Author Archives: East Devon Watch

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jul 2019

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Help to Buy, Housing (local)

“Young Britons believe dream of owning home is over, survey says”

“One of Britain’s biggest mortgage lenders has found that 70% of young people now believe that the homeownership dream is over for their generation.

Having carried out the largest-ever survey of potential first-time buyers, Santander said its own figures suggest less than 25% of 18- to 34-year-olds will be in a position to buy a home by the year 2026.

The Spanish-owned bank said that while 91% of the young people interviewed still aspire to own a home, over two-thirds said it was unlikely to happen unless they received the deposit from their parents. Back in 2006, around half of those under 34 were able to get on the property ladder, the bank said.

The study found that the sharpest fall in first-time buyer homeownership has been among those on middle-incomes – those earning between £20,000 and £30,000 this year. Of the new buyers who had been able to buy, two-thirds reported having household incomes of more than £40,000….”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/jul/31/young-britons-believe-dream-of-owning-home-is-over-survey-says?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jul 2019

Posted under

Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Greater Exeter, Planning System

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan delayed

“A document that was set to reveal the possible locations for more than 57,000 new homes across four districts has been delayed.

The paper, which details sites put forward for developments of 500 homes or more in East Devon, Mid Devon, Teignbridge and Exeter (Greater Exeter) was due to be published in June.

More than 700 parcels of land were proposed by agents, developers and landowners during the ‘call for sites’ for the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP). Details of these options were due to be published in June.

However following the elections, a review of the timetable is ‘likely’ be needed, according to the GESP website.

Four councils are involved in the development of the plan – Exeter City Council, East Devon District Council, Mid Devon District Council and Teignbridge District Council.

But, in May’s elections the Conservative leadership at three of the district councils lost control.

The Local Housing Need Assessment for the Greater Exeter Area, published in November 2018, quotes an annual housing need figure in East Devon of 844. It states that the GESP authorities must plan to deliver at least 2,593 homes per annum between them up to 2040.

The assessment of larger strategic sites is being undertaken and the results will be published in a housing and economic land availability assessment (HELAA) alongside the draft Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.

The assessment of smaller sites will be undertaken by the four individual councils (as relevant). And, the results in HELAA will support the respective local plans.

The timetable is:

The Greater Exeter Strategic Plan timetable:

– Issues Consultation – February 2017 (completed).

– Draft policies and site options – June 2019 (Now under review).

– Draft Plan Consultation – November 2019 (Now under review).

– Publication (Proposed Submission) – February 2021.

– Submission – July 2021.

– Hearings – September 2021.

– Adoption – April 2022.

If approved, then the GESP would supersede and sit above the existing local plans, but they would not be scrapped.”

https://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/greater-exeter-strategic-plan-document-is-delayed-1-6190128

Possible new East Devon “villages” (mostly extensions to current ones) are detailed here:

https://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/possible-locations-for-new-devon-villages-set-to-be-released-1-6061225

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Sleaze

“UK reclaims place as world’s second largest arms exporter”

Swire will be pleased – he’s spent many happy hours in Saudi Arabia with representatives of BAE Systems.

“British defence exports rose to a record £14bn in 2018, with sales to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and other countries in the Middle East accounting for nearly 80% of that figure, official figures reveal.

Campaigners said the statistics, released on Tuesday, showed that Britain was “arming and supporting repressive regimes”, while the Department for International Trade (DIT) said they demonstrated that the UK had returned to its position as the world’s second largest arms exporter after the US.

Defence orders rose by £5bn to £14bn, making it the biggest year since records began in 1983. That increase was helped by a £5bn order for Typhoon fighters made by BAE Systems, plus Paveway missiles from Raytheon that are partly made in the UK.

Campaign Against Arms Trade said the figures “exposed the rank hypocrisy at the heart of UK foreign policy. The government claims to stand for human rights and democracy, but it is arming and supporting repressive regimes and dictatorships around the world.”

Britain’s sales to Saudi Arabia – believed to be the largest arms buyer – are the subject of an ongoing legal battle. Ministers have asked the supreme court to overturn a lower court’s judgment that some of the arms sales to Riyadh were conducted illegally.

In June, the court of appeal concluded the sales of arms that could have been used by Saudi Arabia’s air force in Yemen were unlawful because ministers had failed to examine whether, in targeting civilians, the country was in breach of international humanitarian law.

The DIT estimates the UK’s share of the defence export industry to be about 19%, placing it second for the first time since 2014, pushing Russia into third place and sitting comfortably ahead of fourth-ranked France.

The world leader is the US, which has a share of about 40%, according to the British estimates in the annual statistics published by the DIT, which is the licensing authority for arms exports.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/30/uk-reclaims-place-as-worlds-second-largest-arms-exporter?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook

Comments

1 Comment

“Rip Off Britain” asks for information from Cranbrook residents on district heating problems

“Hello Cranbrook. Can you help? My Name’s Ian Griffiths and I work for the BBC on the consumer programme Rip Off Britain. We have been contacted by some people regarding their experiences with the District Heating Scheme in Cranbrook. We are looking to hear from others about what they think about the DHS. If interested please drop us a line at ripoffbritain@bbc.co.uk with your story and contact details or leave us note under this message and we’ll contact you back via Facebook Messenger. Bst wishes and thanks again Ian”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jul 2019

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), National Planning Policy Framework

Housing numbers: government targets are NOT set in stone

Letter from Department of Communities and Local Government to Teignbridge Council, which queried its raised target:

For background, see:
https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/glimmer-hope-housing-need-rise-3153098

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Axminster, Bovis, Developers/ Development

Bovis can’t build footpath on Axminster estate “because there are tree roots in the way”

Owl says: so who designed this then, knowing the problem? Amd which planner didn’t spot it?

“Residents on a new Axminster housing estate say the lack of a pavement outside their homes is putting lives at risk.

They say mums with pushchairs and wheelchair users are being forced to cross a busy road used not only by residents but also heavy construction traffic.

Brian and Barbara White claim plans for the Cloakham Lawns estate, off Chard Road, showed a pavement outside their home at Cloakham Drive.

But council officials say what they deemed to be a footpath was, in fact, only a ‘service margin’.

And they say building a permanent pavement there would harm the roots of a tree on the adjoining open green space.

Mrs White said the situation was ‘an absolute nightmare’, with pram and wheelchair users having to cross the road to the pavement on the other side and then cross back again further down the estate to return to the right side.

“Our road is busy with normal traffic plus heavy lorries, diggers, bulldozers and forklifts. Bovis Homes will be building here for years. There is plenty of room to continue the pavement all the way on this side of the road.”

Mr White added: “There is going to be an accident before long. People are putting their lives at risk.”

Bovis Homes has recently put down a temporary footpath outside the houses but says it cannot build a permanent pavement because of the nearby tree.

A spokesman told the Herald: “The tree is a hybrid lime, which is a category-A tree and is protected by a tree protection order (TPO) and also by a root protection area (RPA).

“RPAs are designed to protect the trees’ root systems and provide sufficient rooting environment to allow the trees to continue to thrive.

“The RPAs prohibit groundwork, construction, development or storage activity within the designated area. The highway proposals obviously had to take that into account.

“The temporary footpath is in place while there is construction work going on, and this hasn’t required the more robust foundation work that a permanent footpath would, which would adversely impact the RPA.”

https://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/axminster-residents-say-mums-with-pushchairs-are-forced-to-cross-a-busy-road-1-6188464

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jul 2019

Posted under

Misc

Sidford Business Park: call for Independent Inquiry into EDDC CEO’s actions

Dynamite press release from objectors to this planning application of allegations, which was first reported on this blog on 22 July 2019:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2019/07/22/report-on-sidford-business-park-planning-inquiry/

“Firstly, many thanks to those of you who sent kind words about the actions of the Steering Group in representing your interests at the recent Planning Inquiry.

Hopefully you read the extensive reporting that was contained both last and this week’s Sidmouth Herald about what we and others who oppose the Business Park said at the Inquiry. Indeed, there is further coverage of the Inquiry In this week’s Herald.

Also, in this week’s Herald, is a letter from a member of the Steering Group, Keith Hudson. Keith expresses his concerns about the fact that in 2016, following the decision of the District Council to refuse their 2016 application to build a Business Park in Sidford, the District Council’s Chief Executive met with a representative of the applicants. Mike and Tim Ford.

In this meeting we know from unchallenged evidence presented at the Planning Inquiry, that the Chief Executive advised their representative that they should appeal the decision taken by his own Council.

As the QC for the Fords stated at the Inquiry “That is an extraordinary state of affairs”. Quite so!

Both at the Inquiry and since the publication of Keith’s letter (reproduced below) many residents have expressed their amazement and annoyance at the Chief Executive’s actions.

This matter is a concerning one and one which has led the District Councillor for Sidmouth Rural, John Loudoun, within whose Ward the site is located to write to the Leader of the Council asking that an independent investigation be undertaken into the Chief Executive’s actions.

John Loudoun has expressed his concern that these actions potentially bring the role of the Council and that of the Chief Executive into disrepute as he appears to have undermined a legitimate decision taken by Members on the advice of planning officers.

Best wishes
Campaign Team

Keith Hudson’s letter as published in Sidmouth Herald, 25 July –

Dear Sir

Sidford Business Park Planning Inquiry raises new issues of concern
Last week I attended the whole of the three-day Planning Inquiry in front of a Planning Inspector into the planning application to build a Business Park in Sidford that was refused by East Devon District Council at the end of last year As I was in attendance for the whole of the Inquiry, I was able to hear every word of the evidence presented.

The planning applications to build the Business Park have received a great deal of local attention and significant opposition, and I was pleased to be able to give evidence at the Inquiry in opposition to the proposed development. I believe that it is the wrong thing in the wrong place.
Your readers will recall that there have been two planning applications submitted by Tim and Mike Ford, in the name of OG Holdings Retirement Benefits Scheme, to build this Business Park. The first of these applications was submitted in 2016 and rejected by East Devon District Council. The second was then submitted in 2018 and was again rejected by the District Council.

In listening to the evidence at the Inquiry I was taken aback to learn a claim arising from the evidence given by a key witness for the Fords, Joseph Marchant, and which was repeated by their QC and which wasn’t challenged by the Council. In so doing this led to an acceptance by the Council of the claim that was made.

The claim that was made by Mr Marchant was set out at paragraph 6.0.1 in his written evidence “Subsequent to the refusal of the 2016 application, an approach was made to Members (Councillors) including Councillor Hughes and the CEO (Chief Executive) of EDDC, Mark Williams”.

This is continued in paragraph 6.0.2 of Mr Marchant’s written evidence “We were advised by Mark Williams….that in his opinion, the applicant (the Fords) may make more advance in progress towards delivery through appealing (the Council’s decision to refuse the 2016 planning application) rather than resubmission”.

This claim was also clearly set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Fords’ QC’s final closing arguments at the Inquiry “After the 2016 application was refused, there was a meeting with Councillor Hughes and the CEO of the Council”. “The CEO advised that the way to progress was to appeal. That is an extraordinary state of affairs”.

I am sure that I am not the only resident who is astounded that the Chief Executive of the District Council directly advised a developer to appeal a decision of the Council. As the QC for the Fords at the Inquiry put it “That is an extraordinary state of affairs”. I cannot disagree with this statement.

All of this raises serious questions, not for the first time, about the links between the District Council and developers. It suggests that the Chief Executive’s actions and advice undermined the authority and responsibilities of not only the Council’s planning officers, but also that of the elected Members, particularly those with responsibility for oversight and decision making on planning applications.

It also raises a number of questions that surely deserve public scrutiny –

1. What authority did the Chief Executive of EDDC have for advising a developer to appeal a decision to refuse a planning application taken legitimately by his Council, as the planning authority, and which had been taken on the advice of his staff in the planning department, for whom he is their ultimate boss?

2. Did the Chief Executive report this meeting to the then Leader of the Council or other elected Members? If he did, what was their view of his actions and advice?

3. Is there a written record of this meeting involving the Chief Executive and the developer? If there is, was this ever presented to a Council Committee and if so, when? If not, why was no record made and is this in line with Council policy?

4. Why has it taken until this Inquiry for the Chief Executive’s advice to the developer to become public knowledge?

5. Which other developers has the Chief Executive advised during his tenure of office in a way that directly advises them of how to respond to decisions of his Council with which they are unhappy?

The evidence given at the Inquiry regarding the direct intervention of the District Council’s Chief Executive in a local planning matter, and in opposition to a decision his own Council has made, surely requires independent investigation? Given the potential ramifications of the Chief Executive’s actions I ask myself the question, will he be suspended to allow an independent investigation to be undertaken?

Yours sincerely
Keith Hudson”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Economy

The new “magic money tree” appears to have no roots

“… Remember the “magic money tree”? The Conservative party appears to have found it, if the rash of spending promises of new Prime Minister Boris Johnson are anything to go by.

Johnson appears to be doing two things with his promises of billions for railways, tax cuts and “left behind” towns, write the Guardian’s Larry Elliott and Richard Partington: revving up the economy to gain support for his plans with a fallback that more spending could cushion the fallout of a no-deal departure.

Although framed by Johnson as spending headroom at his disposal, economists say the additional firepower is something of an illusion. Thomas Pugh, of the consultancy Capital Economics, said:

This isn’t money sitting in a savings account waiting to be spent. It’s more like borrowing from an overdraft where the limit is set at 2% of annual income. So spending it would result in a higher deficit and more borrowing. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2019/jul/29/sterling-new-two-year-low-no-deal-brexit-fears-pound-euro-us-dollar-currencies-business-live?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Inequality, Poverty, Universal Credit

Comments

1 Comment

“More than 4m in UK are trapped in deep poverty, study finds”

“More than 4 million people in the UK are trapped in deep poverty, meaning their income is at least 50% below the official breadline, locking them into a weekly struggle to afford the most basic living essentials, an independent study has shown.

The Social Metrics Commission also said 7 million people, including 2.3 million children, were affected by what it termed persistent poverty, meaning that they were not only in poverty but had been for at least two of the previous three years.

Highlighting evidence of rising levels of hardship in recent years among children, larger families, lone parent households and pensioners, the commission urged the new prime minister, Boris Johnson, to take urgent action to tackle growing poverty.

The commission’s chair, Philippa Stroud, a Conservative peer, said there was a pressing need for a concerted approach to the problem. “It is time to look again at our approach to children, and to invest in our children as the future of our nation,” she said.

Campaigners said the commission showed austerity had undermined two decades of anti-poverty policy. “By cutting £40bn a year from our work and pensions budget through cuts and freezes to tax credits and benefits, the government has put progress into reverse,” said Alison Garnham, the chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group.

The commission’s membership is drawn from experts across the political spectrum, and includes representatives from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. It was set up in 2016 to develop a new way of measuring poverty.

It found that of 14.3 million in the UK in poverty, 4.5 million were in deep poverty – a third of all those on the breadline, and 7% of the population. In cash terms this means a couple with two children would have an income of less than £211 a week after housing costs, and a single parent with one child would be on less than £101.50 a week. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/29/uk-deep-poverty-study-austerity?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jul 2019

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, East Devon economy, Housing (local)

“House prices in Devon have risen by around £44,000 in last 12 months, stats show”

“The cost of homes in Devon has risen by 3.2 per cent over the past 12 months, with the average homeowner in the county seeing their property value jump by around £44,000 in the last five years. …

IN EAST DEVON:

Those wanting to buy in East Devon saw a slight drop in prices in May this year of 0.6 per cent, despite witnessing a 1.4 per cent rise over the last 12 months.

The latest ONS data shows the average property in the area sold for £282,602. Buyers who made their first step onto the property ladder in East Devon in May also spent an average of £217,225 – around £37,000 more than it would have cost them five years ago.

A total of 3,031 homes were sold in East Devon, five per cent fewer than in the previous year – according to the data for between April last year and March this year.

The average homeowner in East Devon will have seen their property jump in value by around £50,000 in the last five years.”

https://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/house-prices-in-devon-statistics-1-6180451

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Education (local), Inequality

“Tally of £150,000 school academy bosses jumps by 20%”

“New concerns have been raised over the pay handed to academy school bosses after it emerged that almost 1,000 academy trusts paid a six-figure salary to at least one staff member last year.

A total of 988 trusts, the not-for-profit charities that oversee academy schools, had at least one person on £100,000 or more in 2017-18, with 146 paying £150,000 or more to at least one employee.

The proportion of trusts paying £150,000-plus salaries has risen by 20% in a year, with a 7.6% rise among those with at least one person above £100,000. The rise came despite an increase in the number of academy trusts in deficit, from 5.9 to 6.4%.

The official figures, released last week, will fuel criticisms of the government’s academies programme. There have already been rows over schools using their independence to pay big sums to senior management. It comes amid huge concern over the financial pressures on classrooms.

Academies are not part of nationally set pay structures so trusts are left free to set remuneration as they see fit. Most of the best-paid leaders in English schools are now trust chief executives, running groups of academies. Since last year ministers have written to 213 trusts with at least one person on £100,000 or more asking for justification. However, only 50 trusts had reduced remuneration.

Outside the academies system, it is relatively rare for a school leader to reach six figures. The top of the national pay range for headteachers, which applies to non-academy schools, was £116,738. This would be paid to a very small minority of leaders running large local authority secondary schools in London. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jul/28/number-150000-salary-school-academy-bosses-jumps-20-per-cent?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Ben Ingham, East Budleigh, East Devon Independent Group, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Environment (local)

EDDC, Tiggers, EDA and global heating crisis – names to be named

East Devon aims to be carbon neutral by 2040 following motion from 20-year-old (Lib Dem) councillor:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/east-devon-aims-carbon-neutral-3138282?

Straightforward? Er, no – several councillors (Tory and Independent Group) refused to back this because they said it was too ambitious.

Councillors voted by 30 votes to 23 to agree to adopt a 2040 target for the council to be carbon neutral by.

East Devon Alliance were councillors happy to back the young Lib Dem who brought the motion to council. So who didn’t?

As explained by EDA Councillor Paul Arnott in his unique style:

“Anyone hearing Devon flannel merchant and Tory grotesque Geoffrey Cox talking through his fundament on Any Questions with unreassuring ease about climate change may see why I had to back this. Superb speeches from 3 20 year old East Devonians at our full council last week and a motion from Luke, the splendid 19 year old Liberal, said it all.

Needless to say, all Tories, and Cabinet loyalists voted against. I called for a recorded vote. When the names of those who voted for are published with the minutes, that, in my opinion, is the group likely to deliver real change as demanded by the electorate in May.”

Some councillors showing a lot more independence and a lot less Group …

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Tories

Johnson makes big promises to (Labour) north, none so far for (Tory) south-west

Critics doubt Boris Johnson can deliver new [Manchester-Leeds] rail route pledge:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/27/critics-doubt-boris-johnson-can-deliver-new-rail-route-pledge?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Conflict of interest, Lobbying, Tories

Johnson’s (many, many) conflicts of interest

Housing development, sugar tax, booze tax, inheritance tex, smoking tax ….

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/27/mp-warns-potential-conflicts-of-interest-boris-johnson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jul 2019

Posted under

Inequality, Poverty

“Child poverty cash handed back to Europe unspent”

“More than £3.5m intended to alleviate child poverty and homelessness is at risk of being wasted because the government has failed to spend it, says a House of Lords committee.

Peers have written to the Home Office saying it is “extraordinary” that the EU funding has not been used.

They warn that some of the cash has already been forfeited and are worried about the rest being handed back.

The government said there had been “barriers” over spending the money.
But peers have written to complain that after almost six years, the government has failed to deliver spending aimed at addressing “the worst forms of poverty”.

About £580,000 of unspent cash has so far been taken back – and a further similar amount is at risk of being deducted at the end of the year. …”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49131685

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jul 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

All our nuclear eggs in a broken basket (case)

… and, so, far, not a peep out of our Local Enterprise Partnership – who put pretty much all our local eggs in that same government basket …

Wonder what (if anything) Johnson thinks of that?

Today’s Times (pay wall)

Flamanville points to nuclear fiasco

“As French existential jokes go, little beats building a nuclear power plant at a place called Flammable. OK, it’s actually Flamanville. But who cares about that sort of nicety — not least when the project’s proving so incendiary?

It was due to be up and running in 2012 at a cost of €3.3 billion. Not only that. Flaming Ville was to be the showcase for the European Pressurised Reactor, the wizzy new tech developed by the state-backed EDF. True, it’s living up to the pressurised bit, at least for EDF boss Jean-Bernard Lévy. He’s just been forced to announce another delay: a howitzer, even by usual standards, of “more than three years”. The end of 2022 is now the earliest start date; a delay bound to jack up project costs that have already exploded to €10.9 billion

The reason? France’s spoilsport nuclear safety authority has ordered EDF to repair eight bits of dodgy welding: who’d have thought nukes had to be welded together properly? And, yes, the whole thing is turning into a nice French farce. Except for one thing, of course: the joke’s on us.”

AND (in more detail):

The latest delay at Flamanville comes after the French Nuclear Safety Authority ordered EDF to repair eight faulty welds at the plant.

Jean-Bernard Lévy, 64, EDF’s chief executive, said: “The time that we will need to prepare the repairs, carry out the repairs, test the repairs and get everything checked and then have the whole plant tested again and prepared to be launched, that will lead to delays of more than three years. So I don’t think it’s possible to commission it before the end of 2022.”

The European Pressurised Reactor at Flamanville was initially due to come on stream in 2012 at a cost of €3.3 billion. In its most recent estimate, EDF said that the costs had risen to €10.9 billion. The latest delay means that this will almost certainly have to be revised upwards.

Critics want EDF to take the reactor off the market, given the difficulties at Flamanville and elsewhere. Plans to build one in Finland are also running more than ten years behind schedule.

Engineers started working on the model in the early 1990s but only one — in China — has so far been switched on.

EDF reported first-half earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation of €8.3 billion, up 3.5 per cent from a year earlier. Revenue rose by 4.3 per cent to €36.47 billion.

The French government plans to split EDF into two units under a state-owned parent company. EDF Bleu will hold the nuclear assets and be wholly owned by the state and EDF Vert will concentrate on renewable energy and services, with a minority stake in private hands.

The defective welds responsible for the latest setback at Flamanville were detected last year. EDF said that it would repair most of them but argued that those in the building enclosing the reactor could be left for now. Those are difficult to access and to repair.

EDF said that it was “highly improbable” that they would break and urged nuclear inspectors to allow the construction programme to go ahead without repairing them but the watchdog insisted that they should be fixed before the reactor was started up.

EDF said it would agree with the watchdog how to repair the welds.

“Further delay for Hinkley-style reactor raises pressure on EDF”

“The company building Britain’s new nuclear reactors has announced a further delay to its troubled high-profile project in France.

EDF, the French state-owned group, said that the launch of its nuclear reactor at Flamanville in Normandy had been put back three years until the end of 2022.

The group is leading the project to build two similar reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset at a cost of £19.68 billion.