefit” to outweigh the “harm”.

Anita Merritt www.devonlive.com

A controversial planning application to turn farmland owned by the makers of Exeter’s renowned Orange Elephant Ice Cream Parlour into a landfill site has been withdrawn. Just over a week before a decision was due to be made on the proposals by planners at East Devon District Council [? Teignbridge – Owl], the applicant – BT Jenkins – has withdrawn the application. The reason for doing so has not been confirmed.

Lower Brenton Farm in Kennford had been identified as being a replacement for Trood Lane landfill site at Matford in Exeter, which is nearing completion having exhausted its permitted capacity.

The new 33 hectares site had hoped to start accepting fill material as the Trood Lane facility closes within the next 18 months or so. The land is designated as an area of outstanding landscape value and a vast number of objections – said to total more than 700 – were received following a consultation held at the beginning of the year.

News that the application has been withdrawn has been described as a ‘huge collective sigh of relief’ from local residents according to local Devon County councillor Alan Connett.

The location of the proposed landfill areas at Lower Brenton Farm in Kennford (Image: Friends of Shillingford Wood)

He said: “When I put on social media that the application had been withdrawn yesterday it had lots of comments from people across the wider community who were delighted to receive the news.

“There is the concern whether there will be a new application at some point, but at the moment they are relieved to know it has been withdrawn.” He added: “The application received about 700 comments which is one of the highest I can think of for any planning application.”

Among the objectors was the Friends of Shillingford Wood, a registered charity set up by local residents to raise the funds needed to secure the purchase the 12-acre woods, who put together a campaign video. In the video it states: “For centuries this landscape and ancient woodland in the hills south of Exeter has provided food and shelter for its people and its wildlife.

“A hidden gem, known locally as The Bluebell Wood, sit at the top of the hill in this beautiful Devon landscape that belongs to us all, but for how much longer?

“Devon County Council is now currently considering a planning application to create a large waste recycling facility on farmland. between the villages of Kennford and Shillingford St George. This would also include over 80 acres of landfill with 1.2m cubic meters of inert waste material – an area roughly the same size as 40 football pitches. “The site would run up the hills behind the well-known Orange Elephant on the A38.”

It continued: “Local residents, environmentalists, wildlife experts and walkers have all been shocked by the extent and the location of the site., and the lack of any kind of public consultation with Devon County Council.”

The Taverner family have been farming at Lower Brenton for five generations. The farm itself is more than 800 years old. Current owners Helen and Rob Taverner keep a dairy herd of 300 cows that graze outside most of the year.

Their milk is sold to a farmer-owned co-operative that makes cream, butter, cheese, milk as well as being made into ice cream on the farm. The additional of the landfill site would have formed part of its Dadmore Dairy project, named after an old, half-forgotten field name, to help renew the way they grow food and secure the farm’s future.

It would have allowed parts of five of its steepest fields to be filled with inert material from nearby excavation, demolition and construction schemes, before being returned to productive pasture as soon as the valleys are filled and the slopes reduced.

A drawing of the proposed landfill site at Lower Brenton Farm in Kennford

BT Jenkins, which operates the Trood Lane recycling and landfill site, was seeking permisison for the provision of temporary construction, demolition and excavation waste recycling facility.

The land is currently used for agricultural grazing as part of the Lower Brenton farm holding. The village of Kennford lies approximately 400m to the southeast of the site, separated by the A38. Devon Live has contacted BT Jenkins for a comment but has been informed the owner is currently not available this week.

Owl’s talons are well and truly crossed, and will remain so until the day of judgement.

Cathy Gardner: The trial is over, we await the verdict

Our trial concluded today, March 21st 2022, after 6 days during which the Government has sought to justify its failure to protect care home residents during the first wave of the covid pandemic. It has sought to justify the approach it adopted by stating that it considered the risk of asymptomatic transmission to be low at the beginning of the pandemic. It said that its policies therefore on discharging patients from hospitals into care homes, without testing or isolating them, was therefore justified. The Government also sought to argue that the pandemic was an exceptional situation where it and the NHS faced very significant challenges. It was therefore justified in adopting the policies that it did.

During the trial my legal team challenged the Government’s version of events and their justification for the policies they adopted. In particular we pointed out that the risk of asymptomatic transmission was acknowledged early on in the pandemic and the particular risk this posed to care home residents. Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, explained on the Today programme on 13th March 2020 that there was likely to be some degree of asymptomatic transmission, and that care homes were a particular concern. The Government was aware of the risk. It could and should have taken a more cautious approach that would have protected lives. As my legal team told the Court on the first day of the trial, the Government’s policies were always a recipe for disaster in care homes, and disaster is what happened.

What was very unusual in the trial was that there was no direct evidence of what information the Government or NHS were provided with in order to make the key policies we challenged. In a normal judicial review, the decision maker explains what advice they were given, how they weighed it and why they reached the decision they did. On the key decisions in March and April 2020, this was completely absent. The Government has had ample opportunity to provide evidence that the risks to care home residents were taken into account, and that ministers thought about how to mitigate those risks. It has failed to do so. The obvious conclusion is that the lives of vulnerable people were simply overlooked – with devastating consequences.

We now await the judgement of the Court. This could take several months.

I wish to thank everyone who has given so generously to bring us to this critical point. We still have a mountain to climb to meet the legal costs so please do pass this message on if you can. All donations are very much appreciated.

Vince Cable was warning about excessive consumer debt years before anyone else tumbled to the problem. In November 2003 he challenged the then-chancellor Gordon Brown about “the brutal truth” that “the growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level”.

As a result he gained “economic guru” status, though this has been frequently challenged. Owl, certainly, would be critical of the central role he played in introducing Local Enterprise Partnerships.

Here is his view tomorrow’s (Wednesday) Spring Statement:

Vince Cable www.independent.co.uk

Most politicians encounter a hero-to-zero moment (I speak from experience). I suspect Rishi Sunak may be bracing himself for one now, as he approaches Wednesday’s spring statement. But he should not lose hope.

Even before the Russians invaded Ukraine, the outlook was uncomfortable: 5 per cent consumer inflation; a big rise in the energy price cap; a rise in National Insurance to pay for spending on the NHS and care. The latest YouGov survey of 6,000 households shows consumer confidence to be at its lowest level since records began over a decade ago.

The war makes that outlook even worse. There is much uncertainty about how much further punitive measures against Russia may go but supply disruptions and sanctions amount to a big global tax on oil and gas, cereals, fertilisers and several key metals. The effect will be to aggravate “stagflation”: pushing up costs and prices while simultaneously depressing demand.

The geo-political earthquake in Ukraine will generate an economic tsunami, sweeping away comforts and orthodoxies with which we have become familiar in recent decades. We don’t yet know the height of the waves, but we know they are on their way.

The era of low interest rates is first to go. Central Banks, including our Bank of England, are getting alarmed about inflation and moving to higher rates, which further depresses consumer demand and investment. Despite rate rises, some forecasters believe the UK could hit 10 per cent inflation by the end of the year and be in recession.

Given chronic uncertainty, and his very public commitment not to undermine the public finances, there is a strong temptation for Mr Sunak to do as little as possible. But then he runs the risk of doing too little, too late, since tax and spend measures operate with a time lag. The tax tap takes a long time to run hot; the spending tap takes a long time to shut off. He is also in a stronger position to be generous than he might appear, with government borrowing running £25billion below expected levels.

The Chancellor will make a lot of the rising interest cost of servicing government debt as a justification for not doing more to cut taxes or increase spending. That would however be a poor excuse. Only about a fifth of government debt is linked to inflation, and the costs of new borrowing are negative in real terms. The level of government debt to GDP is expected to be shown in the budget statement as falling and is not high in historical terms, against the background of war and pandemic.

Sunak’s guilty secret is that higher inflation will actually help the Treasury in budgetary terms. Income tax is set to rise because tax thresholds are being eroded in value by rising prices: so-called “fiscal drag”. And public spending is squeezed in real terms because departmental spending has been fixed in cash terms over several years. Inflation tax is a big earner.

For that reason, I would expect the Chancellor to make some crowd-pleasing gestures after all. There are strong but competing demands to ease the pain of the current “cost of living crisis”. The best option is to concentrate resources on low-income households who are the main sufferers from high domestic energy and food costs. The most obvious step would be to increase universal credit (and pensions) beyond the 3.1 per cent uplift currently planned. The OECD has urged its members, including Britain, to use their “fiscal firepower” to protect the poorest in society, helping them pay their bills for essentials.

A more politically-popular measure with Conservative MPs would be to cut fuel duty. In remote and rural areas without public transport, there is a real issue. But a policy which provides the biggest help to motorists with gas-guzzlers flies in the face of environmental commitments. The same could be said of a cut in the 5 per cent VAT rate on energy – though it would directly help fuel-poor households with gas and electricity bills.

Meanwhile, although an across-the-board cut in VAT tends to benefit big spenders most, it has both political and economic appeal. Taking VAT temporarily down to 17.5 per cent would be simultaneously disinflationary (slowing the rate of inflation) and reflationary (stimulating spending), offsetting stagflation directly.

The Chancellor will also be expected to boost defence spending and ease the pain of energy intensive industries. And, although he is not relenting on his ill-advised increase in National Insurance rates, he could soften the impact on low earners by lifting the NIC threshold (perhaps with a simultaneous increase in the “cap” at which higher earners stop making NI contributions).

Finally, there are some tax increases which would be popular – not least taxing windfall profits from North Sea oil, despite the risk of suppressing investment in increased production and domestic energy security.

By combining tax hikes on the corporate bogeymen with some spending on a hard-pressed public, Mr Sunak may not hold on to his “hero” status, but he could prove he has some way to go before reaching zero.

Sir Vince Cable’s podcast, Cable Comments with Vince Cable, is available here

Plymouth changes its Leader ahead of the May when one third of the seats come up for election.

Currently neither of the major parties have overall control.

Richard Bingley replaces Nick Kelly as new council leader

Carl Eve www.plymouthherald.co.uk

Plymouth City Council has elected Cllr Richard Bingley as its new leader after Cllr Nick Kelly lost a vote of no confidence. Cllr Kelly, a Conservative for the Compton ward, had been leader of the council since the Conservative group won the largest number of seats in the May 2021 elections.

But his position became less secure after several resignations and suspensions, meaning the Tories had the same number of councillors as the Labour group. Cllr Kelly’s annual budget included a 1.74 per cent council tax increase, but he failed to get it approved after Labour brought an amendment to freeze council tax for the next financial year – other than the one pre cent ring-fenced for adult social care.

Labour launched a vote of no confidence in his leadership, which has now passed with 29 votes for, one absention, and 23 against. Speaking after the vote, he offered his thanks to people including Lord Mayor Terri Beer and other council staff, and described it as an “honour and a privilege” to become leader.

Cllr Bingley and Cllr Vivien Pengelly [both Conservatives – Owl] were proposed as new leaders and in a vote Cllr Bingley won 26 votes, Cllr Pengelly won 12, and there were 15 abstentions. Cllr Bingley is a Conservative and represents the Southway Ward on Plymouth City Council. He is currently chair of Brexit, Infrastructure and Legislative Change. In April last year, just before elections, he was described by his party.

Who is new leader Cllr Richard Bingley?

They said: “Richard is an education and training director, living and working in Plymouth. In Southway, he recognises the urgent need to improve the basics, as the ward’s roads are in disrepair, fly-tipping hotspots are left neglected, green space and play areas are becoming less well maintained.

“Richard has leadership experience – in the government, higher education and security sectors and will use these skills to proactively promote Southway as a place to live, work and invest. Richard will offer a strong voice for all residents living across Tamerton, Southway, Widewell and Belliver.” He also has a number of business interests.

His register of interest lists the following: UK Global Cyber Academy LTD, City Security & Resilience Networks LTD, Saveourstatues.org.uk, Security Consultants Handbook – book sales, and ad hoc consultancy work.

Related to this work, earlier this month he wrote an article for the Express website saying that the Kremlin is trying to control people using social media. You can read it here. In November 2021 he reacted angrily at a debate over speed limits on the A38, adding: “None of us want to see fatalities on the A38 or any other road so to pretend otherwise is distasteful.

The worst debate that we have had since I have been elected to this place.”

In yesterday’s post “Sewage: you should take personal responsibility”, Radio Exe claimed that Susan Davy received a bonus of more than £370,000, on top of her £475,000 base salary.

As previously reported by Owl, The Times quoted a substantially higher bonus figure of £1.2 million:

Water bosses’ pay and bonuses in 2020-21 from www.thetimes.co.uk 

• Susan Davy, chief executive of Pennon, the parent company of South West Water, was paid £1.7 million, including £1.2 million in bonuses

• Steve Mogford, the chief executive of United Utilities, was paid £2.9 million, including £2 million in bonuses.

• Liv Garfield, the chief executive of Severn Trent Water, was paid £2.8 million, including £1.9 million in bonuses

• Sarah Bentley, the chief executive of Thames Water, was paid £1.2 million, including a £273,000 bonus.

• Ian McAulay, the chief executive of Southern Water, was paid £1 million, including £550,000 in bonuses.

From a correspondent:

A South West Water story about “taking personal responsibility ” …

Suddenly, after many years in my home with clean water, dirty black marks on shower head and toilet rim and little, black “worm like things” coming out of all basin taps.  Ugh!  Reported to SWW.

South West Water say it is “biofilm” – a completely harmless interaction of substances inside water pipe and my job to keep it at bay – bleach, etc.  They even sent me a leaflet telling me what to do, which I did, but it didn’t stop.

Refused to accept this and, after pressure my tap water was tested.  Same response from SWW – clear, harmless “biofilm” and my responsibility.

Pointed out an area just behind my home (miles from a water course and on top of a hill) covered in pondweed and always wet and suggested there might be a leak – no response.

I found a university which specialised in biofilm research – yes, it is kind-of harmless ON ITS OWN BUT known to attract bugs and bacteria – including e coli and other nasties.  Remember, I was told I could brush my teeth in this stuff …

A few weeks later, without warning, a repair team turned up and did a “running” repair to the water main (ie water not turned off so no-one needed to be informed).

Since then:

no black stuff in water or toilet

showerhead clean

no “worms”

water pressure has improved enormously

pondweed outside drying up and being replaced by grass and normal weeds

Yep, I took MY responsibility … 

This summer, you can rent a beach hut at Budleigh Salterton. 

Adam Manning www.exmouthjournal.co.uk 

Running from April 1, until October 23, the new scheme by East Devon District Council includes five large huts and seven small ones. The new huts were put in place last week, replacing the broken structures from last season. 

EDDC Budleigh and Raleigh ward Councillor Paul Jarvis said: “This can only be a step forward in sharing our wonderful resources. Both locals and visitors can both enjoy the use of the huts, giving them all a truly unique Budleigh experience.”

Cllr for Budleigh, Tom Wright, added: “It will be wonderful to be able to offer these bright new beach huts. After two dreadful years an omen of things to come.”

A small beach hut for a day will cost £35 and £110 for the week. A large hut for the day will cost £40 and £120 for a week.

To hire a hut or make inquiries about availability, contact Budleigh Information Centre on 01395 445275 , email info@visitbudleigh.com or use the booking inquiry form on www.lovebudleigh.co.uk  or www.visitbudleigh.com

“Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust is committed to continuing to engage with local people on both the development of the planned new health and wellbeing centre and the future of Teignmouth Community Hospital.”

“Committed to continuing to engage” this buzz phrase says it all – Owl

Ollie Heptinstall www.devonlive.com 

The first purpose-built NHS hospital looks set to close after a review dismissed concerns about consultation over the plans. An independent panel found the NHS consulted ‘adequately’ with councillors over the future of Teignmouth Hospital.

The community hospital on Mill Lane was the first to be built by the NHS in 1954 but is planned to close, with services moving to Dawlish Hospital and a new £8 million health centre in Teignmouth town centre. Doubts about the hospital’s future were first raised in 2014, and campaigners have argued against the closure decision made by NHS Devon. They say community hospital beds are “desperately needed,” and a petition titled ‘Hands Off Teignmouth Hospital’ has been supported by more than 1,000 people.

Last March, the county council’s health and care scrutiny committee reconsidered the NHS Devon Clinical Commissioning Group’s plans and decided they were unhappy with the lack of consultation over the future of the site. After referring the issue to the health secretary, it was announced in November that Sajid Javid had agreed to the request and plans to close the hospital would be reviewed by a panel of independent experts – the IRP.

The panel has now ruled that the CCG’s consultation with the committee was “adequate,” paving the way for the closure to go ahead. But it did warn there are “lessons to be learned for both parties, particularly around engagement with scrutiny committee members to resolve issues and agree reasonable timescales for discussion before a final decision on a proposal is made.”

The CCG said during its consultation process that the hospital site would be “likely to be sold to generate funds for reinvestment in the NHS”. But it has since told the panel that any decisions are for owner Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust to make.

Despite complaints from the committee, the panel’s report ruled: “…the future of Teignmouth Community Hospital under the proposal has been in plain sight for everyone and open for discussion with the NHS since 2018.”

However, it went on to say: “With hindsight, and given the sensitivities around this, the panel feels that the CCG perhaps could have been more explicit in its communication with the public about how they would be involved in determining the hospital’s future, should the proposal be implemented. In this regard, for example, the public consultation document was a missed opportunity.”

The NHS must also “engage the local community and interested parties, such as the local authority, in a programme to determine the future” of the site, it added, drawing on the example of nearby Dartmouth where the former cottage hospital could be taken over by the community.

Despite concerns about 12 rehabilitation beds not reopening, especially during Covid to help with capacity, the view of the experts was that: “…opening beds at Teignmouth Community Hospital is not a viable option to consider for providing additional COVID-19 capacity in the future.”

The report also concluded that the plans would not disadvantage groups with protected characteristics but agreed there are “still some legitimate concerns” around public transport and called for a group of stakeholders to work on the issues. In addition, it recommends the NHS “keeps its scenario planning and risk analysis of bed and workforce capacity under close review” following the pandemic, and that mental health services are included in the care model for the Health and Wellbeing Centre in Teignmouth.

Responding to the findings in a statement, MP Anne Marie Morris said the decision “is not one I welcome.” She added: “I remain very concerned that this decision is not in the best interests of Teignmouth residents given the lack of evidence that, following Covid, our local health system will have the capacity it needs, and lack of any evidence as to the adequacy of home-based care which it is argued satisfactorily replaces it.”

Ms Morris went on to say the panel had made “a number of helpful recommendations to ensure the community is fully involved in the future of the Teignmouth Hospital site. “For me that has to mean full consideration is given to options of including the site in some form in the ongoing provision of care in the Teignmouth community,” she added

Although there can be a judicial review of the process undertaken by the panel in the High Court, Ms Morris said it is “eye-wateringly costly and without a good case to show that the IRP process was flawed, could not succeed.” In the report, the panel says it “acknowledges the CCG’s evidence on reducing hospital admissions and that the integrated care model is able to care for around four times as many patients at home when compared to caring for patients on a ward at Teignmouth Community Hospital.”

Ms Morris added: “My priority now must be not only to ensure the recommendations proposed are taken up but to hold the CCG to account for what it says it can and will deliver to the residents of Teignmouth and I will be asking Healthwatch and Devon County Council to undertake full scrutiny of the quality and adequacy of home-based care.”

She commended the “tireless determination of the local Teignmouth community, the League of Friends of Teignmouth Hospital and the many other groups who have lobbied hard in our fight to save the hospital and ensure the provision of excellent healthcare in Teignmouth and more widely in Teignbridge.

“I would also praise Devon County Council’s health and care scrutiny committee for calling this in to the Secretary of State and recognising the deficiencies in the process. I have little doubt but that they will work with the Teignmouth community and the NHS to ensure these recommendations are implemented in full.”

In response to the findings, Dr David Greenwell, clinical representative for the southern locality on the governing body of NHS Devon CCG, said: “We are pleased that the Independent Reconfiguration Panel found that the CCG has fulfilled its responsibilities and we accept the additional recommendations made by the panel.

“The IRP noted that the CCG has carried out extensive engagement and consultation since 2013, and found that the future of Teignmouth Community Hospital under the proposal had been in plain sight for everyone and open for discussion with the NHS since 2018.

“We believe this is the right outcome for the future of health and care services in Teignmouth and Dawlish and we will now continue our focus on investing in a new health and wellbeing centre in the heart of the town.

“Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust is committed to continuing to engage with local people on both the development of the planned new health and wellbeing centre and the future of Teignmouth Community Hospital.”

• Single storey side/rear extension Woodcote Cottage Gosford Road Ottery St Mary EX11 1NURef. No: 22/0572/FUL | Validated: Fri 11 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer and addition of rooflights. 3 Newlands Close Sidmouth EX10 9NWRef. No: 22/0574/FUL | Validated: Fri 11 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of first floor storage to holiday flat with amended ground floor access Store And Garage Adjoining Strand House The Strand Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5EYRef. No: 22/0599/LBC | Validated: Thu 10 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• G1, Two supressed Holm Oak trees : Proposal – Reduce in height by 4 metres. Reasons and written evidence provided by Hywel Davies (Exe Tree Care Ltd) – They have been suppressed by the larger trees surrounding, and hence the girth of each central leader is not great enough to support itself, given the lateral wind forces exerted over time, and the height reached whilst ‘growing for the light’. I recommend the work to reduce the risk of future failure, given the proximity of each tree over Cotmaton Rd; diameter cuts sizes of 20cm. BS 3998 adhered to. T2, Suppressed Lawson cypress – Fell Reasons – Situated between the Yew tree and Holm Oak, this tree is severely suppressed, and can not mature in the position it is in. I therefore recommend felling, allowing other mature trees to fill the space. T3,- Yew : Crown lift from the lawn by 1 metre. Cut sizes of 9cm. 2nd and 3rd order growth only. Reasons – To create light to the beds and lawn, and better access for mowers etc. 1 Cottington Court Sidmouth EX10 8HDRef. No: 22/0564/TRE | Validated: Thu 10 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of first floor storage to holiday flat with amended ground floor access Store And Garage Adjoining Strand House The Strand Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5EYRef. No: 22/0565/FUL | Validated: Thu 10 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey rear extension. 25 Raleigh Road Ottery St Mary EX11 1TGRef. No: 22/0567/FUL | Validated: Thu 10 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 and T2 : fell conifer and group of 4 Ash trees showing signs of die back with large amounts of dead wood within the crown and poor growth. T3,- Beech tree : pruning of the extending limb coming over the garden and reduction via thinning to maintain good shape back into the lower inner crown the tree has allowing more light into the shaded property.; replanting of native deciduous trees Drewe Arms Inn Broadhembury Honiton EX14 3NFRef. No: 22/0558/TCA | Validated: Thu 10 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of application 19/2073/FUL (Demolition of agricultural buildings with PDQ consent for conversion to 1 no. dwelling (16/0894/PDQ) and construction of 1 no. dwelling, car park and bike and bin store), to allow alterations to the roof form, fenestration and windows, re-orientation of garage and alterations to site entrance Land East Of Broadoak Farm Clyst HydonRef. No: 22/0557/VAR | Validated: Thu 10 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Eucalyptus DBH 20inches, situated in the front garden overhanging pavement; this tree is a poor unwanted specimen/species, with various amounts of canker visible, fell tree Manataka Redwood Road Sidmouth EX10 9ADRef. No: 22/0560/TCA | Validated: Thu 10 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Roofing over silage clamp. Godford Farm Awliscombe Honiton EX14 3PWRef. No: 22/0551/FUL | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Installation of new and alterations to/replacement of existing access gates.Upottery County Primary School Upottery Honiton EX14 9QTRef. No: 22/0556/CM | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side extension of existing garage, alteration to fenestration and replacement of existing games annex with new home office annex. 40 Sidford High Street Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9SLRef. No: 22/0550/FUL | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of 3no bungalows with associated access, parking and landscaping. The Gardens Blackhorse Exeter EX5 2FTRef. No: 22/0549/FUL | Validated: Fri 11 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 Oak. Trim crown by up to 2m to shape. T2 Robinia. Remove first branch. Cut back from chimney and roof to give 1-2m clearance. Thornbury The Strand Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5JSRef. No: 22/0538/TCA | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• First floor extension over garage. 13 Ballard Grove Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9EPRef. No: 22/0543/FUL | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for proposed construction of single storey rear extension.Holly Brook Marsh Green Exeter EX5 2EXRef. No: 22/0540/CPL | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Approved
• T1 Willow. Crown reduce by 2-3m T2 Laurel. Fell Redstock Bickwell Valley Sidmouth EX10 8SQRef. No: 22/0537/TCA | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed timber framed and glazed entrance porch. High Nooke Littledown Lane Newton Poppleford Sidmouth EX10 0BGRef. No: 22/0536/FUL | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Fell an overgrown Christmas tree, Norway Spruce, which has grown to approx. 10 metres high. The tree has no amenity value and can only be seen from Saddlers Mead and Cherries. It is proposed to plant four new trees in the garden a sorbus, amelanchier, crab apple and a witch hazel with more to follow. Saddlers Mead Sid Road Sidmouth EX10 9AQRef. No: 22/0535/TCA | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of 4 x internally illuminated fascia signs, 1 x projecting sign and 3 x internal TV promotional screens. 38-40 Chapel Street Exmouth EX8 1HWRef. No: 22/0568/ADV | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Beech trees T1, T2, T3, T4: lift crowns to between 5 and 7 metres as directed by tree surgeon, trimming overhanging, low branches which are spreading into public alley way and car park. Trim long low branch T1 to restore shape and aesthetics. Walnut tree: Crown lift to 2.5 metres to clear adjacent greenhouse Seddul Bahr Barline Beer Seaton EX12 3LSRef. No: 22/0523/TRE | Validated: Fri 11 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of garage and workshop to form self contained annexed accommodation to main dwelling Annexe Chowns Pool Bungalow Plymtree Cullompton EX15 2LNRef. No: 22/0517/FUL | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed single storey rear extension to form a conservatory. St Peters School Harefield Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5AURef. No: 22/0514/FUL | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness application to demonstrate that there is no agricultural tie on The Bungalow and can be used as an unrestricted dwelling The Bungalow Poltimore Exeter EX4 0AARef. No: 22/0510/CPE | Validated: Mon 07 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Formation of 2 no parking spaces in front garden and replacement open sided porch, replacement doors/windows to rear elevation. 59 Woolbrook Road Sidmouth EX10 9XBRef. No: 22/0515/FUL | Validated: Mon 07 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of an impermeable, earth-lined slurry lagoon. Lower Pithayne Farm Yarcombe Honiton EX14 9ABRef. No: 22/0513/FUL | Validated: Mon 07 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T5 English Oak Crown reduction (Upper crown) as indicated in arboricultural report; sever existing ivy; clearance of organic debris and humus accumulation. Two main safety concerns have prompted this application following the recent storms: the size and nature of the crown coupled with the proximity of the tree to the house 13 Exmouth Road Budleigh Salterton EX9 6AFRef. No: 22/0519/TRE | Validated: Mon 07 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of single storey outbuilding, Erection of single storey rear/side extension 6 Chestnut Crescent Stoke Canon Exeter EX5 4AARef. No: 22/0512/FUL | Validated: Thu 10 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension with alteration to fenestration. Cotswold Knowle Drive Sidmouth EX10 8HWRef. No: 22/0518/FUL | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• G1, Oaks(4) : Reduce crown spread extending to north by approximately 3m, back approximately to a line with ridge of shed roof; branches to be cut back to appropriate growth points; maximum diameter of cuts 150mm; remove any significant major deadwood overhanging garden. Reason for works: Appropriate arboricultural management The Old Orchard Elsdon Lane West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TZRef. No: 22/0525/TRE | Validated: Mon 07 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• T1, Oak : Reduce north western aspect of tree, overhanging garden of Shire House, by 2m and thin by a maximum of 10%; maximum diameter of cuts 50mm. T2, Oak : Reduce northern crown spread by 1.5-2m and thin by a maximum of 10%. Reason for works: The two Oak trees have become very dominant over small garden, works are considered appropriate arboricultural management to allow more light into the garden whilst unaffecting the amenity value that the tree possesses. Watch Hill 3 Cricket Field Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 6PBRef. No: 22/0526/TRE | Validated: Mon 07 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of agricultural building for hay and straw storage. Beautiport Farm Marwood Road Aylesbeare Exeter EX5 2BWRef. No: 22/0528/FUL | Validated: Mon 07 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of parlour and cow cubicle building Courtneys Farm Clyst Hydon Cullompton EX15 2NHRef. No: 22/0495/FUL | Validated: Fri 11 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of existing dwelling to provide an ancillary annexe. Bickwell Grange Bickwell Valley Sidmouth EX10 8SGRef. No: 22/0500/FUL | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of the upper floors from a dwelling to a 7-bed ‘room only’ guest house (Use Class C1), installation of replacement windows and blocking up of one window 102 High Street Honiton EX14 1JWRef. No: 22/0497/FUL | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of application 19/1521/MFUL. Land North Of South Farm Cottages East Budleigh Road Budleigh SaltertonRef. No: 22/0492/VAR | Validated: Thu 10 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Internal alterations to facilitate conversion of the upper floors from a dwelling to a 7-bed ‘room only’ guest house, installation of replacement windows and blocking up of one window 102 High Street Honiton EX14 1JWRef. No: 22/0529/LBC | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement deck with patio, creation of covered area over patio, replacement lounge window and study door with bi-fold doors2 Broadmead Woodbury Exeter EX5 1HRRef. No: 22/0504/CPL | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of second parking space, demolition of part of front garden wall and lower kerb on private road 9 Old Home Farm Rousdon Lyme Regis DT7 3YLRef. No: 22/0489/FUL | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Battery energy storage scheme and associated development. Land At Pound Farm HawkchurchRef. No: 22/0508/MFUL | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Certificate of Lawful Development for an Existing replacement of leaking septic tank with sewage treatment plant and associated drainage field. Pacehayne Woodhouse Hill Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3SLRef. No: 22/0474/CPE | Validated: Mon 07 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing orangery and replacement of associated verandah including provision of balustrade, alterations to ground floor fenestration, replacement of existing attached rear garage roof and doors. 11B Marine Parade Budleigh Salterton EX9 6NSRef. No: 22/0446/FUL | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• 1x Ash tree to be fully dismantled to ground level. Tree Officer confirms signs (early) of Ash dieback. Tree being dismantled and felled into rear garden. No plans to replace tree. 74 Hazelwood Close Honiton EX14 2XARef. No: 22/0439/TRE | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of 3no. gates and install 1no. new gate and fence panel Upottery County Primary School Upottery Honiton EX14 9QTRef. No: 22/0418/LBC | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of 2no. outbuildings and re-instatement of original drive Wren Cottage Payhembury Honiton EX14 3HRRef. No: 22/0419/LBC | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Repair and repainting of existing fascia, shopfront and soffit. Repainting of existing stallriser and projecting sign. Fat Face 4 Fore Street Sidmouth EX10 8AJRef. No: 22/0399/FUL | Validated: Mon 07 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of fascia sign and replacement with non-illuminated fascia sign. Installation of an ‘A board’ and sign panel to cover existing stencil. Fat Face 4 Fore Street Sidmouth EX10 8AJRef. No: 22/0400/ADV | Validated: Mon 07 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of single storey side extension roof from glass roof to solid warmroof to include one velux rooflight. 11 Rolle Barton Church Hill Otterton Budleigh Salterton EX9 7HRRef. No: 22/0401/FUL | Validated: Tue 08 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing conservatory with single storey extension, alterations to fenestration and addition of cladding. 46 Greenpark Road Exmouth EX8 4JTRef. No: 22/0243/FUL | Validated: Mon 07 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of Condition No. 2 and 3 of Secretary of State’s Appeal Decision ref: APP/U1105/C/16/3146168-73 dated 14/07/2017 (East Devon ref: 13/1661/FUL dated 04/02/2014) to allow for permanent use of the land for the siting of a mobile home and touring caravans and their use for residential purposes. Land SW Side Of Weston Lane Road From Weston Cross To Cherry Bridge Weston EX14 3NYRef. No: 22/0195/VAR | Validated: Fri 11 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Replacement of temporary window shutters with original timber casement windows. 55 High Street Honiton EX14 1PWRef. No: 22/0186/LBC | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of temporary window shutters with original timber casement windows. 55 High Street Honiton EX14 1PWRef. No: 22/0185/FUL | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side extension, porch to front, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer and alterations to fenestration. 9 Sidgard Road Sidmouth EX10 9DARef. No: 22/0044/FUL | Validated: Thu 10 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of 6 x A1 poster frames to front elevation The Guildhall West Street Axminster EX13 5NXRef. No: 22/0016/ADV | Validated: Wed 09 Mar 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision