An extensive Covid-19 outbreak has been confirmed at an East Devon care home where residents and staff had already received their first vaccination.

Anita Merritt www.devonlive.com

It is alleged there were as many as 33 positive coronavirus cases in the space of three days recorded at Holmesley Care Home in Fortescue Road, Sidmouth.

Five residents are thought to have been admitted to hospital, and one of those sadly passed away yesterday.

The care home, which was reported to have had 42 residents living there in September 2020, has not confirmed how many Covid cases there have been, but has said one resident has died.

Residents had reportedly been due their second vaccination this weekend.

Yesterday Devon Live reported cases of coronavirus have quickly risen in an area of East Devon – primarily in the over-85s.

Infection rates in East Devon rose from a low of 33.5/100,000 – the lowest since the end of September – on Saturday, to 45.8/100,000 on Sunday, when cases dated March 2 were added to the data.

The rise is believed to be due to the outbreak in the Sidmouth care home, with the MSOA area reporting 34 cases in the seven day period between February 24 and March 2 – with 29 of them attributed to March 2 alone.

Care home director Will Neal said: “We can confirm that we currently have a high number of positive cases of coronavirus among residents in the home, and that one of our residents has now sadly passed away.

“For nearly 12 months the staff team have worked hard and kept the virus from entering our home. We are deeply saddened by this outbreak.

“Nearly all our residents and the team have received their first dose of the vaccine and were about to have their second dose, and we hope this may have helped prevent an even worse situation.

“We are working closely with Public Health England and Public Health Devon, and have a comprehensive package of measures in place to halt the spread and to ensure that our residents are receiving the care they need.

“We cannot speculate how the virus might have entered our home, but our clear priority right now is the care of our residents and staff and to do all we can to reduce risk of further cases.”

The outbreak is a stark reminder that being vaccinated doesn’t mean transmission will be stopped and that precautions must remain in place for seniors and care homes.

However, vaccines are said to still be effective because they prevent severe illness and death.

The report said: “We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question.

“We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

“We found care was taken to ensure people were safeguarded from the risk of infection. There was a team of housekeepers who took pride in their work. All areas of the home were regularly cleaned.

“There were sufficient stocks of personal protective equipment and staff took all precautions needed to keep people safe.”

A spokesman for Public Health Devon, said: “Public Health England South West and Devon County Council are working together to support staff and residents of Holmesley care home in Sidford following an outbreak of Covid-19 in residents. Sadly a resident has passed away.

“The home is currently closed to visitors.

“Residents and staff in the home have received their first dose vaccinations, which will be providing a level of protection for them.

“In addition, the home has a range of measures in place to respond to this sudden rise positive cases, and to prevent further transmission. There is no current evidence of wider community spread.”

Steve Brown, director of Public Health Devon, said: “This level of outbreak is unusual following the roll out of the vaccination programme, but it is a helpful reminder that we must all stay on our guard.

“While the vaccine roll out is going well and proving effective, we need to remember that no vaccination is ever 100 per cent effective.

“We are working with health colleagues to do everything we can to minimise the spread of the virus in Devon.

“It is important that we do all we can to protect the elderly and vulnerable in care homes, which is why we have issued extensive advice and guidelines to support them in managing suspected and confirmed cases of Covid-19.

“We all have a part to play in reducing the risk of infection and must continue to stay at home and only go outside for food, health reasons or work, but only if you cannot work from home.

“If you do have to leave the house, please stick to the rules – keep your social distance, wear a face covering when indoors in public spaces, and to wash your hands regularly.”

Holmesley Care Home received a focused, but not full inspection, by independent health and social care regulator the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in September 2020. It was rated good for being safe and well-led.

It was the first inspection of the service since it was newly registered in August 2019. People living in the home, staff and most relatives praised the provider and management team for the improvements they had made.

It was noted a visitors room had been set up with a Perspex screen to enable visitors to enter from the outside and sit and talk with their loved-ones safely. Inspectors were told the facility was widely appreciated by people in the home and their relatives.

 From a correspondent.

You just have to dip into the detail of the Staff Morale Report prepared by Mark Williams to see how opinionated and selective it is. It also paints an idealised picture of “time past” completely at variance with all the comments made in the  torrent of recent posts.

First of all he uses the personal pronoun “I” throughout.

 “If I were to compare and contrast where we are with where we were I would summarise that this time last year the following factors were noticeable and important in terms of facilitating high morale and the ability of the organisation to cope with change/additional work:

1. Mutual respect between members and officers

2. A recognition by members that officers would always do their best and work hard with the resources that they were allocated to achieve the best possible results.

3. A sense of pride in the organisation and what it was seeking to achieve for the district.

The latest survey results suggest that these 3 factors are now less noticeable and that they have been replaced by a growing recognition of an inappropriate work environment; a sense of a ‘blame culture’ with officers increasingly fearful of doing their jobs and much less likely to ‘go the extra mile’ for the organisation”

 To support these conclusions he draws on a detailed comparison between a staff morale survey conducted last “summer” 2020 and another one conducted in Jan/Feb 2021 (Appendices 1 and 2 to his report)

Unfortunately these surveys aren’t directly comparable. They are not presented in the same way and clearly didn’t ask the same questions.

But should we really be surprised that staff report more strain and stress in January and February? This strain is quite general in society with people from all walks of life having to deal with homeschooling and Lockdown 3. 

Should we be surprised to find Housing, Streetscene and Planning to be the most stressed? 

Planning has certainly been working hard and effectively in providing excellent comments on the two government “mutant algorithm” consultations, getting out of GESP, preparing for the previously neglected new Local Plan Review and getting the LORP planning application before the planning committee in short order to meet the funding constraints. Pressure on Housing and Streetscene will obviously have increased under Covid.

In the February survey 329 members of staff filled in the questionnaire (67% of total staff) (which included the specific question: “I am subject to bullying at work” which didn’t seem to feature in the summer 2020).

What is interesting is that 327 answered this question and 83% replied never, 11% replied seldom and 6% sometimes. (No specification as to where the bullying might have come from, though in the small print elsewhere it looks like four individuals mention councillors ). This is recorded on page 26 of the reference. If you study  this page you will find that all the other questions get a much more negative response, and these are the sort of questions that concern management generally e.g. “Different groups at work demand things from me that are hard to combine.”

This is also very obvious from an examination of the free text comments on page 36, the vast majority concern management issues.

The past year will have been difficult for EDDC staff. They have had to deal with providing an essential service under Covid restrictions whilst serving a new administration naturally keen to make progress on a  very different set of priorities. As someone commented yesterday, it is Mark Williams’ duty to facilitate this change. In fomenting trouble by ignoring the management problems highlighted by his staff, concentrating instead on unsubstantiated claims of bullying against the cabinet, he is failing the staff he is supposed to support; council taxpayers who pay his salary and to do his duty.

Finally, it is worth drawing the attention of Mark Williams and all Councillors to the seven individuals who commented along the lines: “There is political infighting and Councillors disrespecting other Councillors, which is stressful.”

Cases of coronavirus have quickly risen in an area of East Devon – primarily in the over 85s.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com 

Infection rates in East Devon rose from a low of 33.5/100,000 – the lowest since the end of September – on Saturday, to 45.8/100,000 on Sunday, when cases dated March 2 were added to the data.

The rise is down to what appears to be an outbreak in a care home in the Sidbury, Offwell and Beer area, with the MSOA area reporting 34 cases in the seven day period between February 24 and March 2 – with 29 of them attributed to March 2.

Infection rates in the oldest age groups also rose at the same time – going from 187/100,000 on Saturday to 562/100,000 on Sunday in the over 90s, and from 118/100,000 to 380/100,000 in the 85-89s, with smaller rises also seen in the 80-84s and 75-79s. In the week up to March 2, there were no positive cases in East Devon for anyone under the age of 14.

Government MSOA map of infection rates for the Sidbury, Offwell and Beer area

As no area other than Sidbury, Offwell and Beer saw a rise in their figures when March 2 specimens were added, the rise in both infection rates and in the age range infection rates are likely linked.

A care home outbreak in the area the most likely explanation for the rise.

A spokesman for Public Health Devon said: “There is currently a rise in new cases in the Sidbury, Offwell and Beer area of East Devon, and the majority of them are linked to a single setting.

“We and Public Health England are working closely with that setting to ensure that all reasonable measures are in place and appropriate action is taken to ensure everyone’s ongoing safety, and to prevent spread of infections. Controls are in place and there is no current evidence of wider community spread.”

However, despite the spike in cases in East Devon, the district’s infection rate is still in the bottom third in England, sitting 207 ^th of the 315 local authority areas.

Across the rest of Devon, Exeter has the 279 ^th highest infection rate, Mid Devon 292 ^nd lowest, Torbay 298 ^th , Teignbridge 305 ^th , Torridge 309 ^th , West Devon 313 ^th , North Devon 314 ^th and South Hams 315 ^th and the lowest in England.

At an upper tier level, only the Isle of Wight and Cornwall have a lowest infection rate than Devon, with the 22.4/100,000 the lowest since the end of September.

In the week leading up to March 2 in Devon, only one person aged 65-69 tested positive for Covid-19, while there were 0 positive cases in the 5-9 age group.

Owl dropped in to take a peek at the first day back at St Custard’s

Beach-goers and swimmers have been warned after the sea exposed rusty old pipework and other dangerous hazards.

[At least it’s not a bomb – Owl]

Chloe Parkman www.devonlive.com 

Exmouth RNLI says the pipework could pose a significant risk to people using the East Devon beach.

In a statement on Twitter, a spokesperson for Exmouth Lifeboat said: ”Sea conditions have exposed some old structures that are a significant risk to water users off Exmouth and could cause serious injury/incapacity especially during high tides.

“The hazards are located about 80 yards west of Exmouth RNLI Lifeboat Station.

”Please avoid this area.”

Last month, Devon Live reported on a similar incident in which the weather and sea conditions exposed old pipework on the beach.

Following last month’s pipe exposure, Exmouth RNLI said the pipes could cause ‘serious injury’, especially during high tides.

They urged people to avoid the area.

No bullying is acceptable. It is a pity it has reared its head again in EDDC, hopefully it will now be dealt with by the new administration. Many will recall the attacks Claire Wright suffered and many others will remember being humiliated when making public statements to planning and council meetings with no right of reply. – Owl

Francesca Evans sidmouth.nub.news 

Leading members of East Devon District Council were asked to consider their positions this week, during a passionate discussion on claims made by council staff that they were “bullied at work”.

The three-hour debate followed a staff survey carried out in January and February of this year, which raised claims that new councillors and the new political leadership at East Devon was “seriously mistreating officers” and “unnecessarily micro-managing and causing extra workload”.

There were also concerns over increased staff absence due to depression, stress and anxiety during the latter months of the Covid-19 pandemic, and that six per cent of respondents said they were “sometimes bullied at work”.

The leader of the council, Cllr Paul Arnott, who represents Colyton, said he was “certain my Cabinet are innocent of any bullying”.

In a report on the survey results, East Devon’s chief executive Mark Williams said he had already written to councillors highlighting his concern about an “oppressive and menacing” online work environment that some officers had experienced from “certain councillors”.

He said the issues facing the council were “very serious”.

Giving the background to the survey, Mr Williams stated in his report that EDDC had traditionally been an organisation where staff morale had been high.

In January 2020 the council received Platinum Investors In People status, which was the highest level achievable, and a previous staff survey carried out in June 2020 said there was an “optimistic feeling” within the council at the end of the first lockdown.

The latest staff survey in January/February 2021 comes after a new political leadership took over EDDC.

Independents took control of the council following the election in May 2019, after 45 years of Conservative rule.

But the Independent Group, led by Cllr Ben Ingham, were then overthrown by a new Democratic Alliance in May 2020, led by Cllr Paul Arnott and made up of councillors from the East Devon Alliance, Liberal Democrats, Green Party and some independents.

Mr Williams – who himself admitted to feeling bullied at work during this week’s Scrutiny Committee meeting – made several references in his report to “new councillors/new political leadership” and “change in political culture”.

Speaking at this week’s meeting, Independent councillor Geoff Pook (Beer & Branscombe) said “the most upsetting and serious claims” from staff did stem from last year’s change in administration and he posed several questions to Cllr Arnott.

“Does the leader accept the outcome of the report and that 18 of our staff state that the new political leadership are seriously mistreating our officers, which is very stressful? This includes seven members who say they feel bullied, intimidated and are being harassed.

“Does the leader agree that this is totally unacceptable?

“Does the leader agree that, as leader, he is totally responsible for the deplorable actions of his administration?

“Does the leader agree that those responsible must consider their positions and, as leader, he should address this? And does the leader agree he holds ultimate responsibility for the actions and behaviour of his team and should perhaps consider his own position?”

‘No proof where problems are coming from’

In response, Cllr Arnott said he would offer a “blanket no” to all of Cllr Pook’s questions regarding the political leadership, adding that the phrasing ‘new councillors/new political leadership’ used in the report was “unfortunate”, as new councillors came from all political parties.

“There is no proof or indication from where problems are coming,” he added.

Cllr Arnott continued: “This has been one of the most challenging times for local government in our history and I could not be more proud of our staff and officers, which I have said repeatedly and publicly.”

He added that the leadership had taken concerns over the mental health of staff “extremely seriously”.

Cllr Arnott said that there had been issues within the council prior to the new administration, using his own experiences in Exmouth as an example.

“Exmouth has been toxic beyond belief for many years before my time,” he said.

“I came in and raised it through this very committee and we then set up the Exmouth Queen’s Drive Delivery Group, which I have chaired with patience and courtesy and removed the poison from that.

“I have protected officers and I have I think created a peace there where there was not a peace before, and involved the public. I would be astonished if any officers had any criticism of that whatsoever; it was a model of sorting out what had been previous problem.”

He continued: “There is another side to this coin and we need to understand the members’ perspective as well and I hope Scrutiny comes forward with a set of policies and engagements, and I would be very pleased to present my own evidence and those of my Cabinet.

“I am certain that they are innocent of any of these allegations of bullying, which are not identified in this report as being anything to do with councillors.”

New councillors are ‘across all political groups’

Independent East Devon Alliance councillor John Loudoun (Sidmouth Rural) also raised concerns over the use of the phrase ‘new councillors/new political leadership’ in the report, describing it as a “broad phrase” which conflates two sets of members.

He pointed out that 24 new councillors across all political groups joined the council after the May 2019 elections.

“We should all look at what we’re doing, the implications of what we’re doing and how we need to change. I hope each group leader will be honest, look at their group and say ‘can we do things better?’” he said.

Former council leader Ben Ingham (Woodbury & Lympstone), a former Independent who has joined the Conservative party since losing his position to Cllr Arnott, also called for the new leadership to consider their positions.

He said the feeling of optimism shown in the June 2020 survey had gone and had been replaced with stress and depression, with many staff continuing to work from home despite suffering from mental health issues.

“What an appalling situation for us to be in – six months of vindictive disorientation and poor leadership,” he commented.

“Bullying in the workplace is against the law. The Cabinet and leadership of this council have a lot to answer for and should consider their positions.”

Conservative councillor Ian Hall (Axminster) asked chief executive Mark Williams whether he felt bullying was still ongoing and whether he had ever felt personally bullied.

Mr Williams replied yes to both questions.

Cllr Hall went on to apologise if he had ever added to an officer’s workload during the pandemic, adding that if he was implicated in any harassment or bullying he would “stand aside because we cannot tolerate that sort of behaviour”.

Fellow Axminster councillor Andrew Moulding, who is leader of the Conservative group at East Devon, added: “The officers of this council have been exemplary over many years and are now being undermined by the current administration. This cannot continue and we must find a way of addressing the issue.”

What happens now?

After three hours of debate, the committee eventually agreed on four proposals put forward by Independent East Devon Alliance councillor Val Ranger (Newton Poppleford & Harpford). These were as follows:

1) To note the report and thank the chief executive.

2) To ask the chief executive to undertake a follow-up staff survey at a suitable future point.

3) Request the chief executive to discuss this survey data with the staff representatives and to feed back to portfolio holder for Council and Corporate Co-ordination the outcome and actions resulting from that engagement to form an action plan.

4) Recommend to the chief executive, members of the SMT and portfolio holder for Council and Co-ordination discuss this survey data and any other relevant information to identify what actions are necessary to address the four key points identified within the report:

– Workload, staff shortages, vacancies and management support for staff

– Home working and staff isolation

– Member conduct with staff

– Staff community cations

5) Ask the chief executive to update this committee in light of completion of the above four recommendations.

Cllr Ranger had initially proposed the phrase ‘member engagement’ be used instead of ‘member conduct’ under her fourth recommendation, but Mr Williams expressed concerns that this would come across as “tone deaf” to staff members who had been “exceptionally brave” in their responses to the survey, so it was agreed to change this.

Earlier in the meeting, Mr Williams warned councillors: “It doesn’t take a lot of time for a council to appear on the Secretary of State’s watch list as a council of interest.

“Traditionally it’s been councils that have got themselves into financial trouble but actually, if you look at the criteria the Secretary of State applies, financial trouble is one of them, dysfunctional relationships, poor corporate governance, and those types of matters particularly affecting the three statutory officers, is an area where the Secretary of State does show an interest.”

• Construction of rear and side extensions. 25 Hill Crescent Honiton EX14 2HYRef. No: 21/0572/FUL | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side extension to south elevation with pitched roof and detailed gable to form craft room 14 Stoneyford Park Budleigh Salterton EX9 6TBRef. No: 21/0577/FUL | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of boundary fence to Cunninghams Lane Flat 1 Glen Close House Glen Road Sidmouth EX10 8RWRef. No: 21/0574/FUL | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed roofing over an existing open manure store Higher Hampton Farm Shute Axminster EX13 7PARef. No: 21/0558/FUL | Validated: Thu 25 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Prior notification under Part 3, Class R for the flexible change of use from agricultural use to a hotel under Use Class C1 Luton Lane Farm Payhembury Honiton EX14 3HZRef. No: 21/0563/PDR | Validated: Thu 25 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness to establish lawful use of office/store as a single dwelling house. Land Adjacent Dulford Business Park CullomptonRef. No: 21/0556/CPE | Validated: Thu 25 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of one residential dwelling and associated works, including demolition of barn and change of use of agricultural land to garden. Higher Leyhill Farm Broadhembury Honiton EX14 3JYRef. No: 21/0554/FUL | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey side / rear extensions, and to south east facing elevation. 13 Raddenstile Lane Exmouth EX8 2JLRef. No: 21/0557/FUL | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed extension with new higher ground floor landing, internal alterations and new roof covering The Waves 16 Coastguard Road Budleigh Salterton EX9 6NURef. No: 21/0559/FUL | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• T1 – Oak Reduce eastern aspect by 3m to suitable growth points, MDC 75mm. Shape north & southern aspects to leave a well-balanced tree. Remove major hazardous deadwood. Reason for Works: Large specimen is dominating small garden, pruning work is deemed appropriate management Castlehaye Castle Lane Woodbury Exeter Devon EX5 1EARef. No: 21/0551/TRE | Validated: Thu 25 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Oak – Crown reduce by 6m as per the red line. Cuts to be veteranised to mimic natural failure points. G1,Ash – Fell All ash trees within group which are within falling distance of properties. Significant signs of ash dieback in upper crown. T2, Ash – Reduce upper limbS growing out over road back by approx 2.5m and reduce northern aspect of crown (road side) by approx 2m. G3,Ash – Coppice x 5 suppressed / low vigour stems leaning towards garden. 4, Ash (adj to bridge) – Pollard to just above union at approx. 1.5m. G4, Ash – coppice x 3 poorly suppressed Ash stems leaning towards garden. 5 , Ash x 3 stems (to north of path) – Coppice to ground level. 16, Ash x 5 stems.(to north of path)- Crown clean removing all deadwood, broken and crossing branches over 20mm over path. (one stem). 17, Sycamore by entrance – Fell. 18, Sycamore by entrance – Crown clean removing all deadwood, broken and crossing branches over 20mm. over path. 19, Sycamore x 3 – Fell 3 x supressed Sycamores directly adjacent to Silver Birch. 20, Ash 3 x stems (1 failed) – Coppice tree to ground level. 21, Ash 4 x stems – Coppice x 1 stem leaning towards garden. Reason: Appropriate Arboricutlural management to remove trees /limbs at risk of failing due to structural defects / disease (ash dieback). I do not plan to replant to replace felled trees because there is plenty of natural regeneration (mostly ash and sycamore) already occurring within the woodland. Hillcrest Nature Reserve Hillcrest Gardens Exmouth DevonRef. No: 21/0550/TRE | Validated: Thu 25 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey double garage and increase width of the existing vehicular access. 94 Halsdon Avenue Exmouth EX8 3DHRef. No: 21/0549/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed roofing over an existing open manure store Higher Hampton Farm Shute Axminster EX13 7PARef. No: 21/0547/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of single storey rear extension 72 Newlands Road Sidmouth EX10 9NNRef. No: 21/0543/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey garage/office with associated steps. Doulting Shute Road Kilmington Axminster EX13 7STRef. No: 21/0533/FUL | Validated: Tue 23 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for the construction of single storey rear sun-room extension.3 Littledown Nurseries Exmouth Road Newton Poppleford Sidmouth EX10 0BERef. No: 21/0528/CPL | Validated: Tue 23 Feb 2021 | Status: Approved
• Raising of roof ridge and roof extensions including front and rear dormer windows. Construction of single storey rear and front/side extensions, garage to front and workshop to the rear. Alterations to the access. Heathercroft Shepherds Lane Colaton Raleigh Sidmouth EX10 0LPRef. No: 21/0530/FUL | Validated: Tue 23 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of carport Merrifield House Awliscombe Honiton EX14 3PTRef. No: 21/0532/FUL | Validated: Tue 23 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Extension of the existing detached garage block and erection of a garden shed Sid Abbey Coach House Sid Road Sidmouth EX10 9HNRef. No: 21/0524/FUL | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Change of use from existing storage building to provide an annexe and holiday accommodation Finches Churchill Axminster EX13 7LZRef. No: 21/0539/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Installation of air source heat pump. Egypt Millford Road Sidmouth EX10 8DPRef. No: 21/0520/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 Ash, Remove lowest limb extending over the shed roof. T2 Oak, crown raise up to 4.5 meters , reduce crown spread over Garden of no 5 withycombe park drive by 2 meters removing longest branches of up to 3 metres in length with MCD of 75mm leaving a balanced shape and following best arboricultural practices. To keep a tree to a size in keeping with the garden and reduce shading. 123 St Johns Road Exmouth EX8 4EHRef. No: 21/0511/TRE | Validated: Thu 25 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of agricultural land to siting of four safari tent pitches for holiday use and associated operational development (including construction of timber bases, access paths and parking areas). Flays Farm Farway Colyton EX24 6EGRef. No: 21/0519/FUL | Validated: Thu 25 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 and T2 Oak: Remove large dead branches and crown raise to 3m over drive T3 Oak: Prune to give 3m clearance to property Reason: To increase clearance over drive and to property T4 Oak: Reduce height by 4-5m and install rigid cable brace between two stems Reason: Included bark union between two stems. Replacement of ageing and inadequate cable bracing 18 Eastfield West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1XNRef. No: 21/0523/TRE | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of first floor side extension over existing garage, single storey extension to rear and associated engineering works 25 West Hill Budleigh Salterton EX9 6BURef. No: 21/0512/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• To fell cherry tree marked A and pollard hawthorn marked B, due to the disruption and collapse of the retaining wall bellow. 2 Victoria Place Chardstock Axminster EX13 7BWRef. No: 21/0521/TCA | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Flowering Plum (T1) – Reduce by no more than 1.5m to the height of the line in the attached photos. Apple (T2) – Fell Apple (T3) – Fell 6A Cyprus Road Exmouth EX8 2DZRef. No: 21/0515/TRE | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of replacement garden building/summerhouse Witley Cottage Woodbury Salterton Exeter EX5 1PTRef. No: 21/0513/FUL | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of first floor extension and roof extensions 35 Ashleigh Road Exmouth EX8 2JYRef. No: 21/0499/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of former railway line to residential garden area 4 Ridgeway Mead Sidmouth EX10 9DTRef. No: 21/0497/FUL | Validated: Thu 25 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Use of attenuation pond as fishing lake, installation of 15 fishing stands, siting of new hut, including provision of toilet facilities, to support fishing use, and the provision of 12 vehicle parking spaces and associated vehicular access (retrospective application). Centre Pond Greendale Business Park Honey Lane Woodbury SaltertonRef. No: 21/0502/MFUL | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey extension and dormer window 2 Cranford Avenue Exmouth EX8 2HTRef. No: 21/0505/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Provision of an agricultural barn Hayne Farm Awliscombe Honiton EX14 3PRRef. No: 21/0503/FUL | Validated: Tue 23 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Agricultural storage building Higher Uphay Farm Membury Road Axminster EX13 7JGRef. No: 21/0498/AGR | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective extension to agricultural building (approved under planning consent 17/2430/MFUL) and proposed constructed farm wetland drainage system together with associated bank regrading Hogsbrook Farm Woodbury Salterton Exeter EX5 1PYRef. No: 21/0489/MFUL | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use from garage to ancillary annexe Stanbury Lyme Road Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3UYRef. No: 21/0475/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed equestrian arena (manege) and exercise track Higher Way Farm Dalwood Axminster EX13 7EURef. No: 21/0468/FUL | Validated: Tue 23 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Creation of off road parking in front garden 6 Granary Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 6JDRef. No: 21/0480/FUL | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of mono pitch roof and replacement windows, including various external renovation works and internal alterations. Beach House The Esplanade Sidmouth EX10 8BDRef. No: 21/0473/LBC | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey front and side extension, single storey extension to rear and raised patio 46 Wells Avenue Feniton Honiton EX14 3DLRef. No: 21/0481/FUL | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Construction of single storey side extension and provision of cladding 27 East Budleigh Road Budleigh Salterton EX9 6EJRef. No: 21/0484/FUL | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of part of existing public house to form new dwelling Talbot Arms Hotel Lyme Road Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3TFRef. No: 21/0479/FUL | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing rooflights and installation of additional rooflight on south elevation, re-rendering and installation of new window on north elevation Love Lane Barn Yettington Budleigh Salterton EX9 7BWRef. No: 21/0477/LBC | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing rooflights on south elevation, re-rendering and installation of new windows on north elevation Love Lane Barn Yettington Budleigh Salterton EX9 7BWRef. No: 21/0476/FUL | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of mono pitch roof and replacement windows, including various external renovation works and internal alterations. Beach House The Esplanade Sidmouth EX10 8BDRef. No: 21/0472/FUL | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of conservatory Westering 1 Connaught Close Sidmouth EX10 8TURef. No: 21/0454/FUL | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of horizontal cendral boarding to the front and side elevations. 43 Moormead Budleigh Salterton EX9 6PXRef. No: 21/0455/FUL | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey side extension, rear and side dormer windows and side rooflight. (Revision of 20/2101/FUL) 51 Ashleigh Road Exmouth EX8 2JYRef. No: 21/0439/FUL | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Creation of staff flat from existing rooms Shillands House Upton Pyne Exeter EX5 5EBRef. No: 21/0422/COU | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing barn, dairy and milking parlour; replacement single dwelling Greendale Farm Greendale Lane Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1AWRef. No: 21/0403/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Change of use of land from agricultural to domestic to provide a driveway to Blue Haze and construction of an agricultural storage building Blue Haze Church Path LympstoneRef. No: 21/0354/FUL | Validated: Tue 23 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of boundary wall to enable car parking to front and construction of fence to side to fill existing opening, installation of vehicle charging point, extension of rear terrace. Installation of 2 no. side rooflights, new side window at the first floor level, replacement of kitchen vent and installation of 2 no. new bathroom vents, external and internal alterations including provision of render, changes to the internal openings, removal of partition wall, reinstatement of existing chimneys and installation of log burner, replacement windows and balustrade 29 Clarence Road Exmouth EX8 1LBRef. No: 21/0359/LBC | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of boundary wall to enable car parking to front and construction of fence to side to fill existing opening, installation of vehicle charging point, extension of rear terrace. Installation of 2 no. side rooflights, new side window at the first floor level. 29 Clarence Road Exmouth EX8 1LBRef. No: 21/0358/FUL | Validated: Mon 22 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of 3 no. dormer windows and 2 no. balconies.Sallicombe Farm Farway Colyton EX24 6EGRef. No: 21/0290/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Withdrawn
• Re-roof works to include: replace existing slate with using natural slate; replace battens; repairs to trusses and fascia boards; fit breathable membrane and batten 10 Sid Lane Sidmouth EX10 9ANRef. No: 21/0252/LBC | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace 1no. window and add 1no. flue for woodburning stove on north elevation; new soil vent and extractor fan vent on south elevation and construct internal partition walls to create ensuite in bedroom at first floor Copper Castle Honiton EX14 9TGRef. No: 21/0207/LBC | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of concrete base and installation of open storage bay and covered storage area for the management of hazardous waste on northern part of site; construction of concrete base for open storage area to southern part of site for storage of non-hazardous waste management. South West Highways Rockbeare Hill Rockbeare Exeter EX5 2HBRef. No: 21/0213/FUL | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Prior approval for proposed change of use of agricultural building to 1no. dwelling (use class C3) and associated operational development under Class Q(a) and Q(b) Pinneywood Farm Lodge Lane Axminster EX13 5RTRef. No: 21/0210/PDQ | Validated: Tue 23 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed two storey and single storey side extensions, single storey rear extension, extension front porch, replacement garage and first floor side window. 8 Stevenstone Road Exmouth EX8 2EPRef. No: 20/2560/FUL | Validated: Wed 24 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Install satelite dish on rear single storey projection Christophers Budleigh Hill East Budleigh Budleigh Salterton EX9 7DTRef. No: 20/2153/LBC | Validated: Fri 26 Feb 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

It was supposed to redraw the economic map of Britain. But funding announced by Rishi Sunak last week for 45 struggling towns across England is worth less than half the amount cut from their local budgets under the Conservatives, according to an Observer analysis.

Richard Partington www.theguardian.com 

Using the budget to restart the government’s levelling-up agenda after dealing with the Covid pandemic, the chancellor announced £1bn of funding from the flagship “towns fund” for communities including Castleford, Rochdale and Wolverhampton.

However, analysis of local authority finances by the Observer reveals the 45 towns are located in council areas that have suffered budget cuts worth in excess of £2.4bn since the Tories came to power in 2010.

The assessment, based on figures from the Centre for Progressive Policy, show some of the councils have experienced deeper cuts in total service expenditure than most in the decade before the pandemic, with towns in northern England bearing the brunt.

According to the figures, Rochdale – which is set to receive £23.6m from the towns fund – spent almost £100m less, after taking account of inflation, in 2019-20 on local services than in 2009-10. Meanwhile neighbouring Bolton – due to get £22.9m from the pot – has suffered cuts worth £74m.

It comes after Sunak was accused last week of “pork barrel politics” given that 39 of the 45 towns are represented by Conservative MPs. His Richmond constituency also emerged among areas in the highest priority tier for support from the government’s levelling-up fund, a separate programme, while less prosperous neighbouring areas had been left out.

Council spending on services has still fallen dramatically in these places. Matthew Brown, the Labour leader of Preston city council, said the £20m the city is due to receive from the towns fund was helpful, but insufficient to patch up the fallout from years of cuts directed from Westminster.

“It’s been difficult to respond to Covid when your services are cut to the bone,” he said, adding that Preston’s budget has been cut by a third since 2010, forcing it to sell public assets and cut spending on community projects.

“Obviously it is welcome because places like Preston have been disinvested in for decades, so yes £20m for our city centre is welcome. But in the context of years of austerity and the neoliberal economics we’ve had for decades, I think we need a lot more than this,” he said.

The figures analysed by the Observer assess cuts to council service budgets – the funds for day-to-day spending on areas such as adult social care, road maintenance and bin collections. This differs from the aim of the towns fund, which provides a one-off boost for infrastructure investment.

The government said more was being spent on local areas than the towns fund alone, including £51bn for councils in 2021-22, £2.3bn more than this year, while all councils could bid for the £4.8bn levelling-up fund.

A spokesman for the communities department said the analysis was flawed and it had committed more than £35bn since the start of the pandemic to support councils. “It ignores all the other funding provided to councils and the fact that councils are responsible for managing their own spending,” he added.

However, experts said the stark contrast between the towns fund and budget cuts since 2010 was important to make. Paul Swinney, director of policy at the Centre for Cities thinktank, said: “The background of 10 years of local authority cuts is what people feel on a day-to-day basis.

“We’ve seen a budget where there has been a sprinkling of gimmickry almost. It’s a contradiction, saying, ‘look we’re coming giving sweets here’, but at the same time it’s these areas where services have deteriorated, and there will be more to come. It doesn’t point to a levelling-up agenda.”

Zoe Billingham, head of policy at the Centre for Progressive Policy, said funding for physical infrastructure was welcome, but service spending was important to address more fundamental weaknesses. “To level up left-behind places we need to see investment in social infrastructure: in social care, libraries, skills and youth services. This will be essential for an inclusive economic recovery.”

“So far, we have seen little evidence to suggest the levelling-up agenda is on the right track,” she said.

Steve Reed, the shadow communities secretary, said the towns fund was a “drop in the ocean” compared with a decade of austerity.

“Funding vanity projects like rebuilding Newark’s medieval gatehouse doesn’t fix major inequalities between our regions, revive local economies or restore crucial services like social care,” he said.

“There’s absolutely no way in which anyone can say that’s austerity – we’re spending more money on public services than we were.”

That’s what the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, asserted last November.

www.independent.co.uk 

But in the wake of this week’s Budget, a host of respected public finance analysts are arguing that austerity does indeed seem to be returning to the public realm thanks to the decisions of the chancellor.

He didn’t mention it in his Budget speech, but Mr Sunak’s plans on Wednesday included a roughly £4bn-a-year cut in the day-to-day spending budgets available to Whitehall departments starting in 2022-23 relative to previous plans.

This is the money, technically known as “current spending”, that civil servants and ministers use for employing staff, running general operations and delivering routine services, ranging from social care to policing, to the British people .

This followed a £10bn a year reduction in those budgets in last year’s spending review.

The implication of all this is that, by 2023/24, these budgets will be some £16bn lower than they were projected to be before the pandemic struck.

Given total day-to-day departmental spending totals of £377bn in that year (up from £321bn in 2019-20), £16bn might not sound a particularly large sum.

But with large “protected” spending departments such as health, defence, and education having already received significant multi-year budget increases from the government, any cuts to the overall spending envelope would be felt disproportionately by unprotected departments such as justice, the Home office and local government.

The Treasury delivered a spending review – which sets spending limits for individual Whitehall departments – last year, covering the 2021-22 financial year.

There will need to be another spending review this autumn covering at least 2022-23 and possibly the following two fiscal years as well.

The Office for Budget Responsibility, the Treasury’s independent spending watchdog, pointed out this week that the reduction in the overall spending envelope pencilled in by the chancellor this week implies that after health, education, defence and overseas aid have had their promised increases, all the other unprotected departments are now facing a 1 per cent real terms cut in the upcoming spending review.

In other words, for these public services, austerity will be back.

Moreover, it was these unprotected departments that suffered the biggest cuts in public spending during the years in which George Osborne was chancellor after 2010.

Departments such as local government, work and pensions, and transport saw their day-to-day budgets more than cut in half in real terms.

While protected departments’ budgets are set to be 10 per cent higher in real terms by the middle of this decade, the budgets of non-protected departments are apparently destined to remain almost a quarter lower on their levels in 2010.

“For those public services it will feel very much like George Osborne is still the chancellor,” says the Resolution Foundation in its post-Budget report.

The Treasury has offered a technical justification for its latest £4bn cut, claiming that it reflects lower expected inflation, and implying that departments won’t need as much cash to deliver the same level of service.

But analysts say those inflation forecasts have been badly distorted by the pandemic and that there’s no evidence departments will need any less money to meet the demands on them.

“This isn’t just a mechanical change and presenting it as such means the chancellor isn’t really levelling with people about the choices the government is making to repair the public finances,” says Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Analysts see the £4bn-a-year cut as a means of ensuring that the government’s overall day-to-day budget is back in balance by 2024/25 on current forecasts and that the national debt is falling as a share of the economy.

In other words, to signal fiscal responsibility (by his own definition) four years into the future, the chancellor is willing to cut some important public services starting next year.

But what analysts find most alarming about that choice is the context.

The pandemic revealed a health service with zero spare capacity and a public health system grossly unprepared in areas like PPE stockpiling.

And, as the OBR notes, the government has itself said there will be an ongoing need for vaccination infrastructure when the crisis is over.

The crisis has also ripped a hole in the education of millions of children and exposed the lethal inadequacy of our social care system.

And yet the chancellor set aside no more money for the health or education sectors this week. Nor was there any more money for local government, which largely funds social care.

All these sectors are likely to need more money as a result of the pandemic, rather than less.

“The chancellor’s medium-term spending plans simply look implausibly low,” says Mr Johnson of the IFS.

And the OBR calls the need for more money for public services “one of the most significant risks to the medium-term fiscal outlook”, implying that the chancellor might, in the end, just have to spend more on public services than his current plans.

If this is right, a return to austerity could prove not only undesirable but undeliverable too.

And there’s another lesson of the past decade of austerity: ministers can point all they like to rising overall public services spending, but when supply fails to meet rising public demand, the result is not pretty.

Context – Cornwall  is one of the most economically deprived areas in Northern Europe. Between 2014 and 2020, Cornwall received over €1,000 (£800) per person from the EU Structural and Investment Fund – similar to that received by Romania and Bulgaria. – Owl

From Western Morning News Saturday:

A Cornwall councillor has called for the Government to explain its decision to not make Cornwall a priority for its levelling up funding.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak released details during his budget statement yesterday of which areas in England and Wales are considered to be a priority for levelling up funds.

However there was surprise in Cornwall when it was revealed that the county is not in the top priority category, but in the second.

That puts it behind 123 other local authority areas in the country, including Mr Sunak’s own constituency area of Richmondshire, North Yorkshire.

The Levelling Up fund is a pot of £4.8billion which has been designed to help provide investment for areas where it will make the biggest difference, which the Government’s guidance states includes “deprived towns and coastal communities”.

The decision to not make Cornwall a priority area for funding comes despite it being classed as one of the poorest regions in Europe, which made it eligible for European Union funding.

Tim Dwelly, Cornwall Council Cabinet member for economic development, said: “It appears that our fears that Cornwall is not going to get targeted special help from the Government have been realised.

“Before the budget we already knew that we were unlikely to get anywhere near the £100 million a year that Cornwall previously received from structural EU fundings but now we see that Cornwall has been relegated from the priority zone in favour of the red wall areas in the north.

“This is totally unacceptable, anyone with understanding of poverty in the UK has to include Cornwall in the top priority list. We will be urgently asking for an explanation on this.

“How can the Government prioritise areas in most need when the poorest region of the country, Cornwall, is not included? It is simply inexplicable.

“We want to know as a matter of urgency what evidence that the Government has that Cornwall is less in need than the areas that have chosen for priority one which include the Chancellor’s own relatively wealthy constituency.”

Some areas in the South West have been placed in the priority one category, including the Isles of Scilly and Torbay.

Cornwall is in priority two alongside the likes of Plymouth, Mid Devon, West Devon and Bath and North East Somerset.

Cllr Dwelly added: “Sadly for Cornwall the message from Government seems to be that we have been chosen for what feels like levelling down. The key principle for us has been that we wanted Cornwall to be recognised as needing help because of our low pay – that is what it is in human terms, too many people in Cornwall are low paid.”

The Cabinet member said that he was also concerned that with the Shared Prosperity Fund, which was said to be the way that Cornwall would get funding to replace that lost due to the end of EU funding because of Brexit, the Government has indicated that Cornwall will have to bid for funding against other parts of the country.

Cllr Dwelly said: “By indicating that we have to compete with all the other parts of the UK, no matter how well off they are, the government seems to be abandoning the Prime Minister’s pledge to continue to provide the special funding we received from the EU that was based on our low pay and poverty.”

The final decision on whether to allow 1,000 new homes to be built at Sandleford Park could be made by Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick, despite concerns of a conflict of interest as the owner of Bloor Homes – the developer which has submitted the appeal – has donated more than £1.3m to the Conservative Party.

Dan Cooper www.newburytoday.co.uk 

Plans for a major development at Sandleford Park – situated just off Monks Lane in Newbury– have been in the pipeline for more than a decade.

The first planning application was submitted by Bloor Homes in December 2015 but refused by West Berkshire Council in November 2017.

Bloor has since submitted a further four applications, but these have also been rejected by the council and the developer has now decided to appeal.

The appeal was due to be decided by a Planning Inspector, but the Secretary of State has exercised his powers to ensure that the decision is made by his ministerial team instead.

The reason given was that “proposals for residential development of over 150 units would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply”.

However, there are concerns Mr Jenrick’s team could be presented with a conflict of interest as the owner of Bloor Homes, John Bloor, made a £962,000 donation to the Conservatives in the lead up to the 2019 General Election.

He also made a donation of £400,000 before the 2017 General Election through his company, JS Bloor.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said Mr Jenrick may not have the final say and it could be “made by one of his ministerial team on his behalf and in his name instead”. They also insisted Mr Jenrick had not personally asked for the application to be called in.

West Berkshire Council executive member for planning Hilary Cole admitted she was “very surprised” to hear that the application would be decided by Mr Jenrick’s ministerial team.

“I was certainly surprised when I found out, but he is entitled to do so,” she said. “We have to go with it, we don’t get any say on the matter.

“The developer is entitled and within their right to appeal the refusal and we will see what will come of it.”

The founder of Say No to Sandleford – a campaign group which was set up to fight the proposals to build new houses at the site – said the situation may present “an awkward conflict of interest”.

Peter Norman added: “The trouble is any development called in by the Secretary of State will always be mired with suspicions as to the motivation behind it.

“Developers are major contributors to the Tory Party coffers and we have seen the Secretary of State get into trouble with past decisions because of this.”

In April 2020, Mr Jenrick faced calls to resign after official documents revealed he approved a £1bn property development in order to save the Tory donor’s company behind the scheme paying tens of millions of pounds.

Correspondence released by Mr Jenrick’s department revealed the minister was “insistent” the 1,500-home Westferry Printworks project be approved the next day to ensure tycoon Richard Desmond’s company avoided paying between £30m and £50m in council infrastructure levies.

The Newbury Weekly News asked the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) the following questions:

– Can Mr Jenrick reassure local residents he will remain completely impartial and won’t be influenced in any way by the applicant’s links to the Conservative Party?

– Does he see how this could be seen by some to be a potential conflict of interest?

– Will Mr Jenrick be required to declare an interest or declare that the owner of the company that wants to build the homes has donated money to the party he represents?

A spokesman for the MHCLG responded: “Planning decisions are made in line with propriety guidance to ensure transparency and fairness.

“The decision to recover this application was made by officials without ministerial involvement, and one of the planning ministers at the department will decide on the application in due course.”

In a letter to the council from the MCHLG it says: “Although the appeal was to be decided by an inspector, the Secretary of State considers that he should determine it himself.

“This means that instead of writing a decision, the inspector will prepare a report and recommendation which will be forwarded to the Secretary of State.

“This direction is being served on the inspector, the appellant (or their representative) and the local planning authority.”

Flybe’s return to the skies is hanging in the balance amid the resignation of a “big swinging” hedge fund manager that was plotting the airline’s revival.

By Oliver Gill 6 March 2021 www.telegraph.co.uk

Lucien Farrell of Cyrus Capital, whose friends include Ben Elliot, the nephew of the Duchess of Cornwall and co-chairman of the Conservative Party, has stepped down as a director of the company Thyme Opco, according to official filings.

Thyme Opco acquired Flybe from administrators EY in October to “restore essential regional connectivity in the UK, and contribute to the recovery of a vital part of the country’s economy”.

Mr Farrell’s decision to stand down last Monday followed a crunch hearing on the previous Friday, February 26, between regulator Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), EY and law firm Freshfields.

The administrators argued that take-off and landing slots worth tens of millions of pounds each should be handed over to Thyme Opco.

An application by Thyme Opco for an operating licence was also lodged at the hearing.

Industry insiders said that the CAA had adjourned the part of the hearing relating to the transfer of the slots having been unable to come to a final decision.

But the operating licence application is expected to be granted in the next two weeks, the sources added.

Mr Farrell’s decision to acquire the Flybe brand, intellectual property, stock and equipment sparked speculation within aviation industry circles over his motives for restarting the perennially loss-making airline.

“Slots. That is all they are doing. Trying to find a way to reclaim and sell them,” one analyst claimed at the time.

Flybe collapsed a year ago with the loss of 2,000 jobs. Cyrus Capital previously owned the carrier alongside Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Atlantic and what was called Stobart Group, the owner of Southend Airport.

The three investors were unable to convince the Government to plug a £100m hole in Flybe’s finances and were unwilling to invest more of their own capital with the spectre of coronavirus looming.

Flybe had up to 12 pairs of take off and landing slots at Heathrow airport. In the past, the sought-after slots have traded for high prices. Air New Zealand sold one slot pair at Heathrow for $27m (£20m) in March 2020, for instance.

The ownership of the slots has been complicated by the pandemic.

When airlines collapse, the administrators would sell them to another airline. If the administrators were unable to sell them, strict rules dictate that they would be handed back to a central slots coordinator.

However, the rules have been suspended during the crisis leaving the ownership of Flybe’s slots in limbo.

Mr Farrell’s resignation leaves Thyme Opco and associated companies with just one director, Jon Peachey, the chief executive of Virgin Group’s American operations between 2008 and 2013.

Mr Farrell, 46, often targets companies facing bankruptcy. One executive once described him as a “big swinging, high-rolling kind of guy. He has got a sort of free wheelin’ style that some investors value.”

A year ago, late on a cold and windy night in March, Flybe pilots around the country peered nervously at their mobile phones, their eyes locked on the plane-tracking app Flightradar24.

Gradually, they watched as the last few Flybe aircraft touched down for the night.

Then they braced themselves for the worst.

Just hours earlier, explosive rumours had started circulating that the airline was on the brink of going bust. Reports of planes being denied access to runways, passengers not boarding aircraft, and pilots unable to fill up with fuel became rife.

Knowing that an announcement by the company’s senior management would only be forthcoming once all planes were on the tarmac, employees waited nervously to discover the company’s fate.

When it came, the news was devastating. The 40-year-old airline, a mainstay of Devon business and a vital cog in the UK’s transport network, would enter administration in a matter of hours.

It saw more than 3,500 people lose their jobs – 1,000 of whom were based in Exeter – and has left a gaping hole in UK air travel that has only been partially filled since.

In an exclusive for DevonLive, two people with front row seats of the airline’s crash – one a senior manager, the other a pilot – discuss what really went wrong for a company that was once the pride of Exeter.

[Don’t forget that Cllr Sarah Randall-Johnson was General Manager for PR and Public Affairs for Flybe at the time Cllr Paul Diviani took over as Leader of EDDC from her in 2011 – Owl]

Flybe’s total passengers over time since 1985 (Image: PA)

Given this history what went wrong? How could they lurch so turbulently between profit and loss?

Click the link below to read these two insider accounts. 

Howard Lloyd www.devonlive.com

Many millions of pounds are being swiped from England’s poorest schools, in a funding switch triggering fresh accusations of bias towards Tory-held areas.

http://www.independent.co.uk

The date for calculating how many children are eligible for extra “pupil premium” cash has been quietly shifted to last October – before schools were able to register many of them.

One of London’s poorest boroughs, Barking and Dagenham, is set to lose more than £1m alone, and the amount lost by schools in similarly deprived areas could run to tens of millions of pounds.

One head teacher – whose school will lose £40,000 – said the sum was the equivalent of an extra teacher, or two support staff, leaving it with “very challenging” decisions to make.

“It is our youngest pupils who will be disadvantaged the most – and all the research shows that the earlier you provide help the better,” Scott Halliwell, of Southwood Primary School in Dagenham, told The Independent.

Anger has been fuelled by the switch being announced too late for schools to encourage parents to register for the pupil premium scheme, which is meant to benefit the poorest children.

Margaret Hodge, the local Labour MP, said she believed the allocations were being manipulated to favour Conservative areas, the latest in a series of similar allegations.

“I am sure the Department for Education (DfE) looked at the way the distribution of this money would fall and saw it benefitted the constituencies of Tory MPs,” Ms Hodge said.

“This is all about politics rather than need. This will take more than £1m from my borough’s schools which is not fair – and, if the government is serious about levelling up, it’s not fair.”

Mr Halliwell protested that the decision came too late to act. The youngest pupils receive free school meals anyway – leaving parents with no incentive to register for pupil premium cash, unless encouraged to do so.

“We were only informed in December, about a change that was being introduced two months earlier,” he said, explaining that 30 of 171 eligible pupils had been missed, of which 20 are in the youngest year groups.

Asked why the DfE had made the change, the head teacher added: “I could not possibly comment. I don’t know whether they realise the impact this will have on us.”

The Education Policy Institute also raised the alarm, saying there were “questions to raise about the timing of this change”.

“The economic situation caused by the pandemic means schools are likely to have seen more pupils become eligible for the pupil premium towards the end of last year,” said Jon Andrews, its head of analysis.

“This means that we could now see a rise in the number of pupils classed as ‘disadvantaged’, but without the funding to support these extra pupils arriving for a whole year.”

The pupil premium, introduced by the Cameron-Clegg government, hands over £1,345 for every primary age pupil who claims a free school meal, or £955 for a secondary student.

Allocations have always been based on numbers registered by each January – but was suddenly switched to “the number of eligible pupils recorded by schools in their census in October 2020”.

That was just a few weeks after the new school year started. There has long been criticism of the failure to introduce automatic registration, requiring parents to be badgered.

A Barking and Dagenham Council survey found that 40 of its 60 schools had collectively lost £862,000 – suggesting the overall loss will top £1m.

That would “more than offset” the money they would receive from a promised £700m “catch-up” fund to compensate for learning lost because of the pandemic.

But the DfE insisted using data from October allowed schools to “know their budget earlier in the year, helping them to plan ahead”.

“We also recently announced £302m for a Recovery Premium, building on the pupil premium, which will be targeted towards the most deprived schools to support disadvantaged students’ attainment,” a spokesperson said.

According to the Daily Mail:

Boris Johnson fears the final bill for Carrie Symonds‘s lavish makeover of their Downing Street flat could be as high as £200,000.

Extract from Simon Walters www.dailymail.co.uk 

He told aides of his worries in crisis meetings on how to pay for his fiancee’s refurbishment. 

A source said the Cabinet Office had asked Conservative chiefs if party HQ has paid for some of the work – but failed to get an answer.

The Prime Minister faced further trouble last night over claims that Whitehall ethics chiefs have refused to approve his secret bid to help raise funds for the makeover by setting up a ‘Downing Street charity’.

According to Tatler, the main living area of the flat has been painted deep green and is often lit by candles.

Tory ministers are facing a backlash following their decision to recommend only a 1% pay rise for NHS workers despite the unprecedented pressure staff suffered during the coronavirus pandemic.

[Worth remembering that pensioners will continue to get a minimum 2.5% rise as the Chancellor did not scrap the “triple lock” of granting pensioners 2.5%, consumer prices index, or average wage rise whichever is the greatest. – Owl]

Graeme Demianyk www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

The growing anger and the threat of industrial action risks eclipsing Rishi Sunak’s manicured budget and the successful vaccine roll-out, with calls for the public to support a slow hand clap next week against the pay proposals.

A 1% rise represents a drop in the bucket in the context of the government-backed Covid relief package worth £407bn.

NHS accounts for 2019/20 show that £45.1bn was spent on salaries and wages, meaning a rise of 1% would amount to approximately £450m. Under another estimate, the Department of Health and Social Care referenced a figure of £56.1bn covering permanent and “bank” staff spending in 2019/20 in evidence to the NHS pay review board. That would mean a 1% uptick costing around £561m.

Critics have pointed to how the government has lavished significant sums of money elsewhere, often on projects with questionable merits. Here are a list of just a handful or so that have caused anger in the last 18 months.

£2.6m: Refurbishment for White House-style press briefings

Downing Street has spent more than £2.6 million on renovations in order to hold White House-style press briefings, it was revealed on Saturday.

According to the PA news agency after a response to a Freedom of Information request, a total £2,607,767.67, largely excluding VAT, was spent to allow daily broadcasting by various news organisations within the Grade I listed building.

An extensive overhaul within No 9 Downing Street began last year as the government announced the plans to hold the televised question and answer sessions with journalists, with their launch long delayed during the coronavirus pandemic.

Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said: “It would take around 100 years for a newly qualified nurse to get paid this kind of money.

“It sums up Boris Johnson’s warped priorities that he can find millions for vanity projects, while picking the pockets of NHS workers.”

Lib Dem deputy leader Daisy Cooper added: “This is nothing more than an expensive vanity project and is just more evidence that this government’s priority is spin, not substance.

“The prime minister himself said that he ‘owed his life’ to Covid doctors and nurses but now he’s happy to see front-line nurses take a real-terms pay cut, whilst he gets a flashy new TV studio – the prime minister should hang his head in shame.”

£37bn: Spending on troubled Test and Trace system 

HuffPost UK revealed on Thursday that the small print of Sunak’s budget showed the Test and Trace system is to get another £15bn, bringing its total cost to £37bn. The funding for 2021/22 comes on top of this year’s spending allocation of £22bn.

MPs said that the “eye-watering” sums should prompt ministers to do more to prove that the system, run by Tory peer Dido Harding, was giving taxpayers real value for money. 

Test and Trace has been dogged by criticism since its launch last April, with critics seizing on its use of private consultants at £1,000-a-day, its outsourcing to firms like Serco and its failure to deliver contact tracing rates or rapid test turnaround times seen as vital to stop the spread of Covid.

The National Audit Office published an interim report on Test and Trace last November which concluded that the government “needs to learn lessons” and that the service “is able to make a bigger contribution to suppressing the infection than it has to date”.

£340,000: Payout to Home Office official after Priti Patel bullying claims 

On Thursday, it emerged the government agreed a “substantial” payout to settle a top civil servant’s employment tribunal claim after he quit amid allegations of home secretary Priti Patel’s bullying.

Home Office chief Sir Philip Rutnam is reported to have accepted a six-figure sum after launching legal action against the Cabinet minister.

The department’s former permanent secretary dramatically resigned in February last year, accusing Patel of a “vicious and orchestrated” briefing campaign against him, claiming constructive dismissal and accusing Patel of bullying her subordinates.

A 10-day employment tribunal to hear Sir Philip’s case was due to take place in September.

Neither the Home Office nor the the FDA Union would disclose the amount of the settlement but it is understood to be a “substantial” sum.

But the BBC, the Guardian and the Times all reported the figure was £340,000.

£4.4bn: Additional costs of Brexit preparations

Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union cost the taxpayer more than £4 billion in additional government costs, according to the Whitehall spending watchdog last March.

The NAO said that between the EU referendum in June 2016 and March 31 last year, government departments will have spent at least £4.4 billion, while £6.3 billion was allocated by the Treasury for Brexit preparations.

They included planning for both “deal” and “no deal” scenarios, with £2 billion specifically earmarked for “no deal” preparations in 2019-20 – although this was scaled back after the prospects of “no deal” receded.

Of the money spent, £1.9 billion went on staffing costs, £1.5 billion on building new systems and infrastructure, and £288 million on bringing in expertise and external advice.

At the peak of activity, in October 2019, there were 22,000 staff working on Brexit preparations, including 1,500 who had been moved within government to prepare for a possible “no deal” exit. 

£150m: Millions of unusable face masks

During the early days of the pandemic, the government scrambled to secure deals with suppliers for precious personal protective equipment (PPE). Questions have been raised about many of the contracts, among the most notorious being a deal for 50 million face masks that did not work.

The masks were bought for NHS England from investment firm Ayanda Capital as part of a £252 million contract. But the government said because they used ear-loop fastenings rather than head loops, they may not have fit tightly enough for clinical use. It confirmed in court papers that the masks would not be used in the NHS.

Based on incomplete Whitehall figures, the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor estimate the 50m masks would have cost more than £150m of public money. 

£60m: Falling short of supplying computers to disadvantaged schools

A £60m contract was awarded for the education department to provide laptops to teachers and disadvantaged children during the lockdown.

But in August, HuffPost UK revealed the scale of the failure to deliver the computers to the poorest communities. Figures obtained by the Children’s Commissioner for England showed 27 academy trusts were left with just one device each.

In April, education secretary Gavin Williamson pledged the government would fund devices for children on free school meals in Year 10, as well as for vulnerable pupils with social workers and care leavers. But, despite some 540,000 pupils being eligible for the scheme, just 220,000 laptops were delivered to schools by August as a second lockdown loomed.

£1m: Boris Johnson’s ‘Brexit plane’ gets a red, white and blue makeover 

A plane used to transport the prime minister and the royal family was given a red, white and blue makeover that cost almost £1m.

The once-grey RAF Voyager was resprayed in white, with a Union flag on the tailfin and United Kingdom written in gold on the fuselage.

Boris Johnson had complained about the military paint scheme used on the jet.

As well as being a serving military plane, Voyager is used to transport the prime minister and members of the royal family to engagements abroad.

The cost of the respray, undertaken at an airport in Cambridgeshire, was condemned by opposition politicians when it was revealed.

The SNP lambasted it as an “utterly unacceptable use of public funds”.

Downing Street, which confirmed the work would cost “around £900,000”, said the new colour scheme meant the plane could better represent the UK around the world with “national branding”.

The number of number of coronavirus cases confirmed across Devon and Cornwall has dropped nearly 40 per cent this week, down to the lowest levels since September.

Daniel Clark, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

A total of 380 new cases were confirmed across the two counties in the last week, down from 650 the week before, and bringing the total since the start of the pandemic to 45,964.

Cornwall has the second lowest infection rates of any upper tier authority in England, with Devon third, behind the Isle of Wight.

Of new cases confirmed since 26 February, 78 were in Cornwall, 67 in East Devon, 29 in Exeter, 23 in Mid Devon, 14 in North Devon, 86 in Plymouth, six in South Hams, 24 in Teignbridge, 41 in Torbay, six in Torridge and six in West Devon.

In terms of infection rates per age range, case rates are highest in the over 80s in Devon.

Exeter has its highest infection rates in the 40-59 age range, while every other local district authority has its highest figures in the 20-39s. In Devon, no age group has an infection rate of more than 50/100,000.

The number of patients in Devon’s hospitals following a positive covid-19 test has fallen to levels not seen since the middle of October, and at 43 patients has more than halved in a week. The NHS Nightingale Hospital is empty.

There were 12 patients at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital (down from 22 as of Feb 23), zero at the Nightingale (down from 17), 10 at Torbay Hospital (down from 16), 18 in Derriford Hospital in Plymouth (down from 32), two at North Devon District Hospital (unchanged), and one in Devon Partnership NHS Trust units (up from zero).

In the last week, there have been eight deaths in Devon and Cornwall hospitals of patients within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test, with three in Cornwall, three in Plymouth, one in Torbay, and one in North Devon.

It comes as Steve Brown, director of public health Devon, said that testing is going to be the cornerstone of transition back to normal life. He said: “Over coming weeks and months, we are going to see a lot more movement of people – students returning to education, more people getting back to work, the loosening of restrictions on how many people we can be in contact with, and in time shops, cafes, and other businesses reopening.

“Coronavirus thrives on socialisation, which is why we see case numbers fall during lockdown, when movement and socialising is restricted.

“Taking a test regularly – the rapid tests that give results within the hour – is going to be an absolutely vital part of our way out of the coronavirus pandemic.

“Local community testing sites are available to anyone who work or whose volunteering requires them to be in contact with other people. We are also encouraging parents of secondary school and college-age students to use the community testing centres, as well as people in support bubbles. The tests are very quick and easy to take and results are texted or emailed back to you within the hour.”

Latest figures on vaccines show that more than half of all adults in East Devon, Torbay and West Devon have now had their first jab.

By 28 February, 461,165 vaccines had delivered in Devon, 445,074 of them first doses. Just under 50,000 vaccinations were carried out last week.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2021-03-04a.423.1&s=speaker%3A25911#g442.0

Simon Jupp spouts the party line, extolling the virtue of the budget, but can’t find much to say about East Devon – why not? Owl

Simon Jupp Conservative, East Devon  1:54 pm, 4th March 2021

Much has been said in the press about a perception that this Budget would be focused on the north. It may make a predetermined headline work, but it does not reflect the package of measures that will help every corner of our country, including my home county of Devon.

I joined a conference call with local hoteliers in East Devon last night, hosted by the excellent Sidmouth Town Council. The extension of the furlough scheme will help keep staff on the books as the hospitality industry reopens its doors in May with restrictions still in place. Much praise was heaped on the new restart grants, providing up to £18,000 to hospitality businesses. That will give hotels, pubs and restaurants across East Devon a welcome boost before the tourism season kicks in.

When they fling open their doors, the support continues with a suitably Conservative flavour by keeping taxes low to help businesses thrive. The extension of the VAT cut to 5% for hospitality, accommodation and attractions is something I have been calling for over several months, alongside further business rates relief. Both those measures are game changers for an industry hit really hard by the pandemic. I am glad that my calls to extend that support were heard and delivered in this Budget. East Devon’s economy is heavily reliant on hospitality, and the feedback from the industry is positive. I look forward to visiting many businesses across the constituency as they reopen.

While the support for the hospitality industry is nationwide, it will particularly benefit Devon, and the whole county will reap the benefits of several other announcements too. I fought hard to secure support for regional airports after the huge loss of Flybe and the impact of the pandemic. Only one flight landed at Exeter airport in my constituency today, which is not a huge surprise in the circumstances, but the past year has been a bitter blow to the aviation industry. The airport support scheme that I campaigned for will be extended for six months, as work continues on the long-awaited aviation recovery plan. It will take the aviation sector longer than most to recover from the crisis, and taxes, including air passenger duty, need urgent reform to help the industry back on its feet.

On the ground, more than £40 million of funding was included in the Budget to reinstate passenger services on the Exeter to Okehampton railway line. That will encourage more sustainable journeys across Devon and improve connectivity across the county and the city of Exeter, which I am proud to represent.

Another warmly welcomed announcement for Devon was a freeport, which will help to create thousands of jobs across our county. Businesses in Devon will benefit from more generous tax relief, simplified customs procedures and wider Government support, bringing investment, trade and jobs, which will help regenerate our county and our region. Meanwhile, the new future fund presents opportunities for businesses across Devon, including some based at the Exeter science park in my constituency. This £375 million fund will invest in highly innovative companies working in life sciences, quantum computing or clean technology.

The “rabbit out of a hat” Budget bonus was undoubtedly the new super deduction, which will cut companies’ tax bills by 25p for every £1 they invest in new equipment. To put that into perspective, it is worth around £25 billion to UK companies and will kickstart an investment-led recovery—exactly what our country needs.

It is not just our economy that will benefit from this Budget. Devon is home to many veterans, and I am proud to have the Royal Marines commando training centre in Lympstone. Those who risk their lives to protect our nation deserve our support. I was really pleased to see an extra £10 million invested in the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, which will deliver projects to support veterans’ mental health.

There is continued extra support for the lowest paid and most vulnerable on universal credit, and the national living wage will rise again in April. We are also helping people back into work with our plan for jobs. Some 140,000 kickstart job placements have been approved in the first six months of the scheme, with many of those in Devon. Whether it is support for sectors hit hard by the pandemic or investment and new opportunities across my home county, this Budget delivers for Devon and our whole nation in exceptionally difficult circumstances.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies and its Director Paul Johnson make it all very clear.

www.ifs.org.uk

Conclusions

Mr Sunak had three challenges in this Budget – to ensure the right level of support for the economy over the next few months, to set about fixing the longer term public finances, and to deal with the longer term consequences of the pandemic, especially its unequal consequences.

He has done a decent job of the first, arguably erring on the side of generosity.

He has given us a sense of where he wants to go on the second, but he still has a lot of work to do and his spending plans in particular don’t look deliverable, at least not without considerable pain.

On the third he has been silent. No money to deal with post pandemic priorities. No policies to deal with the inequalities that have opened up over the last year between rich and poor, old and young, more and less well educated. This is a big hole in the chancellor’s and the government’s policies, a hole which needs to be filled and soon if we are not to suffer a much worse hangover from this crisis than need be the case.

Extract from Paul Johnson’s opening remarks:

The other assumption is that public service spending plans will be delivered. The big story here remains that the Autumn spending review took some £12 bn a year out of pre pandemic plans in real terms. Yesterday the chancellor chose to trim around £4 billion per year from his cash plans for public service spending after next year. Now these are not firm plans, but they are the basis for the future public finance estimates. They are a very shaky basis.

The Treasury argue that as far as this additional £4 billion cut is concerned this is a purely mechanical change because of a lower inflation forecast. Well up to a point, but it is a particular measure of inflation, depressed by current lockdowns. It does not represent any real reduction in cash needs going forward and it’s pretty clear that, if delivered, this additional £4 billion cut in cash spending will cause additional pain. This isn’t just a mechanical change and presenting it as such means the Chancellor isn’t really levelling with people about the choices the government is making to repair the public finances. 

The actual costs facing departments are unlikely to have fallen. And since the NHS, schools and the Ministry of Defence all have budgets fixed in cash terms until later in the Parliament, this new £4 billion cut will fall entirely on other, unprotected services. Those areas – including perennially squeezed budgets like justice and local government – are now facing real-terms cuts in 2022–23. That’s a recipe for a very tricky Spending Review in the autumn.

But that’s only if you think these plans will actually be stuck to. Are we really going to spend £16 billion less on public services than we were planning pre-pandemic? Is the NHS really going to revert to its pre-Covid spending plans after April 2022?

In reality, there will be pressures from all sorts of directions. The NHS is perhaps the most obvious. Further top-ups seem near-inevitable. Catching up on lost learning in schools, dealing with the backlog in our courts system, supporting public transport providers, and fixing our system for social care funding would all require additional spending. The Chancellor’s medium-term spending plans simply look implausibly low. 

Two related thoughts.

An extract from a Telegraph article basking in the “Budget Glow”, followed by a discussion on what is at stake in changing the fixed-term parliaments act.

Fraser Nelson 4 March 2021 www.telegraph.co.uk

……The madness of 2019 gave us a winter election: voters would not thank Johnson for another one. Spring is the norm. So this leaves two realistic options: go to the polls after three-and-a-half years, or four-and-a-half? 

Just after the general election, the longer time frame looked best. A “levelling-up” agenda was promised, with roads and railways built in the north of England. Such projects need time to bear fruit. When the pandemic struck, it was argued that 2024 would give enough time for the job of social repair to be complete – and for memories of shambolic lockdowns and Professor Neil Ferguson’s misadventures to fade. So for various reasons, time was the Tories’ friend. Or so it seemed then.

But the second wave has changed all that, having doubled the Covid bill to a crippling £350 billion. So we can forget about quickly repairing the lockdown damage and moving on: the costs will now dominate Budgets for the rest of the decade, if not longer. The austerity that Johnson has promised not to repeat now looks unavoidable, with plans to spend £17 billion less on public services than was envisaged this time last year. Hardly the formula on which elections are won.

But the Sunak Budget – which can be summarised as “spend now, pay nothing until 2023” – could have been designed for an election held in the May of that year. It is divided into Biblical-style fat years – the splurge now – and then the lean years, coming in the form of huge tax rises that will continue for the foreseeable.

Until May 2023, the experience of most people will be of economic boom and retail therapy. The economy is expected to surge 7.3 per cent next year, a post-war high, driven by a nation of frustrated shoppers who take two years to spend their lockdown savings. If the recovery goes better than predicted (as Sunak privately expects), the full tax rises starting in April 2023 might not be needed at all.

But delay the election until May 2024 and the post-retail glow fades. As will the growth: it’s projected to be 1.9 per cent that year. And now there’s a new argument: the Tories want the vaccine project to still be in voters’ minds. This is what seems to be driving the opinion polls now: a success that is, increasingly, supplanting the memories of failure……

Boris Johnson may soon have the power to call elections whenever he wants – a legal view on why that’s not a good idea

John McGarry theconversation.com 

Legislation is currently making its way through the UK parliament to repeal the controversial fixed-term parliaments act, which sets the period between general elections at five years and limits the prime minister’s power to trigger an election earlier.

An earlier election is possible if two thirds of MPs vote for it or if the government loses a vote of confidence among MPs.

The 2011 act was passed under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government of 2010-2015. Its immediate aim was maintaining the coalition’s stability but it also had a more principled long-term objective of ending the governing party’s ability to call an election for its own advantage. Then deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said the act would “remove the right of a Prime Minister to seek the Dissolution of Parliament for pure political gain … for the first time … the timing of general elections will not be a plaything of governments”.

Before the fixed-term parliaments act, prime ministers could set the date of the next general election as long as it was within five years of the last. This gave the incumbent government a political advantage. The prime minister could call a general election timed to take advantage of favourable opinion polls, or may even delay an election as long as possible in the hope that unfavourable polls may improve.

By the 2019 election, both main parties were pledging to get rid of the system brought in by the coalition. The Conservative government claimed the act had “led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action”. This referred to Boris Johnson’s failure to secure enough support from MPs to hold an early election on three occasions in 2019.

It’s questionable, though, whether this failure provides adequate grounds for repeal. The act merely fulfilled its purpose in 2019. It prevented Johnson from calling an election simply for political advantage. Any paralysis was as much due to a minority government lacking sufficient support for its Brexit plans as it was the 2011 act.

It should also be noted that an early election was eventually held in 2019, despite the fixed-term parliaments act. Johnson could not convince enough MPs to support an early election but he was able to secure enough votes to pass temporary legislation that would allow him to bypass the fixed-term parliaments act.

So, the story of 2019 is one of the fixed terms system working. It blocked the prime minister’s dissolution power while allowing early elections when there was sufficient support among MPs or parliament as a whole.

A key clause

Now, should the proposed changes go ahead, the prime minister will once again have the power to hold an election at will.

There is also a proposed clause protecting the prime minister’s power from legal challenge. Such clauses – known as ouster clauses – attempt to freeze the courts out of a particular matter. In this instance, the clause would prevent the courts hearing a claim that the power of dissolution has been exercised unlawfully. Courts are, however, adept as side-stepping ouster clauses leading to tension between the courts, parliament and government.

It’s reported that this attempt to oust the courts is a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that the government acted unlawfully in 2019 when it tried to prorogue parliament for several weeks. Yet, that attempted prorogation, and the judgment that it was unlawful, is clear evidence of the important role courts play.

It’s widely believed that the real but unacknowledged reason for trying to prorogue parliament for so long in 2019 was to avoid parliamentary scrutiny at a crucial stage in the UK’s exit from the EU. That is, the government’s willingness to ignore constitutional, political and legal restraints for short-term political gain does not demonstrate the problem of courts ruling on the legality of government actions. It instead shows the necessity of the courts as a safeguard against abuse of governmental power.

Of course, the legal challenge in 2019 was not in response to an election being called. But the judgment in that case illustrated the courts’ willingness to intervene to keep the government in check. This explains the ouster clause – it’s an attempt to give the prime minister as much freedom as possible to call an election without interference by the courts.

The ouster clause is also part of a worrying pattern by the present government to insulate itself from political, media and judicial scrutiny. It has recently even launched a review of judicial review, the process by which the courts ensure that governmental power is exercised lawfully.

There should, then, be serious doubts about reinstating the prime minister’s dissolution power. The current government’s willingness to act in ways unprecedented in modern times for short-term gain suggests it is not a good idea. For mature democracies, it’s surely preferable for elections to be at set intervals with early elections permitted if directly elected MPs, rather than the indirectly elected prime minister, decide.