“It makes a mockery of our democracy and the rule of law if polluters are not prosecuted for blatant offences which cause misery and huge costs for many other people and businesses,” said Mark Lloyd, the chief executive of the Rivers Trust.

Wil Crisp www.theguardian.com 

The number of documented violations of legislation designed to reduce water pollution caused by agriculture in England has hit record levels as the rules remain largely unenforced.

Last year had the highest number of recorded violations of the farming rules for water since the legislation was introduced in April 2018, and environmental groups estimate tens of thousands of English farms continue to commit undocumented violations.

A total of 391 breaches were identified during the 2021-2022 financial year, which ended on 31 March, up from 106 breaches officially recorded in the previous year, according to data obtained by the Guardian and the investigative journalism organisation Point Source.

Despite the farming rules for water having been implemented more than four years ago, and the rising number of breaches being documented, the Environment Agency has yet to issue any fines or prosecute anyone under the legislation.

The increasing number of documented offences and the absence of a credible threat of enforcement of the law demonstrates a clear failure by the government to protect the country’s most fragile ecosystems, according to conservation organisations.

“It makes a mockery of our democracy and the rule of law if polluters are not prosecuted for blatant offences which cause misery and huge costs for many other people and businesses,” said Mark Lloyd, the chief executive of the Rivers Trust, a charity that works to protect Britain’s lakes and waterways.

“Agricultural pollution is the principal reason why our rivers are in such poor shape and ministers need to give regulators the resources and the mandate to take action against persistent offenders.”

The farming rules for water legislation gives the Environment Agency the power to prosecute or fine individuals and companies found to be polluting waterways with contaminated runoff water or acting in a way that creates a high risk of pollution.

Under the legislation, fixed penalties of £100 or £300 can be issued as well as “variable money penalties”, which can be as much as £250,000.

The rules were designed to combat agricultural pollution that is causing widespread environmental problems in rivers.

They focus mainly on the storage and distribution of animal waste and fertiliser in order to prevent damaging pollutants from farms running into rivers where excessive quantities of nitrogen can cause algae blooms that lead to oxygen depletion.

Runoff from agriculture is the biggest single polluter of rivers, responsible for 40% of damage to waterways, according to a report published by the Environment Agency in September 2020.

The report revealed that no river in the country had achieved good chemical status and only 14% were found to be of a good ecological standard.

Fertiliser runoff from farmland can kill fish and plants and have a knock-on impact for other wildlife that are part of the ecosystem, such as birds.

Over the past two financial years a total of 2,053 Environment Agency inspections have taken place identifying a total of 497 violations of the farming rules for water, according to data obtained by the Guardian.

The high number of violations discovered has led environmental organisations to estimate that around a fifth of the 106,000 farm businesses regulated by the Environment Agency are likely to be breaching the rules.

Nick Measham, the chief executive of the environmental group Salmon and Trout Conservation, said: “The new figures regarding the increasing number of officially documented violations and the failure to enforce sanctions are extremely concerning.

“Given our experience gained through our monitoring and the extremely low level of site visits carried out by the Environment Agency, it is conservative to estimate that as many as 20,000 of England’s farms would be likely to fail an inspection – if they were actually inspected.”

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “We seek to use advice and guidance to bring farms into compliance, and impose sanctions only where farmers repeatedly fail to take necessary action.

“The secretary of state has issued new guidance on the interpretation of the rules and has said that if the Environment Agency determines that land managers have followed this guidance he does not normally expect them to take enforcement action.”

The Environment Agency’s decision not to use the sanctions at its disposal has been heavily criticised by conservation groups, who say that not punishing farming companies for breaking the law is having severe ecological consequences.

Alec Taylor, head of production policy at WWF, said: “The persistent failure to enforce these regulations, not least due to the systematic underfunding of the relevant regulatory bodies, reflects the UK government’s lacklustre approach to cleaning up England’s precious freshwater habitats.”

“UK nature is in freefall and … ministers simply cannot afford to keep shirking their responsibility to protect and restore these habitats, which are home to rare and vulnerable species like allis shad, otters and freshwater pearl mussels.”

Alice Groom, the RSPB’s senior policy officer, said: “Clearly the current system is not working if farmers and landowners feel the risk of punishment is near non-existent or the rewards for being responsible are not there.

“Failure to improve regulation will not only threaten the health of our natural environments and biodiversity, but also prevent the government from delivering against any of its new legally binding targets under the Environment Act.”

The Environment Act was passed last year and, in March, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs set out targets under the act to reduce nutrient pollution in water in England.

It said it would cut phosphorus in treated sewage by 80% by 2037, and reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from agriculture by 40% by 2037.

Thames Water dumped sewage for more than 68,000 hours into the river systems around Oxford last year, campaigners have revealed.

Miranda Norris www.oxfordmail.co.uk 

Oxford Rivers Improvement Campaign (ORIC) analysed the Environment Agency’s data on sewage discharges for 2021 and its database of investments by water companies.

Across the upper Thames, 102 sewage treatment works discharged into the rivers in 2021. Forty-nine discharged for more than 10 hours a week and almost quarter of the works discharged for more than 1,000 hours in the year.

The water company discharged raw sewage into the Thames and its tributaries including the River Windrush, Thame, Evenlode and Ock 5,028 times that year, according to the data.

And the latest report from ORIC reveals that, according to the EA investment database, only a third of the Upper Thames works which need investment will be upgraded by 2025.

That figure falls to a quarter when the region’s rising populations are taken into account.

Using data from Thames Water and applying the Environment Agency formula for capacity required at any treatment works, the campaigners assessed that the 10 large sewage treatment works in the upper Thames area – from Didcot in the south to Moreton-in-Marsh and Bourton-on-the-Water in the Cotswolds – were unable to treat the full capacity of sewage for the population of 1.1 million.

Their calculations indicate Oxford and Witney treatment works can cope with only 62 per cent of the capacity needed for the population, and the treatment works in Banbury for 49 per cent of the required capacity.

All 10 works discharged sewage into the rivers in 2021 for an average of 11 hours a week.

Oxford sewage treatment works released raw sewage into the waters for 892 hours in 2021, Swindon for 501 hours and Witney for 935 hours.

The report, published on Wednesday by ORIC, found that even where Thames Water had planned investment, the expansion of capacity would not be sufficient to meet the growing number of homes.

At Witney treatment works the investment will increase capacity by 50 per cent but that would improve the works to only 93 per cent of the required capacity based on the 2020 population, the report says.

“The simple truth is that Thames Water’s plans are completely inadequate,” said ORIC’s Mark Hull, a former water industry consultant.

“Given the well-established and long-standing problems faced across the Upper Thames region, it is scandalous that appropriate and coordinated investment plans for the whole region are not in place.

“Thames Water and the Government’s Environment Agency have both failed to deal with this problem over many years. Their ongoing under-performance beggars belief – especially as the industry’s financial regulator OFWAT have made it clear that they would not oppose the necessary investment.

“Two urgent questions need to be answered. How has this been allowed to happen? And what do we do about it?

“Government, the Environment Agency and Thames Water keep telling us that they are dealing with the problems. The truth is simple. They are not.”

A spokesperson for Thames Water said it was examining the ORIC report.

“Our aim will always be to try and do the right thing for our rivers and for the communities who love and value them. We regard all discharges of untreated sewage as unacceptable and will work with the government, Ofwat and the Environment Agency to accelerate work to stop them being necessary and are determined to be transparent.

“We recently launched our river health commitments, which include a 50 per cent reduction in the total annual duration of spills across London and the Thames Valley by 2030, and within that an 80 per cent reduction in sensitive catchments.

“We have a long way to go – and we certainly can’t do it on our own – but the ambition is clear.”

Bonuses should be banned for water company bosses until sewage spills into rivers stop, the Liberal Democrats are to demand.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

Executives were awarded £27m in bonuses over the past two years despite pumping out raw sewage into waterways 1,000 times a day, analysis by the party has found.

The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron is tabling a 10-minute rule bill that will also ask for mandatory targets and timescales for the end of sewage discharges into waterways and coastal areas. It would require quarterly reports on the impact of sewage discharges on the environment, and place a representative of environmental groups on water company boards.

Companies House records show that executives at England’s water and sewage companies were paid £48m in 2020 and 2021, including £27.6m in bonuses, benefits and incentives.

This is despite recent reports from the Environment Agency showing 772,000 sewage dumping events took place in 2020 and 2021 – more than 1,000 a day.

Campaigners have suggested that the money spent on bonuses would be better spent on infrastructure to prevent sewage spills, which can harm wildlife as well as human health.

The party has called for the executives to hand back last year’s bonuses and for funds to be used to clean up sewage spills.

The Lib Dem leader, Ed Davey, said: “The Conservatives are allowing water companies to pump raw sewage into our precious rivers and lakes while awarding themselves obscene bonuses. Just like the millions paid out to bankers during the financial crisis, the public will find this hard to stomach.

“Liberal Democrat plans for a sewage bonus ban would stop water company execs being paid a penny in bonuses more until our waterways are protected from sewage dumps. These bosses should be made to hand back the millions of pounds already received in bonuses to help clean up their mess.

“It’s time to send a message to the Conservatives that they cannot let water company bosses get away with pumping raw sewage into our rivers and beaches any longer.”

The companies with the biggest executive payouts include United Utilities, which was responsible for the most spills over 2020 and 2021, which paid bonuses of nearly £6m. Severn Trent awarded executives £5.5m in bonuses while dumping sewage 120,000 times. Meanwhile, Yorkshire Water, which dumped sewage 135,000 times, handed out bonuses of £3.3m.

This bill is likely to stir up tension among Conservatives. The government was last year forced into a U-turn after Tory MPs voted not to ban sewage spills into rivers. The government later wrote its own legislation putting a legal duty on water companies to prevent sewage spills.

The environment minister Rebecca Pow said: “A holistic approach to cleaning up our rivers is a top priority for Conservatives and we have introduced the strongest measures ever to tackle this and sewage discharges through the Environment Act and the government direction to Ofwat.”

]Tim Farron’s private members Bill introduced under the ten minute rule passed its first reading on Tuesday 19 April: 

“A Bill to provide for mandatory targets and timescales for the ending of sewage discharges into waterways and coastal areas; to make provision about the powers of Ofwat to monitor and enforce compliance with those targets and timescales; to require water companies to publish quarterly reports on the impact of sewage discharges on the natural environment, animal welfare and human health; to require the membership of water company boards to include at least one representative of an environmental group; and for connected purposes.”]

East Devon District Councillors have voted to commission an independent report to investigate the circumstances of how former Councillor John Humphreys was given the honour of being an alderman despite his arrest for sexually abusing two boys.

Colleen Smith www.devonlive.com 

The former Mayor was arrested in May 2016 and finally jailed for 21 years after a long police investigation in 2021. Yet, during the time between arrest and imprisonment, he was still the ‘lead member for Exmouth‘ and bestowed the honour of an alderman in December 2019.

Today (Wednesday 20 April), a motion was approved by councillors at the East Devon District Council (EDDC) Full Council meeting. It said: “That the Council commissions an independent report by the Local Government Association or the Centre for Public Scrutiny or another appropriate independent body to be expeditiously brought to Cabinet to provide a clear understanding how John Humphreys, despite his arrest in May 2016 continued to serve as a Councillor until May 2019, retained his position as ‘Lead Member for Exmouth’ and went on to be bestowed the honour of an alderman by this Council in December 2019.

“In particular the report will focus on the circumstances of how John Humphreys came to be nominated and bestowed the award of an aldermanship despite being under criminal investigation at the time. The Council will put on hold the remainder of the scrutiny recommendations (on the future of appointing alderman and alderwomen) pending the receipt and consideration of the independent report by the Cabinet. EDDC’s Chief Executive will prepare a report for consideration at a future meeting of the council’s Cabinet.”

A powerful letter was read out during a recent East Devon Council meeting from one of John Humphreys’ victims. He said “there are still so many questions to be answered” after addressing the last full council meeting about “decades of pain and trauma” which he claimed was made worse by police inaction.

The victim questioned why Mr Humphreys was allowed to carry on as councillor whilst he was being investigated, a process which began in May 2016.

In his letter read to councillors, the man wrote: “I am one of many victims of John Humphreys crimes and I want members and officers of this council and the public to hear of what I have had to endure for the last 22 years.”

He explained that he was sent from school as a 14-year-old for work experience at Humphreys’ gardening business where he endured multiple sexual assaults between 1999 and 2001.

He told the council that he had first made a statement to police in 2004 but that the case was dropped the following year. He alleges that besides making no progress on the case, the police harassed him.

When the revelations about Jimmy Savile came out after his death in 2011, the victim decided to try again.

He told the council: “I rang up to get the case reopened again in 2012. All I got was a threatening phone call from a Tiverton officer. His near exact words were ‘Humphreys is now mayor. He’s getting on with his life. If you do anything or proceed with this in court, we will come for your friends and family’.

“I made an official complaint about the threats and was asked into Sidmouth police station. They said an apology will be read out. It was handwritten and wasn’t even an apology. I wasn’t given anything in writing that I could take away. When Humphreys’ case came to court this year, not being able to talk about how the police had treated me was my biggest concern. ‘Don’t open this can of worms right now,’ was all that was said to me.

“I just felt like blurting it out, stood in the box, once all the lies were being thrown at me. In 2015, after many more years of mental stress, a knock came on the door of my mum’s house. It was a female police officer. Someone else had come forward. I couldn’t believe it.

“I’d not been believed twice – but the other victim was a lot older than me and maybe more credible, and there was a third and fourth victim, too. But it still took another six years for justice to be done.”

Anyone who may have been affected by anything raised in this article can contact police in their local area by emailing 101@dc.police.uk or calling 101.

The freephone NSPCC helpline 0808 800 5000 is available for anyone to report or seek advice about non-recent abuse. Calls can be made anonymously.

The government has dropped its amendment to the vote this afternoon and is offering Conservative MPs a free vote on the Labour motion to refer Boris Johnson to the Committee on Privileges.
The government last night proposed an amendment which would have delayed the decision to refer the prime minister to the committee after the Metropolitan Police had finished its investigation and a report by senior civil servant Sue Gray had been published.
But, this morning, they have indicated they have abandoned that amendment.
MPs will now vote on the Labour motion and, if passed, the Committee will definitely be able to investigate the PM as soon as the Met concludes its investigation

Can you devise a suitable caption for this photo?

“Good -Bye to All That”.

Even before the final Sue Gray inquiry is published, the public may feel it already knows the inside story of the Downing Street parties in granular details – from suitcases of wine, to broken swings and DJ sets in the basement.

Jessica Elgot www.theguardian.com 

But given the sheer number of photographs that the Met police have been handed to examine – more than 300 – it is perhaps surprising that more have not found their way into the media.

The Guardian published a photograph taken of the Downing Street garden in May 2020, with Boris and Carrie Johnson sitting in the sunshine with glasses of wine along with aides including Dominic Cummings and Martin Reynolds. Other screengrabs of the No 10 Christmas quiz have been published.

But none has emerged from the most egregious breaches that have been reported, including the summer party where staffers were asked to “bring your own booze” or the leaving parties for staff, including one on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral.

Some ex-officials who have attended the parties are convinced that the lack of pictures is the key reason why Johnson has been able to successfully spin a version that allows him to convince MPs that he believed that those he attended were work events.

Many of the pictures are understood to have been snapped by Andrew Parsons, Johnson’s official photographer on the No 10 payroll. Some allies of Johnson have used this as a way to explain why the PM remained so convinced he was doing nothing wrong – he was content to allow himself to be photographed.

Those pictures have never been published but are believed to form part of Gray’s inquiry and the evidence she handed to the Met police.

One Tory source said the photographs of Johnson’s birthday gathering in the cabinet room – the only event for which he has been fined – would raise serious doubts about Johnson’s version of events there and would demonstrate it had been a significant celebratory gathering in breach of the rules.

But there are also believed to be a significant number of other photographs taken by aides on their mobile phones at more than a dozen gatherings. The Met police have said they will not release the photographs and it is doubtful whether the final report from Gray’s inquiry will include them.

The existence of the images is one of the key reasons why Johnson will be so keen to block a parliamentary inquiry into his conduct. Separate from the Whitehall and police inquiries, this would look specifically at whether the prime minister purposely misled parliament.

Such an inquiry is highly unlikely because Tory MPs will block it. But in theory the committee could call for papers – including the photographs – and summon witnesses.

It is only the images that could ultimately prove whether Johnson has misled the House of Commons with his version of the events he attended – and his assertions that the guidance was followed at all times.

Today’s Western Morning News:

The amount of ‘levelling up’ money the South West is being given to make up for the loss of European Union funding has been described as “derisory” by a business leader.

Tim Jones, chairman of the South West Business Council, said the sums do not match the amount councils could have expected had Brexit not happened. But he added that it also means the region now has to look to a future where it won’t be able to rely on Government handouts to prop up the economy.

The Shared Prosperity Fund is an allocation for the years 2022/23 to 2024/25 and comes with cash for adult numeracy programme Multiply. Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly will get £129,549,117 from the SPF and £2,452,414 from Multiply, while Mr Jones said Devon’s total is about £15m – far less than the old EU funding the counties could have expected.

Mr Jones said: “It’s disappointing. The amount of money is derisory in terms of what we can do with it.”

However, he added: “But it’s long overdue that we got to this stage, where we are no longer looking to Whitehall to bail us out. We have said on numerous occasions that we need to be weaned off European money.

“The Shared Prosperity Fund has come around the corner and there’s nothing there, so we will have to do things ourselves, we will have to stand on our own feet. It’s a real wake-up call.”

In total, areas across England will receive £1.5bn from the fund.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said: “Bureaucracy will be slashed, and there will be far more discretion over what money is spent on.”

Is it the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Or the BBC?

Or could it be the Conservative Party?

[“Reds under the Bed” was the phrase commonly used by the right wing to question, during the cold war, the allegiance of those on the left or even the centre. It became a knee jerk reaction to alternative views which Boris would have learned to deploy at Oxford].

As Boris Johnson launches one of his classic “special diversionary operations” attacking the Archbishop’s and the BBC’s allegiance, Owl lists some of the articles published on East Devon Watch questioning the wisdom of the relationship the Tories have enjoyed with wealthy Russians.

Boris Johnson ignores Labour call to apologise to Archbishop

BBC News www.bbc.co.uk

Boris Johnson has ignored a Labour call to apologise to the Archbishop of Canterbury over comments the PM made to a private meeting of Tory MPs.

Mr Johnson reportedly told his MPs that senior clergy had been “less vociferous” in their condemnation of Vladimir Putin than of plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Sir Keir Starmer demanded an apology at Prime Minister’s Questions.

The PM said the Rwanda policy was an attempt to save lives in the Channel.

In his Easter Sunday sermon, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said the policy of sending some asylum seekers who arrive in the UK illegally to Rwanda cannot “stand the judgment of God”.

Mr Johnson accused “senior members of the clergy” and the BBC of misconstruing the policy in a speech to Tory MPs on Tuesday evening.

The PM was attempting to rally support from his MPs after his Commons apology over being fined by the police for breaking Covid laws.

He suggested, in an aside, that the clergy had been less vociferous in condemning Vladimir Putin, according to No 10 sources.

Mr Welby and the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell said in a statement issued by Lambeth Palace that they would continue to to oppose the policy on “moral and ethical grounds”.

The two senior clergymen had denounced the invasion of Ukraine as “an act of great evil” and had called for Russian troops to withdraw, the statement added.

At Prime Minister’s Questions, Sir Keir Starmer accused Mr Johnson of not being sincere in his apology for breaking Covid rules.

As soon as he was off camera, the PM had gone back to “blaming everyone else” he said, adding: “Would the prime minister like to take this opportunity to apologise for slandering the Archbishop and the Church of England?”

Mr Johnson said he was surprised to be attacked over a policy that had been devised to “end the deaths at sea in the Channel as a result of cruel criminal gangs” and had, he claimed, been first devised in 2004 by [then Labour home secretary] David Blunkett.

The pair then clashed over reports that Mr Johnson had criticised the BBC’s coverage of the war in Ukraine in his speech to MPs.

Sir Keir accused the PM of opting to “slander decent people” in private but lacking the “backbone to repeat it in public”.

“Would the prime minister have the guts to say that to the face of (BBC reporters) Clive Myrie, Lyse Doucet and Steve Rosenberg, who have all risked their lives day in, day out on the frontline in Russia and Ukraine uncovering Putin’s barbarism?”

Mr Johnson replied: “I said nothing of the kind and I have the highest admiration as a former journalist for what journalists do. I think they do an outstanding job. I think he should withdraw what he just said – it has absolutely no basis or foundation in truth.”

It must be confusing being a Conservative MP at times

From Guardian PMQs Live: It must be confusing being a Conservative MP at times. Are you supposed to hate the BBC or not? Earlier this year, on day one of what was dubbed “Operation Red Meat”, the No 10 operation to shore up Boris Johnson’s position with a rightwing policy offer for Tory MPs, Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, said the BBC licence fee was definitely going. A day later she had to soften her position somewhat, after the Treasury insisted the future of the licence fee was just being reviewed. This morning Tory MPs will have read in the Daily Telegraph that Johnson believes the BBC has been soft on Vladimir Putin. At PMQs Johnson insisted that was wrong, and at the end of the session a loyalist backbencher used a point of order to insist that Conservative MPs are in fact great fans of the corporation. 

Here are just a selection of interesting EDW posts on Tories and their Russian connections

“Who now is in bed with the Reds?”

“Swelling the Tory coffers, Russian connections and cosy dinner access”

“ 200 Russian millionaires bought way into UK in seven years since clampdown”

“Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party has received cash from 9 Russian donors named in a suppressed intelligence report”

“Swire his other jobs the controversial Lord and the Russian Oligarch”

Government fraud investigators are looking into contracts to supply the NHS with PPE during the pandemic, officials at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) have said.

Gavin Cordon www.standard.co.uk 

Giving evidence to the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Jonathan Marron, the director general of the office for health improvement and disparities, said they had “concerns” over 176 contracts worth a total of £3.9 billion.

He said that the actual amount of equipment at issue was worth £2.7 billion – with concerns ranging from the quality of the kit provided to performance of the contractor.

While some may be possible to resolve through mediation and commercial agreement, he said others may require a “more legal process”.

It would be astonishing if this was the only large set of government contracts in which there was no fraud at all

“We are working really, really closely with our internal fraud teams and the broader fraud authorities,” he said.

“That is part of what we are looking at, as to how we might bring resolution to these disputes. All options are on the table.”

The DHSC permanent secretary Sir Chris Wormald said the level of suspected fraud was no higher than with other government contracts.

“It is not unusual to be in dispute on some contracts. Some of them will be resolved entirely amicably, some of them will get to the other end of the spectrum where we believe there has been wrongdoing,” he told the committee.

“Fraud in contracting is a fact of life, regardless of the circumstances. It would be astonishing if this was the only large set of government contracts in which there was no fraud at all.

“What we haven’t seen is this set of contracts being more susceptible to fraud than the average.”

Mr Marron acknowledged that 1.1 billion items of PPE, worth £461 million, supplied during the pandemic had been identified as being unfit for any use.

However he said it represented “quite a small proportion” of the 19.8 billion items used in health and social care to the end of last month.

Conservative MPs are being warned not to join an “Owen Paterson-style cover-up” by blocking an inquiry into how Boris Johnson misled parliament about the No 10 parties.

Rob Merrick www.independent.co.uk 

A vote on Thursday will seek to send the controversy to the Commons privileges committee, with the power to force the release of reports, documents and photos – and recommend any punishment.

Crucially, the probe would not start until after the police investigation has concluded, to prevent the government arguing it would clash with the Met’s ongoing work.

And it does not accuse Mr Johnson of “deliberately” misleading the Commons – which, under the ministerial code, would require his resignation – again, to make it harder to oppose.

Mr Johnson is expected to order his MPs to defeat the motion, tabled by almost all Opposition parties – and threaten to remove the party whip from any who defy him.

But Labour says it will plaster the names of Tory MPs who block the inquiry across local elections’ leaflets and adverts, warning they will pay the price of standing by the beleaguered prime minister.

It is pointing back to the public anger after last autumn’s “cover-up”, when Mr Johnson attempted to fix anti-sleaze rules to clear his ally Mr Paterson, a former cabinet minister.

“Conservative MPs should reflect on the last time that the government tried to interfere on a privileges investigation, with the Owen Paterson case, and what happened there,” Keir Starmer’s spokesman said.

The motion points to four specific statements by the prime minister which “appear to amount to misleading the House”, which are:

* 1 December 2021 – that “all guidance was followed” in No 10.

* 8 December 2021 – that Mr Johnson had been “repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”.

* 8 December 2021 – that he was “sickened” by the video of his former spokeswoman Allegra Stratton joking about a party, but “I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken”.

* 8 December 2021 – that “the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”.

The Opposition parties’ argument is that the privileges committee probe is needed to establish whether the Commons was misled – which is not the role of either the Met police, or Sue Gray’s stalled investigation.

Mr Johnson has effectively conceded that it was, by accepting he broke his own Covid rules, having previously denied that any rules were breached.

Sir Keir said urged Tory MPs to vote in favour of “restoring decency, honesty and integrity into our politics”.

“The British public know that the rules were broken in Downing Street,” he said.

Voting to say otherwise won’t persuade the public that everything was fine but will further damage the reputation of any Conservative MP who is happy to say it was one rule for the public and another for this government.”

Severe flooding problems in Seaton will be discussed at a public meeting next week, when residents will talk to representatives of South West Water, the Environment Agency and the county council. 

Philippa Davies www.midweekherald.co.uk

The Seaton Flood Working Group comprises a group of residents and business owners whose properties flooded last October. They are holding a meeting on Tuesday, April 26 at 6.30pm at Seaton Methodist Church, to hear what action is being taken to reduce the flood risk.

On the night of October 20 2021, torrential rain continued for about five hours, and watercourses and drainage systems were unable to cope with the volume of water.  At least 31 homes and businesses were flooded; others escaped the worst of it, but still had flooding to their garages, outbuildings and gardens. 

Flooding in Scalwell Lane, Seaton, October 2021 – Credit: Seaton Flood Working Group

The county council’s report on the flooding showed that Seaton was the second worst affected area in Devon, second only to Axminster. The report said the amount of rainfall ‘led to multiple watercourses overtopping at the allotments on Barnards Hill Lane, adjacent to the cricket club on Valley View and at the junction between Harepath Road and Valley View. The combination of these overtopping watercourses along with surface water runoff from neighbouring roads caused substantial amounts of water to reach lower lying areas of Seaton during peak flows particularly affecting Mead Way, Valley View and Summersby Close where at least five properties, a hospital and a primary school internally flooded by up to 100mm’.

Flooding at a house in Colyford Road, Seaton, October 2021 – Credit: Seaton Flood Working Group

Residents learned the importance of reporting these incidents when they met a customer service team from South West Water who came to Seaton in February. They were told that people who had not reported their flooding problems were ‘effectively invisible’ to both the water company and the county council, and that the Environment Agency also encourages reporting to help improve its flood mapping and modelling. Following this information, many more reports and photos of flooding at homes and businesses were sent to the three organisations. 

Doorway of flooded house in Seaton, October 2021 – Credit: Seaton Flood Working Group

During the meeting on April 26 the working group will hear from representatives of Devon County Council on highways, planning and land drainage issues; from South West Water on surface water and sewerage, and from the Environment Agency on its management of the rivers Axe and Lim’s catchment areas, including natural watercourses, soil erosion and farming-related issues.  

The meeting is open to the public, and people can also email questions relating directly to flooding in Seaton to seatonfloodworkinggroup@btinternet.com, or post them on the group’s Facebook page, to be raised with the three organisations being represented. Seaton Methodist Church has disabled access and audio loop facilities. 

A number of correspondents have pointed out that the former Budleigh Salterton care home “Shandford” is back on the market with guide price of £1.1M

Owl received reports from reliable sources that it was purchased by Julie Rhodes of Agency Assistance at the sale by auction in December 2020.

The  guide price at the auction in December 2020 was £750,000. If these two guide price are representative of sale prices. They indicate the owner is seeking a quick profit well in excess of a quarter of a million pounds. 

Two correspondents have raised the questions as to how much money has been received from the December sale, where Abbeyfield were the vendors; and how this money has been “returned to the Town”. They gather that a new “Shandford Trust” (Charity No 1192048) has been created but under whose authority?

The charity commission lists Christopher Haward Davis as Chair of trustees. 

To recapitulate the history of Shandford:

Shandford started as a care home in 1958 for local people funded by the people of Budleigh Salterton. In 2012, the trustees ceded it to Abbeyfield.

The closure is based on Abbeyfield’s declared aim of “freeing up assets” as it changes its business model to concentrate on larger homes; and County Councillor Christine Channon’s handpicked adviser, Chris Davis, who claims that Shandford was no longer viable. Owl understands Chris Davis’ report has never been made public.

A local community effort to take back control, failed despite the intervention of newly elected Simon Jupp MP.

During this process Owl received plausible arguments that showed that there were grounds to challenge the case for non-viability.

“It’s chaired by a Labour party politician”…“I’d bear that in mind.”

In a signal that the Conservatives will whip their MPs firmly against the motion, the Cabinet Office minister Jacob Rees-Mogg cast doubt on the privilege committee’s suitability to investigate Johnson’s conduct.

He said it was a “distinguished body of the House of Commons but it’s chaired by a Labour party politician”, and added: “I’d bear that in mind.” The committee is always chaired by an opposition politician.

Tories shaping up to repeat last November’s Owen Patterson “vote of shame”? – Owl

The Canadian government will ban foreign homebuyers for two years, AP reported Monday.

Shawna Chen www.axios.com

Why it matters: Canada’s housing market is one of the hottest in the world, with prices jumping by more than 20% last year, per the CBC.

Details: The ban is aimed at “[c]urbing unfair practices that drive up the price of housing, in order to level the playing field for young and middle-class Canadians,” according to a news release from Trudeau’s office.

• Some exceptions will be made for permanent residents and foreign students.
• The government will also impose higher taxes on people who sell their home within a year.

Rents have rocketed by 18 per cent in the south west since the pandemic struck, new data reveals. That’s as high as any other UK region.

Oscar Dayus www.bristolpost.co.uk

The average rent in the south west is now £1,202 per month, according to the New Statesman, citing Rightmove data. Only London, the east of England, and the south east of England had higher average rents.

However, it’s the increase where renters in our region will be feeling the pinch. An 18 per cent rise is the same as Wales and the north west, and more than every other part of the UK.

London actually saw the lowest increase, of five per cent, over the two years. The next lowest was the south east, where rents rose by 12 per cent.

Across the UK, average rents are up 15 per cent in the last two years. The House of Commons committee of public accounts concluded this week that more and more low earners now rent privately; it also pointed out that private renters spend a greater proportion of their income (32 per cent) on housing than anyone else, with homeowners spending 18 per cent and social renters 27 per cent.

The findings come at a time of stagnating wages and rising cost of living. Inflation that includes housing costs (CPIH) was at 6.2 per cent in March, and is expected to rise further this year.

In fact, wages are falling when inflation is taken into account. In the past year, regular pay is down by one per cent after inflation.

Speaking at a hearing before MPs, the chief executive and co-founder Hayden Wood apologised for the “way things turned out with Bulb”.

“We have estimated that the costs of all these energy supplier failures is going to cost in excess £2.4bn. That is about £94 per household. And that does not include the cost of the failure of Bulb, which is being treated separately under the special administration regime.”

Are we all being taken for fools? – Owl

Boss of collapsed Bulb Energy criticised for £250,000 salary funded by taxpayers

Jane Clinton www.theguardian.com 

The boss of collapsed company Bulb Energy has been criticised for continuing to draw a £250,000 salary, funded by UK taxpayers.

Once the seventh-biggest energy supplier, Bulb was effectively nationalised in November 2021 after collapsing amid the surge in global energy prices. That left the taxpayer with a potential bill of up to £3bn, making it the biggest state bailout since the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008.

Speaking at a hearing before MPs, the chief executive and co-founder Hayden Wood apologised for the “way things turned out with Bulb”. Bulb was placed into a rare “special administration”, giving it access to government funds to keep it supplying gas and electricity to its 1.7 million household customers.

Wood, who had provided management consultancy to the energy sector before he co-founded Bulb Energy, said: “My salary now in the last year is £250,000 a year.”

He added that the administrators for “both Bulb and Simple [Bulb’s parent company] asked me to stay on to help. The reason I stayed on was because we wanted to support customers [and] have a smooth transition into special administration.

“The things we are doing within the company is to try and minimise costs for consumers, minimise costs for taxpayers, and hopefully effect a sale of the company out of special administration to again reduce costs for government.”

However, the Labour MP Andy McDonald, a member of the business select committee, asked whether it was “morally justifiable” for taxpayers to be paying his £250,000 salary.

Wood responded: “I think everything we are doing right now is to try and complete a sale of the company so that we can minimise the cost to taxpayers and minimise the disruption to consumers.”

But McDonald said it was “staggering” that he was continuing to get paid “the same salary that you were pre-collapse”.

Wood said he had put “all his personal savings since 2015” into the company, which he founded in that same year with Amit Gudka. He said it had been an “extremely challenging time” for the energy market.

Charlotte Nichols, a Labour MP and committee member, quoted the former chief executive of Ofgem, Dermot Nolan, who said “for Bulb to blame anybody but themselves for its collapse is not reasonable”.

Wood said: “I completely agree. We at Bulb should take responsibility for how the business failed.”

He added: “Lessons will need to be learned and I hope that is what we can do.”

McDonald told the Guardian: “It is staggering that the chief executive of Bulb Energy continues to receive a salary of £250,000 a year at the taxpayers’ expense.

“There is no justification for Hayden Wood drawing such an enormous salary, particularly given the disastrous mismanagement of the company, which has led to the government bringing the company into public ownership, and is set to cost of the taxpayer as much as £3bn.

“The secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy must step in and put an end to this outrageous case of corporate welfare.”

A BEIS spokesperson said: “Bulb’s administrators have agreed to keep Mr Wood temporarily in place to ensure a smooth handover and sales process.

“Mr Wood is paid for this work under his employment contract with Simple Energy, the parent company of Bulb, in a separate administration process over which the government has no influence.

“The special administrator of Bulb remains legally obligated to keep costs of the administration process as low as possible. The government will seek to recoup costs at a later date, ensuring that we get maximum value for money for taxpayers.”

The amount of public money wasted on unused and faulty PPE during the pandemic cost every household in the UK more than £310, new analysis has revealed.

By Redrow www.thelondoneconomic.com 

In February, the government finally admitted that it had splurged a staggering £8.7 billion on overpriced protective equipment.

And Labour this week revealed that ministers are set to spend another £35 million paying private firms to burn or recycle surplus masks, aprons and gloves – with the government claiming it is cheaper to recycle PPE than store it.

The eye-watering total comes to £310 for every household in the UK, just as a cost-of-living crisis batters Brits.

‘Culture of cronyism’

Labour’s Angela Rayner accused the Tories of wasting “billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on useless PPE that they’re now either burning or giving away for virtually nothing.”

She told the Mirror: “The Government might not need to raise taxes on working people in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis if they didn’t waste this much PPE.

“Ministers have a duty to get value and results when spending the public’s money, but Boris Johnson has created a culture of cronyism and waste throughout his government.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “Our priority throughout the pandemic has been saving lives, and we have delivered over 19.1 billion items of PPE to frontline staff to keep them safe.”

They added: “Having too much PPE was preferable to having too little in the face of an unpredictable and dangerous virus, given this was essential to keep our NHS open and protect as many people as possible.

“Now we are confident we have sufficient PPE to cover any future Covid demands, we are taking decisive action to save up to £93 million of taxpayers’ money per year by reducing storage costs for excess stock.”

• Single storey front extension and alteration to fenestration. Parklands Awliscombe EX14 3NRRef. No: 22/0793/FUL | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension and demolition of existing rear conservatory. 4 Hardys Court Hawkerland Road Colaton Raleigh Devon EX10 0HLRef. No: 22/0791/FUL | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Addition of dormer and cladding 6 Alexandria Road Sidmouth Devon EX10 9HBRef. No: 22/0787/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of a permanent agricultural workers dwelling Highwood Farm Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4QJRef. No: 22/0780/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension with alteration to fenestration, removal of front porch & relocation of entrance, loft conversion to a habitable use with 7 roof lights and internal works 44 Douglas Avenue Exmouth Devon EX8 2HERef. No: 22/0790/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawful development for a single storey rear, rear orangery extension, patio to the rear and a wider drive16 Windsor Mead Sidford Devon EX10 9SJRef. No: 22/0766/CPL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Fell two elm as per survey sheets Fell single cherry as per survey sheets. A La Ronde Summer Lane Exmouth EX8 5BDRef. No: 22/0775/TRE | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of approved application 21/1155/FUL (Replacement of existing extension with two storey front/side/rear extension and porch, reroofing cottage, balcony, replacement doors and windows and addition of rooflights) to allow for increase in width and height of extension, additional rooflights, amendments to window openings, changes to layout and addition of solar PV to roof. Horners Shorebottom Stockland Honiton Devon EX14 9DQRef. No: 22/0764/VAR | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a single storey front/side extension and demolition of existing converted garage. 17 Redwood Close Exmouth EX8 5NSRef. No: 22/0769/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1509, Oak : Remove major deadwood from within the crown; remove low and overhanging epicormic growth which is within 0.5m of neighbouring fence and gate; maximum diameter of cuts 50mm Playing Fields Scalwell Lane SeatonRef. No: 22/0768/TRE | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Installation of 3no. flagpoles with banners Exmouth Community College Green Close Exmouth Devon EX8 3PZRef. No: 22/0759/FUL | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of 3no. flagpoles with banners. Exmouth Community College Green Close Exmouth EX8 3PZRef. No: 22/0760/ADV | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of attached barn to habitable use, single storey side extension and single storey rear extension. Hackhams Farm Buckerell Honiton EX14 3EHRef. No: 22/0763/LBC | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey front extension, single storey rear extension and first floor extension with rear balcony with alteration to fenestration. 43 Halsdon Avenue Exmouth Devon EX8 3DWRef. No: 22/0758/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed staff accommodation. Elmwood Residential Home Swan Hill Road Colyford Devon EX24 6QJRef. No: 22/0757/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of attached barn to habitable use, single storey side extension and single storey rear extension. Hackhams Farm Buckerell Honiton EX14 3EHRef. No: 22/0762/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Monterey Pine – 1st branch at 2m – remove 2nd branch at 2.5m – cut 7m off branch leaving 1m in length 3rd branch at 3.5m – cut 5m off leaving branch 4m in length Reason – 1. The ends of them are unhealthy 2. They are covering most of the graden and are hanging very low 3. We want to plant some wildflowers to attract bees and other insects to the garden. The low branches shade the area. 24D Morton Crescent Exmouth EX8 1BGRef. No: 22/0761/TRE | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Consultation request for: Replacement felt roof with felt roof and upgrading insulation. Replacement asbestos roof with composite roof. Replacement asbestos wall cladding with composite cladding to match roof.Axminster Library South Street Axminster EX13 5ADRef. No: 22/0756/CM | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1. Goat willow. To carry out a crown reduction via thinning, removing up to 1 metre from branch ends. To formative prune rest of the crown making pruning cuts of up to 50mm diameter. T2. Bull bay/laurel leaved magnolia. To crown lift to approximately 1.8m above ground level and crown reduction in height and spread by approximately 50% making pruning cuts of up to 50 mm. in diameter. T3. Griselinia. To crown lift to approximately 1.5m above ground level and crown reduction in height and spread by approximately 50% making pruning cuts of up to 50 mm. in diameter. T4. Ash. To remove lowest two limbs extending over adjacent conifer hedge/adjacent neighbouring garden. Greystones Stockland Honiton EX14 9BSRef. No: 22/0748/TCA | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of 3no. flags/banners to 3no. existing flagpoles Exmouth Community College Gipsy Lane Exmouth EX8 3AFRef. No: 22/0754/ADV | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Demolition of existing single storey UPVC extension and creation of single storey side extension 186 Exeter Road Exmouth EX8 3DZRef. No: 22/0745/FUL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension including removal of part of an existing infill 39 Withycombe Road Exmouth EX8 1TFRef. No: 22/0750/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing conservatory with new sunroom and alterations to lean-to extension on north elevation to align roof levels. Springfield Kilmington Axminster EX13 7SBRef. No: 22/0744/LBC | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing conservatory with new sunroom and alterations to lean-to extension on north elevation to align roof levels. Springfield Kilmington Axminster Devon EX13 7SBRef. No: 22/0743/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for a loft extension with rear hip to gable and infill dormer.33 Alexandria Road Sidmouth EX10 9HDRef. No: 22/0753/CPL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a single storey rear extension, which would extend beyond the rear wall of the original house by 3.56 metres, for which the maximum height would be 2.70 metres, and for which the height of the eaves would be 2.70 metres. 13 Higher Spring Gardens Ottery St Mary EX11 1HWRef. No: 22/0755/GPD | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a side dormer and alterations to fenestration. Meadowbrook Talewater Talaton Exeter EX5 2RSRef. No: 22/0738/FUL | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a side dormer and alterations to fenestration. Meadowbrook Talewater Talaton Exeter EX5 2RSRef. No: 22/0739/LBC | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed two-storey rear extension, single storey side extension with alteration to fenestration, demolition of existing extension and 6 x rooflights. Inglenook Rockbeare Hill Rockbeare Devon EX5 2EZRef. No: 22/0741/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Oak (T2 ), fell and Oak (T3) reduce to four metres as suggested within the arboriculture report. This is due to ring barking having been carried out by a previous owner of our property as well as possible herbicide impregnation into the bark and as such is resulting in the death of both trees. There is concern that as these two trees continue to deteriorate further branch drop will cause damage to either people or property as the trees stand on the boundary of Lower Broad Oak Road. As we discussed with the East Devon Tree Officer and Arboriculturist, we will be replanting two saplings to compensate for the two Oaks being lost. Dene Lower Broad Oak Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1XHRef. No: 22/0737/TRE | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Two storey side extension. 10 Greenway Seaton Devon EX12 2SERef. No: 22/0752/FUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Lawful Development for a Proposed Conversion of roof space to habitable use to include two rear dormer.115 Victoria Road Exmouth EX8 1DRRef. No: 22/0736/CPL | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for a Proposed Installation of new roof lights and new double doors with alteration to fenestration.4 Diamond Cottages Sandygate Exeter EX2 7JNRef. No: 22/0734/CPL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of garden wall to rear garden, creation of off street parking with electric charging points, replacement of outbuilding, restoration of steps to rear door and associated landscaping. 16 Windsor Square Exmouth Devon EX8 1JXRef. No: 22/0722/LBC | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of 5A Mill Street from Hairdresser (Use Class E(c)(ii)) to Hot Food Takeaway (Sui Generis) and internal combination with 5 Mill Street Hot Food Takeaway (Sui Generis). 5 Mill Street Ottery St Mary Devon EX11 1ABRef. No: 22/0726/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of garden wall to rear garden, creation of off street parking with electric charging points, replacement of outbuilding, restoration of steps to rear door and associated landscaping. 16 Windsor Square Exmouth Devon EX8 1JXRef. No: 22/0721/FUL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed lime-based render. Fern Cottage The Strand Lympstone EX8 5JSRef. No: 22/0716/FUL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed lime-based render. Fern Cottage The Strand Lympstone EX8 5JSRef. No: 22/0717/LBC | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Garage conversion to habitable use, internal changes with alteration to fenestration and additional shed. Longmeadows Lodge Feniton Honiton EX14 3BERef. No: 22/0695/LBC | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Garage conversion to habitable use, internal changes with alteration to fenestration and additional shed. Longmeadows Lodge Feniton Honiton EX14 3BERef. No: 22/0694/FUL | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Single storey side extension with glazed link, external alterations and demolition of existing outhouse. Upper Cottage Rocombe DT7 3RRRef. No: 22/0702/LBC | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of agricultural building Land At Hill Barton Farm (Wood Farm) FarringdonRef. No: 22/0685/MFUL | Validated: Thu 07 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Placement of tables and chairs on The Strand, Exmouth until 30 September 2023 Strand Gardens The Strand ExmouthRef. No: 22/0658/FUL | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of land to residential, construction of detached garage/store and associated works. Higher Leyhill Farm The Old Stable Broadhembury EX14 3JYRef. No: 22/0651/FUL | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension & conversion of existing garden room to a garden office, with alteration to fenestration. Torwood Cottington Mead Sidmouth Devon EX10 8HBRef. No: 22/0639/FUL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of macrocarpa and 2 leylandii in South East corner of Little Glade. As discussed and provisionally agreed with arboricultural officer Robin Offer during site visit in October 2021. All three trees are very large and block out significant light from my property (Fir Grove), Little Glade and surrounding neighbours’. Myself, James at Little Glade and our mutual neighbour would all like the trees removed. On the site visit by Robin last year it was also suggested that the macrocarpa might be diseased and need significant work done to it anyway. There are no plans to replant as the removal of the trees will benefit a young oak and a mature scots pine adjacent. Little Glade West Hill Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TURef. No: 22/0624/TRE | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of an old barn and construction of replacement storage building. Dunkeswell Airfield (The Timber Compound) Dunkeswell Industrial Estate DevonRef. No: 22/0619/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed conservatory to the side of the property. Havencliffe Axmouth EX12 4ABRef. No: 22/0617/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of an existing agricultural building and erection of 1 no. detached dwelling and associated external works Pinneywood Farm Lodge Lane Axminster EX13 5RTRef. No: 22/0611/FUL | Validated: Fri 08 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of new external porch, wheelchair ramp, solar shading and replacement windows. Sidmouth Bowling Club Headquarters Coburg Terrace Sidmouth EX10 8NHRef. No: 22/0552/FUL | Validated: Mon 04 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Extend existing garden boundary fence (existing fence approved under application no 21/0646/FUL) and erect small timber greenhouse in rear garden Flat 1 Sidbury House Church Street Sidbury Sidmouth EX10 0SBRef. No: 22/0473/FUL | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of externally illuminated identification flex face signs. Installation of internally illuminated projecting sign. Installation of customer information/directional post sign. Unit 3 Exeter Logistics Park Werstan Road Clyst Honiton Exeter Devon EX5 2GBRef. No: 22/0359/ADV | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Division of existing second floor apartment into 2 x 2 bed self-contained flats. 1 Cowley Place Cowley Exeter EX5 5DGRef. No: 22/0251/FUL | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Division of existing second floor apartment into 2 x 2 bed self-contained flats. 1 Cowley Place Cowley Exeter EX5 5DGRef. No: 22/0252/LBC | Validated: Wed 06 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Increase height of chimney and fit cowl on east roadside; replace external door and side panels with French doors on rear (east) elevation; increase size of window opening and replace window at first floor rear (west) elevation and create new opening at ground floor between kitchen and breakfast room Deepway Cottage Deepway Sidbury Sidmouth EX10 0SARef. No: 22/0092/LBC | Validated: Tue 05 Apr 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision