Utterly appalling – Owl

‘Intimidation and threats’ says man assaulted by councillor

Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

A man who was sexually assaulted as a child by a former East Devon District councillor says “there are still so many questions to be answered” after addressing a full council meeting about “decades of pain and trauma” made worse, he alleges, by police inaction, intimidation – and even threats to his friends and family by police officers. 

John Humphreys, a former Conservative councillor and mayor of Exmouth, is serving 21 years in prison for sexual assaulting two boys 10 years apart. He had been arrested in May 2016 and was under investigation for over five years before going to court. The judge at his trial said six of his offences should be assessed against the modern guidelines for rape.

One unnamed victim, an Exmouth resident, wrote a letter to Councillor Eileen Wragg (Liberal Democrats, Democratic Alliance Group) which was read out at full council meeting this week. 

In the letter, 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. He also asked how no one knew Mr Humphreys was under police investigation when he was offered the honorary title of alderman in 2019.

The award is made by many councils, including East Devon, to former councillors who may then continue to represent the local authority at some functions.

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 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 Jimmie Saville came out after his death in 2011, the victim decided to try again. He told the council: “I met my partner and when we found out she was pregnant I thought ‘let’s do something about it now I’m bringing a child into the world.’ 

“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.”

Humphreys was originally arrested in May 2016 but it took over five years for the case to come to court.  The victim says that Humphreys knew that the case was live during the period of 2016 to 2021 – during which time he served as a councillor before standing down and subsequently being awarded the ‘alderman’ title for his services to the district. 

“This leaves me wondering,” read the letter, “‘who else knew and how was he allowed to carry on as usual being a councillor at Exmouth and East Devon?’

The victim said he had a psychological fear of Mr Humphreys because of his standing and influence in the community. He said: “I still feel that Humphreys has been favoured because of his connections, his apparent good character and social standing as a councillor.”

“In my mind, he has been a monster to me. He took away my teenage years and this has gone into my adulthood. I should have retained that innocence – but that choice was taken away from me by this man. 

“There are still so many questions to be answered. After the verdict, I was still ignored. I’d like to be heard. It is important to me that the council hears me, hears my statement. What difference it makes I don’t know. Maybe a few people will be sat there worried. It will be nice to be heard.”

Councillor Eileen Wragg, who was visibly upset after reading the statement, praised the bravery of the victim and his mother. She told the council that she met the victim earlier this month. She said: “He’s entirely credible. He’s obviously been deeply affected.

“The worrying aspect of this for me was there was no criminal record. A DBS check wouldn’t have picked that up. The worrying thing is that children were being sent from the school straight to a paedophile for work experience. That is so worrying. There is a lot more that needs to be investigated here.”

Leader of the council Paul Arnott (Democratic Alliance Group, Coly Valley) said the victim is “one of the bravest people who has ever lived in East Devon.”

He added: “I think that’s really important. Not only has he seen this through to a prosecution, he has brought forward this statement tonight through Councillor Wragg.”

Councillor Ben Ingham (Conservative, Woodbury and Lympstone) thanked Cllr Wragg for reading the statement and the victim for writing the letter. He said: “I believe we all needed to hear that.”  

Cllr Arnott told the council that would be writing to the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Police, Shawn Sawyer, asking him to “refer his force” to the Independent Office for Police Conduct to look at how the case was handled in earlier years. 

He will alo be writing to East Devon Conservatives asking if an inquiry has taken place into Humphreys and to share its conclusions if such an inquiry has taken place.

Cllr Arnott also said at full council that he believes some members of the council must have known that Humphreys was under investigation. The Conservative dismiss this claim, saying they did not know: “For the simple reason it would have been wholly inappropriate for the police to share details of a live investigation with those not connected with the case.”

In response to allegations about the conduct of police officers, a statement from Devon and Cornwall Police said: “We are aware of an East Devon District Council meeting that was held online yesterday (Wednesday 8 December), which included a statement that was read out on behalf of a victim of John Humphreys, the former mayor of Exmouth who was jailed in August for 21 years after being found guilty of historic sex offences against two boys.

“This case was a long and protracted investigation involving historic sexual offences that dated back more than 30 years to the early and late 1990s; the conviction was only possible due to the tenacity, patience and strength of the victims who put their trust in our officers who investigating these matters.

 “Whilst we sincerely hoped that the guilty verdict and strong sentence would allow our victims to move on with their lives, last night’s statement does show that more still needs to be done.

“Therefore, officers will be reaching out to the victims in this case to offer them further support, and if requested, to assist with commencing a formal complaint into how this case was initially handled.”

Read the letter in full here: https://bit.ly/3lRKcA5 

Boris Johnson was accused of misleading his own ethics adviser last night, exposing the prime minister to a potential suspension from the House of Commons, as MPs demanded a fresh probe into his personal donors.

Jessica Elgot www.theguardian.com 

With pressure mounting after a disastrous series of mistakes and scandals, Johnson’s integrity was once again under the spotlight after an official report suggested he gave differing accounts to investigators looking into the redecoration of his Downing Street flat.

Their calls were provoked by a report published yesterday by the Electoral Commission, which had spent eight months investigating the funding of the costly redecoration. The commission fined the Conservative party £17,800 for serious donation reporting failures relating to the work.

But documents released by the commission also revealed Johnson sent a WhatsApp message to the Tory donor Lord Brownlow in November last year seeking more money for the costly makeover.

In an earlier inquiry into the matter, Johnson had assured Lord Geidt, the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, that he did not know who had given money for the work until it was revealed by the media in February this year.

Though Downing Street denied there was any inconsistency, Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner said Johnson “must now explain why he lied to the British public”. She said the prime minister was taking people for fools.

The Labour MP Margaret Hodge has written to the parliamentary standards commissioner, Kathryn Stone, urging her to investigate whether Johnson misledLord Geidt, who had cleared him of breaching the ministerial code.

In a letter seen by the Guardian, Hodge said it “appears that the prime minister may have lied” to Geidt’s inquiry about when Johnson became aware of the donations. “If these allegations are true, then this would be an egregious case of dishonesty and a breach of the Nolan principles.”

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said the discrepancy in accounts was “extremely serious”. “How do standards function if PM doesn’t tell truth to Geidt?” she tweeted.

Geidt is said to be expecting an explanation from Johnson about the potential discrepancy between what he was told and what the Electoral Commission report found.

Should Stone launch an investigation, it would set Conservative MPs up for another clash over the regulation of MPs, with many Tories still wounded from an attempt to change the rules over sanctions for the Tory MP Owen Paterson, who was found to have breached lobbying rules.

Though it would be politically unprecedented, the commissioner’s powers do include recommending the suspension of an MP and – depending on the length of the suspension – a recall petition in their constituency. If 10% of voters there are in favour of a byelection, the MP must face the voters again

The furore over the flat refurbishment has dogged Johnson for months. The money for the work came from the Tory peer, David Brownlow, via his company Huntswood Associates Ltd. It was used to cover the costs of extensive and costly refurbishment changes to the flat above No 11 Downing Street, where Johnson, his wife, Carrie, and their children live.

The commission’s report sets out previously unreported details that suggest Johnson knew about the donation from Brownlow earlier than he had previously told Geidt. In his report, Geidt said the prime minister insisted “he knew nothing about such payments until immediately prior to media reports in February 2021”.

Nevertheless, the commission’s report makes clear that on 23 June 2020, Johnson offered Brownlow the role of chair of the Downing Street Trust role, and on 29 November messaged Brownlow on WhatsApp asking him to authorise further refurbishment works on the flat.

Downing Street claimed there was no inconsistency between the Geidt and Electoral Commission reports, as Johnson only knew that Brownlow was organising donations to pay for the refurbishment works, not that Brownlow was himself “the underlying donor”. Brownlow had “behaved in a confidential manner” after being appointed to head the blind trust in June 2020, Johnson’s spokesperson said.

“Despite the prime minister and Lord Brownlow having some limited contact during the following three months, the record shows no evidence that the prime minister had been informed by Lord Brownlow that he had personally settled the total cost,” he said.

The spokesperson declined to explain why some payments for the flat, including one of £59,000, were cited in the new report but had not seemingly been declared by Johnson, saying this was “in the most part a matter for” Conservative HQ. They added: “The prime minister has acted in accordance with the rules at all times. He has made any requisite declarations.”

Saying Johnson had full confidence in Geidt, the spokesperson declined to say whether Geidt had seen the messages to Brownlow before writing his report.

In total, Johnson repaid more than £110,000 for flat refurbishments, reported to have included wallpaper costing £840 a roll. Carrie Johnson is reported to have enlisted the sought-after interior designer Lulu Lyttle for the works.

Brownlow was approached to chair the Downing Street Trust, a trust to pay for works to Downing Street using anonymous donations. By June, when lockdown began to ease, the refurbishment was under way.

The Cabinet Office agreed to pay the extra costs from three invoices totalling £52,801, then be reimbursed by the Conservatives on the basis that a trust would be set up later.

Around a month later, on 6 August, the party reimbursed the government. In September, the supplier then invoiced the Cabinet Office for a further £12,967, which was forwarded first to Brownlow and then to Conservative central headquarters (CCHQ).

The following month, Brownlow confirmed in a crucial paper trail email that he would be making a £15,000 donation and “£52,801.72 to cover payments the party has made on behalf of the soon-to-be-formed ‘Downing Street Trust’ of which I am chairman”. On the same day, 19 October, he paid £12,967 to the supplier for the invoice received in September.

When a junior party staffer raised questions about the £52,801 which was treated as “funds for reimbursement” rather than a donation, they were told by a senior fundraising officer: “Don’t worry.”

Brownlow made two more payments directly to the supplier, bringing the total sum to £112,549. The following month, Johnson paid back the cash to the supplier, which then returned the funds it had received from Brownlow and the Cabinet Office.

How Johnson footed the bill remains unknown. The commission said: “Any payments between the prime minister and the supplier are outside the scope of our investigation.”

And from today’s Telegraph:

Boris Johnson’s standards adviser on brink of quitting over Downing Street flat

Lord Geidt considering his position after Prime Minister allegedly misled him over refurbishment

The PM’s press chief addressed staff and gave out awards at a Downing Street party last Christmas that is now under investigation, it is understood.

www.bbc.co.uk

Jack Doyle, then deputy director of communications, gave a speech to 20-30 people at the gathering on 18 December.

A source has told the BBC there were food, drinks and games at the event.

Downing Street said: “There is an ongoing review, and we won’t be commenting further while that is the case.”

This event is one of three government staff gatherings from last year now being investigated by the UK’s top civil servant, Simon Case.

Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner said news of Mr Doyle’s attendance had “exposed” Mr Case’s inquiry as a “sham”.

Mr Doyle was also attending Covid meetings in No 10 that night, which went on until late in the evening, the BBC has been told.

It is understood every Friday Mr Doyle would thank staff for working hard and give out an award.

ITV News, which first reported that Mr Doyle was present at this event on 18 December, said he had also handed out award certificates to staff on this occasion.

The event took place two days after London went into Tier 3 lockdown restrictions, meaning people were told not to mix indoors with anyone outside their household or support bubble.

No 10 has refused to explain how the party complied with Covid restrictions in force at the time, despite a deepening row and days of questioning by reporters.

Sources in Westminster are questioning whether it’s possible for Jack Doyle to stay in his job. In part that’s because one of the problems this week for No 10 has been their efforts to deny and explain what did or didn’t happen.

Ministers, and the prime minister himself, have been stuck in the Kafka-esque position of saying that they are sure no rules were broken, but they also don’t know what went on.

If they don’t know what happened, how can they be sure that nothing went wrong?

And if multiple sources have said there was a gathering of several dozen people, and people who were not on the Downing Street payroll had been invited, how can that have been just a few work drinks at the desk in a Covid-secure office?

Mr Doyle, well-liked by his colleagues, is – as director of communications – in charge of the government’s messaging. This week the message has misfired, which makes his confirmed attendance a very big problem.

And for government spinners over the years have often found, there is one fundamental error they cannot make. That’s to become part of the story themselves, an uncomfortable position that Boris Johnson’s press chief now finds himself in.

Headline from Daily Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk

Boris Johnson told millions of people to begin working from home next week, but said that they should still attend office Christmas parties with their colleagues.

Watch the loophole – Owl

Nothing to see here, please move along! – Owl

Exmouth, Sidmouth, Honiton and Ottery St. Mary – have you missed a trick? – Owl

Casey Magloire, news reporter news.sky.com

The small Cornish town of Marazion has bid to be officially recognised as a city for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations, which would make it the tiniest one in the country.

With a population of around 1,400, Marazion faces tough competition from the likes of Reading, Bournemouth and Middlesborough, which are all vying to become the UK’s next city.

The competition has been arranged by the government to celebrate Her Majesty‘s 70 years on the throne.

‘Size isn’t important’

Local councillor Richard Stokoe said that the town is home to big supporters of the Queen and planned celebrations alongside the city bid.

If the bid is successful next year, the town would be the smallest city and – at just 15 miles from Land’s End – it would also become the most southern.

“Size isn’t important,” said Cllr Stokoe. “Marazion deserves to be celebrated and given city Despite its size, the historic town – about 26 miles west of Cornwall’s only city, Truro – is packed full of heritage and overlooks the picturesque St Michael’s Mount.

Cllr Stokoe admitted that the bid has received mixed reception from the close-knit residents and split the council, but supporters are focused on the economic boost that would come with becoming a city.

Why bid to become a city?

Research produced by the University of Reading showed that a city bid alone can boost an economy and stimulate inward investment.

“It costs nothing,” Cllr Stokoe said. “Achieving city status would further raise the profile of Marazion, stimulate local businesses and prosper the community.

“It’s a magical, magical, magical place. This could put us on the map.”

Paul Elliott, the chair of Marazion’s Chamber of Commerce, added: “More than anything, the people of Marazion are excited to share their beautiful town with the world and attract more visitors.”

As an investigation is launched into a party held in No 10, other alleged gatherings are under the spotlight amid allegations that some in Downing Street may have contravened Covid rules.

Aubrey Allegretti www.theguardian.com 

An inquiry announced by the prime minister, however, is focused on facts surrounding what happened on 18 December 2020.

18 December 2020 – Downing Street Christmas party

A party was held in No 10 when London was in tier 3 restrictions, which banned social events, according to multiple sources after the Daily Mirror first broke the story last week. Several dozen people – a mix of civil service and political staff – reportedly attended and were told to bring “secret Santa” presents, with cheese and wine laid on.

While Boris Johnson’s spokesperson insisted no rules had been broken and then denied any party took place, a video filmed four days after the event was published by ITV.

The leaked footage showed Allegra Stratton, the prime minister’s then aide, rehearsing for televised press conferences and laughing and joking with aides about a party on 18 December. Stratton all but confirmed the event took place by laughing it off as a “business meeting” but added: “It was not socially distanced.” Cabinet secretary Simon Case will investigate what rules may have been broken.

10 December – Gavin Williamson’s staff party

Earlier in the month, when London was in tier 2, which only allowed socialising in groups of six outside, then-education secretary Gavin Williamson threw a party in his Whitehall department.

The most senior civil servant in the department, Susan Acland-Hood, attended and admitted that there was a “work-related” gathering hosted in the canteen. She did not dispute people were drinking wine, and blamed Williamson for instigating the event.

She recalled he wanted to “say a few words” to thank staff after a difficult year. Acland-Hood confirmed Case would also consider the Department for Education event as part of his investigation into Westminster parties.

Unspecified date in December – a festive No 10 quiz

On an unspecified date also in December, a Christmas quiz was organised for No 10 staff, the BBC said, with invites emailed to everyone who worked in the building.

Some guests were said to have dialled in by Zoom but others apparently attended in-person and sat in groups of six, some wearing Christmas jumpers. Downing Street was contacted for comment.

27 November – Downing Street leaving do

While England was still in the grip of its second national lockdown, a leaving do was organised in No 10 – said to have been for Cleo Watson, a former aide to Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings.

A source told the Guardian that Johnson personally attended and gave a speech, remarking on how full with people the room was, before leaving to continue working.

At the time, socialising in groups from different households was completely banned and people were ordered to work from home, though key workers could continue going into the office.

13 November – Boris and Carrie Johnson flat party

The latest alleged party to emerge dates to around midway through England’s second lockdown and relates to the Downing Street flat where Johnson and his wife live.

The accusation came from Cummings and the event was said to have taken place on the same evening he left Downing Street for good. After Case’s review into the 18 December party was announced, Cummings urged the cabinet secretary to also investigate a party in the Johnsons’ flat.

He alleged there had been “other flat parties” and suggested the pair’s “bubble” policy should be investigated. Asked this week if a party went ahead in his flat on 13 November, Johnson said “no”.

The prime minister’s “bubble” has come under scrutiny before, after his spokesperson did not deny that a close friend of Carrie Johnson – Nimco Ali – stayed with them last Christmas. One of the explanations offered was that Ali was considered part of the Johnsons’ childcare support bubble.

Dominic Cummings has claimed that there was yet another party in Downing Street during lockdown last year.

Jen Mills metro.co.uk 

It comes after the prime minister was forced to defend himself in the Commons this afternoon over allegations there was a secret party for staff on December 18, when London was under Tier three restrictions.

Video of his then press secretary appearing to laugh about it with colleagues sparked anger last night, with Boris saying he is ‘furious’ after seeing the footage and will call for an investigation.

As PMQs went on, former top government aide Mr Cummings decided to add some more fuel to the fire by tweeting: ‘Will the CABSEC also be asked to investigate the *flat* party on Fri 13 Nov, the other flat parties, & the flat’s ‘bubble’ policy…?’

November 13 is the same day that Mr Cummings left government, following reports of bitter in-fighting.

After he made the allegations, Labour MP Catherine West asked during PMQs if he could confirm whether there was a part in Downing Street that day.

He replied ‘no’ and added: ‘I’m sure that whatever happened the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.’

Mr Johnson insisted he had been repeatedly assured ‘there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken’.

It comes after The Department for Education admitted it held a social gathering of staff on December 10 last year in contravention to coronavirus social distancing rules as London was under Tier two restrictions at the time.

A spokeswoman for the department said: ‘‘Drinks and snacks were brought by those attending and no outside guests or supporting staff were invited or present.

‘While this was work-related, looking back we accept it would have been better not to have gathered in this way at that particular time.’

During the Commons session today, Labour’s Dr Rosena Allin-Khan questioned how Boris Johnson slept at night as she recalled weeping behind her mask while working in intensive care.

The MP for Tooting said the country is ‘angry’ before adding: ‘Last Christmas while we were in lockdown, millions of people were unable to be with their families, thousands of people waved through their care home windows at loved ones wishing them a merry Christmas from the side of the road, people died without that last touch from their daughters, their sons, their wives.

‘Working in intensive care I wept behind my mask as three children talking to their dying mother on an iPad begged her to wake up. Countless children now growing up without parents while parties were held at No 10.

‘This is disgraceful, this is an insult to everyone who followed the rules, it is an insult to everyone who wasn’t allowed to say their final goodbye. This happened on the Prime Minister’s watch so my question is very simple: How does the Prime Minister sleep at night?’

Mr Johnson thanked Dr Rosena for her service, adding: ‘If you ask me how I sleep at night, the answer is of course I take full responsibility and personal responsibility for everything that this Government has done, but I must say the way forward for this country now is to focus on the position we are in and above all to get our vaccinations as we fast as we possibly can.’

The Metropolitan Police said it is reviewing footage of Downing Street staff discussing the Christmas party at a press conference rehearsal.

It comes as thousands of people have signed a Change.org petition calling on the IOPC, the police watchdog, to investigate the Metropolitan Police’s response to the alleged incident.

Is the search now on for the mole who leaked the video, and which will attract more effort: mole or the party? – Owl 

The Metropolitan Police has said it will not be opening an investigation into allegations Downing Street staff broke coronavirus rules with a Christmas party last year, as Boris Johnson apologised and a senior aide was forced to quit over the scandal.

Sam Corbishley metro.co.uk

Scotland Yard said officers will not ‘commence an investigation at this time’ in line with its ‘policy not to investigate retrospective breaches’ of coronavirus rules despite reviewing the allegations and leaked footage showing senior No 10 staff joking about a party.

But the force added that it was open to considering any further evidence unearthed in an internal investigation the Prime Minister was forced to task Cabinet Secretary Simon Case with undertaking as he claimed to be ‘furious’ about the video.

Amid mounting public anger Allegra Stratton, who was the Prime Minister’s spokeswoman, resigned as a Government adviser after video emerged of her and other aides ‘seeming to make light of lockdown measures’ just days after the gathering in No 10.

A Met statement acknowledged it had received ‘a significant amount of correspondence’ relating to the alleged breaches in the run up to Christmas last year but said they do not ‘provide evidence of a breach’ of Covid rules.

It added: ‘Based on the absence of evidence and in line with our policy not to investigate retrospective breaches of such regulations, the Met will not commence an investigation at this time.

‘The Met has had discussions with the Cabinet Office in relation to the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary. If any evidence is found as a result of that investigation, it will be passed to the Met for further consideration.’

Mr Johnson has repeatedly insisted that rules were followed in Downing Street since the claims first emerged about the December 18 party.

However, at Prime Minister’s Questions, he told the Commons he based that position on assurances from junior staff as he offered an apology.

He asked Mr Case ‘to establish all the facts and to report back as soon as possible – and it goes without saying that if those rules were broken then there will be disciplinary action for all those involved’.

His decision to launch an investigation followed a week of official denials that the party took place when London was under Tier 3 restrictions – despite reports staff drank alcohol and exchanged Secret Santa gifts.

Downing Street’s official line has now shifted with the announcement of the Case inquiry, with the Prime Minister’s press secretary declining to repeat the statement that ‘there was no party’.

She said ‘it wouldn’t be right to comment further’ while Mr Case was investigating.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the Prime Minister’s apology ‘raises more questions than answers’ as he had been ‘caught red-handed’.

He asked Mr Johnson: ‘Millions of people now think the Prime Minister was taking them for fools, that they were lied to. They are right aren’t they?’

In response to questioning from Sir Keir, the Prime Minister agreed that any evidence uncovered by the Cabinet Secretary about parties in Downing Street would be handed over to police.

Boris Johnson came to the House of Commons today [Wednesday] armed with nothing better than a non-apology apology, a promise to get to the bottom of any mistakes that were made, and an insistence that if any of these events actually happened a year ago they were nothing to do with him.

www.independent.co.uk 

Keir Starmer was almost regretful, as if he had hoped that the prime minister would put up more of a fight: “That’s so desperate, and even his own side can see it.”

The prime minister tried to take the question of the Downing Street Christmas party head on, before it was asked, and to absorb public anger by saying he shared it. He sounded like a disappointed parent, saying he was “furious” when he saw the video of his staff “seeming to make light of lockdown rules”.

But the effect was immediately spoiled by an insincere apology for the “offence” that the video “has caused”, and “for the impression that it gives”. In plain English, he was saddened, as a mere observer, that offence had been caused – as fine an example as one will find in British politics of what Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, once called the “third person passive once removed”. And after all, he was sorry only for the “impression” the video gave, he said, implying that the impression was not accurate.

Keir Starmer questions Boris Johnson’s moral authority to lead

He had no idea what an accurate impression would be, of course, so he said he had asked Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, to establish the facts, apparently having failed to establish them himself since the Christmas party was first reported by the Daily Mirror more than a week ago. “I have been assured repeatedly that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken,” he said. In other words, I was only following orders given to me by my subordinates.

Finally he said that if anything bad had happened, despite his knowing nothing about it – that is, “if”, and there is probably a Latin phrase for the exculpatory conditional – heads would roll. But not his, obviously.

Then he put his head down and tried to get through the rest of the session of Prime Minister’s Questions by alternately sounding sad and defiant. He sounded mournful and sympathetic when Starmer raised the case of Trisha Greenhalgh, the professor of primary care, whose mother died alone last Christmas because the family kept to the rules and didn’t visit.

But in the next sentence he said it was a “great mistake” of Starmer’s to “play politics” with the issue. “I don’t think the public do want to see confidence in these measures undermined,” he said. Starmer seemed so surprised at being accused of what he was accusing Johnson of that he almost lost his thread.

Boris Johnson agrees to hand over information about No 10 Christmas parties to police

Starmer made his case, but failed to connect, because the prime minister and his officials had already so comprehensively made the case against themselves. The Labour leader managed to mention that he had been head of the Crown Prosecution Service, and so could say that Dominic Raab had been talking “total nonsense” when he said that the police don’t normally investigate crimes from a year ago. But as everyone, including the deputy prime minister, already knows it is nonsense, this seemed a feeble condemnation.

Starmer secured a commitment from the prime minister to hand over everything to the Metropolitan Police if they asked for it, but otherwise was best advised to ask bland questions and to allow Johnson to condemn himself.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices newsletter by clicking here

Johnson obliged, accusing Starmer again of muddying the waters and playing politics and switching in his answer to Starmer’s sixth and last question to saying that “the party opposite wants to decriminalise drugs”. He then repeated the line about muddying waters and playing politics in answer to Ian Blackford of the Scottish National Party, who he said was playing politics with “events or non-events from a year ago”.

It was an unedifying performance by a prime minister in trouble, whose staff had patently failed to supply him with the lines he needed – which rather suggests that there is no defence available. He got through it, partly because expectations are always too high of the leader of the opposition in such a situation – Starmer’s own MPs must have imagined that they really had trapped the prime minister this time, only for him to fail to put up his hands and resign on the spot.

And so Johnson scuttled out of the chamber as fast as he could the moment the session was over, with the question asked in the video of her mock press conference by Allegra Stratton, his former spokesperson, hanging over him. “What’s the answer?”

A Devon woman who is suing the government over its handling of the pandemic has accused the prime minister of double standards over the “disgusting” Downing Street Christmas party and says he should now resign.

Edward Oldfield www.devonlive.com 

Dr Cathy Gardner brought the case following the death of her father Michael Gibson, at the age 88 in a care home in April 2020, with probable Covid.

Her comments echoed widespread condemnation after details emerged of the staff party which apparently took place against lockdown rules in December 2020 when indoor social gatherings were banned.

Dr Gardner, from Sidmouth, said the apparent holding of the party showed a similar disregard for the rules as when the prime minister’s adviser Dominic Cummings was accused of breaching the lockdown.

She described holding the party as “disgusting” at a time when hundreds of people were dying daily from Covid. She said it showed a disregard for the rules in a culture at No. 10 which the prime minister was responsible for.

Boris Johnson told MPs on Wednesday he has ordered an investigation and said he was “furious” about footage apparently showing aides joking about the party.

The prime minister apologised “unreservedly” for the offence caused by the video obtained by ITN of his then-spokeswoman Allegra Stratton at a mock press conference.

But he insisted he had been repeatedly assured “there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”.

Dr Gardner said: “To me, it just confirms the view of their appalling handling of the pandemic, and their contempt for the public – failing to tell the truth, failing to admit what happened.

“It is not the first time, it happened with the Barnard Castle fiasco, when Boris Johnson defended Dominic Cummings, which blew massive holes through public confidence and public support and adherence to the rules.

“This is the same thing. A few months later apparently they were holding several parties, and the prime minister is responsible for what happens at No. 10.

“It is just disgusting, at a time when so many people were still dying day after day.

“They have never properly considered the impact on the public. It just seems that Johnson just treats it all as a bit of a game, and if he can duck and dive, he will.”

Dr Gardner said there was apparently a culture at Downing Street which meant people felt able to ignore the rules.

She added: “If he has staff who were prepared to lie to him about what happened, it also says something about the culture.

“He has changed the story according to what gets leaked, that he has to answer.

“It is just time for him to go. He should resign, because how can he seriously expect anybody to listen to him telling them what they should do, when he doesn’t show any respect for it? It has been going on for such a long time.”

Dr Gardner’s legal challenge claims that the UK Government, and NHS England, unlawfully failed to do enough to protect the right to life of vulnerable care home residents in the early response to the virus.

The case is due to be heard in the high court early in the spring 2021, two years after her father died. His cause of death is recorded as “probable Covid” as he was not tested for the virus.

Dr Gardner, who represents Sidmouth Town on East Devon Council and is a member of the East Devon Alliance, has raised more than £130,000 with a public appeal to fund the joint legal challenge, but the campaign is still short of the total amount needed.

The chief executive of one of the companies behind homes in Cranbrook has labelled the town a “real success”, despite the lack of a town centre.

Joe Ives www.devonlive.com

The comments were made by Paul Crawford, chief executive of LiveWest, one of the two main providers of affordable housing in Cranbrook.

Cranbrook currently has around 2,350 dwellings, equating to approximately 5,500 residents. Almost 8,000 new homes are yet to be constructed, which would give the town a population of more than 18,000.

Despite this, more than 10 years since the diggers went in, Cranbrook still has no town centre, which has led to consternation from many residents.

But Mr Crawford said: “We do have local shops. We do have a community centre. We do have schools that are thriving and there’s a good infrastructure both for road and for buses.

“Cranbrook has been a real success. It’s a really good example of civic leadership.

“I know there were over 9,000 complaints against Cranbrook being developed and I think you have to sort of recognise that East Devon [district council] showed great leadership and collaboration with Exeter to recognise that there was a need for a new settlement and it was masterplanned and it is successfully delivering homes that are needed for people within Devon who want to live and work in a beautiful part of the country.”

He argues that part of the reason why the town centre hadn’t materialised is because of the current economic uncertainty gripping the country amidst the pandemic and changing fortunes for high street retailers.

Mr Crawford added: “If commerce and retail don’t have the appetite to let that space and therein lies the problem. It’s a bit like asking LiveWest to build houses that no one wants to rent – we wouldn’t do it.

“A developer to go off and build a town centre now at a time where there may not be the confidence that people will rent those available units means that there have been delays and there will probably continue to be delays.

“I think it’s something we’re just going to have to work through rather than recognising that – as and when we get back to a new normal in terms of high streets and what that looks like – then we will start to see more confidence in developing the town centre.”

He admits there is an argument to say things could have been done differently, with the town centre coming earlier.

He says Cranbrook and Sherford, a new town to the east of Plymouth, could be used as case studies to find out what could be improved in future.

LiveWest, which owns and manages more 38,000 homes across the south west, plans to build 6,000 new homes across the region in the next five years.

PM accused of lying after No 10 officials caught joking about Christmas party

“It wasn’t a party … it was cheese and wine.”  

Or, maybe: 

“This fictional party was a business meeting”

Allegra Stratton rehearses explanations at mock press briefing.

We locked down but Whitehall laughed – Owl

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

Boris Johnson is facing accusations of lying after senior No 10 officials were filmed joking about a lockdown Christmas party that Downing Street insists did not take place.

Johnson and his aides have repeatedly denied that the event, reportedly held for staff at No 10 in December last year, broke Covid rules or took place at all.

In the leaked video of a mock televised press briefing, an adviser to Johnson is seen joking with Allegra Stratton, the prime minister’s then press secretary, about “a Downing Street Christmas party on Friday night”.

The footage, obtained by ITV, was shot on 22 December 2020. The Friday before was 18 December, the date on which multiple sources have said there was a staff party inside Downing Street, which would have contravened strict Covid regulations in place at the time.

It shows Stratton, prime ministerial adviser Ed Oldfield and other staff making a series of jokes about a party, including references to “cheese and wine”, the lack of social distancing and making the excuse it was a business meeting.

Quizzed in the leaked footage, Stratton laughingly says: “This is recorded … This fictional party was a business meeting and it was not socially distanced.”

Johnson has repeatedly said no Covid rules were broken, while his spokesman denied earlier on Tuesday that any event at Downing Street took place. Asked about the video, Downing Street insisted it had not changed its view, saying: “There was no Christmas party. Covid rules have been followed at all times.”

Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said Johnson had not been truthful: “To lie and to laugh about those lies is shameful. The prime minister now needs to come clean and apologise.”

Becky Kummer, spokesperson for Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice said: “There are simply no words to describe how upsetting and shameful it is then to hear Boris Johnson’s team laughing about breaking the rules they had made, whilst others followed them and could only say goodbye to their loved ones through a screen. It’s the behaviour of people who think they’re above us.”

The video – recorded as part of preparations for planned daily televised briefings hosted by Stratton, which were later abandoned – will increase pressure for a formal inquiry into what happened. It may also fuel calls for police action, with Labour MPs having already reported earlier allegations to the Metropolitan police.

Scrutiny of perceived dishonesty and double standards in Johnson’s Downing Street was already intense, particularly over Covid rules given the controversy over Dominic Cummings travelling to Durham from London during lockdown in spring 2020.

On Monday Cummings, Johnson’s former chief adviser, said in a tweet that Downing Street had lied about the party, calling this “very unwise”.

The video footage begins with Oldfield enacting the role of a journalist questioning Stratton as part of the planned briefings, saying: “I’ve just seen reports on Twitter that there was a Downing Street Christmas party on Friday night, do you recognise those reports?”

The exchanges give the strong impression that a staff-based party took place on 18 December and that No 10 officials realised that they were likely to have broken rules.

Staff in No 10 were said to be feeling “very unsettled” in the wake of the footage emerging, with questions being raised about the actions of Stratton and Oldfield.

Some Tory MPs were also livid at what they saw as more evidence of Downing Street’s lack of professionalism – for joking about the party in the first place and for doing so while being recorded. One minister said: “This has the potential to be very bad,” adding: “The idea I’m going to go out and defend this is for the birds.”

At the time of the party last winter, London was in the top tier of Covid restrictions, with no social events allowed even within businesses. Sources have told the Guardian, Mirror, BBC and other outlets that several dozen people were packed tightly at the party, and that there was food and drink served, with party games and “secret Santa” presents.

Stratton, who has since become the spokesperson for Cop26, and Oldfield, who remains at Downing Street, have been contacted for comment.

During a visit to a prison in London on Tuesday, Johnson had declined to explicitly say, as had his spokesperson, that no event took place. “What I can tell you is that all the guidelines were observed, continue to be observed,” he told reporters. Asked if he investigated personally, Johnson said: “I am satisfied myself that the guidelines were followed at all times.”

The SNP’s Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, said that if the narrative about the party in the video about was correct, “then the prime minister’s position is untenable”.

Transcript of the video

Ed Oldfield: I’ve just seen reports on Twitter that there was a Downing Street Christmas party on Friday night, do you recognise those reports?

Allegra Stratton: I went home [laughs], hold on hold on, erm, err …

Oldfield: Would the prime minister condone having a Christmas party?

Stratton [laughing]: What’s the answer?

Oldfield: I don’t know.

Unidentified Downing Street employee: It wasn’t a party … it was cheese and wine.

[Laughter throughout briefing room]

Stratton: Is cheese and wine alright? It was a business meeting.

[Laughter throughout briefing room]

Downing St employee: No, joking.

Stratton [laughing]: This is recorded. This fictional party was a business meeting [laughs] and it was not socially distanced.

Court records show police are prosecuting a 36-year-old man for holding a gathering of two or more people in Ilford, east London, on the same day as one alleged event in Downing Street – a case which shadow health secretary and local MP Wes Streeting has highlighted in the Commons.

Link to tweet

The court list showed the defendant is one of two people facing hearings before magistrates in Westminster on Wednesday charged with breaching Tier 3 restrictions in December, while many more were being prosecuted for allegedly falling foul of Tier 4 rules, introduced on December 20. (source)

A plan that outlines the blueprint for development and how and where it can and cannot happen on Dartmoor is now in force.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

The Dartmoor Local Plan earlier this year was submitted for formal examination in and March a series of virtual hearings took place to assess the soundness of the plan.

The new Local Plan, which takes effect immediately, aims to conserves and enhances the National Park’s ‘Special Qualities’, and protects special areas and features within it from harmful development.

It also decides the type and amount of development required to meet the needs of Dartmoor’s communities and businesses and identifies where development can take place.

Following the initial hearings, various amendments to the plan were suggested, the most substantial being the change in allocation of a site in Buckfastleigh from Holne Road to Timbers Road.

The plan, which give opportunities to meet identified local housing needs, allocates land for around 60 per cent of the indicative housing delivery figure of 65 dwellings per year the National Park needs.

Dan Janota, Dartmoor National Park’s head of forward planning and economy, told a meeting of the Dartmoor National Park Authority on Friday that the Local Plan must strike a balance in the best interests of the National Park as a whole.

His recommendation to accept the Inspector’s Report on the examination of the Dartmoor Local Plan and to adopt the Local Plan 2018-2036 as amended with immediate effect was unanimously supported by the Authority.

It means that any application to the National Park that lands in the inbox as of 12pm on Friday must now comply with the new policies the plan outlines.

Mr Janota said: “There is more evidence behind this Local Plan than any other in the past. The allocated housing development is to meet the target of 65 a year in the Local Plan.

“I hope it is a local plan you take ownership of and policies that you can get behind for the Park, and if there is no environmental or community benefit or no affordable housing, we are in a strong position to say no and tell them to come back and make it better.”

The adoption of the Local Plan will bring in a number of new policy provisions, including:

· A new three tier settlement hierarchy, with settlement boundaries in the Rural Settlements

· Allocated sites for housing development in the Local Centres

· A new ‘local occupancy custom and self-build’ policy

· A revised definition of a ‘local person’ to support those working in the National Park

· Requirements for electric vehicle charging points, ahead of the government provisions

· Higher standards for energy efficiency in new buildings, ahead of the government provisions

· A requirement for all new homes to meet higher levels of accessibility and adaptability

· Limitations to the size of extensions in order to prevent the loss of smaller more affordable homes

· A requirement for development to deliver biodiversity net gain, ahead of the government provisions

· Opportunities for new homes on farms through conversion of traditional buildings

The strategy of the Local Plans says that development is focussed upon protecting the National Park’s Special Qualities, whilst meeting the needs of its communities. Development should maximise the use of brownfield land and existing buildings.

“Major development will not take place in the National Park other than in exceptional circumstances. Housing and employment development will take place in the most sustainable settlements, where the mix of people, homes, jobs and infrastructure make for the most efficient use of resources, minimising our impact on climate change,” it adds.

“Most development will take place in Local Centres, the largest and most sustainable settlements in the National Park, where land is allocated to meet identified local need for affordable housing, employment uses, or opportunities for regeneration.

“In Rural Settlements, Dartmoor’s larger villages, development may come forward at a smaller scale, in order to meet identified housing, employment and infrastructure needs for that community and where there are specific redevelopment opportunities.

“In Villages and Hamlets, the National Park’s smallest and most sensitive villages, only small scale affordable housing development or small scale business growth is appropriate. Outside classified settlements development will principally support the needs of farming, forestry and other rural land-based enterprises, where it can be shown that it needs to take place in the open countryside.”

The Local Plan cannot force development to go ahead as this is decided by land owners and developers, and influenced by economic conditions, prevent businesses, schools, hospitals or other services from closing, control things which are not ‘development’, or please everyone, all of the time.

WHAT IS IN THE LOCAL PLAN?

HOUSING

The focus of housing development in Dartmoor National Park is the delivery of affordable, well designed, efficient homes to meet the needs of local people. Market housing will support the delivery of affordable housing, it should also respond to the needs of local people in terms of size, mix and tenure. Around 65 new homes will be built in the National Park each year.

WHERE SHOULD DEVELOPMENT TAKE PLACE?

ASHBURTON

• An area of land at Longstone Cross is allocated for residential development of to provide around 40 homes with 100 per cent affordable housing. Development of this site should come forward only in response to an identified affordable housing need.
• An area of land a Chuley Road is identified for redevelopment for mixed use. Within this area, development will be approved where it is informed by and responds to the local need for affordable housing, the economic vibrancy of the area, traffic movement, and public and private parking needs and opportunities to conserve and enhance the sites’ railway heritage.

BUCKFASTLEIGH

• An area of land at Barn Park is allocated for residential development to provide around 26 homes, of which not less than 45 per cent must be affordable housing to meet identified local needs. Development should come forward only in response to an identified affordable housing need.
• An area of land at Timbers Road is allocated for development: Parcel A is allocated to provide around 70 homes, of which not less than 45 per cent must be affordable housing to meet identified local needs, and Parcel B is allocated for the delivery of appropriate highway improvement works to access Plymouth Road

CHAGFORD

• An area of land at Lamb Park, Chagford, is allocated for residential development of around 36 homes, of which not less than 45 per cent must be affordable housing to meet identified local needs. Development should come forward only in response to an identified affordable housing need. Development of this site should include an element of affordable and local needs custom and self-build housing.
• An area of land at the Crannafords employment area, Chagford, is allocated for non-town centre uses Development of this site must deliver appropriate highway access improvements, enhance the quality of the built environment and public realm of the Crannafords employment area and enable the delivery of improved cycle and pedestrian access to Chagford.

HORRABRIDGE

• An area of land at New Park, Horrabridge is allocated for residential development of around 35 homes, of which not less than 45 per cent must be affordable housing to meet identified local needs. Development should come forward only in response to an identified affordable housing need and development on this site must make an appropriate on or off-site contribution towards local sports and play provision

MORETONHAMPSTEAD

• An area of land at Betton Way is allocated for residential development of around 18 homes, of which not less than 45 per cent must be affordable housing to meet identified local needs. Development should come forward only in response to an identified affordable housing need and development of this site should include an element of local needs custom and self-build housing.
• An area of land at Forder Farm is allocated for residential development of around 30 homes, of which not less than 45 per cent must be affordable housing to meet identified local needs.
• An area of land at the Thompson’s Haulage depot at Station Road is allocated for residential development of around 26 homes, of which not less than 45 per cent must be affordable housing to meet identified local needs. Development of this site should conserve and enhance the site’s railway heritage, sensitively incorporating the goods shed and platform and provide a link to the Wray Valley Trail.

PRINCETOWN

• Any proposals for the development of Dartmoor Prison must be comprehensive, informed by and delivered in accordance with a Masterplan for the entire site. A Masterplan for the site should be prepared in association with the local community, relevant stakeholders and the Authority and be informed by comprehensive consultation and engagement.

SOUTH BRENT

• Two areas of land at Palstone Lane are allocated for community-led affordable and local needs custom and self-build housing of around 49 homes, of which not less than 45 per cent must be affordable housing to meet identified local needs.
• An area of land at Fairfield is allocated for residential development of around 36 homes, of which not less than 45 per cent must be affordable housing to meet identified local needs.
• An area of land at Station Yard is identified to safeguard the opportunity for a new railway station at South Brent and associated car park.

YELVERTON

• An area of land at Elfordtown is allocated for residential development of around 40 homes, of which not less than 45 per cent must be affordable housing to meet identified local needs.
• An area of land at Binkham Hill is allocated for residential development of around 41 homes, of which not less than 45 per cent must be affordable housing to meet identified local needs. Development of this site should include landscaping to the south and east of the site, provide a link to the Drake’s Trail and include delivery of appropriate highway improvements to access Dousland Road.
• Special constraints will apply to development proposals within the historic residential core of Yelverton. Subdivision and development of typically large plots in this location will not be permitted.

BUCKFAST

• An area of land at the former Axminster Carpets works is identified for mixed use redevelopment to meet identified local needs. Development may include a mix of around 40 homes using, including an element of affordable housing and local needs custom and self build housing, commercial uses comprising principally business and industrial uses, financial and professional services, and assembly and leisure uses, and a mix of residential care and appropriate uses, including an element of affordable housing

MARY TAVY

• Land at Warren Road, Mary Tavy is allocated as a site for a new village primary school.
• To improve the character and appearance of the centre of Mary Tavy, two sites totalling 0.5ha are allocated for mixed-use development incorporating around 19 homes, including not less than 45 per cent affordable housing to meet local needs, parking provision to serve the village and public amenity space.

SOUTH ZEAL

• Within the South Zeal Conservation Area, development will not be permitted where this would cause harm to or affect the significance or setting of burgage plots

RURAL SETTLEMENTS

In the rural settlements of ­­ Belstone, Bittaford, Bridford, Cheriton Cross/Bishop, Christow, Cornwood, Dean/Dean Prior, Dousland, Drewsteignton, Dunsford, Hennock, Holne, Ilsington, Liverton, Lustleigh, Lydford, Manaton, Meavy, North Bovey, North Brentor, Peter Tavy, Postbridge, Scoriton, Shaugh Prior, Sourton, South Tawton, Sticklepath, Throwleigh, Walkhampton, Whiddon Down and Widecombe-in-the-Moo r, development may come forward at a small scale, in order to meet identified housing, employment and infrastructure needs for that community and where there are specific redevelopment opportunities.

In Villages and Hamlets, the National Park’s smallest and most sensitive villages, only small scale affordable housing development or small scale business growth is appropriate.

In these settlements the priorities are to give opportunities to meet identified local housing needs, to maintain and improve existing employment sites and to sustain a range of services and facilities which serve the settlement.

THE ECONOMY

Businesses which respect and value Dartmoor’s Special Qualities will have the opportunity to thrive and innovate in the National Park.

New business and tourism development will be permitted within and adjoining Local Centres and Rural Settlements where it is of an appropriate scale and use.

In the Villages and Hamlets and open countryside expansion of existing businesses will be supported.

New tourist accommodation should be located within Local Centres and Rural Settlements.

In the Villages and Hamlets and open countryside new short-stay accommodation should be located close to tourist services and be provided through conversion of suitable historic building.

Cultural and artistic proposals will be supported where they actively pursue National Park purposes.

MAJOR DEVELOPMENT

‘Major Development’ is development which has the potential to have a significant adverse impact on the Special Qualities of the National Park, such as its dark night skies, landscape character, heritage significance, biodiversity, tranquillity and others.

Planning permission will not be granted for Major Development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest, outweighing National Park purpose

SHOPS

As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, combined with the popularity of internet shopping, there has been significant strain put on shopping areas, and in September 2020 the Government responded to this and long-standing calls for greater flexibility by changing the Use Class Order and combining many previously distinct town centre uses into one use class (Class E).

This change means that changes between retail, restaurant, office, light industrial, clinic, health centre, indoor recreation and other uses do not generally require planning permission, unless conditions on a planning consent control approved uses.

This change significantly effects how local planning policies operate to protect and enhance town centres, for example it is not now possible to protect retail as a distinct use from other town centre uses, which had been a draft proposal as part of the local plan.

TOURIST ACCOMMODATION

Within Local Centres and Rural Settlements planning permission will be granted for new small-scale hotels and guesthouses, or extensions to hotels and guesthouses and new short-stay tourist accommodation provided through conversion, including suitable redundant historic buildings

Within Villages and Hamlets and the open countryside, planning permission will only be granted for new short-stay tourist accommodation where it is well related to tourist services

New short-stay holiday accommodation will be subject to conditions to ensure it is occupied for holiday purposes only and not as a person’s sole or main residence and the owner/operator maintains an up to date register of the names and main home addresses of all occupiers and this information is available to the Authority on request.

TRANSPORT

In order to minimise the impact on climate change, and promote healthy lifestyles, new development should encourage and enable sustainable travel by protecting, enhancing and providing new walking, cycling, and sustainable transport routes.

Development should support a network of walking and cycling routes which are safe, convenient, and connect to local services, facilities and sustainable transport links. Opportunities for sustainable transport development which meets the needs of the National Park will be supported.

Development which would prejudice the ability to deliver future sustainable travel and transport infrastructure will not be approved.

FARM DIVERSIFICATION

Planning permission will be granted for development to support farm diversification enterprises where they are located on an established and active farm, support and add value to a farm business which contributes to the conservation and/or enhancement of the National Park’s Special Qualities, are ancillary and subordinate in scale to the farm business and make use of redundant buildings before proposing new buildings

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

New telecommunications infrastructure will only be permitted where evidence demonstrates the service cannot be delivered less harmfully by installing equipment on existing masts, buildings or other structures, the equipment is located and designed to minimise its impact and the equipment does not cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the built environment and/or the National Park’s Special Qualities.

A condition will be applied requiring removal of all telecommunications structures and equipment and the reinstatement of the site to its former condition should the development become redundant

WHAT IS THE VISION?

When planning for Dartmoor’s future the Local Plan seeks to ensure development is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. To achieve this, the Dartmoor Local Plan must balance the needs of people, communities, businesses, and the natural and historic environment in a way which is appropriate for an internationally important landscape and national asset.

Decent homes

There is access to well-designed, energy efficient and affordable housing for those who contribute to Dartmoor’s thriving communities.

A place to do business

Businesses which respect, value and contribute to Dartmoor’s Special Qualities have the opportunity to thrive and innovate.

Sustainability – living within environmental limits

Dartmoor’s natural resources are conserved and there are opportunities for innovation in the way in which we live and work which allow us to achieve and maintain an environmental, social and economic balance and reduce minimise our contribution to climate change.

Making best use of resources

Dartmoor’s land, resources and buildings are used efficiently, effectively and sustainably. Development prioritises previously developed land and minimises empty homes.

Culture and arts

The National Park’s Special Qualities provide a continual source of inspiration and are celebrated in culture and the arts.

Exemplars for outstanding development

All new development has a character which respects local distinctiveness, vernacular and materials, and leads the way on sustainable building.

Community involvement and participation

Dartmoor is a place where people work together with a collective goal to respect and protect the National Park, and to promote and embrace positive change.

Prosperous and vibrant communities

Dartmoor’s towns and villages provide opportunities for communities to thrive.

Farming, forestry and land management

Farming and forestry have the opportunity to evolve and innovate, sustaining their vital role in conserving and enhancing Dartmoor’s distinctive cultural heritage, internationally significant landscape and precious biodiversity.

Resilient landscape

Dartmoor’s nationally important landscape character is conserved and enhanced. Its wider landscape setting is respected.

Thriving habitats and species

A cohesive network of habitats allows species to thrive and be resilient to climate change.

An historic environment in excellent condition

Dartmoor’s cultural heritage, archaeology and historic built environment is understood, protected and available as a source of inspiration and education. Development delivers significant enhancements, including through appropriate re-use.

Opportunities for access and enjoyment

Dartmoor’s Special Qualities are respected, available as a resource for health and well-being, and accessible for everyone to understand and enjoy. Development helps manage visitor impacts in a way which protects the National Park for the benefit of future generations.

The Conservative-led authority has written to MPs across Hampshire, urging them to back a call for more sustainable funding. Some 26 other authorities have joined the county council in asking for better funding.

So, has our Conservative-led County Council written to MPs across Devon, urging them to back a call for more sustainable funding? Where does “Team Devon” stand on this? – Owl

www.portsmouth.co.uk

It comes as the council prepares to cut £80m from its budget by April 2023, slashing spending for transport, children’s services and more.

At tomorrow’s cabinet meeting in Winchester, Conservatives will discuss the situation and how best to progress.

But Liberal Democrat opposition spokesman for economy, transport and environment, Cllr Martin Tod, fears the situation is only going to get worse.

He said: ‘The current financial model simply isn’t sustainable – we’re basically on a journey to bankruptcy.

‘The situation is dire, and everyone is cutting back to the bare bones of what the council is responsible for.

‘In the past, councils had their own money to do their own thing; now everything is done through bidding to central government, which doesn’t guarantee anything.

‘What that means is the people who know the area best can’t make the decisions.’

Cllr Tod added he agrees with the Conservatives in wanting a long-term financial agreement with the government as council tax ‘isn’t the answer’.

The government has delayed the Fair Funding Review, which has raised concerns among politicians.

The councils that have jointly written to the government have proposed a short-term spending ‘floor’ which would at least give authorities an indication of the minimum amount of funding they would receive each year.

Hampshire council leader Keith Mans, said: ‘For a long time, shire councils like Hampshire have received the short straw when it comes to funding from central government, and with another delay to government’s Fair Funding Review, we face a further three-year funding drought for those authorities at the bottom end of the funding table.

‘A more equitable funding formula is needed in future, particularly in the face of ever growing demands for social care and the added financial pressures from Covid-19.

‘Clearly a short-term fix is not ideal, but it would provide much-needed funding that would enable the system to carry on for a little longer.

‘Without extra financial support, those authorities with low core spending power will increasingly struggle to provide essential and valued services to their local communities.’

One rule for us, no rules for them. – Owl

Reported move triggers backlash from lawyers, with one senior QC quoted as saying the prime minister is seeking a ‘more compliant judiciary’

www.independent.co.uk

Boris Johnson wants to weaken the power of courts to overrule decisions by ministers through the process of judicial review, according to reports.

The Times reported the PM wants to allow ministers to effectively throw out any legal rulings they do not agree with.

It comes after a number of clashes with judges, such as the ruling that Mr Johnson’s 2019 decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks was unlawful.

According to the newspaper, justice secretary Dominic Raab has been tasked with toughening plans to reform judge’s powers to rule on the legality of minister’s decisions. Whitehall sources were cited as saying the move would reinforce parliament’s sovereignty over the unelected judiciary.

An option drawn up by Mr Raab and attorney general, Suella Bravermen is for MPs to pass an annual “Interpretation Bill” in which ministers will strike out findings from judicial reviews the government did not agree with. The plan has reportedly won the approval of No 10.

The move has received backlash from the legal establishment, with one senior QC quoted as saying the prime minister is seeking a “more compliant judiciary.”

Labour MP Stella Creasey said: “The one rule for everyone else, no rules for them motif of this government is quite something.”

Mr Johnson is reportedly unhappy with the Judicial Review and Courts Bill currently going through parliament – which focuses on subtle remedies such as suspended judgments to give ministers time to tackle problems – because it “doesn’t go far enough,” according to sources quoted by The Times.

This is the latest attack on the legal framework by the government.

Mr Raab on Sunday said he wants to “correct” the drift towards the principle of free speech being outweighed by protection of privacy.

The justice secretary’s intervention comes just days after Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, won an appeal court battle over the Mail on Sunday’s publication of extracts of a letter to her father.

Court of appeal judges ruled that the duchess had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the contents of the letter which were “personal, private and not matters of legitimate public interest”.

Speaking to Times Radio on Sunday, Mr Raab did not directly reference the duchess’s case, but made clear he believes the balance has slipped too far in favour of the ability of rich individuals to protect their secrets.

He said: “In the politics of this country, we’ve had a heavier emphasis on free speech, transparency, accountability for politicians, for people in positions of influence. We don’t have the continental-style privacy law protections.

“If we were going to go down that route, it should have been decided by elected politicians.”

He added: “I think the drift towards continental-style privacy laws, innovated in the courtroom not by elected lawmakers in the House of Commons, is something that we can and should correct.”

Gary Neville, ex-Manchester United footballer and now football pundit, lets rip on twitter on the party that wasn’t a party but where all the rules were followed anyway, though no minister recalls attending.

Followed by an open letter #whoattendedtheparty – That’s an idea! – Owl

To add further confusion from a reliable source, the Prime Minister’s former chief adviser Dominic Cummings said on Twitter: it would be “v unwise for No10 to lie about this” and alleged that some political journalists were at parties in the Downing Street flat…….

It follows sex crime councillor’s scandal

“[A process] full of potential cronyism and done in total secrecy without any safeguards.” Cllr. Paul Millar

“Understanding what happened in the past is important. It has always struck me in my time on the council that it’s been something done behind close doors by the party in control of the council…” Cllr. Cathy Gardner

“Had it not been for the horrific, scandalous affair of the councillor from Exmouth [John Humphreys] this [issue] probably would not have raised itself.” – Chair of the council’s scrutiny committee [and former copper – Owl] Cllr. Tom Wright 

East Devon awards system to be reviewed

Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

A report into the process that led to a councillor under investigation for sex crimes against children being awarded an honorary title is to be carried out by East Devon District Council (EDDC).

It comes after councillor Paul Millar (Labour, Democratic Alliance Group, Exmouth Halsdon) called for a full investigation into a process which he says is “full of potential cronyism and done in total secrecy without any safeguards.”

Former Conservative East Devon councillor and Exmouth mayor John Humphreys was awarded the honorary alderman title in December 2019 while under investigation by the police for sexual assault of two boys between 1990 and 2001.

Mr Humphreys was arrested in 2015 and put on bail in 2016 for crimes for which he was eventually convicted and handed a 21-year prison sentence in August this year. 

His arrest and subsequent release under invetigation was not made public until he appeared at Exeter Magistrates Court in November 2020.

However, he would have known he was at risk of prosecution when he received the award and yet he still accepted the honour.  The council stripped him of the title following his conviction.

The episode led councillors to agree to look into the selection process for aldermen. Unlike some other councils, there is currently no protocol at East Devon for nomination to the title of alderman.

Speaking to EDDC’s scrutiny committee, Cllr Millar said: “I worry that our system in the past has been full of potential cronyism and done in total secrecy without any safeguards,” before calling for a “thorough review” into the process.

The commission of a report has been suggested for months, but nothing has yet been published.  Now the scrutiny committee has formally requested a report, it should only be a matter of time.

Cllr Millar said: “I think we need to look at ourselves as an authority. I think we owe the public that and I think we owe the victims that.” 

EDDC has a history of awarding far more alderman titles than many councils. The district named 11 aldermen in December 2019, with former councillor Humphreys among them. In contrast, Exeter City Council has only given out 21 such awards since 1981.

When the issue was raised at a scrutiny committee, no councillors said they had a clear idea of how the alderman process worked. Several assumed it was for long service. 

It is hoped a review could be useful in shining a light on how the process has worked in the past and out if there has been any bias in the appointment process. 

The council had been under Conservative control for the entirety of its 47 year existence until an independent coalition took over following the 2019 election. Eight of the 11 councillors who became alderman in East Devon in 2019 were Conservatives.

Chair of the council’s scrutiny committee Tom Wright (Conservative, Budleigh and Raleigh) agreed the process should be investiagted. He admitted that nobody quite understands what what titles are for – beyond a general recognition of services to the council – or how they have been administered in the past, and argued there was “no point” in creating a protocol for the selection of aldermen until the council decides whether it want to abolish the post.

He said: “Had it not been for the horrific, scandalous affair of the councillor from Exmouth [John Humphreys] this [issue] probably would not have raised itself.”

Councillor Cathy Gardener argued the review was “long overdue.” She said: “Understanding what happened in the past is important. It has always struck me in my time on the council that it’s been something done behind close doors by the party in control of the council…There never seemed to be any logic behind those people being nominated. We were just expected to vote them through.

“I think obviously the fact that we found ourselves fairly recently awarding honorary status to someone who was under such severe and serious criminal investigation and ultimately conviction was absolutely appalling and shocking. I think the public and the victims and their families deserve to understand something about the process by which he was that honour.

“I definitely want to know who nominated him, what discussions there were, who was asked. I would definitely hope that those people involved would step forward and swear that they knew absolutely nothing about what was going on because it was under investigation for a long time.”

She added: “I really do think we need to make this process as transparent as possible.”

There was some friction over Cllr Millar’s concerns of potential cronyism in the selection process and the idea that anyone at the council had known that Mr Humphreys was under investigation.

Councillor Maddy Chapman (Conservative, Exmouth Brixington), who was a councillor alongside John Humphreys in Exmouth, said:  “I’m not a councillor that listens to tittle tattle and you do get tittle tattle in any neighbourhood but I never heard any tittle tattle about that particular councillor [John Humphreys]. I was quite horrified when it came out. If I had know I would’ve have said something before.”

Cllr Chapman welcomed the report into the alderman selection process.

Councillor Helen Parr (Conservative, Coly Valley) questioned the allegations of cronyism and said she’d like to read the report to see any evidence to suggest such a problem.  She doubted whether anyone knew Humphreys was under investigation at the time of the award.

The scrutiny committee agreed to a report into the process of appointing aldermen. It will look into what criteria, if any, were used for selecting candidates and will carry out a breakdown by party of those have received the honour in recent years.

The report will explore potential criteria that could be use to make the awarding and removing of the honour clearer in future.

The plan is to put this report to the committee and then to full council before deciding whether or not to scrap the alderman title – or to update how it is awarded to create greater transparency and accountability.