Council Leader Paul Arnott will write a letter to the secretary of state outlining the council’s fears about the bill, and will seek endorsement of it from other councils once it has been written.

East Devon council anger at Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Bradley Gerrard www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Anger has emerged from a Devon council about aspects of a major bill that will impact how planning applications are decided.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill could see fewer applications decided by councillors at planning committees, with more being decided by planning officers.

It could also give the government the power to set the size of a council’s planning committee, and require its members to undertake specified training.

Members of East Devon District Council’s cabinet expressed dismay at the bill, which has now passed three of the five stages in the House of Commons, before it heads to the House of Lords and, if approved there, it will then become law.

Cllr Todd Olive (Liberal Democrat, Rockbeare and Whimple), said the government’s own environmental watchdog had raised concerns.

The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP)’s chair, Dame Glenys Stacey, said the bill has “fewer protections for nature” than existing law, and that creating “new flexibility without sufficient legal safeguards could see environmental outcomes lessened over time”.

Cllr Olive is concerned about what any new law could mean for places like East Devon’s pebblebed heaths and the Exe estuary.

“I want to ask the leader to work with leaders of other planning authorities and write to the secretary of state [Angela Rayner MP] to set out our position on this appalling bill, but also to brief our MPs,” he said.

Cllr Paul Arnott (Liberal Democrat, Coly Valley), the leader of the council, agreed that writing a letter made sense, but suggested that it drafts one and then seeks supporting signatories, rather than trying to curate a letter in tandem with other councils.

Cllr Richard Jefferies (Liberal Democrat, Tale Vale), portfolio holder for environment (nature and climate) said he felt the bill was “cynical” in its approach that proposed contributions from developers to protect nature but to then take away other ecological protections.

“If there is no net gain, then it doesn’t seem sensible to me,” he said.

Fellow environment portfolio holder Cllr Geoff Jung (Liberal Democrat, Woodbury and Lympstone) said: “There are some very good proposals [in the bill] but some very disturbing proposals too.”

“One classic example is how it will treat habitat mitigation, as at the moment, here and in Teignbridge and Exeter, I think we do a good job as we are local and understand the area.

“But to take that way and give it to Natural England doesn’t make sense; we all know the issues more than these big quangos and taking this out of local peoples’ hands and putting into a national body does seem to be going in the wrong direction.”

Exmouth member Cllr Nick Hookway (Liberal Democrat, Exmouth Littleham) added that the bill was “extremely concerning” and would worry residents about the potential impact on the Exe Estuary.

Some members were irked by the notion that the bill would require councillors to undergo certain training, even though some is already provided by the council.

“The bill mentions training and that if it isn’t completed then a councillor can be prohibited from taking part in the planning committee,” said Cllr Paul Hayward (Independent, Axminster).

“But the MPs who issue these rules that they impose on councillors never seem to apply them to themselves… so if this does happen, then perhaps MPs should have to undertake mandatory training before passing acts of parliament that impact people.”

The cabinet agreed that Cllr Arnott would write a letter to the secretary of state outlining the council’s fears about the bill, and would seek endorsement of it from other councils once it had been written.

Across the 12 Reform-controlled councils, 33 meetings have been cancelled or postponed within the first nine weeks since the election.

Additionally, at least 21 Reform councillors have missed their first meetings, despite the majority of these only having had one meeting to attend in their first month.

[For comparison with Devon, four Reform councillors out of 18, that is 22% or nearly one quarter, have missed the first two meetings in Devon County Council. This looks significantly higher than the average of two councillors per Reform-led councils quoted above.] – Owl

Athena Stavrou  www.independent.co.uk 

Councils taken over by Reform UK have been left in a state of “paralysis” as dozens of key meetings are cancelled and newly elected councillors fail to show up.

Nigel Farage’s party won huge victories in May’s local council elections, gaining control of nine councils and minority control in a further three.

However, opposition councillors have claimed organisation and productivity have been a “shambles” since the election, with some claiming the Reform representatives “do not know what they’re doing”.

Across the 12 Reform-controlled councils, 33 meetings have been cancelled or postponed within the first nine weeks since the election.

Additionally, at least 21 Reform councillors have missed their first meetings, despite the majority of these only having had one meeting to attend in their first month.

The worst-affected councils are Kent and Nottinghamshire, where Reform holds 57 and 39 seats respectively.

In Kent, nine out of the 22 meetings – 40 per cent – scheduled have been cancelled since the election up to July 4. That compares to just 15 per cent in 2024.

These include legally required meetings such as the governance and audit committee, a crucial part of local government structures, ensuring accountability and transparency of the council’s finances.

Other meetings, such as the police and crime panel, were cancelled as membership of the committee was yet to be confirmed – something opposition councillors say suggests their Reform counterparts “are not ready or prepared” for their roles.

In Nottinghamshire, four of the 10 meetings scheduled had been cancelled in the first nine weeks.

These include the governance and ethics committee and the overview committee, which is responsible for scrutinising the operation of the chief executive’s department.

Opposition councillor in Kent, Rich Lehmann, said the cancellations were “shocking” and made him question whether Reform was capable of leading the council.

“Reform did better than anyone expected, and clearly better than they expected as well,” he told The Independent.

“There’s a general feeling among opposition councillors that a number of elected councillors are not ready or able to attend committee meetings that take place during the day.

“The fact they’ve not even named who is sitting on committees suggests they are having trouble filling committee places and that’s why they’re being cancelled.

“No one knows what’s going on. There’s a lot of confusion.”

Kent is the home of Reform UK’s first Elon Musk-style Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) unit, which has been set up to look at “wasteful spending” in councils.

The announcement on Sunday evening came as a surprise to many councillors, Mr Lehmann said, who claimed the move was a “barrage of distraction” from the “paralysis” the council is in.

It is understood that Reform UK councillors have chosen to cancel meetings with the intention of rescheduling them once they are more prepared. It is also understood that as the meetings were scheduled by the previous administration, they were not scheduled to the new Reform council’s timetable.

In Nottinghamshire, the opposition Conservative group said the cancellations had sparked “serious concerns about leadership, accountability, and the future of local service”.

“This is a shambolic start from Reform,” said Sam Smith, leader of the Conservatives.

“Scrapping every key meeting in their first full month in charge is not only reckless—it’s dangerous. This puts public services at risk and shows just how unprepared Reform really are.”

He added: “There’s no excuse for this. They should be in their offices, speaking to officers, and getting to grips with their jobs. Instead, the car park is empty, and the council is effectively leaderless. This is what happens when you elect people who had no plan and no idea what the job involved.”

While local councils are independent bodies responsible for their own decisions, it is understood that the government expects them to operate within the law and to hold meetings in order to deliver for residents.

Kent County Council said some meetings, such as planning committees, were scheduled on an ‘if required’ basis, and were cancelled because there were no applications requiring an immediate decision.

A spokesperson said: “Regarding the changes to the meeting calendar, a number of meetings were squeezed into June due to the election and induction period preventing them from being held in May as would be the case in a non-election year. Because there are no time-sensitive issues due at these June meetings, consideration is being given to deferring business to relevant July meetings to make best use of member and officer time.”

The Independent contacted Nottinghamshire Council’s new Reform leader Mick Barton for comment. He did not respond but told Local Democracy Reporters the comments are “political rhetoric from the opposition”.

He said: “That’s absolute nonsense. We’ve only been here three weeks. We’re still setting policies, we’re having weekly cabinet meetings with officers to find out what we’re going to be doing going forward.”

A massive cliff protection scheme is likely to go ahead this year after a council agreed to bring forward investment.

Miles Davis www.bbc.co.uk

Seaton Hole on the south coast has suffered repeated major landslips that have left beach users and coastal homes in danger.

East Devon District Council said 7,000 tonnes of rock must be delivered by sea to Seaton by September to be able to press ahead with the project before prices go up.

The council’s cabinet recommended an upfront investment of £673,500 this year to enable the £2.2m scheme to go ahead with a final decision due to be made by full council on 18 June.

The council said the decision was “critical to help reduce delays and cost increases”.

Geoff Jung, cabinet member for environment at East Devon District Council, said: “Approval from council will allow us to push ahead and order the new rock to ensure best value for money now, as delays may result in higher costs being incurred next year.”

The project included increasing the volume of existing rock armour at the base of the cliffs, upgrading the steel baskets used to hold rocks in place and maintaining the current seawall.

The total cost is expected to be £2.2m and has already been approved by the Environment Agency.

The council said it was confident planning permission would be granted, as no major issues were raised during the pre-application process.

The report said there was a “small risk”, external of not getting planning permission but “in the worst-case scenario” that would result in the council having rock armour for future schemes.

What about the Brixham crypto outbreak and all the sickness already reported this year in Budleigh?

Is it because of its “outstanding business plan”?

Or is it to ensure the retention of existing management talent and avoid any radical reset? – Owl

Caroline Voaden, Lib Dem MP for South Devon, said it was baffling why South West Water bosses had not had their bonuses banned. “It’s hard to think of a company more deserving to have its boss’s bonuses banned than South West Water,” she said. “Not only did the company preside over the cryptosporidium outbreak in the relevant financial year, but in June, just weeks after the outbreak, South West Water’s CEO saw her salary increased by £300,000, proving their absolute contempt for affected customers.” Source Guardian

Six firms under bonus ban

Under the beefed-up Water Act, six firms are banned from paying bonuses this year including Anglian Water, Southern Water, Thames Water, United Utilities, Wessex Water and Yorkshire Water.

The ban, which is backdated to April 2024, means regulator Ofwat can force firms to claw back bonuses that have been paid or face enforcement action. It applies to share awards as well as cash.

It is part of new measures in the Water Act which comes into force on Friday.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed said that water company bosses “should only get bonuses if they’ve performed well, certainly not if they’ve failed to tackle water pollution”.

Officials said the government would look into companies trying to get around the ban by raising executives’ base salaries.

But Liberal Democrat Environment spokesperson Tim Farron called the government’s announcement “half-baked”.

He added that it “doesn’t touch the sides in enacting fundamental reform – especially if water companies can still workaround bonuses and wriggle off the hook”. Source BBC

Government must follow Cunliffe recommendations and then go further to fix failing water system

Published by Wildlife and Countryside Link (Link), the largest environment and wildlife coalition in England, bringing together 89 organisations to use their strong joint voice for the protection of nature.

wcl.org.uk

Environment groups are calling for bold urgent action from the Government in response to the National Water Commission’s interim report released today.

The public are rightly outraged by the state of England’s waterways. The Independent Water Commission has exposed failings in water company governance and financial controls, shortcomings in political planning and prioritisation, and a lack of cross-sector coordination and accountability for environmental management.

Charities are calling on the Government to start work now on vital reforms that will cut pollution and restore nature. They highlight that creating a new Regional System Planner – as recommended by Cunliffe – will take time. To ensure all sectors responsible for water pollution can play their part and be held to account, the Government should commit now to setting up this new body.

In other areas, the interim report stops short of final recommendations. However, it clearly recognises that water companies need stricter controls to ensure they work in the public interest and cannot profit at the expense of the environment. The Government must introduce new regulations with robust public interest tests and ensure civil society and environmental voices are properly heard in decision-making.

Some steps can and must be taken immediately, while others require a bold Water Act to deliver long-term, legally enforceable reform. The group make the following recommendations:

Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said:

 “This interim report is a clear signpost, not a finishing line. The public are rightly angry about pollution and regulatory failure, and nature is in crisis. The Government must start work now to put in place a Regional Systems Planner with powers to align planning and spending decisions to restore river catchments.

“Even where the Commission has yet to make final recommendations, the findings of failings suggest a clear direction of travel. Politicians must stop equivocating and set clear strategic direction for environmental recovery. Strong, enforceable targets are needed for water quality that can be applied across sectors. Where in the past polluters have got away with profiteering, public interest tests must be built into every layer of operations and governance with consequences for failure.”

Quick wins:

Wildlife and Countryside Link is calling for the immediate implementation of several key proposals:

Mark Lloyd, CEO of The Rivers Trust, said: “Water is fundamental for nature’s recovery, for the growth of the economy, for the health and security of communities and for life itself. We will press the Commission over the next month to shoot for the stars rather than the moon in its final report. We will then expect to see the Government move swiftly and boldly to realise this high level of ambition.”

James Wallace, CEO of River Action, said:

 “We only have one chance to get it right. The public mandate for change is overwhelming and so is the urgency. What comes next must be decisive, enforceable, and in the public interest. We urge Sir Jon Cunliffe to give us more, much more. Nothing short of a systemic overhaul of how water companies are owned, funded, operated and regulated will do.”

Ali Morse, Water Policy Manager at The Wildlife Trusts said:

 “The Commission’s interim report emerges at a time when environmental protections are under threat from proposed planning laws, and budgets for nature look set to be slashed. This doesn’t look like the actions of a Government that is serious about restoring our chalk streams, or averting the extinction of water vole and Atlantic Salmon. To convince us otherwise, we need to see Government responding with measures that ensure water companies prioritise the health of rivers and seas, that past harms are made good, that other sectors too play their role, and that environmental regulators are equipped and supported to do their jobs. Only this will ensure that we have a healthy, thriving water environment that society and nature can both benefit from.”

Giles Bristow, CEO of Surfers Against Sewage, said:

“Ending the pollution crisis in our wild waters was an election issue acknowledged on the steps of Downing Street by the Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This report clearly identifies a broken privatised water system but stops short on systemic solutions to fix it. Until it is replumbed to prioritise the public health and the environment over profit for investors, an angry public will continue to swim and surf in a deluge of sewage that is destroying our rivers, lakes and coastal waters. We need tougher recommendations to government in the final report to help fix this system for good!”

Read more in our evidence to the Water Commission here: Blueprint for Water response – Independent Water Commission Call for Evidence.

Restoring public confidence is the key aim of the Cunliffe Review. ( Interim report published earlier this week.) 

In launching it the government recognized that a fundamental reset of the water sector was needed to address the systemic issues, and pave the way for a more sustainable and reliable water system.

But does it look like we are getting this fundamental reset?

Feargal Sharkey doesn’t think so:

Cunliffe report won’t make one atom of the UK’s water any cleaner

Feargal Sharkey www.thetimes.com 

Before the election, during the election and after the election, the government promised us a complete root-and-branch review, a wide-ranging re-examination and a complete reset for the water industry. We were promised champagne but today we’ve been offered sour milk.

I actually have some empathy for Sir Jon Cunliffe, bearing in mind the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is at the very epicentre of the utter shambles that is the modern water industry.

And yet it is the very government department that not only provides Cunliffe’s secretariat to his independent water commission but, more importantly, took that reset and turned it into an exercise of nothing more than shuffling furniture around, looking at regulation and investment.

He focuses on a whole bunch of things that are already within the gift of government to fix. For example, planning. London is running out of water and we haven’t built reservoirs in decades.

Well, as it turns out, [the former minister] Michael Gove almost fixed that problem seven years ago when he amended the planning legislation to make reservoirs part of the national infrastructure. So those decisions now go straight to the planning inspector.

When Cunliffe talks about priorities and ambition and the direction of travel from government and the regulators being confused, that needs statutory guidance. That is issued by government to Ofwat and the Environment Agency, setting out the government’s priorities. Steve Reed, the environment secretary, could fix all of that this afternoon by simply reissuing the guidance.

The idea of more regional planning is simply window dressing. This has been discussed for 35 years. There is nothing new.

I’m afraid in this case, Cunliffe has just been “Sir Humphrey-ed” — ie never establish a commission unless you already know the outcome.

None of this actually addresses the fundamental underlying issues within the industry. It’s a failed system of regulation.

I have said this to Cunliffe: none of what he’s talking about will actually make one atom of water, anywhere in this country, any cleaner. I was chatting to someone this morning who was in a car looking at Lake Windermere, which was turning green as we spoke.

I don’t think he’s taken on board anything anybody suggested. I have sympathy for him, however, because he’s been blatantly told by government to avoid the big issues. In Sir Jon’s words, and he is quoted as saying it, his job is to simply make the current system better. Well, when the current system is institutionally dysfunctional, institutionally discredited and institutionally incompetent, why bother?

When it comes to Cunliffe’s report, I had absolutely no expectations for it whatsoever. And he has not disappointed.

In terms of the big, ugly issue sitting at the middle of this, he’s been told not to get involved in it. That issue is a restructuring of the ownership of these companies.

There is nothing in Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report or the government’s current strategy that is going to stop Windermere from being poisoned, or save a single chalk stream in this country. We need to take a radical approach to this industry.

“As the only water company to have received an outstanding rating for our business plan for the third consecutive time, we have a track record of setting and delivering on stretching business plans. Consistently around 70% of the stretching regulatory deliverables have been met which put us top quartile compared to the sector.” – Susan Davy

Read Owl’s April post entitled “South West Water rewarded £6,7m for failure”. This exposes the only outstanding thing SWW excels in, is being the industry leader in writing creative future plans which it then fails to deliver.

Owl is waiting for Simon Jupp’s spin on all this.

South West Water owner makes huge loss after Brixham bug cost it £21m

Pennon sees losses widen and puts up bills

William Telford Business Editor www.devonlive.com

South West Water owner Pennon Group Ltd has made a £72.7m loss after a water bug made hundreds of people ill in Devon last year. The utilities giant saw losses widen from the £9.1m loss it made in [the previous year].

It put the blame for the loss on having to deal with the Cryptosporidium outbreak in Brixham in 2024, which left more than 100 people saying they were ill and some even going to hospital, and said the cost of “interventions to return quality supplies” cost it about £21m. It also said a company restructure cost it about £16.6m.

But the Exeter-based company, in its annual results for the year to the end of March 2025, said it expects to return to profitability in 2025/26 through increased revenue and a “reset of our cost base”. It also highlighted investment plans of £3.2bn.

South West Water customers saw bills jump by 28% on average from April, while bills for Bristol Water and Sutton and East Surrey (SES) customers, both companies being owned by Pennon, are going up by 5% and 3% respectively.

Susan Davy, group chief executive, said: “Pennon has delivered a resilient operational performance during a demanding year, while building a robust platform for the future. We have reshaped and reset the cost base, delivered record levels of capital investment and – following a successful rights issue – maintained a strong balance sheet.

“We are listening to our customers, who are quite rightly demanding water companies to do more for customers today and to step up investment for the future. We are doing both. We have worked diligently to help customers use less water and save more money with a range of campaigns and pilots.

“At the same time, our record year for investment has improved services that matter most to our customers. Whilst this has impacted profitability this year, it has been the right thing to do.

“As the only water company to have received an outstanding rating for our business plan for the third consecutive time, we have a track record of setting and delivering on stretching business plans. Consistently around 70% of the stretching regulatory deliverables have been met which put us top quartile compared to the sector.

“Of course there is more to do, not least on those measures we didn’t achieve, and our ambitious new plan includes a record £3.2bn of investment due to be completed by 2030. We know customers are worried about rising bills to fund this level of investment. While we have made the tough decision to put bills up in 2025/26 – for the first time in over a decade – two thirds of our investments are being funded by our supportive investors and debt providers.

“Ultimately everyone will benefit from the investments we are making – from building reservoirs, to fixing storm overflows, powering our net zero ambitions and helping to create economic growth. It’s why we’re able to make a £200m support package available to those who need it most.

“It’s also why – as the dry weather persists – we’re predicting that the South West won’t need a hosepipe ban this summer. We could not do this without the 4,000 brilliant colleagues who walk in our customers’ shoes every single day, focusing on the priorities that matter most for customers.”

This interim report is published today, following a total of 50,114 responses to the calls for evidence.

The following five areas come under scrutiny:

• Long term direction from government, including through the planning process.

• The creation of a simplified legislative framework, which could include new objectives around public health.

• Regulation but “a fundamental strengthening and rebalancing of Ofwat’s regulation is needed”, it is argued.

• Transparency and accountability within private water firms.

• The management of water industry assets, including pipework.

Note the terms of reference preclude any consideration of re-nationalisation.

Here is how the Chair Sir Jon Cunliffe summarises it in the Times:

“What has become increasingly clear as we have listened to the views — and heard the anger — on all sides of the debate is that there is no simple, single change, no matter how radical, that will deliver the safe, plentiful water and clean water environment that we need now and in the future.

We have heard of deep-rooted, systemic and interlocking failures — failure in government’s strategy and planning for the future, failure in regulation to protect both the bill payer and the environment and failure by many water companies and their owners to act in the public, as well as their private, interest. At the same time the demands on our water systems have grown.

On Wednesday, the commission is publishing an interim report setting out the direction of the fundamental changes we believe are necessary and show the scale of change required in how we plan, legislate, regulate and provide water, our most vital resource.

We have one set of water systems — our rivers, aquifers and coasts — but many different and often conflicting demands upon them. We want clean and healthy waterways and we need to manage the pressures from water companies, agriculture, industry, housing and others who all use our water. Setting the high-level priorities for water over the long term and balancing different objectives, including cost, is a job only government can do. It is not done effectively at present.

Our water systems are regional and need to be better managed at regional and local “catchment” level. Whether it’s how pollution sources are tackled, where new houses are built or how water shortages are addressed, the system is not working well and the local voice gets lost. Our conclusion is that stronger regional and local “system planning” is needed so decisions on a regional water system are made closer to its communities.

At the heart of public anger is the failure of the regulators to ensure that private water companies act in the public interest and the manifest failures of some companies to do so. Rebuilding trust will require a fundamental change in approach.

Akin to the “supervisory” approach seen in financial services, we believe Ofwat needs to depend far more on closer, more expert and judgment-based engagement with individual companies. A deeper understanding of their circumstances, finances and challenges will enable early intervention before issues arise. And it will inform price-setting to help poor performers improve and avoid the spiral of failure we have seen in some instances. Alongside this, we need a stronger voice in the system for consumers.

The capacity and capability of the environmental regulators falls a long way short of the public’s expectations for protection of our waterways. And environmental regulation has become too risk-averse and hesitant to enable innovative solutions that might deliver greater all-round environmental benefit. We need a more capable, intelligence-led regulator alongside legislative change to enable greater flexibility.

Beyond that, we need smarter as well as stronger regulators. Much friction, incoherence and cost in the system comes from the way regulators with very different remits interact. Radical streamlining and alignment of regulators is now essential.

In a system of private regulated water companies, effective regulation will always be the key line of defence for the public interest. But the ownership, governance and management of water companies can also have a big impact on whether companies deliver the public goods that society demands, which is why we are looking at these issues further.

The water industry should attract and retain owners and investors that are looking for low-risk and low return over the longer term and that are prepared to make the investment needed for the future. Achieving this will require restoring the confidence that has been lost in the predictability and stability of the regulatory system. We will make detailed recommendations in all of these areas in our final report later this summer.

“Resetting” our water sector is a problem not a puzzle. There is no single, simple answer. It will require a wide range of actions and sustained commitment. It will not happen overnight, but it can be done. And it needs to be done.”

More later

Cllr. Jess Bailey said it had been a “David and Goliath battle” with residents fighting the plans by a large company.

A controversial plan to create an industrial quarry on farmland in Devon has been shelved after 10 years of planning battles.

Miles Davis BBC Devon political reporter www.bbc.co.uk

Aggregate Industries wanted to build a quarry on the 100-acre Straitgate Farm site on the edge of Ottery St Mary to extract more than a million tonnes of sand and gravel.

Local councillor Jess Bailey said it had been a “David and Goliath battle” with residents fighting the plans by a large company.

Aggregate Industries, which rebranded to become Holcim UK earlier in 2025, said there had been “a change in business strategy and direction”.

‘Epic struggle’

The plans were refused by Devon County Council in December 2021 but an appeal to the Planning Inspector was successful in January 2023.

Bailey, independent member for Otter Valley, said it was “really quite unbelievable” that the plans advanced to the stage they reached.

She said: “It’s been an absolutely epic struggle, it’s gone on for years and years. It would have had a devastating impact on the local area.

“It’s been a huge David and Goliath battle where local community activists were campaigning against a multinational quarry company.

“It’s great news for our area and it’s just a shame it took such a long time to get to this point.”

Rupert Thistlethwayte is the owner of Cadhay House, an historic estate in Ottery St Mary.

He said the creation of the quarry could have harmed the water supply to medieval fishponds, external in the gardens of Cadhay House.

Responding to news of the plans being abandoned he said: “It’s absolutely fantastic and a great credit to all the people who were part of the action group.

“To keep their energy going for that length of time is astonishing. There were all sorts of lows and keeping going through those lows requires people with grit.”

Holcim UK said it had agreed to sell the Straitgate Farm site.

A spokesman for the firm said: “Following a change in business strategy and direction, which has included a review of the planned site, the company has decided not to proceed with quarrying at Straitgate.

“We have informed Devon County Council of this development and that we intend to allow the planning permission to lapse as a result.”

The company said it recognised the local community would “welcome the clarity and certainty this will bring”.

Council Leader Julian Brazil creates new role in cabinet, portfolio holder for rural affairs, and fills the post with Cllr Cheryl Cottle-Hunkin (Lib Dem, Torrington Rural), a famer herself.  

New rural affairs role at Devon County Council

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

Innovation will be key to attracting government funding to help rural communities in Devon, according to the holder of a newly created role on Devon County Council’s cabinet.

First time county councillor Cheryl Cottle-Hunkin (Lib Dem, Torrington Rural) has been selected to be in charge of rural affairs and says she is looking globally to get the best for Devon.

“There are so many issues in rural areas, from access to health services and dentists and public transport, villages pubs and shops are struggling. And farmers feel they are being ignored by the government.

“But we can’t keep asking for money for the same things. We need to come up with new ideas and I am looking at what people are doing across the country and across the world in innovation.

“That is the way we will get central government funding.”

A Torridge District councillor of eight years for Shebbear and Langtree, Cllr Cottle-Hunkin spearheaded acampaign in Devon to try to save mobile libraries and was invited to Westminster to talk to MPs at a farmers’ rally in the capital against changes to inheritance tax.

A farmer herself, she said she understood the issues and is “honoured” to have been asked to join the cabinet.

“As someone who has grown up living in rural Devon, and at a time when farmers are going though hugely stressful times with new rules and moving goalposts, taking numerous blows from central government, I hope we can show that at county level we understand, and we will be your voice.

“We recognise the importance of Devon County Council’s own farms’ estate as well as the need to develop stronger partnerships locally.”

Cllr Cottle-Hunkin said she hoped people would no longer feel the county council was “Exeter-centric”.

“I think a lot of residents living outside of Exeter feel that rural issues have not been at the forefront of the council in the past. Rural isolation is a big challenge and I will be looking at how we can make lives better for the people in our rural communities as a whole.”

She said groups like Devon Communities Together had already been in touch and meetings set up.

“The role will evolve over time as it’s brand new,” she said.

“I am a big fan of the health hubs that have been created and would like to see more of that kind of thing.”

New leader of Devon County Council Julian Brazil (Lib Dem, Kingsbridge) said the authority would be “a loud voice for all things rural especially farming.

“I’m excited to be working with Cheryl. We wanted to establish a champion for rural affairs and Cheryl will be ideal. She instinctively understands the issues because she lives the life.”

The Lib Dems are now the largest party on the county council after the Conservatives lost overall control and secured just seven seats. Cllr Brazil said he wanted the authority to be inclusive where everyone has a voice.

Cllr Cottle-Hunkin has stepped down from her role as leader of the Lib Dem group on Torridge District Council to concentrate on county council work and will be succeeded by Cllr Teresa Tinsley (Bideford North).

Cllr Huw Thomas (Green, Bideford East) will take over Cllr Cottle-Hunkin’s role as chair of Torridge’s external overview and scrutiny committee.

She will continue to be lead member for culture and community engagement.
 

“They [the Tories] have been spooked by the loss of 600 councillors in last month’s local elections, and by the haemorrhaging of a further 47 council seats in the six weeks since, several to Reform.”

Anthony Seldon The Times

Background

Local government is set to become more remote with District councils due to be abolished, Counties divvied up into unitary packages of 500,000 souls governed by an overarching mayoral authority covering over 3,000 sq miles! 

Planning “reform” latest twist

After throwing environmental protection to the wind. You can now forget any local input to planning. 

If, as proposed, democratic control over planning is stripped away, inevitably more power will be vested in Local Planning Officers. This is a significant change in how our system works. 

How will its integrity, accountably and transparently, be  assured?

Anyone think this is going to reinvigorate democracy, get more social housing built where it’s needed, and help clean up our rivers and seas? – Owl

See here for latest consultation

Councillors face ban on interfering in smaller planning applications

Chris Smyth www.thetimes.com 

Councillors will be banned from interfering in kitchen extensions and smaller developments as ministers curtail local discretion to speed up housebuilding.

All applications from individual homeowners will be protected from being called in to planning committees, while councillors will also be stripped of the ability to veto developments of up to nine homes.

This could rise to 50 homes in London as ministers seek to make the planning system more predictable for developers.

All planning applications will now bypass elected councillors by default, with only larger schemes able to be called in to committees if planning officers agree.

Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, is locked in a battle with the Treasury for billions of pounds to fund council house building, as her team set out a series of reforms that it says are essential to build 1.5 million homes over the course of parliament.

On Wednesday, ministers began a consultation on restricting the ability of council planning committees to intervene in developments, in an effort to reduce delays.

Under the proposals, smaller developments must be decided by professional planning officials “in all cases”. These include applications from individual homeowners, minor commercial projects and schemes of fewer than ten houses.

Ministers want to apply similar rules to developers of between ten and 50 homes in “larger conurbations”, acknowledging that this “would mean very few residential development applications in some areas could be scrutinised by committee”.

Housing style and layout in bigger schemes will also no longer have to be decided by councillors once they have given initial permission.

All other applications would be expected to bypass councillors unless the elected chair of the planning committee agreed with the council’s chief planning officer that democratic scrutiny was needed. This is expected to include the largest and most contentious schemes.

Matthew Pennycook, the housing minister, told The Times earlier this month that he wanted to get councillors out of “swathes” of planning applications, saying this would “increase the certainty and speed at which planning decisions are made”. Councillors could focus on “the biggest, most controversial applications”, he argued.

Matthew Spry of the Lichfields consultancy said that “we are moving towards a more rules-based planning system, which will undoubtedly speed up the process — even as the political dimension is inevitably maintained within it”.

He said that “a lot now relies on the dynamics of those individuals in each council, but there would have been risks to setting a fixed national threshold: what is a big deal in one place is small fry in another”. He added: “One can never take the politics out of planning so the line has to be drawn somewhere and there is safety in allowing for local discretion.”

Councils have warned that the proposals risk undermining local democracy as elected representatives are shut out of decisions where residents have strong views.

Robbie Calvert of the Royal Town Planning Institute said that the reforms “have the potential to unlock thousands of homes on smaller sites and energise a part of the sector that plays a vital role in local economies”.

However, he added that every council would need a strong chief planning officer for them to work, saying that “these reforms propose a significant change to how our system works, and without strong, accountable leadership and oversight, risk undermining the integrity of the planning process”.

Meanwhile, after blowing their chance to form alliances in Cornwall as the largest party, here at Devon our new Reformers demonstrated lack of preparation for serious government by throwing their teddies out of the pram at the Annual Meeting.

For example: after the Annual Meeting, Cllr Neil Stevens (Alphington & Cowick) ranted on facebook:

“Democracy? What a Joke.

Thursday, I stood up to protest the undemocratic stitch-up in Devon – and was shut down for not following ‘procedure’. Reform UK came second, yet we’ve been completely locked out of the Cabinet. Why? Because they fear us.”

His problem is that, according to the video at approx 2hrs 15mins, he chose to do this under the “declaration of interests” section of the meeting.

Having been in the Army he ought to be used to following rules.

He continued railing against Jess Bailey’s formal agenda motion to install swift boxes on County Hall and appears to have missed Cllr Julian Brazil’s announcement that his priorities were vulnerable children – the big spend on education, SEND and social services – and fixing roads.

What are his priorities?

“After rigging the committee, they spent 40 minutes talking about bird boxes with music. Meanwhile, Devon faces real problems.”

The time to show seriousness and negotiate was before the meeting.

Farage’s pledges to slash taxes don’t add up, top economists warn

Archie Mitchell www.independent.co.uk

Nigel Farage’s promise to slash taxes if he wins the next general election does not add up, Britain’s top economic think tank has warned.

The Reform UK leader on Tuesday touted plans to hike the threshold for paying income tax and restore winter fuel payments for pensioners as he declared the party as the “true party of workers”.

But, just hours after the arch-Brexiteer’s speech, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said his plans would cost tens of billions of pounds and he had failed to say how they would be funded.

Senior economist Stuart Adam told the BBC’s World at One programme that Reform’s plans to hike the income tax threshold from £12,500 to £20,000 “dwarfed” his other announcements, which included getting rid of the two-child benefit cap and the full restoration of winter fuel payments.

He said the tax threshold plan would cost between £50bn and £80bn and warned that “if they’re going to be a party of government, they would have to make those numbers add up”.

Mr Adam said: “Those are all significant things, and they are high-profile new public announcements, but actually, they are all still dwarfed by some of the big policies that were in the manifesto last year, and today Nigel Farage recommitted to increasing the income tax allowance to £20,000, which depending on details might cost £50billion, £60 billion, £70 billion, £80 billion, relative to other policies where we might be talking £1 billion, £2 billion, £3 billion each.

“So the big story is still those very big tax cuts and how they would ultimately be paid for.”

He added that the announcements by Mr Farage this morning were much smaller than last year’s “very radical” manifesto published by Reform UK for the general election.

“As it stands, I don’t think they have really set out how they would pay for such big giveaways,” Mr Adam said. “Of course, they don’t have to do that yet, we’re not yet at a general election. But at some point, if they’re going to be a party of government, they would have to make those numbers add up.”

Asked on Tuesday how his plans would be paid for, Mr Farage promised Reform would save money by slashing the net-zero agenda and cutting the bill to house asylum seekers in hotels and elsewhere.

Together, the measures would save up to £50bn per year, he claimed. Mr Farage added that Reform could save £7bn per year by cutting the amount spent on arms-length government bodies, or quangos, if it won the next election.

Overall, Mr Farage said the plans would save £350bn over the course of a parliament.

He added: “You can argue about numbers adding up, you can probably argue that at no point in the history of any form of government has anybody ever thought the numbers added up.

“We take a fresh approach to everything. I think what I’ve done today is to give you an idea of the direction of policy, of priorities, of what we think is important, what we think it is going to cost and how we think we’re going to pay for it.

“I don’t think anybody at this stage, with a general election some years away, could frankly do more than that. And I believe what I have presented today is credible.”

Labour attacked Mr Farage’s “fantasy promises” and compared the Reform leader to Liz Truss, warning that he would devastate the finances of families across Britain.

Labour chair Ellie Reeves said: “Those families don’t need to be told what the consequences would be of this nonsense. They live through it every month through the higher mortgages, higher rents, higher prices, and higher bills inflicted upon them by the last government.”

She insisted Labour is delivering in government, warning that “all Reform offer is a return to the chaos of Liz Truss”.

Angela, time to follow Thérèse Coffey, put your Marigolds on and start scrubbing. – Owl

Battle begins over new homes approved in historic village without sewage capacity

By Joe Crowley www.bbc.co.uk (Extract)

On the edge of Buckingham in southern England, the quiet and leafy village of Maids Moreton, dotted with thatched cottages, is at the heart of a dilemma.

There is a plan – already granted permission – to add 153 new homes to the existing community of 350 houses, a medieval church and a pub.

But the local sewage works has been over capacity for years, and there is no sign of it being upgraded soon.

A choice is looming over what to do if the planned new homes are built.

Leave them standing empty, waiting for upgrades to the wastewater treatment system before they are connected?

Or connect them anyway and let people move in – contributing towards Buckinghamshire Council’s target for new homes, but increasing the sewage pollution of the nearby river, the Great Ouse?

“You wouldn’t dream of building a house that you couldn’t connect to electricity, or that was never going to connect to a road. But for some reason we’re building houses that have nowhere to treat the sewage,” says Kate Pryke, one of the local residents campaigning to prevent the development being built.

Maids Moreton’s dilemma is an increasingly common one across England – as ageing sewage works, water industry under-investment and chronic pollution in many areas appear to threaten the government’s ambitious plans to build 1.5 million homes this parliament…..

…..”We think the problem is rife across England and Wales,” says Justin Neal, solicitor at Wildfish, an environmental charity that campaigns against river pollution.

The charity has been granted permission for a judicial review at the High Court, challenging Buckinghamshire Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the Maids Moreton development.

It says the case goes to the heart of the gap between plans for new housing and the capacity of the existing sewage infrastructure…….

Read on here

Honorary Aldermen (From Council minutes)

It was MOVED and it was duly SECONDED that under Section 249(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council confer on the following past Members of the Devon County Council the title of Honorary Alderman in recognition of their eminent service to the Council during the period of their membership of the Council: 

• John Berry 
• Jerry Brook 
• Christine Channon 
• Roger Croad 
• Alistair Dewhirst 
• Rufus Gilbert 
• George Gribble
• Ian Hall 
• Rob Hannaford 
• John Hart 
• Stuart Hughes 
• Frank Letch 
• Sara Randall Johnson 
• James McInnes 
• Percy Prowse 
• Ray Radford 
• Andrew Saywell 
• Margaret Squires 
• Jeremy Yabsley

Local Government Act 1972 (as referred to above)

249 Honorary aldermen and freemen.

(1)A principal council may, by a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the members voting thereon at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose with notice of the object, confer the title of honorary aldermen on persons who have, in the opinion of the council, rendered eminent services to the council as past members of that council, but who are not then councillors of the council.

Cllr Hayward questioned the transparency of a process in which councillors were being asked to agree to a list of party nominations for the award of the honorary title “alderman”, just a list of names with no evidence supporting their nomination.

There was a short delay between the Annual Meeting and this special meeting whilst the constitution was checked after Independent Cllr Paul Hayward raised this.

The public have the perception that an Alderman has done something exceptional, not that it is a title awarded to all in sundry.

Owl thinks he has a point.

Current Practice

The new Chair, Cllr Caroline Leaver, explained that it is possible for any councillor to make a nomination for the honour of “Alderman” at the special meeting convened after the DCC Annual Meeting, but the convention is that Party Group leaders make them. The only rule appears to be that the list is approved by the full council.

In an earlier post, Owl reported that Clllr Leadbetter nominated 17 for the Tories (a “Dancing Queen” in Bingo parlance, almost doubling the existing number) and Cllr Brazil, 2 for the Lib Dems.

From listening to the recording, these seem to include one posthumous award and one award to a sitting member. The remainder having been voted out or retired.

Cllr Hayward’s query

The question Cllr Hayward raised concerned the transparency of a process in which councillors were being asked to agree to a simple list of party nominations, just names with no supporting evidence. A process which would be particularly confusing in a council which had just seen a massive turnover in councilllors.

New councillors were then advised by the Chair that they could abstain, which they appeared to do in numbers.

Apparently this is constitutional, but it does raise the question of whether the constitution is in urgent need of reform.

East Devon Case Study – Alderman John Humphreys subsequently jailed

Those of us in East Devon will be aware that despite being arrested first in 2016 John Humphreys continued to serve as a Councillor until May 2019. He was bestowed the honour of alderman by EDDC in December 2019. In November 2020 Humphreys appeared at Exeter Crown Court and pleaded ‘not guilty’ to ten charges of historical sex offences. In August 2021 he was convicted of the historic rape of two boys and sentenced to 21 years. His honorary title was stripped from him in September 2021.

[DCC has faced its own problems with regard to former Council Leader Brian Greenslade, (correction to earlier version of this post – Owl does not believe he was ever appointed an Alderman, he was attending meetings as late as February 2021) was found guilty in May 2021 of two counts of indecent assault and one of sexual assault in the 1990s and 2000s and jailed for 16 months.]

Discussion

Precedent indicates that councillors have been awarded the honorific “alderman” for the following reasons:

Long service

Distinguished service

Some particularly notable achievement.

Placing nominations in the hands of Party Leaders not only gives them an additional lever of control, it is unclear how this list is created, or even whether party members are consulted.

It is an opaque process that appears to be wholly led by members, within their own group, and there is likely to be no form of “quality control” or qualitative assessment of the merits of those nominated. It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that there will be any consistency between party groups.

Many councils have Nominations Committees to consider nominations in the round and provide scrutiny, but not Devon County Council where the process appears very vague.

Surely, at the very least, in DCC, all councillors, and indeed the members of the public, should see some sort of brief justification for the rationale behind a nomination?

Devon County Council’s new chair has been appointed in a vote that saw most of the biggest opposition party abstain.

[Owl notes that one of Exmouth’s newly elected Reform councillors, Nat Vanstone, sent his apologies, despite posting on social media after his election on 2 May: “My work starts for you all today, no showers in champagne just hard work for all of you.“]

Bradley Gerrard www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Cllr Caroline Leaver (Liberal Democrat, Barnstaple South) secured the position as chair, a largely ceremonial role that involves representing the council across the county.

Cllr Leaver was the only nominee put forward for the position at the first full council meeting of the new administration this week, but when votes were taken, many Reform UK councillors abstained.

They largely did the same when it came to the vote for council leader, for which Lib Dem Cllr Julian Brazil (Kingsbridge) was the only nominee.

Lack of representation

Cllr Edward Hill (Reform UK, Pinhoe & Mincinglake) said after the meeting that his party’s abstentions were related to what some feel is a lack of political representation on the cabinet.

The cabinet is the council’s main decision-making body, and while the 10-member entity does have a Green Party councillor – Totnes & Dartington member Cllr Jacqi Hodgson – no other parties are represented.

The previous administration, led by the Conservatives, only had Tory cabinet members.

“The rationale for our abstentions is that the Liberal Democrats have in their manifesto that they support proportional representation, but their cabinet is not proportionally representing all of the parties across the political spectrum,” Cllr Hill said following the meeting.

“I abstained from voting on that basis, and while the Lib Dems could say that they have a Green member on the cabinet, they need that party to support them as they don’t have an outright majority to take control.”

The 2024 Liberal Democrat national manifesto said the party was fighting for proportional representation, which it states makes “seats won match votes cast”.

New leader Cllr Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Kingsbridge) said he understood the Reform UK members’ frustration.

“Who knows, in future perhaps we can be more inclusive, but from the beginning we need to get on with the work we need to do,” he said.

“We do have Cllr Hodgson in the cabinet, and she works with us at South Hams District Council and is a crucial and valued part of the administration.

“Your voice will be listened to, but not as members of the cabinet at this stage.”

Cllr Brazil reiterated that he wanted to try and be “as inclusive as possible”.

“I genuinely feel that’s what we should do,” he added.

“All voices will be listened to and if you have a good idea, that will be accepted as we want to get rid of the Punch and Judy approach to politics. We owe it to our electorate, as they have spoken and want us to do things in a different way.”

Individual choices

Cllr Hill said his party’s members had not been asked to abstain, and so the move by members of the party to do so had been an individual choice on each councillor’s part.

He added that he would be disappointed if Reform UK appointed cabinets in councils it controlled entirely from its own party.

Alongside Cllr Leaver, Cllr Rosie Dawson (Liberal Democrat, Dawlish) was appointed vice chair, replacing her predecessor in the role, Pru Maskell, a former Conservative councillor who lost her seat in the election at the beginning of the month.

In her first session as chair, Cllr Leaver had to deal with some discontent from members, including frustration from Reform UK member Cllr Neil Stevens (Alphington & Cowick) about not being allowed to address the chamber with comments he had prepared, and from independent member Cllr Paul Hayward, who complained about the poor acoustics and confusion around a motion about installing swift boxes on council-owned property.

Cllr Hayward said it was difficult for people who were hard-of-hearing to keep up with verbal changes to the motion, and requested that in future updated motions be “put in writing on the 20-foot screen that’s right there.”

Foster carers to get council tax rebate

Bradley Gerrard, Local Democracy Reporter www.devonairradio.com

Devon’s foster carers are set to get a council tax rebate as part of a range of measures aimed at making the service more compelling.

Foster carers looking after children for 13 to 26 weeks will be offered a 25 per cent rebate on their council tax, while those caring for children for more than 26 weeks will be able to secure a 50 per cent rebate.

This rebate applies to the portion of residents’ council tax bills that is charged by Devon County Council, which is the largest share of the bill that households receive.

The rebate, the first decision taken by the new Liberal Democrat cabinet, will mean a foster carer in a Band D property could get £429 back on the £1,716 portion of their council tax bill that goes to the county council.

That figure rises to a maximum of £858 for those foster carers looking after children for more than 26 weeks.

Foster carers will be prompted by their social workers to apply for the annual rebate and will need to provide their council tax bill as part of the process.

The cabinet heard that the council has roughly 250 foster carers, with approximately 210 of those being people who had no prior connection to the child.

Cllr Richard Jefferies (Liberal Democrat, Feniton & Honiton), cabinet member with responsibility for children’s services, said the report was aimed at “strengthening the fostering offer in Devon” and would show that the council “values their service”.

Besides the council tax rebate, the proposals include an £80,000 equipment budget from existing resources from which foster carers can request money to replace items needed to fulfil their fostering responsibilities.

There is also a commitment to increase the basic allowance the council pays foster carers for children aged 16 and above to move in line with the national minimum allowance, and for all fostering allowances to be increased in line with that national standard or inflation without the need for cabinet approval.
And £36,000 will be put towards peer support and mentoring for foster carers.

Council officers said the equipment budget included providing cash for the likes of new cot mattresses for babies and car seats for children.

Steve Liddicott, the director for wellbeing and health, said one recent example related to a foster carer needing a double buggy because she was looking after two young children.

Cllr Andrew Leadbetter (Wearside and Topsham), who now leads the Conservative group at County Hall, said the proposals were a “great idea”.

“But I would say that, as it happened when I was still the cabinet member for children’s services,” he said.
“I’m delighted you think it is a great idea as we need to do everything we can to encourage fostering and keep foster carers because as you know, the best place for children is to be in a family.

“Anything we can do to encourage our offer is superb and I look forward to seeing more of it.”

Cllr Julian Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Kingsbridge), the new leader of the council, congratulated the previous administration, and added that he would be writing to the county’s foster carers to thank them for their hard work and dedication.

The proposals were unanimously approved by the cabinet (Friday 23 May).
 

‘Now I can lift the carpet and deal with the issues’

Guy Henderson – Local Democracy Reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Torbay Council’s knife-edge political balance has shifted again after a Brixham councillor decided to stand down from the ruling Conservative group to become an independent.

Jason Hutchings (Furzeham with Summercombe) said in a statement that he felt he was being ‘held back’ and unable to speak his mind.

He said he would still support what the Conservatives were doing in Torbay, but his decision could make him the most powerful man on the local authority.

His resignation from the group leaves the Conservatives with 17 councillors, plus him as a Conservative-leaning independent.

The opposition group of Liberal Democrats and independents has 18 councillors.

In practice, a number of important recent debates have split down party lines, and have been decided on the casting vote of the mayor – currently, and in the recent past, a Conservative.

If Cllr Hutchings votes with his former Conservative colleagues, the Tory administration can be sure of holding sway. If on any issue he decides to vote with the opposition, the Conservatives will lose. Even if he decides to abstain, that would also be bad news for the Conservatives.

Cllr Hutchings is the third member of the Conservative group to jump ship since the last full council elections in May 2023. Katya Maddison and the late Patrick Joyce left the group to form Prosper Torbay later that year.

Cllr Hutchings said the decision to go independent had been on his mind for a while, saying it was hard to criticise decisions and ‘work ethics’ of fellow councillors while in a group.

“Certain things aren’t getting done and are being brushed under the carpet,” he said. “Now I can lift the carpet and deal with the issues.”

He said some local issues were being ignored, and he was not content to tell local voters that they were just ‘being worked on’.

“The Conservative group has made some tough decisions over the last two years – some I’m not fully on board with – but it has managed to achieve some really good projects as well,” he went on.

“I’m hoping to work with council leader David Thomas and the Conservative group along with the Lib Dem group and fellow independents to iron out the problems this council is facing.

“Local councils shouldn’t be so political and now being independent I don’t have to toe the party line and can ask questions against all sides of the chamber to get the right result for my residents.”

Earlier this year Cllr Hutchings was the subject of a complaint when he re-posted a Facebook post from Reform UK, which is against Conservative party rules.

However, he said he was not leaving the Tories to join Reform.

“I’m staying as an independent for the meantime, but who knows what’s around the corner?” he said. “But I don’t see myself being a Conservative again as the party hasn’t brought anything new forward.

“I have made this decision as I feel that my residents will have a stronger voice and from all the messages and phone calls and comments I have received, residents are over the moon I have decided to make that decision.”

At the special meeting following the Devon County Council when councillors consider the nomination of former councillors to be awarded the honour of becoming Aldermen Owl hears that:

Tory Group Leader, Cllr Andrew Leadbetter put forward the names of seventeen former Tory councillors for the honour of Alderman.

Julian Brazil, new Leader, two!

Names to follow when minutes are published, many are likely to be familiar to readers.