Deadline for submission of new boundaries is 17 August!

[When two-tier areas transition into single-tier unitary authorities, initial interim warding arrangements and councillor numbers are typically built using existing district or county boundaries. A comprehensive electoral review is then conducted by the Commission post-establishment. The electoral Commission provides guidance on such things as how many councillors are needed and warding arrangements e.g. that number of electors between wards should have a variance of no more than 10%,. This guidance can be found here.]

This will be highly a contentious and devisive process because historically Labour Exeter faces having the new “Greater Exeter unitary authority” being lead by, and here Owl plucks a feather from the wind, maybe a LibDem from Chudleigh!

There will be temptations all round to gerrymander and accuse others of doing the same – Owl

Bradley Gerrard – Local Democracy Reporter www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Friction is emerging as Devon races to put forward proposals for new boundaries that will define the distinct areas in which residents will be able to vote.

At East Devon District Council, a group of members from different political parties have collaborated to push for an emergency meeting to discuss the issue.

The pressure has been mounting because elected representatives from the independent group of councillors and their Conservative peers fear a lack of involvement in a process that will be of fundamental importance to their voters.

Councils have been put under severe pressure by the government to provide proposed new ward boundaries in a period of just weeks, and East Devon said it was trying to operate under a “very challenging timetable” and that it was “committed to keeping members informed”.

As part of the wider local government reorganisation process, which has confirmed four new unitary councils for Devon, the county now has to redraw its electoral wards.

These are the individual areas that councillors can stand in, and within which residents can vote.

Current wards in Exeter include St David’s and Haven Banks, Alphington, or Exwick, while in East Devon, they include Axminster, Cranbrook, and Ottery St Mary.

Devon County Council has larger ‘divisions’ which include Exmouth, Ilfracombe, and Salcombe.

But every single political ward and division in Devon will now have to be redrawn.

“The Boundary Commission would take years to change these wards, with multiple consultations, but it’s being done in weeks with a pen,” said Councillor Jess Bailey, who sits on both Devon County Council and East Devon District Council.

A statement from the independent and Conservative members on East Devon District Council, led by Councillor Melanie Martin and Councillor Colin Brown, respectively, said the local government review process was being “rushed through, without proper discussion or consultation”.

“Decisions are being made behind closed doors and are not transparent,” the statement said.

“Councillors represent residents and they are not being involved in the important changes to the rewarding of wards for the 2027 elections.

“This is not democracy or the way councils should operate.

“We accept there are tight timescales set, but there is time to engage with councillors and so members have asked for an extraordinary full council meeting so this can be properly debated.”

The government has given Devon just weeks to submit new ward boundary proposals, with an ideal deadline of 17 August.

The council could ask for a delay, but even that would only buy it a few extra weeks at most as the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) seeks to push on with its reorganisation bid.

A spokesperson for East Devon District Council said the warding arrangements currently being considered as part of local government reorganisation were “interim proposals being developed within a very challenging timetable set by MHCLG”.

“We will be briefing members on the proposals through various internal mechanisms as part of that process,” the spokesperson added.

“We are committed to keeping members informed and engaged whilst we deliver the complex programme of local government reorganisation.”

Separately, Councillor Melanie Martin (Independent, Budleigh & Raleigh), the leader of the independent group of councillors at East Devon, said councillors needed to be involved in the process of drawing new wards.

“How do we respond to communities if the new warding boundaries have a negative impact on our towns and villages?,” she said.

“It’s not enough to say ‘I’m sorry but we weren’t invited to be part of the process, but you can have your say at a boundary review in five years’ time’.’

“We are the elected representatives of our communities and should be involved.”

It’s understood the process of the ward boundary review is being led by Devon County Council chief executive, Donna Manson, with input from senior officers from the county’s other 10 existing councils.

The government’s plan is to overhaul the make-up of Devon’s councils, moving to four large unitary councils that will replace the current 11 authorities.

In essence, Plymouth is expanding into the South Hams, Exeter is expanding into its neighbours, while Torbay will also grab parts of the South Hams and Teignbridge.

The remainder of Devon will become a predominantly rural and coastal council.

From a correspondent:

In a notice at the entrance to the Weggis Farm, in Oak Road, Higher Metcombe, Ottery St. Mary, the East Devon District Council says that a proposal to demolish barns and an existing bungalow, and the construction of six four-bedroom houses is not in accordance with development plans for East Devon.  

Critics of the proposal point out that the site, which  lies outside a defined village Built-Up Area Boundary, is in the countryside which means that developments should be resisted unless, for example, there is a clear local need that could not otherwise be achieved. Building dwellings on agricultural land would mean the loss of land that, according to various regulations,  should be employed for differing agricultural purposes if the original use can no longer be sustained.  

Local residents have expressed concern at the impact on the already stretched local infrastructure, the lack of public local transport and the dangers of walking along busy roads that lack pavements and have a poor safety record. The impact on the rural environment is another important factor.  

To learn about this proposed development go to East Devon District Planning Applications, then search. Key in 26/1209/FUL. This offers the opportunity to read or make comments.  

None of these concerns have been addressed by the government, they are ploughing on regardless with a ridiculously tight timescale – August 17 for boundary changes.

Yesterday in a post entitled: “Thumbs Down” for greater Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, Owl pointed out that no group of consultation respondents supports the expansion of Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay and dumping the remaining half million Devonians in relative rural poverty. In fact it is the least favoured option with three quarters of respondents having negative views on it.

This companion post looks at the more subjective comments to emerge from the 69 page summary and analysis of the Devon, Plymouth and Torbay consultation.

The consultation questionnaire was a highly structured tick box exercise. However, many of the questions allowed free text comment. The straight forward analysis of these is uninformative due to the repetitive nature of replies between questions suggesting that respondents felt constrained in what they could say.

What is informative is the use of AI to identify themes hidden in the margins of these comments. These five emerge.

Loss of Local identity and representation.

Financial risk and doubts about efficiency.

Urban–rural inequality and imbalance.

Service delivery disruption and fragmentation.

Governance structure, size, and complexity.

Now to look at these in more detail.

The themes identified by the AI tool amongst comments on options

Loss of Local identity and representation. Concerns were raised that local identity and representation could be weakened, making decision-making feel more distant from communities. Additional concerns were raised that proposed groupings do not reflect real communities or local ties, grouping areas together in ways that feel artificial which could break existing links, especially in rural areas, leading to poorer representation and services that are less suited to local needs.

Financial risk and doubts about efficiency. Concerns were raised about financial risks and whether the new unitaries will improve efficiency or value for money. The responses suggested that any changes may increase costs, create more bureaucracy, and bring high transition expenses. Additional concerns suggested that proposals are financially unsustainable, especially for rural areas, with risks of higher council tax, duplication of services, and unfair distribution of funding. Overall, there are strong concerns that the reorganisation could lead to higher costs, greater financial instability, and fail to deliver the efficiencies it promises. 

Urban–rural inequality and imbalance. Concerns were raised in relation to combining urban and rural areas, that this could create imbalance, with cities having more influence and rural communities being left behind. Additional concerns suggested that some options could lead to large, centralised authorities that weaken local identity, reduce representation, and make decision-making feel remote, especially in rural and coastal areas. Responses suggested that some options offer a better balance but there is a strong concern that most would widen the gap between urban and rural areas, leading to rural communities being underrepresented, underfunded, and losing their identity and voice. 

Service delivery disruption and fragmentation. Concerns were raised that changes could disrupt services and reduce their quality, especially for vulnerable and rural communities, that reorganisation may cause short-term disruption to important services and may not fix existing problems. Additional concerns raised were that some options could lead to services being split or duplicated, making them harder to manage and less consistent, although there may be some opportunities to improve local focus. Responses suggest that there is a strong concern that reorganisation could fragment services, create differences in service quality between areas, and make it harder to deliver reliable support—particularly in areas like social care.

Governance structure, size, and complexity. Concerns were raised across all the proposals that very large or split authorities could be difficult to manage and may not work well for local communities, that proposed councils are too big and complex, making it harder to respond to different local needs. Additional concerns included proposals could lead to fragmented systems with duplicated roles and unclear responsibilities. Responses also expressed doubts about whether leadership and governance structures would be strong enough to deliver effective services. Further concerns were raised that changes could bring disruption, more bureaucracy, and long adjustment periods, with plans and accountability not always clearly set out. Responses suggested a strong concern that reorganisation could create complexity and confusion rather than improving how services are run, especially in rural areas. 

Summary of paper and emailed non-named consultee responses 

Emailed and paper responses noted the importance of local identity and democratic accountability; concerns about more remote decision-making and increased councillor workloads; and the need for councils to be financially sustainable and appropriately sized. Respondents also considered whether proposed geographies reflect functional economic areas and service footprints, in particular those options that expanded Plymouth’s boundaries and the subsequent parish arrangements. Service delivery and integration, transition risks, and the extent of engagement were also raised, alongside potential benefits such as clearer accountability, better service alignment and stronger strategic coordination.

Boundary changes (a consultation topic in its own right)

From the responses Boundary changes emerge as the single most contentious topic.

Three proposals involved boundary changes in addition to organisational ones: the 3 Unitary District Council one with modifications around Plymouth and both the 4 Unitary Plymouth and Exeter and 4 Unitary Torbay proposals.

Summary of Local Government Boundary Commission (The Commission) Response 

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England provided observations on the evidence provided to support the boundary change request within the 4 Unitary (District Councils Modified), 4 Unitary (Plymouth and Exeter) and 4 Unitary (Torbay) proposals, drawing on its Principal Area Boundary Review expertise. It considered the evidence in the proposals as it related to the identity and interests of local communities, and the promotion of effective and convenient local government. The Commission observed that, across all proposals, while efforts have been made there was relatively little detail to support the specific boundary changes that were put forward.

[Looks like a no-no to Owl and yet August 17 is set for authorities in Devon to submit new boundaries – expect fireworks]

The themes identified by the AI tool across all the boundary change options were as follows:

Negative impact on rural areas and representation. Concerns were raised across all three proposals with boundary change that they may disadvantage rural areas by reducing representation and prioritising urban interests, that they eroded local and cultural identity. There were also concerns that boundary changes would group together dissimilar communities, leading to poorer, less tailored services for rural areas and weakening the ability of local people to influence decisions.

Scepticism about financial sustainability and efficiency claims. Concerns were raised across all three proposals with boundary change that boundary changes had high implementation costs, increased bureaucracy and inefficiency, with doubts over their ability to achieve long-term financial sustainability. There were also doubts that expected savings will be realised, alongside fears of rising costs, growing debt and constrained resources. Concerns were also raised that boundary changes would fragment existing partnerships and disrupt services, particularly across social care, health and education, potentially reducing service quality while increasing both complexity and costs. 

Lack of strong justification for boundary change. Concerns were raised across all three proposals with boundary change that the boundary changes lacked clear, robust, and evidence-based justification, especially regarding improvements to public services or financial sustainability.

Political and financial motivations of Councils (political motivations in relation to the 4 unitary options but favouring urban areas across all options). Concerns were raised in two out of the three proposals with boundary changes that the boundary changes were being driven by political motives, including urban council self interest and efforts to expand tax bases, rather than delivering genuine public benefit. Respondents raised concerns about boundary changes favouring urban areas and disadvantaging rural communities, that decision-making is not impartial and does not reflect the needs of the whole area.

Boundary changes increase complexity, disruption, and inefficiency. Concerns were raised across all three proposals that boundary changes would create administrative complexity, disrupt established services, duplicate efforts, and lead to inefficiency and unnecessary costs. 

Summary of paper and emailed non-named consultee responses

Many respondents did not express a clear view specifically on boundary change, instead focusing on wider issues. Where views were given, they were mixed. Some respondents supported boundary changes where these were seen to better reflect economic geographies or create more balanced and sustainable unitary areas, but many raised concerns or opposed specific changes, particularly where proposals involved splitting districts, expanding urban areas into rural communities, or creating large and uneven geographies. Key issues included the potential loss of community identity and local representation, the risk that rural areas would be overshadowed within urban focused structures, and challenges around travel distances, accessibility, and service delivery across large or dispersed areas. Respondents also highlighted concerns about the complexity and deliverability of some proposals, particularly those involving multiple boundary changes or new governance layers, although a small number identified potential benefits such as improved alignment with functional economic areas and stronger strategic coordination. 

Despite all these comments ex Minister Steve Reed ploughed on without addressing any of the issues.

A timely warning from Tees Valley.

Scott Hunter Editor, Tees Valley Monitor, [one of Owl’s northern cousins] writes a letter to the Guardian

Devolution has become the flavour of the month (The Guardian view on England’s centralised state: Andy Burnham must unbundle it, 31 July). The case is well argued and the need for such reform fits neatly into the situation we find in the Tees Valley – chronic underinvestment, lack of economic growth, depopulation, and so on.

But the Tees Valley has had a devolved authority for 10 years and the benefits of devolution have not landed. The Tees Valley authority was issued a best value notice in April 2025, though there’s nothing to show for it.

The new-age proponents of devolution, by ignoring how Tees Valley became its basket case, are missing something vital. Devolution is discussed in economic terms in relation to the regions, and as political upheaval in relation to Westminster and the Treasury.

What’s missing is acknowledgment of the political upheaval that it brings to the regions, and it is the weakness of that that the Tees Valley exemplifies. The mayor is the sole elected person in the authority. Leaders of local councils form the authority cabinet but do so in addition to their day jobs. Does the public know? No, because the only combined authority news in the local press comes from the authority’s own press releases. It’s not hard to find people on Teesside who believe that there’s been a jobs bonanza here.

But the problem of political weakness within the authority remains. Devolution cannot succeed until this problem is addressed.
Scott Hunter
Editor, Tees Valley Monitor

From the relevant environment website.

Permit Numbers: 003174/FU/02, 201965, 200124 and 200126

Clean and healthy coastal waters matter to the people, wildlife and businesses that depend on them. We are now consulting on applications from South West Water Limited (SWW) to change its environmental permits for a new long sea outfall near Exmouth.

SWW has invested in improvements to its wastewater treatment system in Exmouth. One of the important changes is a new long sea outfall, around 300 metres south of Straight Point.

The new outfall moves treated wastewater, and storm sewage during periods of heavy rainfall, further offshore rather than into Exmouth Bay. We know this change alone is not enough. SWW will still need to meet their obligations as set out in the Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP). But this is a positive step. It should reduce how often storm overflows affect Exmouth Beach bathing water and help improve water quality in the area.

Reducing the risk of pollution in Exmouth Bay
On 15 July, we issued SWW with a Local Enforcement Position (LEP). If SWW meets the conditions of the LEP, it can begin using the new outfall. We will not normally take enforcement action for operating outside its environmental permits while those conditions are met. This change should help reduce the risk of pollution reaching Exmouth Bay sooner rather than later. You can read more in our article further down on this page.

To make this arrangement permanent, SWW must obtain changes to its environmental permits. On Tuesday 4 August, a public consultation is open on those applications.

What is an environmental permit?

An environmental permit sets legally binding conditions that an operator must meet.

The environmental permits would set out how SWW must manage discharges from Exmouth Wastewater Treatment Works and other parts of its network. They would also set requirements for monitoring, reporting and demonstrating compliance.

SWW must show that its proposals meet environmental standards, comply with Environment Agency policy, and protect people, wildlife and designated sites, including shellfish waters, bathing waters and conservation areas. Its applications explain how it will manage and reduce environmental risks.

Before we make a decision, we must be satisfied that these measures are robust, proportionate and capable of protecting the environment.

How do we assess permit applications?

Our job is to make sure permit applications meet the requirements of environmental law and protect the environment and human health.

We will assess how the proposed discharges could affect the environment and protected waters, including Exmouth, Sandy Bay and Budleigh Salterton bathing waters, and Sandy Bay and Lyme Bay shellfish waters.

The discharge would consist of secondary treated sewage effluent, disinfected using ultraviolet (UV) treatment at Exmouth Wastewater Treatment Works. During periods of heavy rainfall, it may also include settled storm effluent.

We use technical evidence to assess whether the proposal meets environmental standards and legal requirements. This includes considering its potential impact on people, wildlife and protected waters.

Where appropriate, we also seek advice from other organisations to help inform our assessment.

What should you include in your consultation response?

Please focus your response on the changes SWW has applied to make to its water discharge permits, and the potential effects on water quality and nearby protected sites.

We can only consider comments that relate to these proposed permit changes.

We cannot take account of comments about:

• wider infrastructure changes proposed by SWW in Exmouth
• matters that fall within the Local Authority’s planning responsibilities
• parts of the permits that SWW has not applied to change

Keeping responses focused on the proposed permit changes will help us assess the application fairly and make decisions based on the relevant environmental evidence.

What happens next?

The consultation will close on 22 September at 11:59pm.

We’re working with Exmouth Town Council to hold a public engagement event in early September, held at the Town Hall. This will be an opportunity to speak with us directly, ask questions about the consultation and get support if you need help taking part. We’ll tell you more about this event soon.

When the consultation closes, we will review every comment we receive alongside the technical evidence submitted with the application.

Our permitting officers and specialist advisers will then assess the application and reach a draft decision.

If we decide to refuse the application, SWW will have the right to appeal.

If we are minded to issue the permit variations, we will hold a further consultation on our draft variations and draft decision documents. This will give you an opportunity to comment on the proposed permit conditions and see how we have considered the feedback received during this consultation.

We will keep interested parties informed as the process progresses. We will also consult again if any of the application documents change significantly.

How can you take part?

You can comment on these permit variation applications from 4 August 2026.

The application documents will be available to read through our consultation portal, Citizen Space, once it opens:

Citizen Space Consultation: South West Water Limited, 003174/FU/02, 201965, 200124 and 200126: environmental permit variations consultation.(External link)

We can only consider issues that relate to the environmental permit variations and our regulatory responsibilities. Our decision must be based on technical evidence, and we are bound by the Regulator’s Code(External link).

Consultation deadline

We must receive your comments by 11:59pm on 22 September 2026.

You can respond through Citizen Space or contact us using the details below.

Email: pscpublicresponse@environment-agency.gov.uk(External link)

Post: Environment Agency Permitting and Support Centre, Land Team, Quadrant 2, 99 Parkway Avenue, Sheffield, S9 4WF

No group of respondents supports expanding Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay and dumping the remaining 455,000 Devonians in a rural rump. In fact it is the least favoured option with three quarters of respondents having negative views on it.

Why, then, was this option chosen by ex Minister Steve Reed in what is described as a re-balancing of power from a culture of “Whitehall knows best”?

Are we to have no say in this devolution?

Surely we need a rationale for ignoring a consultation quite so comprehensively?

Owl has been looking at the 69 page Devon, Plymouth and Torbay – Summary and analysis of consultation responses .

This reveals that whether you look at all the respondents or just look at specialist consultees or responses from organisations; splitting Devon into 4 unitaries based on massive expansion of Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay is the least favoured option.

This summary and analysis is a difficult read particularly in making sense of the options. There are lots of data but little in the way of overall analysis.

Looking at the big picture, there are only three distinctly different concepts of how to eliminate the second tier district councils. Yet these three concepts produce five proposals. 

One concept comes from Devon County Council, Proposal 1.

A second comes from the eight districts, Proposal 3 (with proposal 2 as a variant)

The third comes jointly from Plymouth City, Exeter City and Torbay,, Proposal 4 (with proposal 5 as a variant).

The reason that there are two additional proposals reflects discord within proposers over boundary changes within the concept of their basic premise. Proposals 2 & 3 reflect a relatively small change relating to the Plymouth boundary adjacent to Dartmoor National Park. Proposals 4 & 5 reflect a rather bigger one relating to whether or not Torbay’s population should be expanded by 65%.

The Devon County 3 Unitary proposal keeps Plymouth and Torbay unitaries but rolls everything else into a single new Unitary.

The District Council 3 Unitary proposals keep Plymouth as a unitary but absorbs Torbay with three districts into a new Southern Devon Unitary. Exeter and the remaining four districts then form a new Northern Devon Unitary. The modified proposal tweaks Plymouth’s boundary around Dartmoor.

The Plymouth and Exeter 4 Unitary proposal expands Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay (by 65%) to form 3 unitaries with the fourth (Devon Coast & Country) covering everything else in a horseshoe from Kingwear to Seaton. The Torbay modification is to agree with Plymouth and Exeter except for the Torbay expansion.

The table below takes the average response across the multiple choice questions to provide an overall view of whether all respondents viewed a proposal positively or negatively. 

Overall, the responses demonstrate a preference for the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal, keeping Plymouth and Torbay unitaries but rolling everything else into a single new unitary. 43% of respondents to the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal provided positive responses to the questions and 44% of respondents provided negative responses. 14% were responses of neither agree nor disagree or don’t know. The 3 unitary (District Councils Main) proposal, keeping Plymouth as a unitary but dividing the remaining authorities into “Southern Devon” and “Northern Devon” unitaries, was the second most popular with 39% of respondents providing a positive response. The 4 unitary proposals, Plymouth and Exeter with the Torbay varient, were the least popular with 69% and 73% of respondents providing a negative responses.

Individuals living in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay 

The responses from individuals living in the area of Devon, Plymouth and Torbay demonstrate a preference for the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal. 43% of respondents to the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal provided positive responses to the questions and 44% of respondents provided negative responses. 12% were responses of neither agree nor disagree or don’t know. Preference in order is for 3 unitary (Devon County Council), 3 unitary (District Councils Main), 3 unitary (District Councils Modified), 4 unitary (Plymouth and Exeter) and then 4 unitary (Torbay). 

The responses from named consultees and organisations, however, demonstrate a preference for the 3 unitary (District Councils Main) proposal. But the two 4 unitary proposals remain at the bottom.

In due course Owl will publish extracts from the text comments raising all the issues about loss of local identity, urban/rural inequality, financial viability, service delivery disruption and fragmentation etc.

On the evidence put forward to support the necessary boundary changes the Local Government Boundary Commission for England observed that, across all proposals, while efforts have been made there was relatively little detail to support the specific boundary changes that were put forward.

Despite this Steve Reed pressed on with his agenda. – Owl

Devon leader Julian Brazil (Lib Dem) said the council did “not want to be in this position” but had to consider “all options available” to protect residents’ interests.

“I didn’t come into local politics to increase taxes and deliver worse services; that’s exactly what this decision risks doing,”

Caitlin Webb www.lgcplus.com

Devon CC has become the latest authority to begin legal proceedings against the government’s decision on local government reorganisation.

The county issued a pre-action protocol letter to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government yesterday as the first step towards seeking a judicial review.

Devon leader Julian Brazil (Lib Dem) said the council did “not want to be in this position” but had to consider “all options available” to protect residents’ interests.

“I didn’t come into local politics to increase taxes and deliver worse services; that’s exactly what this decision risks doing,” he said.

“The government has chosen a model that prioritises urban expansion while failing to address the concerns of Devon’s rural residents or the core services we deliver.”

Cllr Brazil said he was “not opposed to local government reorganisation” but objected to the government’s chosen model because it did not “give sufficient weight to the needs of rural and coastal communities across Devon nor the most vulnerable we are here to serve”.

Last month the government announced it would reorganise 11 councils in Devon and Torbay into four unitaries, which would result in an expansion of Exeter City Council boundaries and Plymouth City Council.

He renewed his call for prime minister Andy Burnham and communities secretary Angela Rayner to reconsider the decision taken by the previous administration.

“We do not want to be in this position, but we have to consider all options available. We must do everything to protect the interests of Devon residents and if that means a judicial review, then so be it,” he said.

The council argued the government’s preferred structure could leave local taxpayers facing implementation costs estimated at £80m and says it places too much emphasis on urban areas despite Devon being one of England’s largest rural counties.

Alongside the pre-action letter, Devon has submitted five freedom of information requests seeking details of how ministers reached their decision, including whether officials or advisers raised concerns about the chosen model before it was approved.

The authority’s cabinet is due to consider its legal options, including whether to proceed with a judicial review, at its September meeting. The government has 14 days to respond to the pre-action letter issued on Monday.

The latest move adds to growing legal opposition to the government’s reorganisation programme.

Last month, Hertfordshire CC agreed to prepare a potential legal challenge after ministers opted for a three-unitary model for the county rather than the county council’s preferred proposal.

Councillors voted in favour of the authority to taking legal steps, including obtaining specialist advice and issuing pre-action correspondence if required, at a full council meeting.

This plan called “Clyst village” is next door to the proposed new town of 8,000 homes called Marlcombe, BUT IS NOT IN THE LOCAL PLAN.

“Greater Exeter” combined authority looks like being a honey pot for developers who are arguing that this proposal could be a “quick win” for new homes (and a good win for them} – think GESP on steroids! 

Remember GESP? The former Greater Exeter Strategic Plan, promoted by “build, build, build” East Devon Tories was largely driven by unrealistic university expansion assumptions now challenged by falling overseas enrollment. Pulling out of this was one of the first things the new coalition did when it took control of East Devon in 2020. – Owl

A map showing where the 2,000 homes could be in East Devon if approved.

Bradley Gerrard www.devonlive.com

A bold plan for a major development of 2,000 new homes along with a new primary school and road junctions has been revealed in East Devon.

The scheme, whose local Exeter-based developer has dubbed it ‘Clyst Village’, is targeting land between Crealy Theme Park on the A3052 and Clyst St George on the A376.

Besides the scale of the site, controversy could be sparked by its location, which is not identified in East Devon District Council’s existing local plan.

Furthermore, the council prefers land between the A30 and A3052, east of Westpoint, for its proposed new town of Marlcombe.

While Marlcombe remains at an early stage in its planning, its eventual realisation is a fundamental factor of East Devon’s emerging local plan, which it is hoping to submit to government later this year and which will identify where the principle of development is acceptable between now and 2042.

Marlcombe has been recognised within a national programme for the next generation of new towns, although no final confirmation has yet been given on whether it will progress further in that government-run scheme.

The prospect of Clyst Village’s 2,000 homes alongside Marlcombe’s prospective 8,000 would add huge numbers to the district’s housing figures.

The juxtaposition with Marlcombe is directly referenced in the application by Stuart Partners Limited.

“Clyst Village acknowledges that the delivery model for Marlcombe is uncertain and requires significant external funding, meaning delivery is highly optimistic,” planning documents state.

“Clyst is capable of delivering faster, thus plugging an expected delivery gap.”

Like many councils, East Devon is behind on its government-mandated housing targets and a large development could help ease that problem.

However, the application is purely an outline one at this stage, and so would not deal with the layout of development, the exact location of homes and the appearance of buildings, at this stage.

Those factors would be the focus of a subsequent application if the outline one is approved.

Besides the proposed homes, the developer wants to build a new primary school, neighbourhood centre, open space, and employment land.

Significantly, the scheme proposes a new access onto the A3052 that it says will connect to the existing highway but also “support future connectivity to development to the north”, and that detailed designs for a junction on the A376 would also come forward as part of a response developed collaboratively with the council to public transport and active travel improvements.

East Devon District Council said the land was not allocated for development in its existing local plan.

“In preparing the draft new local plan, the council favoured land between the A30 and A3052, east of Westpoint, for the proposed Marlcombe new town,” it said in a statement.

“The application now received seeks to promote the Crealy and Clyst St George site as a village that would be separate to proposals for Marlcombe.

“Land does not need to be allocated in a local plan for a planning application to be submitted.

“The council is legally required to consider all valid planning applications on their individual planning merits, taking account of relevant planning policies and other material considerations.

“No decision has been made on the application. The council has not formed a view on whether planning permission should be granted or refused.”

‘if the government want to do it they will have to pay for it’

Torridge blocks £400k for ‘damaging’ Devon council merge

[Torridge District Council: political balance, 36 councillors, no overall control:  LibDem 12, Independent 11, Con 5, Green 4, Lab  2, non-aligned 2]]

Alison Stephenson www.devonlive.com

Frustrated Torridge councillors have rejected putting £400,000 aside for local government shake-up costs because they don’t like the decision made by ministers to create a massive Devon council.

They have decided that the money, which is part of the district council’s £2.6 million surplus from 2025/26, should be spent on local residents before the district council is dissolved in 2028 instead.

The government recently decided that four unitary councils responsible for all local services will replace the existing 11 councils of different types and differing responsibilities in Devon in the biggest shake-up nationally in 50 years.

Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay will expand into neighbouring areas with a huge coast and countryside authority covering the rest of the county from Ilfracombe in the north to Salcombe in the south and over to Sidmouth in the east.

This proposal put forward by Devon’s Labour-led city councils received just 20 per cent of public support.

Critics claim the decision is “political” and will benefit the cities with the “rural rump” of Devon left with a sparse population and no economic centre stretching 110 miles north to south.

Torridge District Council (TDC) along with other district and borough councils in Devon, except Exeter, supported the 4-5-1 three unitary authority model, with Plymouth as a standalone authority, a northern/central authority including Exeter, North Devon, Torridge, Mid Devon and East Devon and a southern authority covering Torbay, Teignbridge, South Hams and West Devon.

They said it better met the government’s own criteria on size and kept existing boundaries in the main intact.

At a TDC full council meeting on Monday Cllr Thomas Elliott (Con, Two Rivers and Three Moors)) said: “I was under the impression that the government was going to pay the costs. Surely it would be better if we spent that money on local residents rather than something that is being forced upon us from higher up.”

Cllr Chris Bright (Lib Dem, Great Torrington) proposed they remove the £400,000 from the list of recommendations by officers on what to spend the surplus money on.

It was to pay for professional support and transition costs before the transfer of the council’s functions to the new Devon unitary authority on April 1 2028

“We all know it is going to be damaging to our area, if they (the government) want to do it they will have to pay for it,” he said.

His proposal was supported by 15 votes to 14.

Chief executive of TDC Steve Hearse said the £400,000 was an indicative figure and it was likely to cost more.

The government says each area undergoing local government reorganisation will receive more than £1 million per new unitary created.

But in Devon the costs have been estimated by local leaders at between £50 and £70 million.

Devon County Council is considering a legal challenge against the government’s decision on how Devon should be carved up.

Torridge councillors agreed to put the council’s surplus cash towards supporting leisure and projects within the community regeneration partnership, planned maintenance, stabilising the budget and reducing future borrowing.

Do the leaders of Exeter and Plymouth represent a Labour tail wagging an “anything but labour” Devon dog?

Just how divisive are sacked Communities Secretary {of just 10 months) Steve Reed’s partisan Devon reorganisation turning out to be? – Owl

In spite of the argument and adjournment, Cllr. Paul Arnott’s proposed amendment of adding in that a mayoral authority should preferably be secured by May 2027 was passed.

Bradley Gerrard, www.devonairradio.com

Frustration boiled over at a committee aimed at working out the best and fastest way for the county to secure the formal status of a mayoral strategic authority.

A recording of the meeting on YouTube shows the board’s chair, Councillor David Thomas (Conservative, Preston), the leader of Torbay Council, attempting to interject between a back and forth between two other members.

Cllr Thomas increasingly loudly yells “Councillor Arnott” three times in a bid to get the East Devon District Council leader, Councillor Paul Arnott (Liberal Democrat, Coly Valley) to stop speaking, and shortly after declares the meeting adjourned.

When the board returned, Cllr Arnott apologised that he had “pushed the boundaries too far”.

The friction in the room emerged as Cllr Arnott claimed that Plymouth was “doing all it can to prevent mayoral elections next May”, and that he was getting tired of the “tail wagging the dog”.

“The resolution set out here is going to be completely unacceptable to me if there is more inertia built in,” he said.

He and Councillor Phil Bialyk (Labour, Exwick), the leader of Exeter City Council, had traded comments about the process of securing a mayor, with Cllr Arnott claiming Plymouth was trying to ensure the timeframe for securing a mayor benefitted it ahead of others, while Cllr Bialyk suggested that efforts could be made for extra cash even without formally having a mayoralty.

The majority of Devon’s politicians acknowledge that having a mayor could be beneficial for the county, because such an office can help attract additional government cash for major projects, such as housing and transport.

The head-to-head happened at the board meeting of the Devon & Torbay Combined County Authority (DTCCA), which is a version of a mayoral authority but without a mayor.

Its members want to alter its constitution so that the county actually has a mayor.

But anger emerged at the board meeting over the belief Plymouth was potentially in a position of power to slow the process down.

Plymouth is not a member of the DTCCA, and while it is currently discussing joining, some at this week’s committee meeting argued efforts should be made to secure a mayor as soon as possible without waiting to see what Plymouth decided to do.

Officers did stress that it may be possible to secure extra funding even before a mayor was actually in place, and gave examples where this had happened in other areas of England.

However, Cllr Arnott felt strongly that the board’s resolution to set a “clear route map to progress, at pace, towards mayoral strategic authority status across the Devon and Torbay geography”, should include the date of May 2027.

He said he wanted this date to encourage Plymouth to join the DTCCA as soon as possible.

In spite of the argument and adjournment, his proposed amendment of adding in that a mayoral authority should preferably be secured by May 2027 was passed.

In July, Plymouth City Council’s cabinet agreed a decision to develop a proposal to allow it to join the DTCCA, something which will now go to its full council meeting for ratification.

The cabinet agreed that remaining outside the DTCCA would “leave Plymouth outside the powers and funding of the strategic authority and expose the city to being left behind as the national framework deepens”.

The notion of securing its own mayor was also rejected.

In an ideal world, Plymouth would prefer a South West Peninsula mayoral strategic authority, however, there has been little shared ambition between Devon and Cornwall to have one mayor overseeing the two counties.
 

BARELY had the dust settled on the government’s proposals to carve up Devon before efforts were underway to frustrate the process.

Bradley Gerrard www.middevonadvertiser.co.uk

Devon’s prospective fate was confirmed in Parliament earlier this month (Thursday, July 16), with the county’s Labour-led cities Plymouth and Exeter being granted permission to expand into their affluent neighbours.

Alongside those new ‘Greater Plymouth’ and ‘Greater Exeter’ councils, an augmented Torbay was green-lighted, leaving the rest of Devon as a mega council covering a swathe of rural and coastal communities spanning around 110 miles from Salcombe in the south to Lynton in the north.

It was the latter part of the proposal that sparked fury across Devon, with some politicians calling it a “betrayal” of the county.

Within days, Devon County Council confirmed that it had begun information gathering with a view to submitting a Judicial Review. Such processes tend not to decide if a decision is right or wrong in principle, but seek to establish whether a decision was made correctly in line with relevant policies, procedures and regulations.

Here we consider possible arguments the county council may lean on or explore to make its case.

Sticking to the rules

A crucial argument will be for Devon to claim that the government did not follow its own advice on how to reorganise Devon.

A claim of overlooking expert and high-ranking views was even made by the shadow secretary for housing, communities and local government, James Cleverly MP, when the announcement was made in the House of Commons.

However, the government would no doubt respond by echoing the words of Steve Reed MP, the secretary of state, that the choice was made because it “will enable a better outcome overall for the area”, and that it has been judged against the criteria set out in the consultation.

Actively opposed

Closely related to the first possible argument is the results of the government’s own consultation on the proposed council shake-up for Devon.

Just a fifth of respondents (20 per cent) were in favour of the government’s chosen option, with more than two-thirds (69 per cent) against it.

Indeed, the chosen option ranked fourth out of the five put forward by Devon’s councils.

While the government has always had the power to choose whichever option it wishes, and even to tweak proposals to make an amended option, the county council could claim that such negative responses in the consultation show a lack of support for the selected option.

Questionable boundaries

There may also be emphasis on some inconvenient boundaries that would emerge if the government’s option for local government reorganisation goes ahead.

One of those would be between Ottery St Mary and West Hill, which are two inextricably linked communities.

Under the government’s preferred option, the new expanded Exeter council would subsume West Hill, but Ottery St Mary would fall into the coast and country authority.

Interestingly, a proposal in 2022 to put each of the communities in different parliamentary constituencies ultimately failed, partly because of opposition from residents.

Other curious boundaries are also understood to transpire in Totnes, which would have part of Bridgetown in a different council, and in Dawlish and Teignmouth, which would be split between the new Exeter and Torbay councils, respectively.

Population predicament

The secretary of state’s letter to Devon cites part of the rationale for his decision being to allow “communities to be better represented through their councils with clear place-based public service priorities”.

However, opponents may argue that the vast footprint of the coast and country council has no obvious economic centre, and therefore providing services across that expanse could present the new council with a host of problems.

As Plymouth’s own submission stated, rural Devon has a population density of just 124 people per square kilometre compared to the city’s 3,311, which is something that could make it harder for services to reach the people that need them most.

While the coast and country council would still have the largest population – 460,000 – compared to the enlarged urban councils, the extra cost of delivering services across the council could present an issue.

Interestingly, the three urban councils will have populations below the 500,000 level that the government initially stated was an important factor.

Vulnerable children concern

Concerns around vulnerable children may also be used as an argument by the county council against the selected council overhaul, especially as fears on this topic have been aired by a government appointee.

The Children’s Services Commissioner for Devon County Council, Nigel Richardson CBE, warned in a report last year that one of his two major concerns for children’s services – which the county council oversees – was LGR.

He stated that “anything that breaks” the positive improvement being seen in the county council’s children’s services department would “risk stopping the existing work in its tracks with an even bigger risk that things would quickly slip backwards”, he said.

While Devon’s children’s services effectively remains graded as ‘Inadequate’ by the education regulator, Ofsted, Mr Richardson’s report noted clear improvements.

The county council’s proposal for LGR would have maintained its existing footprint, but led to a new unitary council taking responsibility for all services within that boundary, instead of the split of services between county and district councils within that area now.

Ultimately, Devon will be hoping a Judicial Review isn’t necessary, having already made pleas to Andy Burnham to halt the process in the county.

But even if it does reach a court showdown, it’s likely to be a close fight.

Towns split up, historic communities divided! [E.g. Totnes split and West Hill & Ottery St Mary divided.]

How does having two different authorities collecting rubbish from the same town make local service delivery more efficient?

There is no other council in the country the size and population of the rural rump, with Barnstable the largest town.

Addressing the government Julian Brazil says:

“Reject the blatantly politically partisan carving up of Devon and instead work with us to develop the best solution.”

“It is not the destination of LGR we oppose, but the journey you are forcing us on. Put aside the views of a handful of self-interested political pygmies and do what’s best for the people of Devon and indeed the Country.“

Councillor Julian Brazil www.southhams-today.co.uk

The government has announced its options for unitary Devon. Districts and the County Council will cease, and instead we will have four unitary councils. When we first heard, I had to check it wasn’t April 1st. It’s the worst possible scenario. Towns split up, historic communities divided and an option the vast majority of Devon’s residents do not want. There is no other council in the country the size and population of the rural rump, with Barnstable the largest town.

I have never been opposed to Local Government Reorganisation, but this is just wrong on so many levels. The decision negates many of the benefits we could have seen. How does having two different authorities collecting rubbish from the same town make local service delivery more efficient? Government seems to have lost the plot. The justification for their decision is based entirely on economic growth and housing construction. And yet our service priorities are around waste collection, road maintenance, children’s and adults’ services. Inevitably, these will all suffer and take years to get back to where we are now. The whole flawed exercise will cost around £80 million, all paid for by Devon’s council taxpayers.

We do want good economic growth and the right houses in the right places at the right prices for our local residents. The way we can support this is by providing the best and most efficient day-to-day services people rely on; that’s our job. If you neglect these bread-and-butter workings, the strong foundations our country needs, then growth and increased productivity will not happen. Anyway, I thought this strategic role is for a mayor. Setting up separate unitary councils to prioritise growth misses the point. It exhibits a complete lack of understanding of how local government works. Take children’s services, our top priority, at the council. Both the government-appointed commissioner and Ofsted have recognised the progress we are making in our much-needed improvement journey. The commissioner has explicitly warned that splitting the service is fraught with risk and will lead to deterioration, but the government apparently isn’t interested.

With a new prime minister and a mainly new cabinet, the government has the opportunity to come to its senses. I was impressed with Mr Burnham’s first speech. Here was someone who actually understood the dynamics between local and central government. He had a vision of genuine devolution, where innovation and efficiency were not stymied by the dead hand of Whitehall; Politicians working more collaboratively across parties and the rejection of yah-boo politics. It’s how we do it in the South Hams, and we are working towards the same at Devon County Council. We know our residents will be better served when we all work together through consensus and compromise.

Now the new prime minister can put his words into action. Reject the blatantly politically partisan carving up of Devon and instead work with us to develop the best solution. Do not waste the millions of pounds implementing this disastrous unitary pattern and listen to us. Our way will save money and the chance to invest in the priorities of Devon. We are working well with the districts, and we can achieve much. It is not the destination of LGR we oppose, but the journey you are forcing us on. Put aside the views of a handful of self-interested political pygmies and do what’s best for the people of Devon and indeed the Country.

Or by giving Plymouth, Torbay and an expanded Exeter a free pass from contributing to the upkeep of Devon’s glorious coast and countryside, will it increase rural poverty?

Illfracombe epitomises rural poverty, it’s the most deprived urban area in Devon with the lowest healthy life expectancy of any rural town in the country

Here is a litany of deprivation in Illfracombe, sourced from Devon County Council (various) and Selaine Saxby’s 2023 speech in Parliament.

Parts of the Ilfracombe town centre rank in the most deprived in England (bottom 10%), with nearly 30% to 37% of residents experiencing income hardship and nearly 40% of children affected by poverty.

It is a low-skill economy. Some 20% of over-16s have no qualifications at all.

House prices surged significantly post-pandemic, creating a high affordability ratio (around 10 times local earnings). Some 37% of the population in Ilfracombe rent.

It is 12 miles from Barnstaple, the major town in northern Devon, and almost 60 miles from Devon’s county town, the city of Exeter, leading to economic isolation.

Ilfracombe has the lowest healthy life expectancy of any rural town in the country, and a life expectancy over a decade below that of the healthiest towns in Devon.

Ilfracombe has the second biggest catchment of any secondary school in the country.

The town is still littered with derelict buildings and has 20 large buildings unoccupied. They are falling down and intermittently one is burnt to the ground.

Here’s the challenge – Take the Illfracombe Test

Andy Burnham is planning a summer listening tour across UK coastal and seaside communities to address local decline and devolve powers – dubbed “Burnham-on-Sea”. 

Angela Rayner, the original architect of local government reorganisation, has just been reappointed as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

So here’s a challenge for them both.

Visit Illfracombe and explain how creating a “Devon Coast and Countryside” combined authority, effectively giving Plymouth, Torbay and an expanded Exeter a free pass from contributing to the upkeep of Devon’s glorious coast and countryside, solves rural poverty.

You could also say the same about Exeter Leader: Cllr. “Turkey” (he tried to cancel the May elections) Phil Bialyk. 

Labour is the largest party but doesn’t have a majority on Exeter City council. The proposed doubling of Exeter will see half of the new council elected by those currently living beyond the “city walls” in Mid Devon, Teignbridge and East Devon. These consistently vote Lib Dem, Conservative, Reform or Green rather than Labour.

Owl understands that cross-party support for a legal challenge to the Devon reorganisation plans continues to grow.

“Yesterday’s Man”

Guy Henderson www.themoorlander.co.uk

The leader of Plymouth City Council has come under attack during a heated debate over Devon’s local government reorganisation, as councillors clashed over jobs, governance and the future of the county ahead of major changes in 2028

The Labour leader of Plymouth City Council has been described as “Yesterday’s Man” during a heated debate over the shake-up of Devon‘s local authorities.

Cllr Tudor Evans recently reassured Plymouth City Council employees that their jobs would be safe during the upcoming local government reorganisation (LGR).

However, Cllr Julian Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Stokenham) told a meeting of the full South Hams Council that everything would change next May when members are elected to “shadow” authorities ahead of full LGR the following year.

“He’s yesterday’s man,” he said. “Come May next year, he’ll be out of a job. We all know there’s no way Labour are going to hold on to Plymouth.

“Don’t take any notice of what people are saying now. Come May next year, that’s gone and everything will sit with the shadow authorities.”

Under the new plans, 13 parishes in the west of the current South Hams district will be absorbed into a ‘Greater Plymouth’ unitary authority from April 2028. In the east, seven parishes will join an expanded Torbay.

The remainder will become part of a new Devon Coast and Countryside unitary authority.

The shadow authorities will run alongside the existing councils until spring 2028, when the current structure will be abolished and the new authorities will take over.

South Hams Council leader Cllr Dan Thomas (Liberal Democrat, Newton and Yealmpton) said the public had already rejected the government’s preferred model during its consultation.

“We have wasted an entire year of this council’s work doing something the government was patently not interested in,” he said.

“The government’s chosen plan, which leaves the rest of Devon behind after the expanded Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay authorities, received just 20 per cent positive support and was ranked fourth out of the five options.

“The model we are stuck with was rejected on every major test.”

Cllr Nicky Hopwood (Conservative, Woolwell) asked whether all council leaders would be telling staff their jobs were safe, in light of Cllr Evans’ reassurance to Plymouth employees.

“A relationship with the truth is not always the central tenet of a politician, is it?” replied Cllr Thomas.

“Sometimes politicians at all levels, when a microphone is put in front of them, say things that might or might not be true. We cannot conceivably know.”

He said letters had been sent to the Prime Minister outlining the council’s concerns, but added: “There are none so deaf as those who will not listen.”

Cllr Brazil, who is also leader of Devon County Council, said: “We are not opposed to LGR in principle, but if you are going to do LGR, do it properly. This is a shocker.

“It shows a complete lack of understanding of Devon and its people.”

Members voted to support a move to press for a judicial review of the government’s decision for Devon and to ask Local Government Secretary Angela Rayner to reconsider what they described as the “untenable” proposals.

Cllr Simon Rake (Liberal Democrat, Blackawton and Stoke Fleming) said some people were treating the reorganisation as though some communities had “won a prize”.

He said: “This is no prize for the residents of Plymouth. This is no prize for the residents of Exeter. This is no prize for anybody in Devon.

“There are no winners here, apart from perhaps the narrow political interests of the leaders of Exeter and Plymouth councils.”

He launches a petition.

David Reed MP from his facebook page:

The Government has now confirmed its decision on Local Government Reorganisation. I can see that there are both potential advantages and disadvantages to reorganising local government, and I have always been prepared to consider the evidence on its merits. However, I remain unconvinced that the model the Government has chosen is the right one for Exmouth and Exeter East.

Despite the strength of feeling from local people, parish councils and community groups across our constituency, Ministers have chosen to press ahead with plans that will see Devon divided into four new councils. Under these proposals, Exmouth, Broadclyst and Budleigh Salterton would become part of a new Exeter Council, while nearby parts of East Devon would form part of a separate predominantly rural authority.

Throughout this process, I have engaged with all tiers of local government across Devon to understand the case for these proposals. Having spoken at length with Exeter City Council, I am yet to see any convincing arguments for how a predominantly urban council will effectively represent and deliver services for the rural and coastal communities that make up much of Exmouth and Exeter East.

I am also concerned that these proposals appear to be driven more by what suits the Labour Party politically than by what will deliver the best outcomes for local people. If local government is to be reorganised, it should be because there is a clear, evidence-based case that it will improve services and strengthen local representation, not because it delivers a preferred political map.

My office has also submitted multiple Freedom of Information requests to better understand the true cost of these proposals. At a time when councils are under significant pressure to deliver the services local people rely on, I believe there must be complete transparency about the costs and a clear demonstration that this represents value for money. With implementation estimated to cost around £70.1 million, many local people will rightly question whether that money could instead have been invested in improving roads, adult social care, SEND provision and the infrastructure our communities urgently need.

Throughout this process, I have challenged Ministers in Parliament, questioned why the Government has focused so heavily on council boundaries rather than frontline services, and repeatedly asked for evidence that these changes will deliver better outcomes for local people. I am yet to see that convincing case made.

That is why I am asking you to support my petition. I want to continue demonstrating the strength of feeling across Exmouth and Exeter East and ensure the Government understands the concerns local people have about the way these changes are being implemented.

If you share these concerns, I encourage you to add your name to my petition below.

Have Your Say on the Government’s Plans for Devon

Under Government plans Exeter will grow from a population of 138,400 to approximately 260,000 when it swallows these 49 neighbouring parishes. 

In other words around one hundred and twenty two thousand residents of East Devon, Teignbridge and Mid Devon will face a massive upheaval in their lives.

Are you ready for this?

East Devon, 28 parishes. 

Aylesbeare, Bicton, Brampford Speke, Broadclyst, Budleigh Salterton, Cranbrook, Clyst Honiton, Clyst Hydon, Clyst St George, Clyst St Lawrence, Clyst St Mary, Colaton Raleigh, East Budleigh, Exmouth (Town Council), Farringdon, Huxham, Lympstone, Nether Exe, Otterton, Poltimore, Rockbeare, Sowton, Stoke Canon, Topsham (historical parish boundary elements), Upton Pyne, West Hill, Whimple and Woodbury.

Teignbridge 15 parishes

Ashcombe, Chudleigh, Dawlish, Dunchideock, Exminster, Holcombe Burnell, Ide, Kenn, Kenton, Mamhead, Powderham, Shillingford St George , Starcross, Tedburn St Mary and Whitestone.

Mid Devon 6 parishes

Crediton (Town Council), Crediton Hamlets, Newton St Cyres, Cheriton Bishop, Colebrooke and Hittisleigh

Amendment 24 July 1650

With the help of a correspondent Owl believes this list to be correct. Owl is always open to correction.

Devon County has produced an online post code checker.

Roger Giles from Ottery St Mary submitted this simple comment:

Andy Burnham ditched Steve Reed. He should ditch the stupid and damaging proposals that Steve Reed pushed through.

As an Independent town (1991), county (1993) and district councillor (1995), Roger was a tireless and effective scrutineer of local politics. He was joined in 2009 by Claire Wright following a similar trajectory.

Roger retired in 2019 after 24 years as a district councillor.

Between them, Roger and Claire, demonstrated what independent scrutiny can do to hold local majority politicians to account with Claire making early use of social media in her blog.

Between them they created an atmosphere in which the blog: Sidmouth Independent News (SIN) started in 2012 making regular posts critical of East Devon District Council.

And out of SIN, at the end of 2013, flew Owl with East Devon Watch.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to these pioneers.

Addendum: this comment from Paul F 24 July

To this list of heroes (Roger and Claire) I would also add:

the original Owl;

all the other independent councillors who fought so hard before eventually they prevailed and ousted the corrupt Tory administration

Every single one of these people are heroes in my book. They did what they thought was right, regardless of what other people thought of them, were not deterred by personal attacks, and they made positive change happen as a result.

Yes – Roger and Claire started it all off – and that should make them special heroes – but it was a team effort

And a special shout out to Ben Ingham, the turncoat turned turncoat, whose motivation as far as I could see (mostly with hindsight) was only ever to get the reins of power for himself. Ironically, it is Ben Ingham that draws into contrast the heroic qualities and selflessness of all the others.

Cllr. Julian Brazil, leader Devon County Council is reported as saying:

“We have to submit a pre-action letter that outlines our intention before the end of July,”

“We have until 16 October to make the decision and formally launch the Judicial Review; if we haven’t done anything by then, we would be out of time.”

He appears to have widespread cross-party support. 

Devon councils eye legal challenge over reorganisation

Bradley Gerrard www.southhams-today.co.uk

The first preparatory steps for a possible legal challenge against government attempts to carve up Devon are underway.

Devon’s biggest council is expected in the coming days to submit Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the government department that has overseen the overhaul of local government.

Councillor Julian Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Kingsbridge), the leader of Devon County Council, said council officers were preparing the requests to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) that has led to the once-in-a-generation overhaul of how councils work.

“After those, we have to submit a pre-action letter that outlines our intention before the end of July, and then we have a cabinet meeting in September , and that’s when we will take a formal decision about the Judicial Review,” Cllr Brazil said.

“We have until 16 October to make the decision and formally launch the Judicial Review; if we haven’t done anything by then, we would be out of time.”

The development comes as Green Party councillors on Torridge District Council have also urged for there to be a Judicial Review given they believe the outcome of LGR for Devon “treats rural communities with contempt”.

“This is the worst of all worlds for Devon’s small towns, villages and rural communities,” a joint statement from the district’s Green councillors said.

“The government either just doesn’t care about rural communities or simply doesn’t understand that the challenges they face differ from urban areas.

“The cities do nicely out of this. They’ve snatched parishes from surrounding areas for housebuilding and other expansion.

“Meanwhile, the left-over small towns and rural communities have all been dumped into a huge and unwieldy authority with 455,000 residents but a geography that makes no sense.”

The Green Party members said because the mooted Coast and Country council would stretch from Hartland to Axminster and Combe Martin to Salcombe, with no major towns, it would create significant challenges.

“To drive across this new authority would take well over two hours even if you assume no delays and no roadworks. That’s as long as it takes to get from Westminster to Bristol,” the statement added.

Cllr Brazil said he hoped to gain support for the Judicial Review from all councillors on Devon County Council,, which is facing abolition as part of the local government reorganisation plans.

Councillor Michael Fife Cook (Reform UK, Yelverton Rural), said that he was “on the same page” as Cllr Brazil on this issue.

“From day one I thought [LGR] was a ludicrous idea and we all know why Labour has embarked on it, and that’s because Labour is still frightened of the Tory shires even though they don’t really exist,” he said.

“This LGR outcome for Devon is all political to help Exeter and Plymouth, although I think Labour will lose Plymouth to Reform UK at the next elections anyway.

“To me, I became a councillor to make things better for people and to try and work with everyone, but LGR cuts across politics. It is damaging to Devon and for how we can provide services for young and old, and the cost [of the reorganisation process] will be an absolute fortune.”

Cllr Brazil hoped the Judicial Review would not be needed, because of faith that the new prime minister, Andy Burnham, would put the brakes on the council overhaul in Devon.

Last week saw Steve Reed MP tell Parliament that Devon’s 11 councils would be scrapped in favour of four new large unitary councils.

The proposal states that Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay will subsume parts of existing neighbouring districts, while the remainder of the county would be comprised of a so-called coast and country council.

Critics have claimed the proposed changes benefit the Labour-led cities of Exeter and Plymouth, with fears the ‘rest of Devon’ council, which will be around 110 miles from north to south, will struggle to survive without an obvious economic centre coupled with a sparse and rural population.

Supporters claim the changes will boost economic growth, that having one council covering all services in its administrative boundary will be simpler than the two-tier system where district and county authorities oversee different services in the same area, and that it will mean power closer to the electorate.

Cllr Brazil has previously said that given the estimated cost of reorganising Devon’s councils – which has been put at between £50 million – £70 million – the cost of a Judicial Review would be value for money.

He also stated that he had the delegated authority to order a Judicial Review even if there wasn’t widespread support for such a move.

However, while most county councillors acknowledge the two-tier system isn’t perfect, many have expressed displeasure with the way the reorganisation has been handled by Westminster.

The government pitch in its local government reorganisation plan is that removing a tier (district councils) from local government will save money. 

The Labour Chair of Commons’ local government committee, Florence Eshalomi, is reported as saying the government “still haven’t provided” the evidence that it will provide significant savings.

This is also the claim of Devon County Leader Julian Brazil.

If removing a tier can make savings we should be able to find evidence from what our two existing Combined Authorities (Plymouth & Torbay) are charging for providing their unified services compared to the two tier districts. (Cllr. Tudor Evans asserted this on last week on BBC Spotlight, “taking out a tier is bound to make savings”).

Simples!

Except the evidence doesn’t support the case – especially on debt where Devon residents living in Combined Authorities have a debt burden two to three times greater than those living in lower tier districts administered by upper tier Devon County Council.

Council Tax

Let’s look at some Band D council tax charges for 26/27. [All data taken from the relevant authorities web sites]

In Plymouth City Combined Authority the charge is £2,441.85.

In Exeter City, two tier authority it is  £2,495.36 (including the bit that goes to the upper tier Devon County.)

Not a lot of difference.

In Torbay Combined Authority for Torquay & Paignton it is  £2,456.99, a bit more than Plymouth.

But in Torbay, Brixham & Town Council it is  £2,556.06 which is more than Exeter.

Why two different charges within the same Unitary Authority? 

Well what the government describes as a two tier system is actually a three tier one. 

When the Torbay Combined Authority was formed, Brixham decided to retain its old town council to provide localised services and community amenities that aren’t managed by Torbay Council. This includes maintaining local allotments, the harbour area, public toilets, and other specific community projects. The extra c £100 is levied to pay for that.

Something similar is likely to be wanted by all those towns and parishes being grabbed by Exeter such as Crediton, Dawlish and Exmouth.

The average East Devon band D charge is £2,595.46 which, of course, includes the town or parish levy. So stripping out the levy of around the £100 mark takes the charge back to something close to Plymouth/Torbay.

So Owl asks the question: is there any significant difference between these and where is the evidence for savings to be made by reorganisation?

There are possible explanations for this lack  of difference.

Councils may be pricing their council tax take to a similar perception of what the “market can bear” and the lack of difference disguises the significant improvement in services that can be provided in an urban setting. However both Plymouth and Exeter are cities with universities, major hospitals and extensive public transport networks. One is a Unitary, the other is in a two tier arrangement. They charge much the same.

Counter intuitively, another explanation could be that district councils are actually an efficient way of administering services in distributed rural areas and counties an efficient way of administering central services at scale?

Is this the inconvenient truth?

(For comparison; Band D Council Tax in Manchester is  £2312.04  and for London Boroughs, it ranges from the cheapest, Wandsworth: £1,020.35, to expensive Kingston upon Thames: £2,609.20.)

Now to debt and profligacy – Surely this will make a clear case for Combines Authorities?

Local Authorities have been underfunded for years and are swimming in debt.

Owl now examines how our local Combined Authorities of Plymouth and Torbay compare against two examples taken from our two tier system: the City of Exeter with its share of Devon’s debt, and East Devon with its share of Devon’s debt. An appropriate basis for comparison is not the total debt but the debt burden apportioned per head of their respective populations.

The basic data and combined data are shown in the table below.

(All figures approximate)

First observation is that people living in combined authorities have a much higher debt burden hanging over their heads than those living in Districts under County Hall administration. By a factor of two or three in the case of East Devon.

The precise burden will vary district by district.

The second observation is that the urban areas of Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter seem to borrow more heavily than their rural counterparts.

Worth remembering that Exeter’s Labour MP, Steve Race, said that it had been “increasingly unsustainable for Exeter to remain a poorly funded district council, with most spending decisions taken by Devon County Council”. I.e. Exeter wants more cash!

Where is the Magic Money Tree to be found to fill Exeter’s begging bowl?

In the pockets of all those living in Teignbridge, Mid Devon and East Devon who have been swallowed up by avaricious Exeter! – Owl

Devon’s residents have been “betrayed” in a fundamental overhaul of how Devon’s councils will be reorganised and which services they will be responsible for, it has been claimed.

Bradley Gerrard www.devonlive.com

The government has today confirmed its local government reorganisation plans for Devon, which will see four new councils created in the place of its current 11.

Those changes will see Plymouth City Council subsume parts of some of the South Hams, while Exeter has been granted permission to swallow up parts of Teignbridge District Council, as well as East Devon and Mid Devon district councils.

Steve Reed MP, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, told the House of Commons the changes would bring decision-making closer to communities, and that the move to unitary councils would be easier for residents to understand.

He added that altered boundaries for the new councils would better reflect how populations live and work in those areas, and that his proposals would ensure places like Plymouth and Exeter meet their growth potentials.

Councillor Julian Brazil, the Liberal Democrat leader of Devon County Council, believed the outcome was “shocking” and expressed incredulity that Devon’s two Labour councils had been given permission to take the best parts of their neighbours to create new councils.

“It is shocking and Devon has been betrayed,” he said.

“The government has said it looked at all the proposals but that the Secretary of State has gone with the one suggested by Exeter and Plymouth.”

He added: “I wonder what [those councils] have in common with the government,” pointing to the fact both cities are run by Labour administrations, the same party in power at Westminster.

Exeter’s Labour MP, Steve Race, said it had been “increasingly unsustainable for Exeter to remain a poorly funded district council, with most spending decisions taken by Devon County Council”.

“”Creating a unitary authority for Exeter will secure local democracy, provide the opportunity to improve local services, and create sustainable economic and jobs growth,” he said.

“Under a new unitary authority on boundaries that include Exeter’s wider economic footprint, Exeter will be better placed to unlock new opportunities for jobs, housing, innovation, and investment, while ensuring we advocate for the transport and infrastructure we need as more people choose to call our city their home and their workplace.”

Mr Race added it would bring decision-making closer to communities rather than the confusion of the current two-tier system.

“It will also finally give those people living in the surrounding area, who already work and socialise in Exeter, a say in the way our city is run,” Cllr Race added.

Councillor David Wulff, the Liberal Democrat leader of Mid Devon District Council, called the changes a “political city land grab”, claiming it would create a “two-class Devon”.

“I am deeply disappointed that the government has squandered a genuine opportunity to deliver meaningful reform of Devon’s councils, strengthen local accountability and bring decisions closer to the residents and communities they affect,” he said.

“Instead, it has chosen a remote, centralising model that weakens local identity and leaves rural communities with less influence over their own future.

“The government claims that this exercise is about removing two-tier local government. In reality, it is creating two classes of council: enlarged city authorities handed additional population, development land and tax base, and a sprawling rural authority left to provide more expensive services across the remainder of Devon.”

He added Crediton was a “proud and historic Devon market town”, noting that “it is not an Exeter suburb, and it should not be treated as a balance-sheet asset to be transferred to City Hall”.

“Rural Devon is not a piggy bank to be raided whenever an urban authority needs more taxpayers, more land or a stronger financial base” Cllr Wulff said.

“Yet that is what this decision appears to do. Westminster and the city halls are asking rural communities to surrender their taxes and shoulder the financial risk of a reorganisation designed around the needs of expanded urban authorities.”

In Parliament, Steve Reed MP, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, said the changes were the “most ambitious” overhaul of local government undertaken, and that the aim was to “devolve power out of Whitehall”.

“Devolution is about strong local councils delivering good public services and supporting economic growth while being closely connected to the communities they serve,” he told the House of Commons.

“The current two-tier system of local government is confusing, it slows down decision-making and blurs accountability.

“In many areas, the existing boundaries don’t match the services provided or public identities of those areas.”

He confirmed the proposal to change Devon’s make-up into four new unitary councils, with an expanded Plymouth, an amplified Exeter, bigger Torbay, and the rest creating a so-called ‘coast and country’ unitary.

He namechecked Plymouth as a city of “nationally significant growth location”, suggesting the changes could help fulfil its potential in areas such as housebuilding.

Mr Reed also named Exeter as a beneficiary of his proposals, once again stating it would help the city grow and enable the government to “get the homes built that we need”.

Mr Reed stated areas undergoing local government reorganisation will receive more than £1 million per new unitary created to support the changes.

His opposite number, James Cleverly MP, the Conservative shadow secretary, claimed the rationale for the changes was “blatant” and that they had been “driven by party politics”.

He highlighted the changes in Devon as those “put forward by Labour in Exeter and Plymouth”.

“Many communities will be left in limbo while Labour councils have been allowed to redraw the map ahead of future elections they will be engaged in,” he said.

“If the Secretary of State wanted to avoid accusations of gerrymandering, then why create such a gerrymandering set of boundaries?”

Mr Cleverly asked Mr Reed if any analysis had been conducted on the potential for judicial reviews.

Cllr Brazil said the costs of a judicial review paled into insignificance compared to the amount of money to enact the overhaul.

“I’m almost certainly minded to judicial review this,” he said.

“When you look at the costs of local government reorganisation for Devon possibly hitting £80 million versus the £250,000-£500,000 cost of a judicial review, the latter would be money well spent.”

The changes, which need to be approved by Parliament, will see the two-tier system in Devon eradicated.

That will mean that instead of the district and county council system that exists in much of Devon now – where different services are overseen by different councils – bigger unitary councils will be created.

Unitary councils are responsible for all the services within their boundaries, such as happens within Plymouth and Torbay now.

Under the changes confirmed by Parliament, Plymouth will subsume 13 parishes currently in the South Hams, while Exeter will nab 15 from Teignbridge, 28 from East Devon and six from Mid Devon as part of a new expanded council, while Torbay will expand its boundary to take on 22 parishes in total from Teignbridge District Council and South Hams.

The remaining bits of the county – predominantly the northern and mid areas, will be pushed together into a so-called coast and country unitary.