Simon Jupp in his latest press article says: “The failure of water companies to adequately reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows is unacceptable. The good news is that regulators and the government are stepping in…” 

This was not his initial reaction.

No apology for voting for the government “light touch” environment bill and then against the Lord’s amendment 45  “to make improvements to their sewerage systems and demonstrate progressive reductions in the harm caused by discharges of untreated sewage.“

Hindsight is a wonderful thing! – Owl

Simon Jupp www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

At the end of October, Clyst St Mary residents woke up to some rather unpleasant sights and smells.

 The local drainage system had been unable to cope with torrential rainfall. The worst affected villagers had to wade through sewage and some have been left without usable toilet facilities.

 Immediately, I asked the chief executive of South West Water to urgently get a grip on the situation and liaise directly with the local parish council who were gathering information on the ground.

 South West Water’s engineering director met with the community to explain the short and long-term actions they are now taking. It will include new piping for properties and increasing capacity at nearby pumping stations.

 Yet action over weeks and months is not of comfort to families with young children who are currently having to use portable toilets in their gardens as the nights draw in and the temperatures drop. I met with South West Water and asked them to set out a clear timetable of actions and communicate with residents as often as possible to provide updates on work being done. I will receive these updates too, as will local councillors of all political stripes as we set politics aside to work together for our communities. I have also asked South West Water to provide financial compensation to those most badly affected.

 The failure of water companies to adequately reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows is unacceptable. The good news is that regulators and the government are stepping in. The Environment Agency watchdog has just launched an investigation into more than 2,000 sewage treatment works. And recently, both the Commons and the Lords agreed to the landmark Environment Act that introduces tougher penalties on water companies, new reporting duties, industry action plans to clean up our waterways, and a strict legal framework to ensure these new measures are properly enforced.

 I’ll continue to have regular meetings with South West Water about sewage infrastructure in East Devon. Clyst St Mary residents were unfortunate enough to experience foul flooding. It’s only right that they should get compensation, not just an apology.

The major culprit is Southern Water with South West Water also producing a “notably poor performance for the third consecutive year”. – Owl

Sandra Laville www.theguardian.com 

Water companies spilled raw sewage into coastal bathing waters used by holidaymakers and families 5,517 times in the last year, an increase of more than 87%, new data reveals.

The discharges, through storm overflows, went on to beaches that were supposed to be the cleanest and safest in England and Wales, used by children, tourists, surfers and swimmers.

“We are in the midst of a new wave of sewage pollution,” said the 2021 Water Quality report by Surfers Against Sewage. “There are hundreds of thousands of sewage discharges polluting rivers and coastlines, all of which could impact the overall health of aquatic ecosystems.”

The data is gathered from water company alerts of spills via storm overflows across 308 locations. During the bathing water season – 15 May to the end of September – water companies issued alerts 3,328 times. The rest of the spills took place outside those months.

Storm overflows are supposed to be used in emergencies to ease pressure on the system after extreme weather or exceptional rainfall. But this report adds to the growing evidence that they are being used routinely.

Southern Water, which was fined a record £90m this year for billions of litres of raw sewage spills, issued 1,194 alerts of sewage spills, an average of 38 spills for each bathing water location, compared with an average of between two and eight for other water companies. Almost 30% of the 286 health reports submitted this year came from Southern Water’s operating area.

South West Water also produced a “notably poor performance for the third consecutive year”, with 406 discharges in the bathing water season on to popular beaches.

Hugo Tagholm, the chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, said: “The findings of our report are shocking and outrageous, but they are by no means unexpected. Time and time again, governments have claimed concern over the pollution of rivers and seas, but have so far failed to take concrete action to change the status quo. Loopholes in laws and systematically defunded regulators have left water companies to run amok.”

For the first time the campaign group carried out testing of water quality at river mouths feeding into bathing beaches. The results were “shocking.” In six out of eight rivers the quality of the water was so poor as a result of faecal contamination that it posed an extreme danger to human health.

The findings come as the Environment Agency continues a major investigation into more than 2000 sewage treatment works after water companies admitted they may be illegally discharging raw sewage. Concerns over sewage dumping into rivers and seas have sparked grassroots campaigns all over the country. Members of the public in Southern Water areas have taken to beaches to protest and some have begun a rate payers revolt.

The citizen testing at river mouths provided a strong comparison to water quality testing undertaken by environmental regulators, and was carried out to fill the gap in the monitoring of river water quality. Only one river in the UK – the Wharfe in Ilkley – is a designated bathing water and therefore subject to the same scrutiny as coastal waters. The rest are not monitored for faecal pollution, despite the fact that 90 percent of storm overflows discharge directly into rivers.

Only 14 percent of rivers in the UK are of good ecological standard, a rating that suggests they are as close to their natural state as possible.

The rivers tested were; Afon Wyre River flowing into Llanrhystud Beach, Hoffnant River, flowing into Penbryn Beach, Figgate Burn into Portobello Beach in Scotland, River Bann flowing into Portstewart Beach in Northern Ireland, Seaton Burn flowing into Seaton Sluice Beach, Northumbria, the River Adur into Southwick Beach in Southern England, the River Ribble into St Agnes Beach in northwest England and the Cadoxton River flowing into Whitmore Bay Beach, Barry Island, south Wales.

E.coli levels in Figgate Burn were continuously at a level that poses an extreme risk to public health.

At the remaining five river locations results consistently showed faecal contamination levels that posed an extreme risk to public health.

Water quality at the River Bann and Cadoxton river was excellent.

Dr Christian Dunn, senior lecturer in natural sciences at Bangor University, said: “Untreated sewage can be a death potion to our rivers and waterways. It is a cocktail of harmful viruses, bacteria and chemicals. Some of these can directly harm aquatic life and others lead to devastating disruptions in the oxygen levels of the water – risking entire ecosystems … Rivers are essential for the health of entire landscapes, our wildlife depends on them, and there’s no surer way to destroy a river than flooding it with sewage.”

A spokesperson for Water UK, an industry body, said the companies recognised the urgent need for action to protect and enhance the UK’s rivers and seas.

“Our recent 21st Century Rivers report sets out the key steps needed to achieve the radical changes we all want to see, including calling on government to bring forward legislation in a new Rivers Act that will provide greater protection for rivers in law. We know we need to go further and water companies want to invest more to improve infrastructure and stop harm from storm overflows and outfalls.

“With our coastal bathing waters we have a good base to build on with more than 70% rated as ‘excellent’, and over 90% as either ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. This improvement has come about thanks to collaborative working between industry, government, regulators and other stakeholders over several years.”

Dr Toby Willison, director of environment and corporate affairs at Southern Water, said: “We share the passion and commitment of Surfers Against Sewage to protect our precious coastal water and the 700 miles of coastline in our region.

“We know our performance has to improve and we are driving a step change in investment spending £2 billion to cut pollution incidents by 80 per cent by 2025.

“Our new task force aims to cut storm overflows by 80 per cent by 2030. Our target is ambitious but all 83 of our bathing waters meet strict European standards and 78 are excellent or good, a challenge which 20 years ago seemed impossible.”

covid.joinzoe.com

According to ZOE COVID Study incidence figures, in total there are currently   76,728 new daily symptomatic cases of COVID in the UK on average, based on PCR and LFT test data from up to five days ago [*]. An increase of 18% from 65,059 new daily cases last week. 

In the vaccinated population (at least two doses) cases have leveled off and it’s estimated there are currently 24,219 new daily symptomatic cases in the UK. An increase of 8% from  22,482 new daily cases last week (Graph 1). 

The UK R value is estimated to be around 1.1 and regional R values are; England, 1.1, Wales, 1.1, Scotland, 1.0 (Table 1). 

In terms of prevalence, on average 1 in 66 people in the UK currently have symptomatic COVID. In the regions, England, 1 in 66. Wales,1 in 51. Scotland, 1 in 81. (Table 1). 

The number of daily new cases among 0-17 year olds is now rapidly rising and is the main driver of the bounce back in overall numbers. The rise in cases is also being seen in the 35-55 age group. There has been no uptick in cases in the over 55s, likely due in part to the third dose (booster) vaccines giving this group better protection. (Graph 2).

Case numbers are rising generally across the UK, particularly in regions of England including the Midlands, North West, and the East of England (Graph 3),  while rates are highest in Wales and lowest in Scotland. 

ZOE’s predicted Long COVID incidence rate currently estimates, at current case rates, 1,268 people a day will go on to experience symptoms for longer than 12 weeks. (Graph 4). 

The ZOE COVID Study incidence figures (new symptomatic cases) are based on reports from around 750,000 weekly contributors and the proportion of newly symptomatic users who have received positive swab tests. The latest survey figures were based on data from 40,707 recent swab tests done in the two weeks up to 20 November 2021. 

Professor Tim Spector, lead scientist on the ZOE COVID Study app, comments on the latest data:

“Seeing cases on the rise again is really disheartening and the recent ups and downs, unlike previous waves, is making it hard to predict where things will be from week-to-week. However, for me, the message is that cases are still far too high. Although we  appear, for now, to be faring better than some European countries in terms of case numbers, the UK continues to have relatively high hospital admissions and deaths, which is a real cause for concern. Given the current overloading of our hospitals, now isn’t the time to portray the UK as a COVID success story, far from it. Whilst the rise in new cases is being driven by children, focusing on them in the short-term would be a mistake. While the government is unlikely to enforce restrictions for Christmas, family gatherings will undoubtedly increase risk, especially for older and more vulnerable family members who haven’t yet had their third vaccine dose. Saving Christmas is up to us. Those of us eligible for the third jab should take it now, and we should be mindful that one in four people with cold-like symptoms have COVID-19. Consider the risks and keep your family out of hospital over the holidays.”

Graph 1. The ZOE COVID Study UK incidence figures results over time; total number of new cases and new cases in fully vaccinated

Graph 2. Incidence by age group 

Graph 3. Prevalence rate by region

Graph 4. Predicted Long COVID incidence over time

Please refer to the publication by Thompson at al. (2021) for details on how long covid rates in the population are modelled

Table 1. Incidence (daily new symptomatic cases)[*], R values and prevalence regional breakdown table 

Map of UK prevalence figures

HM Revenue and Customs has struck a deal to relocate tax officials into a new office complex in Newcastle owned by major Conservative party donors through an offshore company based in a tax haven, the Guardian can reveal.

Harry Davies www.theguardian.com 

The department’s planned new home in the north-east of England is part of a regeneration scheme developed by a British Virgin Islands (BVI) entity controlled by the billionaire property tycoons David and Simon Reuben.

The deal will see officials at the government department responsible for preventing tax avoidance working from a site owned by a subsidiary of a company based in a secretive offshore tax jurisdiction.

The Reuben brothers, their family members and businesses have donated a combined £1.9m to the Tories. Earlier this week, the brothers are reported to have shared a table with Boris Johnson at an exclusive Tory party fundraising dinner.

On Tuesday, officials including the Cabinet Office minister Steve Barclay announced HMRC had agreed the 25-year lease with one of the Reuben brothers’ companies.

The brothers are the second richest family in the UK, according to the Sunday Times’s rich list. David Reuben’s son, Jamie, is a close ally of the prime minister and has served as a Tory party treasurer. He has donated more than £750,000 to the party since Johnson entered Downing Street.

The Reuben family has built a significant presence in Newcastle in recent years and is part of the controversial Saudi Arabia-led consortium that acquired Newcastle United football club in October.

Company filings show the family has frequently used BVI companies to hold its UK business interests, which include a luxury London property portfolio and a string of racecourses.

A spokesperson for HMRC said the office complex in Newcastle is owned and will be developed by a UK company, Reuben Brothers (Newcastle) Limited. However, Companies House filings show the company’s sole shareholder when it was incorporated earlier this year was Taras Properties Limited in the BVI.

Taras Properties first acquired the site in 2013 and transferred ownership of the land to the UK company in June this year for £10m, according to Land Registry records. The BVI company owns multiple large plots of land in central Newcastle in the area surrounding HMRC’s planned offices.

A spokesperson for the Reuben brothers confirmed the UK company is held by Taras Properties, but insisted the subsidiary “operates and pays taxes as a UK company”.

HMRC’s spokesperson insisted the Reuben brothers’ company would be subject to normal UK tax regulation. “The lease payments and any gains on the sale are subject to UK tax,” they said. “HMRC is satisfied the deal represents the best value for money for the taxpayer.”

There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by the Reuben brothers and owning UK property through offshore companies is perfectly legal.

But the government’s decision to move 9,000 HMRC staff to the site comes as it faces calls to honour a commitment to introduce a register of overseas companies owning UK properties. The draft bill, first published in 2018, is designed to crack down on the use of offshore companies to obscure owners’ identities and their source of funds.

Combatting offshore tax evasion and avoidance is described as one of HMRC’s priorities and earlier this year the department unveiled plans to crack down on offshore tax avoidance by targeting UK-based entities facilitating the sale of avoidance schemes using tax havens.

Responding to the move, Dame Margaret Hodge, a Labour MP and chair of the cross-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, said: “It’s outrageous that HMRC should be using taxpayers’ money to benefit somebody that relies on offshore structures based in tax havens.”

Any of these sites in Devon? – Owl

Filthy business: who will stop Britain’s illegal waste-dumping mafia? 

George Monbiot www.theguardian.com

They made millions from it. They threatened our health and poisoned the land. Among the filth they buried were industrial quantities of syringes, bloody bandages, oily waste from scrapped cars, shredded plastic and asbestos. Fleets of lorries travelled from as far afield as Birmingham to drop their loads at the sites the two men ran in south Wales, to avoid paying landfill tax. Yet these men, though responsible for one of the biggest illegal dumping crimes ever prosecuted, suffered nothing worse last week than suspended sentences, community service and fines and confiscation orders that together amount to around a tenth of the money they are known to have made.

Over the past few months, we have begun to notice the scarcely regulated pollution of our rivers and seas. But hardly anyone is aware of what’s been happening to the land. If anything, it’s even worse. The illegal dumping of waste, much of it hazardous, most of it persistent, is now a massive crisis in the UK, caused by shocking failures of government. Large areas of land and crucial groundwater sources are being contaminated by illegal tipping, and barely anyone in power seems to give a damn.

The disposal of waste in this country relies to a large extent on self-regulation. It’s up to you to check that the person to whom you hand your waste is a registered and responsible carrier. But a study into fly-tipping and unregistered waste carriers in England by Ray Purdy at Oxford University’s law faculty and Mat Crocker, the former deputy director of waste at the Environment Agency, shows that checking is nigh on impossible. Hundreds of different businesses use identical names on the Environment Agency’s official register, which often bear no relation to the names under which they advertise or trade. Many provide false names and false locations, including abandoned buildings, sports venues and, in one case, a Premier Inn. Technical glitches, unfixed after five years, ensure the site is scarcely functional.

Astonishingly, Purdy and Crocker discovered that the Environment Agency had no data for online traffic, and no research into how many people were aware of the register’s existence. There is no facility on the register to report businesses working illegally. Across the past three years, though 140,000 businesses have applied to be listed as waste handlers, the Environment Agency has refused only 19. Despite widespread evidence of fraud and several prosecutions, it subsequently revoked just two registrations. The frequent spelling mistakes in company names and addresses suggest that not even the most basic checks have been conducted.

But this is the least of it. Purdy and Crocker’s research shows that most businesses don’t appear on the list at all. Of the thousands of waste disposers they sampled, they discovered that almost two-thirds were not registered, and therefore operating unlawfully. All together, they estimate, there are over a quarter of a million unregistered waste handlers in England.

Investigating adverts placed by people offering to remove your rubbish, Purdy and Crocker reported that many of those who appeared to be sole traders (“man and van”) in fact belonged to organised networks. Of 10,426 ads on Gumtree they followed, they found that over 4,000 had been bought by just two organisations, which together spend about £300,000 a year advertising on the platform. Yet these ads claim to be promoting small local businesses. Each of the vans in a network, the researchers estimate, could allow the organisation to evade £132,000 of taxes. The return on investment for a company running 100 fake sole traders, they reckon, is somewhere between 40 to 1 and 80 to 1. Here, as in Italy, it seems we have a waste mafia. But unlike the Italian mafia, ours seldom needs to resort to intimidation or violence, because no one stands in its way. All together, the report suggests, between 1m and 6m tonnes of waste in England are handled outside the lawful system every year. Illegally dumped waste contaminates the soil, the water and – when it is deliberately burned or spontaneously combusts – the air with a vast range of toxins, most of which are likely to be unmonitored and unrecorded. The more hazardous the waste, the greater the incentive to cut corners.

We have no idea what the impact on our health and that of the rest of the living world might be, or what the results of this staggering regulatory failure would cost to clean up. During a rare prosecution in 2019, a court was told that a large illegal waste dump in a quarry close to Chew Valley Lake in Somerset might end up costing us as much as £9bn in remediation, if the contaminants leach into the water supplying Bristol and other settlements.

Rusting drums photographed at an illegal dump in Pirbright, Surrey, beside a string of nature reserves, are suspected to contain extremely toxic polychlorinated biphenyls. An unidentified yellow substance has been reported leaking from the site into local streams. If some of this sludge emanates from the barrels, the possible consequences are scarcely calculable. According to the ENDS Report, local campaigners claim that Surrey county council and the Environment Agency have known the identity of the people using this site since 2009, but have failed to take legal action against them.

On the rare occasions when the Environment Agency, or its equivalents elsewhere in the UK, can find the money for a pair of wellington boots and a hi-vis jacket and send someone out to check, they tend to offer repeated warnings before taking action. Even then, the most common punishment is a fixed penalty notice. If a case gets to court, people who might have made a fortune from their illegal activities are fined a few hundred pounds. In a recent prosecution, a man was found to have run an illegal dump that contained over 600 tonnes of waste, and evidence was presented that he had been burning hazardous materials. He was fined £840. The Environment Agency announced, “We hope this case will send a clear message”. It will, but not the one it intends.

It’s a familiar story: of almost total regulatory collapse. The failure of the Environment Agency’s waste register looks similar to the farce of company registration, devastatingly exposed by Oliver Bullough. This story reminds me both of the catastrophic failure to protect elderly and vulnerable people against fraud and of the dumping of raw sewage and farm manure into our rivers and seas.

All these failures are inevitable outcomes of 40 years of “cutting red tape”, of slashing the budgets of regulatory agencies, of outsourcing and self-reporting. We were promised freedom. But the people our governments have set free are criminals. Yet another filthy business is cleaning up.

Boris Johnson ‘failed to wear a mask’ at Macbeth performance

Boris Johnson ‘broke Covid rules by failing to wear a mask’ as he watched theatre performance of Macbeth after week of Tory drama

• Boris Johnson was apparently spotted maskless watching Macbeth at theatre
• The PM has been accused of breaching Covid rules at the Almeida in London
• Mr Johnson’s press secretary insisted that he follows coronavirus rules 

www.dailymail.co.uk 

‘Well done to Siren Libby Darling for doing a great job on BBC Radio Sussex this morning talking about our campaign, and rebutting some of the suspect comments made by Sir Peter Talking-out-of-his-Bottomly.

South Coast Sirens – Clean Seas For All

Use this link to get to facebook page with bbc interview

Who are Conservatives these days? – Owl

Whenever the government faces criticism, one of the first questions commentators ask is whether the latest fiasco will have cut through in the “red wall”. While the red wall does indeed represent one substantial and important element in the Conservative coalition, this focus understates the problem the party faces, by suggesting there is just one restive set of seats they need to keep onside.

Robert Ford www.theguardian.com 

In fact, the Tory coalition incorporates a number of different battlegrounds, with vastly different needs. This makes the government’s task far harder – pleasing the red wall often means provoking anger in other equally important areas.

We can divide Conservative seats into groups based on their electoral context: is the seat marginal? How long has it been marginal? Does it lean towards leave or remain? Who is the local opponent? If we define the red wall seats as newly competitive constituencies with Labour as the local opponent in leave-voting areas, then there are about 70 of these spread across England and Wales.

Traditional swing seats might get less attention but they are just as numerous and count the same towards the outcome. There are at least 50 seats in this category, market towns and “swingy” suburbs whose mixed demographics reflect the nation, and where party control has shifted over many cycles on the ebb and flow of national opinion. They will be as competitive as ever next time.

The Brexit realignment that turned the red wall blue has also had implications elsewhere. There are now about two dozen Conservative seats in remain areas facing a credible Labour challenge, and another 30 also in largely remain areas where the Conservatives need to fend off resurgent Liberal Democrats. This “remain wall” includes many former safe seats where the Tory majority has been slashed since Brexit.

Lost seats in the traditional swing areas are a certainty if the government’s popularity falls. But if these are combined with substantial losses on either of the new fronts, the Conservative majority is immediately at risk. The government therefore cannot afford to alienate either the red wall or the remain wall.

But these seats are poles apart. The red wall is clustered in the Midlands and the north; the remain wall in the south. Red wall seats are working class and graduate light; remain wall seats are middle class and graduate heavy. Red wall seats have low house prices and more voters in council housing; remain wall seats have expensive housing and high home ownership rates.

This divide in outlook and priorities stretches beyond the electoral battleground: many of the 200 or so (currently) safe Conservative seats resemble one of the new battlegrounds, and their MPs will often align with less secure colleagues.

The two new fronts the Conservatives must defend are different worlds, at odds over the government’s domestic policy agenda. Ambitious levelling up investment is what red wall voters want to see; remain wall voters fear higher tax bills will follow. Masses of new, affordable homes are a dream for red wall renters, but a nightmare for remain wall homeowners, for whom the nimby instinct runs deep.

Even the fate of Boris Johnson himself splits the battlegrounds: the prime minister’s distinctive appeal in the red wall would be hard to replace, but Tories in the remain wall would breathe easier with a more traditional figure in charge.

It is no wonder the MPs in these two new battlegrounds object so regularly and loudly to their own government. Their job is to represent their constituents’ interests, and they are emboldened by the knowledge that their leader regularly reverses course under pressure. Johnson has no hope of pleasing MPs on both fronts, yet his constant caving to rebellions brings its own risks, intensifying the perception of a chaotic and rudderless government. Nor can the Conservatives avoid fights by sitting on their hands – the impatient red wall voters, promised “levelling up” and “unleashing Britain’s potential”, have low trust in politics, no inherent love for the Conservative party, and will not accept second best.

Having raised hopes of radical domestic reform, the Conservatives now face a difficult choice: plough ahead and risk defeat on one front, or back off and risk a beating on another. Getting Brexit done, it turns out, was the easy part.

• Dr Robert Ford is professor of political science at the University of Manchester and co-author of The British General Election of 2019

Harlequin centre: “an unattractive, modern ‘American’ style mall of 32 shops, that is also a carpark. It forms one side of the canyon that is the sad fate of Paul Street. Designed by Bruges Tozer of Bristol at a total cost of £6 million in 1987.”

Creates 380+ “bed spaces for co-living” accommodation, twenty per cent of the units will be classed as ‘affordable’, with priority given to key workers.

As one councillor said “This development doesn’t provide extra homes, it provides accommodation for single people only.”

Looks like more student accommodation to Owl.

eastdevonnews.co.uk 

Revised plans to redevelop the Harlequins shopping centre in Exeter – minus a previously-agreed hotel – have been given the go-ahead.

City councillors approved altered proposals for ‘co-living’ accommodation at the Paul street site by ten votes to two at their November meeting, writes Local Democracy Reporter Ollie Heptinstall.

Original blueprints for a total of 251 bed-spaces, as well as a 116-room hotel with bar and restaurant, were backed in October last year.

But developer Curlew submitted a new application saying that Covid had caused ‘significant changes to the economy’.

The revised scheme replaced the hotel with a second co-living block – increasing the scheme’s total number of beds by 132.

Passivhaus-standard energy-efficient accommodation will be made up of self-contained studio apartments with ‘kitchenettes’ along with ‘cluster flats’ that will share amenities.

Twenty per cent of the units will be classed as ‘affordable’, with priority given to key workers.

Applicant Chris Dadds said the units would be restricted to single occupancy only and that minimum terms would be for three months.

The development will be car-free except for two disabled spaces and two electric vehicle spaces, with 280 cycle bays will be provided.

A ‘pocket park’ will be created, along with improvements around Paul Street for pedestrians and cyclists, along with a replacement pedestrian bridge.

Both blocks will operate jointly, with one management team, and residents will have access to amenities including lounges, cinemas, a gym, separate yoga studio and spa suite, laundry, co-working area and a games zone.

Exeter City Council leader Phil Bialyk backed the scheme before citing former United States President Franklin D Roosevelt and saying: “The only fear we have is fear itself – that’s all we’ve got to be frightened of here.

“Come on guys, look at what it’s doing for our housing supply….the availability of housing for people in Exeter.

He added: “I think it’s time that that place [Harlequins] was regenerated in this way.

“We have firm commitments that we do not want to build on the hills and the surrounding green land around this city, and so therefore we have to redevelop brownfield sites. We have to – in effect – go up if we are to defend those.

“It’s make your mind up time on which direction we go, and I think we should be going in this direction.”

Cllr Ruth Williams said: “For me, the additional 132 bed space is really important.

“We have 2,200 people on Devon Home Choice [waiting list for housing], so this makes a significant difference to addressing the shortage of accommodation in Exeter.”

However, Cllr Diana Moore voted the bid, expressing concern over the ‘unclear’ proposed rental value of the units and restrictions on who could live there.

She said: “This development doesn’t provide extra homes, it provides accommodation for single people only.”

Cllr Rob Hannaford voted in favour, but admitted there was some uncertainty. He said: “I think we are looking at a bit of an experiment here and some unknowns in terms of how it’s going to work and what the market is…but I hope that it will deliver what we want in terms of key workers and affordable housing.”

He added: “If, once it’s built, a lot of these units go to students rather than key workers, then we’ll see what public opinion says at the time, but let’s hope it does what it says on the tin and we wish it well.”

Natural England has been tasked by the government to assess the creation of a new National Park based on combining the East Devon and Dorset AONBs.

As with the formative stages of the creation of the Jurassic Park World Heritage Site, all the running is coming from Dorset. Unless EDDC starts to engage with the process, guess who will be left behind again.

For example, the latest Dorset National Park Teams newsletter outlines proposals for a simplified and streamlined approach to planning in the proposed Dorset National Park

A New Approach to Planning

Dorset offers the unique opportunity of a National Park wholly within the boundaries of the Dorset Council area. There is an opportunity to develop a unique, streamlined and cost effective new style National Park.

 ➤ The Dorset Council could have the leading role on the National Park Authority (NPA) Board and in NPA policy development and implementation.

 ➤ It could develop and implement a Local Plan for the whole Dorset Council area including the National Park. NPA staff could be Dorset Council employees, with a single planning team covering all of rural Dorset. 

➤ NPA resources, including central government grant, would benefit Dorset Council, local communities and businesses, help to meet the costs of planning and other functions, and thus release funds for other local priorities. 

➤ A National Park Advisory Board could include relevant Dorset organisations (e.g. the Jurassic Coast Trust, Dorset Local Nature Partnership) and help promote coordination and synergy. NPA funds would support such local organisations (and thus also supplement or release Dorset Council funds). 

➤ Offer a wider range of recreational opportunities than is available in any existing or proposed National Park.

The former Dorset County Council concluded that “the proposal for a National Park could potentially support the Council’s corporate outcomes in relation to a healthy and prosperous Dorset.” 

The Dorset National Park team accepted an invitation from Natural England in the summer to be involved in the further assessment of the Dorset proposal now it has been short-listed for further evaluation. The team looks forward to renewing these discussions with Natural England. 

Dorset has an opportunity to take forward unique proposals for a National Park which would bring economic, financial and environmental benefits for all.

Dubious legality of Tories’ proposal

The Conservative Group at East Devon District Council (EDDC) has failed to get through a new Disclosure and Barring (DBS) policy following the conviction of one their former members for sex crimes against children.

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

Tory John Humphreys was Exmouth’s mayor

Following the jailing in August of John Humphreys, who as well as serving on the district council was a former mayor of Exmouth, the Conservative group at EDDC called for mandatory criminal record checks for councillors and anyone who stands for election to the council in future. 

Now a less ambitious proposal from the Conservative group, asking the council to lobby the government to change the law around DBS to allow councils to carry out such checks, has failed.

Former councillor and alderman John Humphreys, 59, is serving a 21-year prison sentence after being found guilty at Exeter Crown Court of sexually assaulting two boys between 1990 and 2001. He was a prominent councillor whilst the Conservatives controlled East Devon, which since 2019 has been run by a coalition of independents, Lib Dems and Greens.

As it stands, district councils do not have the legal power to ask all councillors to go through enhanced DBS checks – something EDDC Conservatives want changed.

The law already prevents anyone who has been sentenced to three months or more in prison in the five years before the election from standing to be a councillor.

But East Devon Conservatives wanted to go further, and submitted a motion to EDDC’s audit and governance committee asking for the council to lobby the government to introduce mandatory enhanced DBS checks for all district councillors and officers.

The proposal failed after other councillors argued such a law would not create the necessary safeguards. They said it would be insufficient to prevent a similar case to that of John Humphreys in future and that even enhanced DBS checks do not create the protections needed.

Putting forward the motion, Councillor Phil Twiss (Conservative, Honiton St. Michael’s) said a new law requiring all councillors to undergo enhanced DBS checks would mean the public would have “suitably appropriate people representing them and their interests.” 

Cllr Twiss’ proposal also asked for EDDC to pay for the costs of lobbying the government on the issue. It also said EDDC should pay for safeguarding training for all councillors and foot the bill for all DBS checks. The motion didn’t receive enough votes to pass.

Right now EDDC councillors only have to go through DBS checks if they are around vulnerable people or children. A recent report from officers found the law allows the council only to ask councillors to undergo basic DBS checks. 

At present EDDC councillors can voluntarily undergo basic checks, but have to pay the £23 bill personally. If EDDC were to pay all 60 councillors to undergo the check it would cost council taxpayers £1,380.

Basic DBS checks only provide very limited information relating to ‘unspent’ convictions, which generally means very recent ones or those that carry only light sentences. 

Standard checks show spent and unspent convictions as well as police cautions. Enhanced checks detail all convictions and cautions, but also extra information from police. These can only be requested if they are relevant to the role, such as a school governor.

Speaking at the committee, Cllr Steve Gazzard (Democratic Alliance Group, Exmouth Withycombe Raleigh) said he had no problem “in principle” with Twiss’ proposal but it would not reveal things done by a councillor right after a check.

He told the committee: “My only concern is that an enhanced DBS check is only as good as the time you apply for it.

“I don’t think it’s the panacea that some people think. It’s not going to solve all problems.”

Councillor Paul Hayward (Democratic Alliance Group, Yarty) added: “Effectively they’re an MOT certificate. Your car can fall apart the day afterwards but you have an MOT certificate.”

Cllr Nick Hookway (Democratic Alliance Group, Exmouth Littleham) agreed, and said that the most important thing was that the council’s safeguarding measures are “known by all and operated by all.”

Cllr Hooway’s put forward an alternative motion to request that the council’s safeguarding training includes training on the operation of the safeguarding policy. The motion was passed by the governance and audit committee.

As it stands it is not legal to force councillors who do not have access to vulnerable people or children to have enhanced DBS checks. 

However, before the vote on Cllr Twiss’ motion, councillor Andrew Moulding (Conservative, Axminster) said the council should “seriously consider enhanced DBS checks for all councillors and those intending to be a councillor.”

He added: “I am suggesting quite strongly that this council should consider seriously that members of the council should have enhanced DBS checks in order to satisfy our public and constituents that we are suitable people to take that office.”

It was not clear if Cllr Moulding was stating that enhanced DBS checks should be required even if that was not lawful as it stands.

However, Cllr Twiss argued: “Nobody on this council is forcing anyone to take a DBS check, that wouldn’t be legal – nobody is suggesting that.”

He said that his motion was a chance to “get ahead of the curve” before the UK government updates the law.

A private member’s bill, introduced by Tory MP Sir Paul Beresford, could result in tighter rules. The proposed law, still at an early stage, would prevent people involved in some types of sexual offences from taking such a role.

But even if this law had been in place when John Humphreys was a councillor it is unlikely that the DBS checks would have found any wrongdoing unless they had been updated regularly.

As a governor at an Exmouth primary school, it is very likely that former Cllr Humpreys would have undergone criminal records checks. His crimes only became public many years later, after the council had honoured him with the title of ‘alderman’ – an honour withdrawn by EDDC following Mr Humphreys’ conviction.

Owl wonders whether Simon Jupp saw this coming? 

We have been here before quite recently haven’t we?

www.independent.co.uk

Boris Johnson’s controversial social care bill will “undoubtedly” be amended in the House of Lords, as peers urge MPs to think again about the “Robin Hood in reverse” cap on care costs, The Independent has been told.

Peers said that the Upper House will be “emboldened” in revising the prime minister’s plans both by the size of the Conservative rebellion in Monday’s vote and by the fact that crucial details of the cap’s operation were released only days before the legislation cleared the Commons, giving MPs almost no time for scrutiny.

And a former Tory deputy leader said Mr Johnson should prepare for defeat in the Lords on the bill, which completed its passage through the Commons on Tuesday.

Conservative peer Ros Altmann said there were concerns over how the cap – which threatens to force pensioners with assets of £106,000 or less to sell their homes to pay for care while protecting the property of wealthier individuals – fits in with the prime minister’s professed aim of “levelling up” the country.

Both Baroness Altmann and Tory former health secretary Andrew Lansley are understood to be considering amendments which could force MPs to reconsider the last-minute change announced last week, under which local authority contributions will not be included towards the proposed £86,000 lifetime maximum for spending on care.

Former pensions minister Lady Altmann told The Independent: “Undoubtedly there will be amendments. I am hoping that the government might address some of the problems that have arisen from this bill, particularly relating to the way it may be very good for the well-off, but not at all for middle and working-class families across the country. If we are committed to levelling up, I’m not sure this fits in.

“These changes have happened far too fast, given their importance. The fact that it was rushed out days before MPs were asked to vote will only make peers more ready to ask the Commons to reconsider.”

Professor of palliative medicine Ilora Finlay, who sits in the Lords as a crossbencher, said there was “disquiet” among peers not only about the cap, but also about the failure of the legislation to deal with long-standing problems about the integration of health and social care and the status of care workers.

“Health and social care are treated as separate because they have different budgets, but it is the same person that requires health care and social care if something goes wrong,” Lady Finlay told The Independent.

“There are financial silos and service commissioning silos and the result is that patients find themselves in hospital and can’t be discharged to social care because the facilities are not there and that causes backlogs.

“Government after government has kicked this into the long grass. At least this government is trying to do something. What we need to do is see whether there is something here in the bill that we can build on. I would expect the Lords to do what they do well, which is to scrutinise every line of the bill and debate what needs to be debated to improve it.”

Lady Finlay said there were potential problems with the detail of Mr Johnson’s proposed care costs cap, which effectively treated people differently depending on the increase in the value of their homes since they bought them decades previously.

“If you bought a home in the north of England 40 years ago, it will have increased in value by far less than if you had bought it in Surrey, and that will affect the outcome under the design of this cap,” she said. “There is a risk of widening disparities, which is a potential problem.”

The Health and Care Bill is unlikely to receive its first reading in the Lords much before Christmas, with any crunch votes not expected until February, giving peers a long time to build coalitions behind amendments.

Labour’s leader in the Lords, Angela Smith, said she expected opposition parties to seek cross-party co-operation, building on the widespread concern among Tory peers about the cap plans.

“One of the things that emboldens the House of Lords to act is where there is a sense that public opinion feels the Commons has got it wrong,” she told The Independent. “People have had very little time to find out about this, but I think over the coming months we will see pennies dropping across the country. If Tory MPs are being contacted by their constituents about concerns, they will be in touch with Tory peers and that will help shape thinking.

“There are clearly already tensions because of the scale of the rebellion, and because of the government’s history of U-turns, Tories can’t be confident that the government isn’t going to change its mind under pressure. That will also shape thinking.

“People are already talking formally and informally about how changes could be made. There are a lot of people in the Lords with a background and expertise in social care or experience of social care. They can now give the government the opportunity to do the right thing.”

Former Tory deputy leader Peter Lilley said Mr Johnson must expect to see his plans defeated in the Lords.

Speaking to Times Radio’s John Pienaar, Lord Lilley said: “The government normally does get defeated in the Lords. This is what nobody realises, the rare occasions we win a vote the chief whip sends us an email rejoicing in this rare fact. So it’s normal for the government to be defeated. It will probably be defeated on this, and send it back to the House of Commons.”

Super-rich donors paid up to £15,000 a table for the chance to rub shoulders with senior cabinet ministers – who left the event early in order to vote through plans to make the poor pay more for social care.

See: www.mirror.co.uk

You’ll have to fold on cap when Bill comes back from Lords, PM warned www.standard.co.uk 

Has Simon backed the wrong horse again? – Owl

Boris Johnson’s social care reforms are grossly unfair

Editorial www.independent.co.uk 

Ever been to Peppa Pig World?” the prime minister asked the bemused delegates at the CBI conference. Not many had, it seems, not least because of the Covid-19 lockdowns over the past 20 months or so, the imposition of which not being aided by Boris Johnson’s disastrous prevarications and confusions.

It was a low point, but perhaps a mercy to the assembled business folk that he got the pages of his speech mixed up, and stopped jabbering. At least the silence was comprehensible, punctuated only by some utterances of “forgive me”. Despite a vague commitment to “levelling up” as a “moral mission”, Mr Johnson was wise to avoid any reference at all to the government’s latest evolution of its social care policy. Which could easily be labelled it’s social “don’t care” policy.

It is effectively a tax policy reversed and turned upside down. It is eye wateringly, heartrendingly unfair. Rather than richer people (and their descendants) paying proportionately more for their care in old age or disability, or even the same as poorer families, it means that they will pay proportionally less. In its way, it is quite an achievement for an administration to come up with such a regressive policy and yet market it as a fair and equitable package of reforms. Flawed as it was before, it is now unacceptable.

It doesn’t do much for “levelling up” or social justice. Given the concentration of personal wealth in the south, the policy will exacerbate the north-south divide. The even more skewed cascade of unearned wealth down the generations will also increase the gap between rich and poor within every region. The financial impact of the social care policy is to entrench disadvantage and widen existing economic divisions. The property that the children of the already wealthy inherit will be rented out to the children of those who have seen their inheritance disappear in social care home fees. The final insult is that the new social care levy, as a form of national insurance, will be paid by the low paid, but not by the landlords living off their newly protected riches.

The new social care policy is nothing less than a powerful engine of inequality. According to Andrew Dilnot, who produced the original and best report on funding social care a decade ago, the less well off will derive little benefit from these changes, and the Treasury will save £900m, a small sum in the wider context.

It is policy being made on the hoof, and in the wrong direction. Having gifted the Labour Party sleaze to run with, now the prime minister has opened another early window on the advent calendar with the most obscenely unfair policy in decades.

Given the disquiet voiced by many Conservatives, precisely because of the potential electoral repercussions, the policy may yet have to be revised once again, and it would certainly not survive a change of prime minister or party of government, as Jeremy Hunt is hinting. It has unhappy echoes of the poll tax of the late 1980s – a well-meaning reform of an outdated and unpopular system, but one that somehow managed to make things more complex and more unfair.

Few noticed the implications of a complex new way of financing local government, naturally, but opposition grew as the details became clear, and then came the riots. The poll tax also inflicted huge political damage on the then Conservative government, and contributed to the fall of Margaret Thatcher (that and relations with Europe and an imperious style of government).

Mr Johnson should heed history, and perform one of his celebrated U-turns before his policy does any more capricious harm to older people and their families, and indeed himself as prime minister. Otherwise he’ll have all the time he wishes to spend at Peppa Pig World.

This BBC graphic, being retweeted by some opposition MPs, explains clearly why some people are likely to have to sell their houses if they move into a care home under the current plans.

Official record of Prime Minister’s “car crash” speech to CBI.

PM speech at the CBI conference: 22 November 2021

Keir Starmer has indicated he would bar MPs from using personal companies to reduce the tax they pay on second jobs, saying he would stop any Labour MPs from doing so straight away.

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

Starmer’s comments came after it emerged that at least 10 MPs, one of them Labour, had channelled income from additional work through their own companies, which is legal but reduces the amount of tax they need to pay.

An investigation by the Times found the MPs were paid in total about £1m via such arrangements. Sir Alastair Graham, former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, told the paper this “should be stopped as soon as possible”.

“MPs should not be avoiding paying the taxes they’ve decided that the rest of the population should pay,” Graham said.

Asked on Monday if any Labour MPs found to have put any outside earnings through a personal company should stop doing so, Keir Starmer said they should.

“The answer to the question is very easy: yes,” he said during a media Q&A following a speech by the Labour leader to the CBI annual conference in Birmingham.

“The whole point of the registration and declaration scheme is that anybody can see transparently what is happening in relation to any income or donations.”

Instead of paying income tax at a rate of up to 45%, the personal company will pay corporation tax at 19%. Further tax is then due when owners draw money out of the company, either via income tax or a tax on dividends, the higher rate of which is 32.5%.

Starmer has already said that in power Labour would prevent MPs from carrying out any outside work, beyond a few exceptions for public interest reasons, such as MPs who are police or army reservists, or medical staff.

The Labour leader, who was director of public prosecutions before entering parliament, has in the past given paid legal advice while an MP. Allies of Jeremy Corbyn have said Starmer was instructed in 2017 to not take a second job with law firm Mishcon de Reya. Starmer’s spokesman insisted Starmer turned it down himself.

The investigation over tax minimisation comes less than a week after the Commons backed a plan to limit MPs’ scope to take on second jobs. While the plans are yet to be worked out, the focus is likely to be on political consulting, and on jobs which take up too much of an MP’s time.

The vote, which saw the government amend a Labour motion, followed days of outcry after ministers decided to change the system by which MPs are disciplined to protect then-Tory backbencher Owen Paterson from punishment for what an official investigation said was a serious breach of lobbying rules.

The government U-turned the next day, and Paterson resigned from parliament.

First-time buyers have seen the gap between their wages and house prices grow in the vast majority of councils in England and Wales, casting doubt on Boris Johnson’s promise to “turn generation rent into generation buy”.

Tobi Thomas www.theguardian.com 

Just over a year ago, the prime minister said he wanted to give people “the fundamental life-affirming power of home ownership” and “spread that opportunity to every part of the country”.

Guardian analysis of prices paid by first-time buyers, however, shows that the affordability gap has grown in 98% of England’s local authorities since 2015, and in every part of Wales.

The traditional benchmark for mortgage affordability is that the amount required from a lender – the property price minus a 10% deposit – should not exceed 4.5 times the buyer’s wage or the combined wage of a couple.

But that target is unachievable for single first-time buyers – who are typically aged 32 – in 95% of local authorities in England, based on the median earnings for people in their 30s.

Single first-time buyers in Wales would not be able to afford a home in 86% of local authorities in the country. Although couples fare better, they would struggle to stay within 4.5 times their wage in almost a third (31%) of council areas in England.

The analysis looked at what has happened to affordability in the six years since the Conservatives won a majority government. The party’s 2015 manifesto said “everyone who works hard should be able to own a home of their own” and outlined schemes for cut-price starter homes and a help-to-buy Isa.

In the run-up to the 2019 election, the party said: “For the UK to unleash its potential, young people need the security of knowing that home ownership is within their reach.”

Since then the help-to-buy loan scheme has been extended, and this year a scheme to guarantee 95% mortgages was introduced. But the analysis shows homes have become less affordable over that period.

“Home ownership is now almost completely out of reach for most people on average or low incomes – with house prices continuing to soar, most people can’t scrape together a sky-high deposit to buy and so are stuck paying extortionate private rents,” Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter, said.

“The government has ploughed money into a series of expensive home ownership schemes that most people can never hope to benefit from, as they still require a sizeable deposit when most renters don’t have any savings.”

House prices increased by the largest proportion in Salford, in the north-west of England, where the average house price for a first-time buyer increased by 58% over the six-year period.

*Cost in average salaries is calculated by the multiple of the median salary needed to make up the cost of the average first-time buyer’s home

This is despite the fact that Salford is within the top 20 most deprived local authorities in England in terms of deprivation.

In 2015, a single first-time buyer would have needed 4.4 times an individual’s wage to afford a typical mortgage, within the affordability criteria generally sought by lenders.

Today, a buyer on the median wage for a person in their 30s in the region would require 6.4 times the average salary.

In Bristol, while a property was affordable for couples seeking to get on the property ladder in 2015, the increase in prices has not kept pace with wages, rising from four times their joint wage in 2015 to 5.1 times their combined salary in 2021.

Two-thirds of London boroughs remain outside the reach of couples seeking to buy their first property in the capital.

In Wales, the biggest proportional increase in house prices between 2015 and 2021 was in Blaenau Gwent, where prices rose by 52.7% across that period, but the area remains affordable for a buyer in their 30s earning the local median wage.

Conversely, while prices haven’t risen as fast, the gap between a first-time buyer’s wage and the average property price was within the 4.5 times limit in 2015 but has since risen to beyond 5.5 times the average salary in Caerphilly, Torfaen and Carmarthenshire.

The analysis is based on Office for National Statistics data showing the median gross annual wage for the 30-39 age group for 2015 and 2020 at regional level compared with house price data for August 2015 and August 2021 as recorded by the Land Registry.

Affordability is defined as 4.5 times a person’s salary or couple’s combined salary compared with a typical mortgage required for a first-time buyer in each council area. Because the typical deposit is 10% of the house price, this calculation was based on 90% of the average property listed by the Land Registry.

Dan Wilson Craw, the deputy director of the campaign group Generation Rent, said: “It is already a struggle to save the deposit to buy your first home, and as prices have shot up home ownership has become even harder … The government has intervened to encourage banks to lend at higher loan-to-value ratios, so buyers don’t need as much in savings. But ultimately if you’re borrowing that much, your monthly repayments will be huge.”

“Ultimately, the only sustainable way the government can help people buy a home is to throw everything they have at reducing rents. That means building more homes where people want to live, and more council homes.”

A government spokesperson said: “Our economy is on track to reach pre-pandemic levels around the turn of the year and wages are rising in real terms.

“We know how important it is for people to own their own home, which is why we have supported over 700,000 households into ownership through shared ownership and help to buy since 2010, and our new First Homes scheme will provide homes at a discount of at least 30% for local first-time buyers.

“We’re also investing over £12bn in affordable homes over the next five years –the largest investment in affordable housing in a decade, alongside increasing skills funding and the national living wage.”

Despite a significant rebellion from his own MPs, Boris Johnson’s much-criticised changes to social care have been approved on a day to forget for the prime minister.

The new clause in the Health and Social Care Bill, which critics say will hit the poorest hardest, passed with just 272 votes – almost 90 short of the total number of Conservative MPs.

Meanwhile 246 MPs, including 19 Tories, voted against the changes, with many arguing it could lead to people living in cheaper houses having their assets wiped out.

The rebellion capped off a day that began with the prime minister fumbling a speech at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). (www.itv.com)

Owl has scanned the record of votes cast and finds Simon Jupp voted “aye” but Neil Parish has no vote recorded so he either abstained or was not present.

This, like the sewage bill, may be subject to amendment by the Lords and to the court of public opinion.

Exeter, Teignbridge and East Devon are among the 5% of local authority districts in England with the highest percentage of properties at risk of flooding. In Exeter, for example, more than 10% of properties are at risk.

Planning for climate change and flood resilience

localis.org.uk 

Housing secretary Michael Gove should reset planning policy to ban developers from building thousands of new homes in high-risk flood areas, the think-tank Localis has argued.  In a report published today entitled ‘Plain Dealing – building for flood resilience’ the place experts set out how deepening climate change pressures and rising housing demand have resulted in an increase in flooding on properties in at risk areas.

In original research undertaken for the report, Localis discovered that almost 200 planning permissions have been granted on floodplain land so far this year for some 5,283 new homes in the highest-risk local authorities in the country, the overwhelming majority some 4,255 in areas pre-identified as highly likely to flood.

Among its key recommendations, Localis calls for government commitment to empowering communities to manage flood risk locally in a ‘resilient’ way that allows them to pursue their local ecological, economic and social goals. In this context resilience means flood strategies that focus on living with floods instead of just preventing them and involve a flexible approach to flooding and a rapid recovery from inundation.

Other report recommendations for policy and regulatory changes include suggestions to: –

• Make developers liable for the sustainability and insurability of any new developments built in floodplain areas.
• Support effective collaboration between the public, private and civil society with the aim of reinvigorating and re-incentivising flood insurance schemes and partnerships – for example comprehensive risk management in at risk urban regeneration zones.

In Detail

The report notes that Exeter, Teignbridge and East Devon are in the top half of the top 10% of local authority districts in England with the highest percentage of properties at risk of flooding (i.e. in the 5% of districts most at risk). In Exeter, for example, more than 10% of properties are at risk.

The report also paints a gloomy picture of the ability of the current planning system to stop making the problem worse: under resourcing; divided responsibilities amongst multiple agencies and lack of overall control.

Read this extract from the Executive Summary:

Problems with the current system

While national planning policy in England should steer development away from current flood risk areas and advises that future risk should be considered, at present there is no clear policy for how local authorities should effectively account for the flood risk associated with increasing climate change in plans and development decisions. Thus, faced with competing interests and institutional agendas such as constraints on building on protected land (e.g. the green belt around urban areas in England) and pressure to meet national housing targets, local authorities frequently permit new developments in flood zones. The complex nature of this issue – local authorities, under-resourced and under pressure to deliver housing targets, working in something of a grey area – highlights the asymmetrical central-local relationship that exists in this area of governance. 

There is a huge mismatch between central and local relations regarding flood risk management, one affecting the entire journey from local plan to development control. This has led to data gaps, a lack of ambition and subsequent lack of effective action and change. Complexity is borne from the multitude of bodies involved in flood risk and service management. In England, local authorities are responsible for housing (district councils in county/district areas), with the county council (if it is a two-tier authority) responsible as the statutory consultee for surface water drainage. Meanwhile the EA is responsible for flood risk and a private water company is responsible for drainage. When there is an emergency, these roles are slightly different and don’t align in the same manner. The district council is responsible for evacuation, with the county council focusing on provision of alternate accommodation. 

The defunding of local authorities since 2010 has naturally had an impact on the ability of councils to manage this complex issue. Just 12 percent of local authorities strongly agree that they have the skills and expertise to take account of flood risk now and in the future in planning decisions. Despite over 60 percent of councils declaring climate emergencies, local authorities have a critical shortage of skills and expertise in relation to planning for climate change. For example, only two percent of local authorities are considering future insurance availability and affordability when making planning decisions, and only a third of local authorities are seriously considering the impacts of climate change when deciding whether to grant planning permission. As local decision-makers, it is paramount that local authority planning departments are better resourced to deal with the flood risk challenges they are facing, both now and into the future.