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

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

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

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

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

Sidmouth and Honiton MP praises East Devon towns in debate

Adam Manning www.midweekherald.co.uk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complete list of neighbourhoods receiving £20m

Scotland

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

Wales

• Barry
• Wrexham
• Rhyl
• Cwmbrân
• Merthyr Tydfil 

Northern Ireland

• Derry/Londonderry
• Coleraine 

North East England 

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

North West England

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

Yorkshire and the Humber

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

East Midlands

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

West Midlands

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

East of England

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

South East England

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

South West England

• Torquay

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

Patrick Butler www.theguardian.com 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councillors to be stripped of powers to block planning schemes

Chris Smyth www.thetimes.com 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East Devon leader Paul Arnott writes about upcoming elections

Paul Arnott 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Susan Davy, 

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

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

The investment will : 

Provide reliable safe water supplies 

Support healthier rivers and seas. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben Ellery www.thetimes.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petercrwilliams fightingpoolution.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s time we got our safe beach back!

Previous ChapterNext Chapter

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

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

MP criticises water boss for ‘not facing’ media 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there any evidence?

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

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

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

PWC  2020 conclusions with caveats 

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

“Now you see it: now you don’t”

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

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

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

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

2025 District criticism of 2020 County report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

County Council summary of 2020 County commissioned report from PWC

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes to editor

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

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

Salary UP, dividends UP, water quality DOWN – Owl

Water chief quizzed by MPs about crypto outbreak

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

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

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

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

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

Dividend payments up 265%

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

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

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

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

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

‘Going to take time’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A real effect or a statistical blip? – Owl

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

Felicity Evans www.bbc.co.uk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s caused the price drop?

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

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

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

How have house prices changed in the rest of Wales?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Locals ‘priced out’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Axminster councillor awarded recognition for community work

Molly Kirk www.midweekherald.co.uk 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At present, the county has 11 separate councils.

Bradley Gerrard www.midweekherald.co.uk 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this week’s article for the local press, Paul Arnott discloses that he will be standing in the County elections for Seaton & Colyton.

Worth pointing out that the Tory incumbent for Seaton & Colyton, Marcus Hartnell, was one of those who voted to postpone the May elections. The main arguments put forward were  that it would be a distraction from the County’s preparation for fast track devolution and the cost would be wasteful. Neither withstand scrutiny.

The bid to postpone May’s elections was rejected by the government. Devon County Council’s devolution bid did not meet the guidelines and we now know is not on the fast track. There are other bids in preparation including Exeter’s attempt to fly solo. So it may be some time before we know how the districts will be merged into unitary authorities.

As for the cost of maintaining the electoral role and running elections, they mostly fall on districts not county. – Owl

East Devon Council leader Paul Arnott on the Reform party

Paul Arnott 

This week’s column is a tricky one because it will inevitably be taken as baiting Reform candidates in the lead-up to the County Elections on May 1.

A cynical friend said to me, “Don’t write about Reform until after May 1, because they’re going to take votes from Conservatives and Labour, and that would be ‘good for your lot'”.

My lot being the LibDems.

Full disclosure: I am standing in the County election for Seaton & Colyton.

Maybe I’m a fool, but life seems too short for that kind of self-serving view of the world.

To me, the point of no return was the US Vice President J.D.Vance in Munich (of all places) last week, refusing to meet the German Chancellor but finding time to meet and endorse the leader of the far-right party Alice Weidel and her AfD, close pals of Nigel Farage.

With the German election looming on February 23, and AfD pressing all the usual buttons about migration, it’s as if Franklin D Roosevelt had sent one of his Vice Presidents to meet a National Socialist party functionary in the 1930s to wish them well at the ballot box.

It is that serious, especially with the historically unique phenomenon of Elon Musk getting behind the AfD too.

So what, you may ask, has this got to do with Devon?

I have written before that Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists tried very hard to take off down here, holding meetings in the 1930s across the county, finally to be gloriously rebuffed by anti-BUF marches in Exeter.

But that’s not us, the Reform party members may say.

Sorry, it is, even if you don’t know it.

Nigel Farage has consistently supported the AfD and appeared to bellicose cheers at their conferences.

A few years back he was invited to speak at a Berlin event by Beatrix von Storch, the granddaughter of Hitler’s finance minister.

He has also expressed vocal support for Marine Le Pen in France and Viktor Orban in Hungary.

I can have conversations with lovely people down this way, and suddenly one of them will say “We need Nigel” and go somewhat glassy-eyed.

I’ll be honest, I find this terrifying.

Have we learned nothing?

Boris Johnson was a populist blaggard, Nigel Farage is the same, only unlike Johnson he says the unsayable.

In an interview with London’s Evening Standard last week, he let it all hang out, overtly blaming the lack of GP provision and houses for young people on immigration.

It’s not; it’s caused by the failure of Conservative policy from austerity to almost the present day.

Most thinking politicians won’t stoop to this canard.

Trump and Vance have now opened the door for the likes of Farage to dance merrily through.

Of course, migration policy is a legitimate subject for debate, but not a toxic one.

People are free to vote for Reform if they wish.

But at least I can sleep easy that I’ve warned that parties who lie down with dogs catch fleas.

East Devon Watch has reported the failed bid extensively over the past few weeks.

According to accounts on Social Media Devon only received an increase of 2.1% from the government in its financial settlement, the lowest of any county council .(Plymouth and Torbay got 15%.)

We seem to be stuck with a Tory Council and Labour government both of which are “out of touch”. The first with the new political reality and the second with anything smelling of the countryside.

Roll on the May elections. – Owl

See these two reports:

Second homes cash helping plug gaps left by grant cut

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

Devon County Council’s County Hall headquarters in Exeter (Image courtesy: LDRS/Will Goddard

Millions of pounds from extra council tax levied on second homes in Devon is set to help fund services.

Councils across the county are expected to earn around £16 million when council tax doubles on second homes in some areas from April, with different amounts going to the various councils.

The county council is likely to get the lion’s share, which could be nearly £15 million if it approves a 4.99 per cent council tax increase in April.

But district councils claim it is unfair that most of the revenue will go to the county, when districts have responsibility for housing.

Councillors including Julian Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Kingsbridge) and Frank Biederman (Fremington Rural), who recently gave up his independent status to join the Lib Dems, believe because the money is levied on properties, it should be spent helping to provide affordable housing.

However Devon’s cabinet said £4 million would go to highways, £5 million to children’s services, and “more money than planned” would go to help tackle homelessness.

At Devon County Council’s cabinet meeting last week Cllr Phil Twiss (Conservative, Feniton and Honiton) noted that income from second homes helped replace more than £10 million previously coming from a rural services delivery grant, which the government cut in December.

Cllr Twiss added that the county had received the worst financial settlement from central government of the 21 county councils.

“It is not a nice statistic, and we are well below the national average,” he said.

“We are an overwhelmingly rural county and so there are additional costs to delivering services, so it is particularly disappointing that the government has removed the rural services grant.”

Devon County Council under ‘stress’ as reserves under fire

Bradley Gerrard www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Devon County Council is heading for “increased financial stress” with its reserves shrinking.

A budget report for Devon County Council’s cabinet last week stressed that the local authority is “not at immediate risk of financial failure” but that this is a “growing threat for the medium term” if it keeps spending its reserves at the same rate as the past four years.

Councils are required by law to set balanced budgets, and while the Conservative-led administration has adopted a mantra of ‘living within our means’, it has had to lean on its savings in recent years.

It is now in last place out of the 21 county councils in England for the robustness of its reserves.

The report said three measures – reserves sustainability, level of reserves and change in reserves – have been reclassified from ‘increasing risk’ to ‘high risk’.

“In absolute cash terms, Devon now has the second lowest level of usable reserves [of the 21 county councils],” the report said.

The council had £222 million of reserves in March 2021 but this fell to £125 million at March last year.

By the end of the current financial year in April, a further £20 million of reserves is expected to be spent, mostly to support something called the safety valve scheme.

This initiative grants councils government money to help tackle overspends linked to special educational needs and disabilities (Send) budgets.

Devon’s Send deficit is estimated to hit a cumulative £132 million in the next few weeks, potentially rising to nearly £163 million by March next year.

That is in spite of the safety valve scheme awarding Devon £95 million over nine years, as long the council cuts its Send deficit and reducing costs.

The Send deficit is legally separated from its main finances, but the legislation allowing this runs out in March 2026.

Cllr Julian Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Kingsbridge) highlighted the issue of the Send deficit at the cabinet meeting.

He said that the children’s scrutiny committee had been told previously the Send deficit is expected to rise by £14 million, but that the budget papers now concede is likely to increase by £44 million.

“There’s no explanation or anything in the summary about why this has happened, and I appreciate the council thinks scrutiny is a waste of time, but I think it is going too far that the budget presented to children’s scrutiny has changed by tens of millions of pounds, and you haven’t had the courtesy to tell scrutiny what has gone on,” he said.

Angie Sinclair, the council’s finance director, said her department is still undertaking modelling to predict the financial outcome for the year.
 

Note that Jim McMahon, Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, in his letter of 5 Feb to the Leaders of Devon councils wrote:

“Considering the efficiencies that are possible through reorganisation, we expect that areas will be able to meet transition costs over time from existing budgets, including from the flexible use of capital receipts that can support authorities in taking forward transformation and invest-to-save projects.” – Owl

Bradley Gerrard www.radioexe.co.uk 

A prediction from Mid Devon suggests reshaping Devon’s councils could cost between £30m-£50m, but other estimates believe the process could be twice as much.

A fresh estimate of the cost of reorganising Devon’s councils suggests the process could be £50 million, but some figures predict it could be even higher.

Mid Devon District Council believes the price tag for merging the county’s 11 councils into a smaller number of larger councils could be between £30 million and £50 million.

Other estimates suggest reorganisation could be double that figure. The Local Government Association said areas that have moved to unitary structures have “relied heavily on reserves” and some estimates for one-off costs range from £25 million to £100 million.

Councils are having to submit plans for reorganisation as the government undertakes the biggest overhaul of local authorities in decades.

Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner wants to scrap the two-tier system which exists in Devon.

This is where two separate councils perform different services within the same area. For instance, someone living in Barnstaple has roads repaired by Devon County Council but rubbish collected by North Devon Council.

Westminster wants all councils to be unitary, responsible for all the services in their area.

Devon has 11 local councils. Plymouth and Torbay are already unitary, but the rest of Devon is covered by the county council and eight districts.

Ms Rayner wants counties to have fewer, larger councils, ideally with populations of at least 500,000.

In a report, Mid Devon’s leader Luke Taylor (Liberal Democrat, Bradninch) said it is “unclear where such funding will come from”.

“Government has indicated that some limited capacity funding may be forthcoming, but there is an expectation that councils will absorb this cost from either existing budgets or from ‘exceptional’ use of capital (i.e. selling off capital assets with approval to utilise the receipts on revenue expenditure),” the report said.

Mid Devon District Council’s scrutiny committee discusses the report today. (Monday 17 February).

The LGA said the government “needs to commit to funding up front to deliver on these reforms”.

“It is imperative that any new unitary councils are financially viable, able to provide sustainable services for communities in the long term, and able to realise the benefits of the reorganisation proposals local areas themselves draw up,” it said.

“The LGA is also working with councils who want to use this opportunity to further understand the potential the [government’s] white paper offers to unpack integrated budgets and additional powers.”

Cllr Julian Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Kingsbridge) has asked Devon County Council whether it has any estimates for how much local government reorganisation would cost in Devon.

The council’s leader, Cllr James McInnes (Conservative, Hatherleigh and Chagford) said he is unable to answer Cllr Brazil’s question, given the early stage of the process.

Cllr McInnes said he is “expecting further clarification” from government soon, and would update councillors when he is able.

Jim McMahon, minister for local government and devolution, has now written to Devon’s council leaders.

He said a “record number” of councils had requested financial help from the government this year to help set their budgets, and that his plans for local government reorganisation would create “empowered, simplified, resilient and sustainable local government”.

“The public will rightly expect us to deliver on our shared responsibility to design and implement the best local government structures for efficient and high-quality public service delivery,” he said.

“We therefore expect local leaders to work collaboratively and proactively, including by sharing information, to develop robust and sustainable unitary proposals that are in the best interests of the whole area to which this invitation is issued, rather than developing competing proposals.

“This will mean making every effort to work together to develop and jointly submit one proposal for unitary local government across the whole of your area. The proposal that is developed for the whole of your area may be for one or more new unitary councils and should be complementary to devolution plans.”

Devolution is the term the government is using for its proposals to have elected mayors covering more than one of the new, larger unitary councils. These would be called mayoral strategic authorities covering around 1.5 million people.

At the EDDC cabinet meeting last week, Paul Arnott explained how all Devon’s Districts were working together to agree collectively on a solution that meets the government’s devolution demands. The press report below reveals that these discussions are making good progress.

(The video recording of the EDDC cabinet meeting of Wednesday 5 February, can be found on the EDDC Youtube channel, the relevant discussion starts 50 mins into full recording.)

As we learn more, the question that needs asking is: why did Devon County Council think that its bid was so close to implementation that it could confidently ask the government to cancel the May elections and fast track the proposals? 

On reflection, it didn’t stand a chance: it didn’t meet the guidelines and clearly didn’t have the support of the districts.

For detailed explanation of the bid and guidelines see “Local devolution for dummies – and shotgun weddings” – Owl

Councils working towards devolution solution

Guy Henderson, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Devon’s district councils are working together to come up with a solution to the county’s devolution riddle.

The government plans to reorganise local government, with district councils being swept aside in favour of creating larger unitary councils covering greater areas.

District councils around Devon came up with differing ideas when the plans were announced, but all were adamant that they don’t want to be swallowed up by a single Devon authority which they claim would simply be a more dominant version of the current county council.

Now Teignbridge Council leader Richard Keeling (Lib Dem, Chudleigh) has revealed that the leaders of the seven councils are making good progress with a combined response to the devolution proposals.

He told a meeting of his council’s executive committee: “We have been asked to come forward with a plan by 21 March, but we are well in advance of that.”

Cllr Keeling did not give any details of the talks that had been spread out over ‘many meetings’.

But, he said: “I can assure you that we will be using what is best for Teignbridge and best for Devon.

“The process is ongoing, and quite in depth.”

The seven district councils involved in the discussions are Teignbridge, South Hams, West Devon, Mid Devon, Torridge, North Devon and East Devon. Plymouth City Council and Torbay Council are already unitaries, while Exeter City Council says it wants to become one.

Owl is struggling to understand what Labour’s devolution policy means. 

In brief, Angela Rayner wants to strip out a tier from our two tier local government system and replace it by…………a two tier system. 

Everything Owl reads seems to lack clarity in a jumble of words and confusing terminology.

This is an extract from the latest instruction to the leaders of all Devon Local Authorities of 5th February. It seems a long winded way of saying pretty much any proposal can be considered as long as it combines at least two districts:

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in exercise of his powers under Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (‘the 2007 Act’), hereby invites any principal authority in the area of the county of Devon, to submit a proposal for a single tier of local government.

This may be one of the following types of proposal as set out in the 2007 Act:

•Type A – a single tier of local authority covering the whole of the county concerned

•Type B – a single tier of local authority covering an area that is currently a district, or two or more districts

•Type C – a single tier of local authority covering the whole of the county concerned, or one or more districts in the county; and one or more relevant adjoining areas

•Combined proposal – a proposal that consists of two or more Type B proposals, two or more Type C proposals, or one or more Type B proposals and one or more Type C proposals.

But these instructions are far from conveying the whole story.

Here is Owl’s take on the current situation. Any corrections or further observations are always welcome.

Single tier Principal Authorities

The government wants to eliminate one tier from the current two tier county and district arrangement creating single authorities covering populations of around 500K. These will become “Principal Authorities” and may or may not have mayors. 

Devon, including Plymouth and Torbay, has a population of around 1.2M and is therefore too big to meet the Government guidelines as originally set.

Plymouth, labour controlled, is already a unitary authority and is bidding to be a stand alone principal authority. Though only having a population of 265K, half the guideline, there is a feeling that the government, faced with the reality of population distributions in rural areas being different from the industrial North, might lower the guideline to encompass 300K to 500K. Plymouth can probably increase its population by expanding into its surrounding “free trade zone” territory.

Exeter, population 130K, has also signalled that it wants to follow Plymouth and bid to stand alone. This will test the elasticity of the guidelines even further.

Like Plymouth, Torbay, has been a unitary authority but has now decided to join Devon and become a Devon and Torbay combined authority. With a population of just under a million a combined Devon and Torbay is still too big to meet the guidelines. So will the guidelines be flexed further or will “combined” Devon and Torbay have to be split?

Nothing “on the table” from Devon fits within the White Paper guidelines.

Strategic Authorities (reinventing a second tier) 

To make matters even more complicated and confusing, the government wants to “fill the devolution gap” by creating Strategic Authorities on top of the new “single tier” principal authorities to deal with devolution funding. Strategic authorities should cover populations of at least 1,5M and be run by elected mayors. The significance of these is that strategic authorities will get devolution funding, principal authorities will not. 

Individual local authorities will not be eligible for mayoral devolution so the new unitary authorities will need to join with neighbouring areas to form mayoral strategic authorities across one or several historic county areas.

This needs to be set against a backdrop of insufficient funding to meet the level of local services people expect.

No new money has been announced.

How might a Strategic Mayoral Authority work

The nearest experience of a mayor that most of us have probably come across is the ceremonial Lord Mayor of Exeter sitting in the front row of an event. Elected annually by city councillors, the mayor’s role is to represent, support and promote the businesses and the people of Exeter. 

The mayors of mayoral authorities are a different kettle of fish.

 In existing mayor authorities, mayors are generally elected directly and have different levels of decision making powers. Under most deals, mayors form a cabinet from the leaders of subordinate authorities and their spending decisions can be rejected by cabinet members on a two-thirds majority.

There are indications that this may not be the case in Strategic Authorities because of the breadth of their envisaged responsibilities. The government now intends to enable mayors to appoint and remunerate ‘commissioners’ to lead on key functions. At present, members of existing combined authority boards are typically asked to lead on portfolios for the region, with no remuneration and alongside their day job as council leaders. 

You can see where all this comes from.

John Major, in 1994, set up regional government offices. These were rebranded as regional development agencies by David Cameron in 1999 tasked with leading the development of a sustainable economy in the region and investing to unlock the region’s business potential. They were abolished by the coalition in 2012 and replaced by business (often developer) led Local Enterprise Partnerships. The Strategic Mayoral Authority is an attempt to do this in a way more directly accountable to the electorate.

These previous attempts at developing the regions have not been successful. They lacked ideas, money and any real power.

The Cornish Problem

Cornwall councillors, supported by their MPs have made it clear that they will not join in any deal with Devon and want to go it alone. Devon authorities on their own cannot assemble the population to become a strategic authority. Neither can Cornwall (population 578K).  For geographical Devon or any of its constituent parts to gain access to strategic funds they must become partners in a wider community. If this is not to be the obvious choice, Cornwall, then it will have to be with neighbours Somerset and Dorset. But Somerset and Dorset have already made a formal “Heart of Wessex combined authority” proposal jointly with: Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP); and Wiltshire.

Potentially, this leaves Cornwall with no access to strategic funds. So will they be forced into a shotgun marriage?

Demanding Timescales (Old adage – marry in haste, repent at leisure)

The English Devolution White Paper was published just before Christmas on 16 December. The decision that no proposals put forward by councils in the South West would be on the government’s priority programme for devolution was announced on 5 February. On the same day a letter was sent to all council leaders in Devon “to formally invite you to work with other council leaders in your area to develop a proposal for local government reorganisation, and to set out further detail on the criteria, guidance for the development of proposals, and the timeline for this process.”

It also contained this statement:

“Considering the efficiencies that are possible through reorganisation, we expect that areas will be able to meet transition costs over time from existing budgets, including from the flexible use of capital receipts that can support authorities in taking forward transformation and invest-to-save projects.”

[Note Somerset has yet to find these efficiency savings, no fewer bins to empty or children to educate – Owl]

Interim plan to be submitted on or before 21 March 2025.

Full proposal to be submitted by 28 November.

The aim is to move to elections to new ‘shadow’ unitary councils as soon as possible.

Good Luck with that! – Owl

PS For those wanting more, a good place to start is by listening to last week’s EDDC briefing and debate on the subject – EDDC Cabinet, also coincidentally on Wednesday 5 February, (starting 50 mins into full recording). The initial briefing from Andrew Wood, Director of Place, is particularly helpful.

Local councillors and MPs give their views

Local politicians have reacted to Devon’s failed bid to postpone its elections.

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

Councils with elections planned for this May were given the opportunity to apply to postpone them for a year as part of the government’s wide-ranging plans to overhaul how councils operate.

Devon County Council last month voted to seek to delay the elections until May 2026, and submitted a request to ministers.

The Conservative administration argued that delaying the poll would give the council the time and space needed to create a viable plan for reorganisation.

Opponents claimed that such a move would represent “democracy denied”, adding that a new crop of councillors could bring fresh thinking to the challenge of reorganisation.

But deputy prime minister Angela Rayner on Wednesday turned down Devon’s request to delay the elections, meaning they will go ahead on Thursday 1 May.

Cllr Jess Bailey (Independent, Otter Valley) thinks the government’s decision is right. “It’s important that democracy plays its part as normal and that people can exercise their right to vote and choose their elected member,” she said.

“I don’t think it’s nonsensical to have the elections as I think it will be crucial to have newly elected members fully engaged and who can have a say in the future of Devon and its democracy.

“The role of councillor is probably more important in the coming year or so than it has been in the past given we’re undergoing the biggest shake-up in local government and I think we need newly elected members who can shape that.”

North Devon MP Ian Roome (Liberal Democrat) said it is “only right” that voters head to the ballot box this May.

“It was very clear that Conservative councillors were trying to dodge facing the voters again after their dismal results in the last general election,” he said.

“I’m glad that the government appears to have seen through this. We Lib Dems will keep pushing forward to try to deliver the local change people need – bring on the elections.”

Diana Moore, leader of Exeter City Council’s Green Party, said greater collaboration between the county council and the districts was needed.

“Devon County Council and the districts need to work in the interests of local communities and the environment to work out how we can more effectively ensure that local government remains local and works well for our communities,” she said.

She added that one of the arguments for delaying the elections – that more experienced councillors could remain in situ for longer to help decide what shape local councils could take in Devon in the future – is “the weakest argument”.

“New people can bring fresh ideas and will have experience in other areas that they can bring to ensure effective services at Devon County Council,” she said.

“Devon can do much better in many areas, not least of all children’s services, so there needs to be cross-party discussions about the future.”

She added that Devon was one of the largest counties in the country, and so having one unitary council for the whole county was “not going to work well in terms of meeting local needs”.

Cllr Paul Arnott (Liberal Democrat) leader of East Devon District Council, said the people in Devon “should be relieved that the attempt by Devon County Council to [postpone] the election has been squashed”.

“I hope the electorate remember that the Conservatives voted, on the record with their names, to cancel the elections they will now be standing in,” he said.

Cllr Arnott added that he believed the arguments put forward in favour of delaying the elections were “completely false”.

Devon County Council had claimed that trying to run an election at the same time as creating a plan for the county’s administrative reorganisation would overstretch staff.

But Cllr Arnott said local elections – even county council ones – are predominantly run by the district councils anyway.

He also felt the argument that experienced councillors should stay in post for another year because new members could find it challenging to plan Devon’s reorganisation alongside learning about their new role was “shameful”.

Devon County Council leader James McInnes (Conservative, Hatherleigh and Chagford) said: “I am disappointed that the government has rejected our proposal to postpone May’s elections so we could concentrate fully on developing our plans for local government reorganisation in Devon.

“However, we will still continue to work on our proposals for local government reorganisation that best meet the needs and aspirations of all Devon’s communities.”

The government wants to abolish two-tier systems, such as that in Devon, where two councils perform different services in the same geographic area.

The aim is to have fewer, larger councils which are unitary in style, meaning that all services are looked after by one council.

Devon has 11 councils in all; Torbay and Plymouth are unitary, but the rest of Devon is overseen by the county council and eight district councils.

Residents outside Torbay and Plymouth have some services provided by the county council – such as those related to highways or social care – and others by their local district council, such as refuse collection and planning.

Early predictions suggest Devon could have anywhere between two and four councils under the government’s local government reorganisation proposals.