“Most people we see never thought they would ever be in the position of having to ask for help,” says Stella West-Harling, the founder of the Dartmoor Community Kitchen Hub. “We do ask ‘have you used food bank before?’ Most reply they’ve never even thought about it.”

Patrick Butler www.theguardian.com 

The hub has helped growing numbers of local people in food poverty as a result of Covid, and has witnessed close-up the emerging phenomenon of the “newly hungry” in which previously relatively comfortably off families have been forced to resort to food banks and the benefit system to survive.

Out of 130 people who approached the Devon-based hub for food support between March and September, 110 had never previously needed charity food help. “I’m seeing people dropping into poverty because Covid hit, and they suddenly realise they don’t have any reserves,” says West-Harling.

Many are young families “up to their neck in debt,” she says, people who have taken advantage of easy credit or over-extended to get on the housing ladder. “If you are on the minimum wage and 20% goes [under furlough] you still have bills and debts. Many can’t afford to feed themselves.”

It is not only the young who have suffered. West-Harling originally set up the hub, a not-for-profit company, to provide a nutritious meals-on-wheelsstyle service for isolated older people in the county. Many of them, sometimes living in draughty old houses in lonely “genteel” poverty, have struggled under Covid.

Self-employed people, often running their own businesses, have found themselves in unexpected hardship and feel acute shame about relying on charity, says West-Harling. “I delivered food round to a chap who owned a tool repair business. He was devastated, saying: ‘I should be the one taking food round to people.’”

In one case, they took food to a vulnerable young woman who was stranded alone in rural isolation. She had been too scared to leave her house during the pandemic. “She eventually phoned in terrible distress as she had not eaten in three days and had eked out what little food she had over a period of weeks.”

West-Harling, who founded and runs the Ashburton cookery school, says Covid has highlighted hidden areas of rural deprivation in Devon as well as the fragility of the tourism-farming-hospitality economy. The hub has been supported well by local volunteers and food banks, but needs financial help to keep going.

It is a shame the UK has never eradicated food poverty, she says, though she believes there will always be people who need help. “The way forward is a compassionate society. You cannot deal with poverty, social isolation and loneliness without compassion.”

Data press release 30 October covid.joinzoe.com

According to the ZOE COVID Symptom Study UK Infection Survey figures, the number of daily new COVID-19 cases in the UK are continuing to steadily increase and not surging as other sources have suggested this week.

Key findings from ZOE COVID Symptom Study UK Infection Survey this week: 

• There are currently 43,569 daily new symptomatic cases of COVID in the UK on average over the two weeks up to 25 October (excluding care homes) 
• This compares to 36,251 daily new symptomatic cases a week ago
• Rates in the North of England are still around four times higher than the South of England although the gap is narrowing
• In Scotland cases are potentially levelling off
• London rates continue to climb in a steady linear fashion (see full table of regional results below)
• The doubling rate for cases is currently 28 days 
• The UK R value is 1.1 
• Regional R values are: England 1.1, Wales 1.2 and Scotland 1.1
• Infections nationally have stopped increasing in children and are still rising fastest in 30-59 year olds with only gradual increases in the over 60s (see graph below)

According to this week’s Tier Prediction Model, Bradford, Leeds and Sunderland are the next regions most likely to be moved into the tighter restrictions of Tier 3.

The ZOE COVID Symptom Study UK Infection Survey figures are based on around a million weekly reporters and the proportion of newly symptomatic users who have positive swab tests. The latest survey figures were based on the data from 12,390 recent swab tests done between 11 October to 25 October. 

Tim Spector, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, comments: 

“While cases are still rising across the UK, we want to reassure people that cases have not spiralled out of control, as has been recently reported from other surveys. We are still seeing a steady rise nationally, doubling every four weeks, with the possible exception of Scotland which may be showing signs of a slow down. With a million people reporting weekly, we have the largest national survey and our estimates are in line with the ONS survey. 

“Data on covid-19 can be confusing for the public and we can’t rely simply on confirmed cases or daily deaths, without putting them into context. Hospital admissions are rising as expected, but deaths are still average for the season. As we become citizen scientists it’s important to look at multiple sources to get a broader view. Trends can be different at the local level and our app allows users to monitor this themselves.” 

A dramatic government climbdown will protect post-Brexit food quality, delighted campaigners say – after fears that chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef would be allowed in.

Rob Merrick Deputy Political Editor www.independent.co.uk 

In another U-turn, Liz Truss has bowed to pressure to give teeth to a new watchdog to prevent trade deals, particularly with the US, watering down food and animal welfare standards.

Now the new Trade and Agriculture Commission will be made properly independent, permanent and given the power to scrutinise each deal for its impact on food, welfare and environmental standards.

The National Farmers Union (NFU) hailed “a landmark moment”, saying: “This significant commitment to primary legislation on food standards is exactly what we have been calling for.”

And Neil Parish, a Tory rebel on the issue, said: “It’s been hard work, but I think we’re in a much better place now. We wanted firm guarantees in legislation and that is what we’ve got.”

Anne McIntosh, a Conservative peer and campaigner, said: “All our farmers ever wanted was fair competition and a level playing field and the government has recognised this and addressed these concerns.”

Ms Truss was forced to concede the setting up of the commission in the summer – but it had no budget, an advisory function only and was due to be wound up after six months.

Once permanent and independent, campaigners believe it will not sanction lower standards, achieving the “same objective” as an outright legal ban on acid-washed chicken, for example.

However, the climbdown is a huge blow for Ms Truss’s hopes of striking a quickfire trade deal with Washington, which has insisted access for its agricultural products is a red line.

Ms Truss had urged MPs and worried groups to simply trust the government when it said it would not cut food standards.

But they feared she did not want her hands tied – noting the UK has already proposed allowing in chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef in the US trade talks, albeit with higher tariffs.

Jamie Oliver had stepped up his warning of an influx of cheap food if ministers are able to prevent “proper parliamentary scrutiny”, saying: “I don’t like the smell of it.”

Announcing the U-turn, Ms Truss, along with environment secretary George Eustice, said, in a newspaper article, that an amendment had been tabled to the Agriculture Bill.

“It will place a duty on the government to report to parliament on the impact of trade agreements on the maintenance of food, welfare and environmental standards,” the pair wrote.

“Also, we have the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission, under the chairmanship of the trusted former Food Standards Agency head Tim Smith.

“Thanks to the commission’s excellent work, we are announcing today that it will be made a statutory body which will give independent advice on trade deals as they go through parliament.”

Boris Johnson has announced a four-week lockdown in England, following weeks of pressure from his own scientific advisers and opposition parties to introduce tougher measures to tackle coronavirus. The full details of the restrictions will be published on Tuesday before a vote in parliament, but this is what we know so far.

Jedidajah Otte www.theguardian.com 

When is England going into lockdown?

The measures will come into place at midnight on Thursday after MPs vote on them this coming week. While the lockdown will end on 2 December, it will be replaced with the current tier system and local restrictions will be introduced depending on an area’s infection rate.

Can different households mix indoors?

No, not unless they are part of an “exclusive” support bubble, which allows a single-person household to meet and socialise with another household.

However, people are allowed to meet one other person outside for “recreation” as well as exercise, and parents are allowed to form a childcare bubble with another household for the purposes of informal childcare, where the child is 13 or under.

What can I leave home for?

People can only leave home for the following reasons:

• Education.
• To go to work unless it can be done from home.
• Outdoor exercise either with household members or with one person from another household.
• For all medical reasons and appointments.
• To escape injury or harm.
• To care for the vulnerable or volunteer.
• To shop for food and essentials.
• To see people in your support bubble.
• Children will still be able to move between homes if their parents are separated.

However, people could face fixed penalty notices from police for leaving their home without one of the above excuses.

Can I travel?

Most outbound international travel will be banned.

There is no exemption for staying away from home on holiday. This means people cannot travel internationally or within the UK, unless for work, education or other legally permitted exemptions.

Overnight stays away from primary residences will not be allowed, except for specific exceptions including for work.

Which businesses will close?

Everything except essential shops and education settings, which include nurseries, schools and universities, will close.

Entertainment venues will also have to close. Pubs and restaurants will have to close their doors once more. Takeaway and delivery services will still be allowed, while construction and manufacturing will stay open.

Parents will still be able to access registered childcare and other childcare activities where reasonably necessary to enable parents to work.

Public services, such as job centres, courts, and civil registration offices will remain open.

There is no exemption for communal worship in places of worship (except funerals and individual prayer), for organised team sports, or for children’s activities.

Elite sports will be allowed to continue behind closed doors as currently, including Premier League football matches.

Should some people be shielding?

The prime minister said that the clinically vulnerable or those aged over 60 should be especially careful and minimise contacts, but there would be no return to the shielding programme used in the first lockdown. Johnson said those in this category should work from home.

Will there be a return to the furlough scheme?

The furlough scheme was set to end on Saturday and be replaced by a less generous package of support for employers and businesses. But that was before the announcement of a second lockdown. The PM said on Saturday that the old scheme – which pays 80% of salaries – would now be extended throughout November. No further details were given.

Why has the decision been made?

Confirmed cases are rising steeply, with an estimated 568,100 people in households infected in the week ending 23 October. Scientists on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) have warned that deaths could potentially hit 500 a day within weeks and that coronavirus could kill 85,000 people this winter.

The group has been concerned that the number of infections and hospital admissions is “exceeding the reasonable worst-case scenario planning levels at this time” and they first called for a national lockdown on 21 September.

“We’ve got to be humble in the face of nature,” said Johnson on Saturday. “The virus is spreading even faster than the reasonable worst-case scenario of our scientific advisers.

“Unless we act, we could see deaths in this country running at several thousand a day – a peak of mortality, alas, bigger than the one we saw in April.”

What difference could a lockdown make?

A lockdown can stem the spread of the virus and thus reduce the reinfection rate.

“The idea of a lockdown is to save lives primarily,” Prof John Edmunds, a member of Sage, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Saturday. “I think the only real way that we have a relatively safe Christmas is to get the incidence right down.”

Johnson warned that “Christmas is going to be different this year” but

added that by taking action now, he hoped that families could be together.

Scientists are calling for ministers to add vitamin D to common foods such as bread and milk to help the fight against Covid-19.

James Tapper www.theguardian.com 

Up to half the UK population has a vitamin D deficiency, and government guidance that people should take supplements is not working, according to a group convened by Dr Gareth Davies, a medical physics researcher.

Low levels of vitamin D, which our bodies produce in response to strong sunlight, may lead to a greater risk of catching the coronavirus or suffering more severe effects of infection, according to some studies. Last week, researchers in Spain found that 82% of coronavirus patients out of 216 admitted to hospital had low vitamin D levels. The picture is mixed, however – some research shows that vitamin D levels have little or no effect on Covid-19, flu and other respiratory diseases.

Vitamin D deficiency can cause rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults – soft bones that lead to deformities – and children with severe vitamin D deficiency are prone to hypocalcaemia – low levels of calcium in the blood – which leads to seizures and heart failure.

However, Public Health England (PHE) and the Department of Health and Social Care have rejected calls over the past 10 years to fortify foods such as milk, bread and orange juice, which is the practice in Finland, Sweden, Australia and Canada.

“In my opinion, it is clear that vitamin D could not only protect against disease severity but could also protect against infection,” Davies said. “Food fortification would need careful planning to be rolled out effectively, particularly as people are now taking supplements. Picking the right foods to fortify would need to be done carefully.

“But it’s clear that the current policy is not working – at least half the population have a vitamin D deficiency.”

Adrian Martineau, professor of respiratory infection at Queen Mary University in London, who is not part of Davies’s group, is leading a clinical trial to examine whether vitamin D can reduce the risk of Covid-19, or its severity. The Coronavit study, which began last week and is backed by the Barts Charity, the Fischer Family Trust and the AIM Foundation, will follow more than 5,000 people through the winter.

“The government recommends that the whole population takes vitamin D supplements in winter months, and those in high risk groups take it all year round,” Martineau said. “But we know that people just aren’t doing that in any significant numbers. Even I forget to take my supplement sometimes, and I’m living and breathing this subject. Fortification is a really good way of eliminating deficiency.”

Our bodies produce vitamin D in response to strong sunlight. In the UK, that means that from October to March, people need to rely on other sources: oily fish, eggs and food supplements.

Some foods, such as breakfast cereals and mushrooms are fortified with vitamin D, and people in low-income households are entitled to free multivitamins. White flour in the UK is already fortified with vitamins B1 (thiamin) and B3 (niacin), and last year the government began a consultation on adding vitamin B9 (folic acid) to help prevent spina bifida and other birth defects of the brain and spine.

A 2019 study at the University of Birmingham, led by Magda Aguiar, a health economist, showed there would be at least 25% fewer cases of vitamin D deficiency over the next 90 years if flour fortification were adopted, saving about £65m.

In 2017, Professor Louis Levy, PHE’s head of nutrition science, responded to calls for fortification by saying that there was not enough evidence that vitamin D would reduce the risk of respiratory infections.

The Department of Health and Social Care was approached for a comment but failed to respond.

Recruitment to the clinical study trial at Queen Mary University has recently been extended. Observer readers who would like to find out more should email coronavit@qmul.ac.uk

Just six words, Doctor Who said, would be enough to bring down the unprincipled prime minister Harriet Jones. “Don’t you think she looks tired?”

Would it work on a man?………

Catherine Bennett www.theguardian.com 

……. Time to find out. “I have read a lot of nonsense recently, about how my own bout of Covid has somehow robbed me of my mojo,” Boris Johnson said in his party conference speech. Was he thinking of the Daily Telegraph, where he appeared“strangely out of sorts”, or of the protracted lament by a former fan, the Spectator’s Toby Young: “What on earth happened to the freedom-loving, twinkly-eyed, Rabelaisian character I voted for?” Young cited one theory, “that the disease actually damaged his brain in some way”.

Covid-19 damage featured again in a Times report detailing the exhaustion of a miserable and forgetful prime minister, who was also struggling with his latest infant, whose exact age recently escaped him. “Physically, I think Covid has had huge impact, definitely,” a source said.

“Of course,” Johnson told conference, “this is self-evident drivel, the kind of seditious propaganda that you would expect from people who don’t want this government to succeed.” This seems unnecessarily harsh on some recently prized supporters, yet more unkind to the elderly huntsman Sir Humphry Wakefield, father-in-law of Dominic Cummings, who reportedly said that Johnson is so unwell he will step down in months and should not have gone back to work early because you’d never do that with a horse.

Johnson added, presumably for the benefit of the imaginary seditious propagandists to whom, in dreams, he shows scant mercy: “I could refute these critics of my athletic abilities in any way they want: arm-wrestle, leg-wrestle, Cumberland wrestle, sprint-off, you name it.” And if protecting the population in a pandemic ultimately came down to the prime minister’s victory in next summer’s Lakeland Games, while a non-catastrophic Brexit depended upon the physical humbling of Michel Barnier in a series of tap-room challenges, hopefully excluding the more cerebral skittles or darts, that might indeed have been one of Johnson’s more impressive performances since, well, maybe that time he identified as the Incredible Hulk?

Alas, the most convincing rebuttal of unkind post-Covid-19 “Don’t you think Johnson looks tired/sick/thick/dishevelled/shifty/dandruffy/unRabelaisian” commentary is the one line Johnson can’t deploy: what the hell did you think he was like before?

As it is, Johnson’s affirmation of undiminished mojo seems to have been roughly as effective as reports of Donald Trump’s alleged plan to prove his potency by ripping off his shirt to reveal a Superman T-shirt. Like Trump’s accompanying protestations of perfect health and eternal youth, the (unrealised) stunt only added to his critics’ case for invoking the 25th amendment, which allows Congress to rule a president unfit for office. Regular medicals, even if these duly descended into farce under Trump, also mean that, at least in theory, US politics legitimises public interest in a leader’s physical and intellectual fitness for the job.

However idiotic, Johnson’s boasting about Hulk-level athleticism suggests a measure of respect for the above principle and, perhaps, it follows, for the former MP Lord Owen’s proposal, that prospective leaders provide medical reports just as many CEOs are required to do. “I see every case for those who seek the highest political office at least subjecting themselves to a medical prior to nomination,” Owen wrote, years before Johnson’s serious illness indicated need for regular check-ups in order to address the – obviously minute – risk that an ailing leader could put personal ambition before the needs of the country.

Having continually advertised his prowess in everything from tennis to barging child sports opponents to the ground, while denigrating wetness, “malingering”, “languishing”, “girly swots” and, indeed, swotty girls, Johnson is now dismissing as “nonsense” public interest in his stamina. Maybe it’s unwise, in the long run, repeatedly to compare yourself to “a greased panther”? Since the suggestion that competitive virility denotes political prowess – possibly the result of some twisted public school code’s intensification within the legendary rough and tumble of the Johnson household? – must amount to a parallel concession that deficient greasiness will inevitably undermine a panther’s claim to authority. Actually, it’s tantamount to an admission, if it wasn’t obvious, that the peerless humanitarian Marcus Rashford, being also good at football and probably at leg-wrestling, would be a better leader than Johnson.

If unsuspecting US citizens have the right to know if their president becomes unfit, those of us currently at the mercy of Boris Johnson’s shambolic and recently Covid-19-infested cabal can surely be excused for wanting medical confirmation that his faculties are adequate to handle even a few more days of ignoring life-saving scientific advice.

You hardly need a doctor, it’s true, to see that as well as performing serial U-turns, appearing defeated, indecisive, irritable, incoherent and inept to the point of being owned by mayors, footballers and, worse, lefty lawyers, and too weak to dispense with an adviser who has single-handedly destroyed public compliance, Johnson does not even know his own Covid-19 regulations (“Apologies, I misspoke today”). Anyone, even anyone without a classics degree, must also have spotted his rhetoric declining from the showily ornate to “a stitch in time saves nine”, from the faux Churchillian to the full Gavin Williamson “I have had more than enough of this disease”.

But new findings, indicating “significant cognitive deficits” in coronavirus survivors, raise the possibility that the prime minister may more than tired. Researchers identified “pronounced problems”, with patients who had been hospitalised experiencing as much as an 8.5 point drop in IQ.

If only to signal the risks of pointless presenteeism Johnson would surely welcome the chance to confirm, via a thorough medical, that he is not in his current state a national liability; that is, no more so than usual.

• Catherine Bennett is an Observer columnist

The closed Budleigh Salterton Shandford care home will be auctioned next week with funds going to a new East Devon charity set up for old people. [Guide price £750,000 – Owl]

About Author Becca Gliddon eastdevonnews.co.uk 

This poignant photo says it all – Owl

A pile of metal walking frames dumped at Shandford. Photo: Helen Tickle.

The Abbeyfield Society, site owners, said proceeds from the Tuesday, November 3 sale of Lot 68 will be given to newly-formed registered charity The Shandford Trust, to support older people in need who live within the area of Budleigh Salterton and the villages of East Budleigh, Otterton, Colaton Raleigh and Bicton.

The charity will be managed by a board of trustees drawn from the local community and one from The Abbeyfield Society.

When the funds become available, a new website will be launched to highlight the charity, its work, who can apply for financial support and how to apply.

A spokeswoman for The Abbeyfield Society said: “When Abbeyfield originally took over the site it was agreed that any funds raised from a potential sale would be used for the benefit of older people in Budleigh Salterton and other local communities, in line with the objectives of the charity which originally ran the Shandford home.

“In accordance with this, The Abbeyfield Society will be applying funds from the sale of Shandford to a new charity, The Shandford Trust.

“Its main purpose will be to support those older people in need who live within the area of Budleigh Salterton and the villages of East Budleigh, Otterton, Colaton Raleigh and Bicton.

“The Trust will be managed by a board of trustees drawn from the local community and one from The Abbeyfield Society.”

She added: “As soon as funds from the site sale are available, a fully structured website will be launched and publicised locally.

“This will give further details of the background and purposes of the Trust and the names of its trustees, together with information on the criteria for qualifying for support, and when and how to apply.”

The detached 26-bedroom former Shandford care home is being sold at auction through agent Savills, with a freehold guide price of £750,000.

Selling details, with photographs of the building and grounds, highlight the site’s vacant possession, off-street parking, rear garden, ground, second and first floors and ‘further potential subject to the usual consents’.

Abbeyfield said a pile of metal walking frames, dumped outside, are due to be cleared this week.

The former care home, in Station Road, fully-closed in March 2020, during the coronavirus lockdown.

The last remaining residents were moved to other care homes because of an earlier decision made by Abbeyfield that Shandford was ‘not a viable option’ to keep open.

At the time, Abbeyfield said the decision to close Shandford was ‘with great regret’ and taken after a lengthy review of the service, which took into consideration the future of the care home.

It said the decision to close was the result of a detailed review of the infrastructure, building condition and financial performance of the home.

A community drive by Budleigh residents to set up a Community Interest Company to run Shandford as a not-for-profit venture, with public volunteers and annual subscriptions, attracted ‘significant support’ but did not progress.

For more information about Registered Charity Number 1192048 The Shandford Trust, email shandfordtrust@gmail.com

The sad closure of Shandford, well recorded on EDW, raises issues. 

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

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

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

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

The latest press report mentions the creation of a new charity to manage the funds “released”. This must have been so recently created that Owl has had difficulty tracking it down. However, Owl’s ferrets did find it through the link between trustees declared on the League of Friends of Budleigh Salterton Hospital.

From the list of the trustees for the newly created Shandford Trust Owl note that Chris Davis now Chairs both the Shandford Trust and the League of Friends. Who chose the trustees? Were the people of Budleigh Salterton consulted?

These Charities have distinctly different aims that do share some common elements. From a conflict of interest point of view, should they share the same Chair?

Hot on the heels of Shandford’s closure, Owl posted the sudden closure of Budleigh Salterton Age Concern facilities provided at the health and wellbeing hub because it was “economically unsustainable”. Examination of the last set of accounts posted on the Charity Commission web site shows assets of over £80,000. Where is this money going?

Owl simply draws attention to the lack of transparency over the way that assets donated by the community over many years has been handled in these cases.

This isn’t just any old retrospective application but one in England’s first Natural World Heritage Site!

At the beginning of May, Owl’s attention was drawn to the latest retrospective application the Carters have made, in a catalogue of retrospective applications going back for years, during their development of Ladram Bay.

This is retrospective application 20/0297/FUL for the partial retention at Ladram Bay of a raised viewing platform including balustrade and storage areas.This raised viewing platform appeared without planning permission and was certainly seen by members of the public in the summer of 2018. 

An enforcement notice was issued by EDDC on the 26th June 2019 seeking the removal of the raised platform, in its entirety. The notice took effect on the 01/08/2019 and a subsequent appeal was lodged. 

Interestingly, the current application was lodged before the appeal was determined (a not unusual Carter practice).

The appeal was dismissed on 17 August 2020 and the enforcement notice was upheld for the removal of the platform in its entirety due to its unacceptable visual impact, lack of planning policy support given the location of the site in a designated World Heritage Coast, AONB and Coastal Preservation Area. The structure needs to be removed by the 17th March 2021.

Worth noting that it was within the power of the Inspector to allow the retention of part of the structure if she had found part of it to be acceptable. However, the appeal and Enforcement Notice upheld the removal of the whole structure.

The new application goes before EDDC’s Planning Committee on Wednesday 4 November 10.00 with a recommendation from officers to refuse.

 In Owl’s view the matter is straightforward and one of fundamental principles. You don’t go developing the Jurassic Coast World HeritageSite, without seeking planning permission. Any permission granted would have to pass a very high threshold indeed.

Surprisingly (or perhaps not, given the prominent part the first two played in trying to keep the Tories in power in the “changing of the guard” debates), the local ward councillors: Alan Dent, Tom Wright and “Ingham Indy” Paul Jarvis support the development valuing the economic benefit above the consequential environmental damage.

The most authoritative and persuasive case for refusal and has been made by the World Heritage Site/Jurassic Coast Management Team, including these points [Owl’s emphasis]:

1. As with the previous application regarding the deck, the principle stands that retrospective planning consent is incompatible with the World Heritage Site. Although this new planning proposal has a much reduced impact on the WHS, it is still asking consent for an existing structure.
2. No methodology has been provided for removal of part of the existing structure. This must be done in a way that minimises damage to the cliff face. We recommend that a methodology should be provided and approved before any work is undertaken, including in the case that this application is refused and the related enforcement is upheld.
3. We can accept that the combe leading down to the beach is an area of development, but the buildings currently diminish gradually seawards, providing a ‘soft’ transition from the caravan site out into the natural environment of the beach / coast. The timber structure, within this context, would make that transition abrupt, with a high, imposing structure running alongside the path right down to the shingle. Paragraph 6.3 of the LVIA states that the developments within the Combe are largely obscured when viewed from outside it, but we note that retaining a portion of the timber deck will permanently introduce a visible built structure into that view. It will also interrupt the natural sweep of the cliff line in the bay, compromising the way in which the character of the WHS’s geomorphology is presented. We recommend that advice is sought from relevant landscape officers regarding the level / significance of these impacts.
4. Although this application repeats the assertions from the previous application and appeal that the deck provides valuable access and amenity for disabled persons, there is still no evidence provided that establishes this need, or, more importantly, that alternative approaches to answer that need have been explored and discounted. As stated in previous responses, we would support any desire to improve access to the World Heritage Site, but we question whether this timber deck is the most appropriate way to do that in this location. 
5. Following on from point 4 above, we remain concerned that the position of the deck means that users are being invited to dwell beneath what is a natural cliff face. The Geological Assessment appendix to the Planning Support Statement describes that the geology at Ladram Bay is susceptible to rock falls. The risk posed to users of the deck is obvious. Risk management is the responsibility of the landowner, and not within our remit. Our particular concern here is that any future rock fall above the deck could trigger a desire to stabilise the rock face in order to mitigate the risk to users. Such stabilisation would run counter to various different natural environment management policies at this site. 

In his latest column, East Devon leader discusses how his usual autumn tradition has had to change, as has the district council’s constitution

Paul Arnott www.midweekherald.co.uk 

Autumn in Devon is my favourite time of year. Soon, the trees will have shed their golden leaves and make stark silhouettes on a Halloween morning. It’s a time of change – in many ways.

But this year, my Autumn will be missing its finest celebration, the Tar Barrels of Ottery St Mary. I first attended in 1980 and although not a big drinker if ever there is a time and a place to have a pint rooted to the spot as a man with a barrel on fire runs within a few feet of your head, this is it.

Over the last twenty years it has became important to my children too. Years ago, we’d drive them over and hold the hands of two children each as they were thrilled and terrified by the blaze appearing to come out of the back of some plucky Otteryman’s neck.

Cut forward ten years, when they or their friends could drive, and they’d disappear off into the seemingly infinite number of pubs with their mates, leaving my wife and I to get home exhausted in time for the ten ‘o clock news. They’d do whatever it was that teenagers do before returning at midnight. No Polos were strong enough to conceal their cider breath as they plonked themselves on the sofa and I’d look at them, a sentimental old fool, thinking: well, this is the life.

Ottery Tar Barrels 2019. Picture: Alex Walton Photography

This autumn, three of our four children, plus a girlfriend, have been back with us again, like a Groundhog Day of what happened in March. They decided to escape the city before it went into a higher tier and are now all working from home here in East Devon.

We would have all loved to have gone together to the Tar Barrels again but it is not to be this year. And this time they might not have scarpered with their pals into the mischievous night, but would have probably actually have bought us a drink.

Yes, all middle age parents mark that day well, when a child buys you a pint, or even a meal, instead of the other way round. Of course, if you live to be about a hundred and fifty you might recoup the cost of all the drinks and meals you have bought for them.

Instead this year our kitchen surfaces are covered with local blackberries and apples cooked and then frozen to keep us until next year. We’ve had amazing homemade quince jelly with roast pork (my department), and astonishing blackberry jam on freshly baked scones. It might be a horrible year but a generation seems to have learned to cook.

My other reason for wanting to go with them to Ottery this year would have been to introduce a remarkable local person, Vicky Johns. Vicky is a district councillor who is part of the administration with me at East Devon – but she has also recently become the first ever female mayor of Ottery St Mary.

We had a great debate at East Devon last week to make sure our constitution was changed to be respectful of both men and women. This addresses issues of maternity rights for councillors too. And in future we won’t address women running our meetings with such archaic terms as ‘Madam Chairman’ or ‘Councillor Mrs Smith’. It’s the kind of thing you might have thought was done and dusted in about 1970.

There was much talk from some of the more cobwebbed members about how they would now find it difficult to address someone as ‘Chair’. I made the point that if MPs had tried saying Madam Mrs Prime Minister to either Margaret Thatcher of Theresa May they’d have got short shrift. But it’s in the constitution now and in the end if you want to secure change and not allow things to slip back, that’s what you have to do.

Boris Johnson is on a collision course with the Tory party faithful. 

Ministers including Priti Patel and Gavin Williamson helped to scupper plans for hundreds of homes in their constituencies despite a government drive to increase housebuilding.

George Grylls www.thetimes.co.uk

In summer the government announced radical reforms to the planning system and Boris Johnson appeared to blame a culture of nimbyism for low rates of construction, describing “newt-counting delays” as “a massive drag on the prosperity of this country”. An algorithm will determine where 300,000 homes a year are built.

However within weeks of the white paper on planning being released, ministers were objecting to developments in their own constituencies.

In August Ms Patel, the home secretary, said that the “right decision” had been made after a scheme for 255 homes in her Essex seat of Witham was rejected. She had lobbied against the plans and told her local paper that the village of Tiptree had already experienced “substantial housing growth”.

Later that month, Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, wrote to Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, asking him to intervene in a plan to build 83 homes on a cricket field in Preston. A decision on the application is yet to be made.

Last year Mr Wallace tried to prevent planning permission for 127 homes in Goosnargh, in Lancashire.

The government white paper argues that the planning system benefits people who are “older, better off and white”. Downing Street wants to streamline public consultations so that locals cannot raise so many objections to applications. But Christopher Pincher, the housing minister who is leading the reforms, expressed concern about plans for 800 homes in his Midlands constituency this year.

He wrote to his district council in January, saying that without community support and investment in infrastructure, it would be “unsustainable and inappropriate” to build more houses in Fazeley in his Tamworth constituency. In 2018 he objected — in vain — to a scheme to build on fields at Arkall Farm with 1,000 homes.

One Conservative MP said: “Ministers are in a bind. They — understandably — have collective leadership and so can’t speak out against individual policies, yet I suspect many are becoming concerned that the housing algorithm and related plans will prove, divisive, unpopular and damaging.”

The formula that allocates where homes will be built will concentrate development on London as well as swathes of the countryside. Meanwhile cities including Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool will all see their housebuilding shrink.

One rural constituency that will escape much of the construction boom is South Staffordshire, the seat of Gavin Williamson, the education secretary. In November last year he celebrated the withdrawal of an application for 50 homes with a further outline for up to 200 homes on fields in his constituency. He said that the homes were “neither wanted nor needed” by the villages of Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay.

Last week it emerged that Michael Gove had attended an online residents’ meeting that was objecting to the construction of 44 homes in his constituency of Surrey Heath. According to The Sunday Times, Mr Gove wrote to Mr Jenrick, saying that the proposal would “alter the village character of Bagshot for the worse”.

One senior Tory backbencher told The Times that ministers were using rights to object that they wanted to remove from millions of people. “Their own actions show the government needs to go back to the drawing board on planning reform,” they said.

A government spokesman said: “Members of parliament who are ministers rightly represent and champion their constituents’ views. It will always be the case that issues like the environment and the effect on local amenity should be taken into account alongside the need for more homes.

“Our proposals to overhaul the planning system include placing more effective community engagement at the beginning of the process, so that local people have more say over development in their area, not less.”

Boris Johnson is on a collision course with the Tory party faithful. His manifesto commitment to build 300,000 homes a year has demanded a radical shake-up to the planning system (George Grylls writes).

While some of the more modest reforms have won his party’s support, there remains widespread fury about two proposals: the reduction in residents’ ability to object to planning applications and, most of all, a nationally set algorithm that determines where homes will be built.

The algorithm was introduced at the height of the A-level debacle. Backbenchers were initially slow to realise the consequences but they are up to speed now. Diggers and cement lorries will descend on London and the Tory shires. Northern cities with their predominantly Labour MPs are spared.

Excluding the capital, Conservative seats will have to accommodate an additional 54,000 homes each year, while Labour constituencies beyond the capital will be asked to build 3,000 fewer.

Ministers reason that they need to build houses where people want to live.

By increasing the supply in desirable areas, prices will fall and the dream of home ownership will be extended to a younger generation currently locked out of the market.

There is significant opposition, though. A Whatsapp group entitled “Housing Algorithm Concerns” has about 80 members. Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt are among those who have already spoken out against the reforms.

Some blame the algorithm on Dominic Cummings and Jack Airey, his housing policy chief. MPs mutter that neither are card-carrying members of the party.

No 10 cannot afford to leave the impression that there is one rule for ministers and another rule for MPs. If Mr Johnson is to succeed, he will need to manage his party carefully. Goodwill is in increasingly short supply after a summer of U-turns and with a winter of Covid restrictions on the horizon.

The government’s Eat Out to Help Out scheme drove up Covid-19 infections while offering only short-lived economic benefits, a study suggests.

Rhys Blakely, Science Correspondent www.thetimes.co.uk 

The research concludes that the £500 million scheme, championed by the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, led to a significant rise in new cases in August and early September, contributing to the pandemic’s second wave.

The scheme “may have indirect economic and public health costs that vastly outstrip its short-term economic benefits”, a paper from the economics department of Warwick University says.

The Eat Out to Help Out initiative was designed to boost the economy after the national lockdown. It allowed pubs and restaurants to offer heavily discounted meals on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays in August.

The research found that areas with higher take-up of the scheme saw an increase in new virus infection clusters within a week of it starting. There was a deceleration in new infections within a fortnight of it ending.

Between 8 per cent and 17 per cent of new infection clusters that emerged in August and early September could be attributed to Eat Out to Help Out, Dr Thiemo Fetzer, of the University of Warwick, the paper’s lead author, calculated.

As the scheme ended, visits to restaurants declined, indicating, Dr Fetzer said, that its positive economic impact was short-lived. “Eat Out to Help Out may in the end have been a false economy: one that subsidised the spread of the pandemic into autumn and contributed to the start of the second wave,” he said.

He added: “Epidemiologists have long shown that restaurants are high-risk places for infections to take place. Here’s a scheme that encouraged a lot of people to visit restaurants in very concentrated periods of time. Some restaurants were seeing 100 per cent more business compared to usual on these days.”

Epidemiologists and economists had cautioned against the initiative in the summer, he said. “They warned that it would subsidise infections . . . Obviously, there will be deaths linked to the scheme as well — this was perfectly predictable.”

He added: “Alternative policy measures, such as extending the furlough scheme, increasing statutory sick pay and supporting low-income households through expanding free school meals may well prove to be far more cost-effective than demand-stimulating measures that encourage economic activities which actively cause Covid-19 to spread.”

To demonstrate a causal connection between Eat Out to Help Out and increased infections Dr Fetzer looked at data on rainfall and people’s movements.

He found that higher rainfall around lunch and dinner time during the scheme’s period of operation led to both a drop in visits to restaurants and subsequently lower new infection rates, compared to areas that had good weather.

Rainfall during lunch and dinner hours did not drastically affect time spent in other locations. Dr Fetzer said: “This strongly suggests that the link between Eat Out to Help Out and new Covid-19 infections is causal: when people were not dining out as part of the scheme there were fewer new cases of the virus.”

A Treasury spokesman told Sky News: “We do not recognise these figures . . . Many other European counterparts have experienced an uptick in cases — irrespective of whether similar measures for the hospitality industry have been introduced.”

The total value of meals for which the discount was claimed was about £1 billion. Boris Johnson admitted earlier this month that Eat Out to Help Out may have contributed to a rise in Covid cases. “In so far as that scheme may have helped to spread the virus then obviously we need to counteract that with the discipline and the measures that we’re proposing,” he told the BBC.

Soldiers will be deployed to carry out a mass coronavirus testing programme in six northern towns as part of Boris Johnson’s “moonshot” to avoid a second national lockdown.

[Could the political pressure be on to reach headline targets by arbitrary deadlines? And where have all the consultants gone? – Owl]

Steven Swinford, Deputy Politcal Editor www.thetimes.co.uk 

The saliva-based tests will be offered to people whether they have Covid-19 symptoms or not. They will receive the results in half an hour.

Mr Johnson is understood to want to hit the target of a million coronavirus tests a day by the end of the year. Ministers are believed to be on target to meet a promise to reach capacity of 500,000 tests a day by tomorrow, but that could be doubled within two months.

The government’s determination to move forward with its mass-testing plan could mean more than five million people a week in England being sent a 30-minute saliva test. The kits are designed to detect active infection, where people have virus particles in their system.

One of the first pilots will be in Redcar, where 36,000 people will be offered tests. Jacob Young, the local Conservative MP, said on Facebook that the army “wouldn’t be knocking on people’s doors”.

He said: “This is a voluntary scheme that will better identify who has Covid-19 in our community, help them to self-isolate, and therefore reduce the spread. Mass testing is the quickest way we will see restrictions reduced and so I think it is a good thing for Redcar.”

Several versions of the test appear to have passed government standards, although experts warned yesterday that they were likely to fall short of the sensitivity of the standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests that have formed the backbone of the test-and-trace system.

“The biggest issue is the sensitivity,” Lawrence Young, professor of molecular oncology at Warwick Medical School, said. “For people in the acute phase of infection, who are symptomatic, they seem to be adequate. But there’s a big question mark over whether these tests would actually detect asymptomatic infection. And we all believe that that’s a major source of the spread.”

Testing data suggests that the saliva tests can identify up to 96 per cent of positive results.

Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have been handed a 225-page dossier urging them to investigate Dominic Cummings for allegedly perverting the course of justice, in relation to a statement about his journeys to the north-east of England at the height of the pandemic.

Matthew Weaver www.theguardian.com 

The former regional chief prosecutor Nazir Afzal said Cummings’ claims during a press conference in Downing Street’s rose garden on 25 May affected the course of justice as they were made as Durham police’s investigation into his behaviour was already under way.

Afzal’s lawyers gave extensive details of the allegation in the dossier sent on Friday to Durham police, the Metropolitan police and Max Hill, the director of public prosecutions, and his staff at the CPS.

They claimed the legal test for such a prosecution had been met. The dossier also accuses Cummings and his wife, Mary Wakefield, of multiple alleged offences under the coronavirus regulations for leaving their primary home in London and their second home in Durham without, it says, a reasonable excuse.

The most serious allegation in the documents is the claim that Cummings perverted the course of justice in his account of his journey to Barnard Castle on 12 April and his denial of a claim that he made a second lockdown trip to Durham. If such a charge were proven, Cummings could face a prison sentence.

In a statement, Afzal’s lawyers said: “The alleged offence of perverting the course of justice arises from Mr Cummings’ statement in the rose garden … Mr Cummings made public assertions about his conduct at Barnard Castle on 12 April and his actions on the weekend of 17-19 April that appear to be wholly inconsistent with accounts of his conduct at that time obtained from eyewitnesses.”

 Dominic Cummings says he drove to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight – video

Cummings admitted in his statement that he had travelled to Durham and Barnard Castle, as revealed by the Guardian and the Daily Mirror. He said he had acted legally and travelled to Durham to self-isolate after his wife became sick with suspected Covid, and a day before he also fell ill.

He claimed he had phone data to prove he was not in Durham on 19 April as one Guardian source had claimed. When three other people made similar claims, Downing Street said it considered the matter closed and refused to release the evidence that Cummings said proved he was in London.

Two of the people, Dave and Clare Edwards, gave statements to Durham police officers on 25 May as the prime minister’s chief aide was giving his press conference, claiming that they saw a man whom they believed to be Cummings on 19 April in Durham’s Houghall woods.

The submissions from Afzal’s lawyers said Cummings’ account appeared to have influenced a three-day investigation by Durham police into his lockdown journeys.

The force made no finding on his decision to leave London because its investigation was confined to County Durham. It concluded that the journey to Barnard Castle on Wakefield’s birthday amounted to a “minor” breach of the rules “because there was no apparent breach of social distancing”, and it found there was “insufficient evidence” that he made a second trip.

Afzal’s lawyers said new statements from witnesses called these conclusions into question.

At least three people have reported seeing Cummings in Barnard Castle, including Robin Lees, a retired chemistry teacher, who alerted the Guardian and the police to seeing Cummings and his family getting into a car on a road on the southern side of the Tees on 12 April.

Cummings said he stayed by the Tees for 10 to 15 minutes and strayed no more than 15 metres from his car. But Rosalind Evans, a retired council worker, told the Guardian and the police that she saw someone she believed to be Cummings in the town centre on 12 April.

A third person, Alan Gowland, told the Sunday Times and later the Guardian that he saw someone he believed to be Cummings on a path by a weir on the other side of the Tees from Lees’ sighting.

Afzal’s dossier includes eight annexes of new statements from witnesses in Barnard Castle and Durham. The Met and the CPS have previously refused Afzal’s request to investigate the allegations against Cummings.

Afzal, whose brother Umar died from coronavirus when he was self-isolating at home on 8 April when Cummings was in Durham, said he wanted to get to the truth.

“The picture painted by the witnesses that have come forward appears clear and coherent and is inconsistent in important parts with the version given by Mr Cummings,” he said. “I believe the CPS’s public interest test is also met, given the impact that this has had on general compliance with Covid regulations.”

A No 10 spokesperson said: “The prime minister has said he believes Mr Cummings behaved reasonably and he considers the matter closed. Durham Constabulary have made clear they are not taking any further action against Mr Cummings and that by locating himself at his father’s premises he did not breach the regulations.”

Cummings and Wakefield have been approached for comment.

Ministers accused ‘putting the profit of their friends and donors above NHS workers who urgently needed PPE’ – from apple news

Labour is demanding an investigation into leaked documents appearing to show that lucrative Covid-19 contracts were awarded to “VIPs”, bypassing normal processes.

Ministers are already under fire for a succession of deals quietly struck with firms run by Conservative friends for personal protective equipment (PPE) at the height of the pandemic.

Now the Good Law Project – which has launched a court case – has unearthed the documents allegedly exposing special procurement channels, including for “Cabinet Office contacts”.

It says they show the department was “feeding its contacts into the procurement process” and that value for money was only raised “if prices were more than 25 per cent above the average”.

Rachel Reeves, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, accused ministers of “putting the profit of their friends and donors above NHS workers who urgently needed PPE at the height of the crisis”.

READ MORE

Lucrative coronavirus contracts handed to Tory ‘friends’ – Labour

“The deeper you delve into this Tory government’s Covid outsourcing, the more disturbing it gets,” she said.

“Not only were some of these ‘VIPs’ paid over the odds – in one case for unusable PPE – they were awarded these contracts at the height of the crisis when our NHS workers needed urgent, high quality PPE.”

The Good Law Project alleges that companies were able to “make enormous margins” of up to 45 per cent “on contracts sometimes worth hundreds of millions of pounds”.

It is highlighting contracts to three companies, all with connections to Conservative figures, worth more than £500m in total.

Ms Reeves added: “Labour has previously called for an investigation from the National Audit Office into this government’s strange procurement decisions. It is vital this new evidence is included.”

The NAO is already looking into deals worth more than £830m which were awarded to at least 12 different companies, earlier in the year.

READ MORE

Controversy surrounds a £32m contract handed to a pest control company called PestFix to source surgical gowns, although it had listed net assets of only £18,000.

Public First was given £840,000 to assess the effectiveness of the government’s coronavirus advice, although it was also listed as being to prepare for completing Brexit.

The company is co-owned by James Frayne, who was employed by Michael Gove when he was education secretary, alongside Dominic Cummings – now the prime minister’s chief aide.

Critics protested that the work was not advertised, there was no competition and that no official notice of the award was published. 

A government spokesperson said: “We have been working tirelessly to deliver PPE to protect our health and social care staff throughout the pandemic, with more than 4.4 billion items delivered so far and 32 billion items ordered to provide a continuous supply to the frontline over the coming months.

“Proper due diligence is carried out for all government contracts and we take these checks extremely seriously.”

Devon County Council will be asked to ensure all eligible children receive free school meal vouchers for the Christmas and New Year holiday period.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com 

The council this week said it will continue to work with district councils to ensure hardship support is available to vulnerable children and families across the county this winter and pledged extra funding to ensure no child goes hungry.

But Liberal Democrats group leader Cllr Alan Connett had said the announcement was ‘smoke and mirrors’ but certainly no food for hungry children and that the Conservatives running the council were playing politics with hungry children this half-term and for the holidays to come.

Now Labour group leader Cllr Rob Hannaford has put forward a motion to December’s full council meeting that would see the council resolve to use some of the allocated hardship funding to ensure that all eligible children in the Devon County Council area of responsibility receive free school meal vouchers for the Christmas and New Year holiday period.

Cllr Hannaford said: “I hope that this motion will clarify that we need leadership on this key issue from the county council directly. We will obviously work closely with our district colleagues and others, but at the end of day we are the education authority.

“The government has totally misread the mood of the country on this problem, and it has now become a symbolic issue that has starkly highlighted again the widespread poverty and hardship that continues to blight our nation through the plight of hungry children.”

The motion will be debated at the December 3 full council meeting, as will a petition started by East Devon councillor Joe Whibley, if 6,000 signatures are reached by November 24.

Cllr Whibley said: “The Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford MBE’s campaign to extend free school meal vouchers to children in need throughout the school holidays was unsuccessful in parliament yet several local councils have decided to take on that cost and responsibility, as have local businesses and charities. This petition seeks to urge Devon County Council to do the same thing, and look to cover its costs by lobbying central government to cover the subsequent onward costs.

“No child deserves to go hungry, and we must ensure we do all we can to help local children get fed regularly, term time or not.”

The Government had earlier this week referred to the £63 million that was allocated to local councils and suggested this was for free school meals.

But Cllr John Hart, leader of Devon County Council said: “This money was distributed in June and was intended to ensure that no one – children or adults – who was badly affected by the pandemic should go hungry. That money has already been spent in Devon in supporting the most vulnerable.

“I am now writing to the Government to outline that due to our financial position we are limited in our ability to provide this support beyond the spring. We therefore urgently call on the Government to properly fund support for all vulnerable people in Devon affected by the financial impacts of the pandemic.

“I want to pay tribute to the local communities, shops, pubs, cafes and restaurants across Devon that are doing their bit in their locality to provide food for children over this half-term.

“We have already allocated £1.7 million this year through a shared hardship fund to ensure that the most needy children and families in Devon do not go hungry.

“I have also instructed that the county council holds a further £100,000 in reserve for additional hardship funding this winter.”

The government “will listen” to views on where new homes should be built but won’t cut its target to build 300,000 homes a year, Robert Jenrick has said.

[Well, we’ll certainly need a target this high if everyone “levels-up” to the standards of “three homes” Jenrick]

Engage – go through the motions – tick

Listen – your views are important to us – tick

Consultation – process complete – tick

Followed by ignoring everything the public says – business as usual!

BBC News www.bbc.co.uk 

The housing secretary said he wanted to encourage more building in the Midlands and the North rather than London.

Several Tory MPs have expressed concern that the government’s plan could mean more homes in rural areas and undermine the government’s “levelling-up” agenda.

Mr Jenrick also set out plans to tackle homelessness over the winter.

Asked about the government’s housing plans for England, Mr Jenrick said he wanted homes to be built in every part of the country, including in those areas where it is expensive to live.

He said local councils would be given a rough estimate of how many homes needed to be built in their community.

Local councils should then come forward with potential sites for new buildings – taking into account constraints such as areas protected by the green belt, he said.

“Obviously we will listen to views express in the consultation or whether there are different ways to achieve that, ” he said.

“But are we going to move away from our objective to build more homes? Absolutely not.

“We should be a government that is setting out to build more homes because we’ve got to help next generation onto the housing ladder and the most vulnerable people in society to get homes.

A consultation on the government’s plans – including a new formula for assessing housing need – is due to close at 23:45 BST on Thursday.

The proposals have been attacked by some of the government’s own MPs including former Prime Minister Theresa May.

She described the plans as “ill-conceived” and “mechanistic”.

And Isle of Wight MP Bob Seely said the algorithm would “hollow out our cities, urbanise our suburbs and suburbanise the countryside”.

The plans have also been criticised by the director of the National Trust. Speaking to the Times, Hilary McGrady said she had “significant concerns” and said it “must not lead to concrete deserts devoid of green space, lacking corridors for nature and sustainable travel”.

There is both nervousness and anger among the Tory MPs who oppose these planning reforms.

Nervousness that the government could press on with its new system for determining the number of new homes needed in each area as soon as next month, and anger at the prospect of their concerns being ignored.

The housing secretary was non-committal, saying only that the government would listen to views.

The policy here is crucial; the housing crisis is acute and new homes are needed in the right place at the right price. But the politics matters too.

The government has already burned political capital on its backbenches with the way it’s handled some aspects of the coronavirus crisis.

Pressing on with the proposed new system for local housing targets – as well as the wider planning reforms – will result in another backbench backlash.

Beyond that, there are local elections next year , and nervous Tories in the party’s heartlands fear any public anger at these plans will be felt at the ballot box.

Now the focus falls on the part played by “two fingers” Ben Ingham, a man, in Owl’s opinion, of questionable judgement.

[Also with “previous form”].

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com and www.radioexe.co.uk

An East Devon councillor has apologised to the council’s chief executive after a standards investigation concluded that language used in his emails breached the code of conduct.

Cllr Paul Millar was found to have on six occasions used language of a personal and derogatory nature which showed a failure to treat the Chief Executive with courtesy and respect.

The emails were sent back in January and February this year and followed comments that the chief executive Mark Williams had made in public at council meetings.

In the emails, Cllr Millar had said that Mr Williams ‘had a very long pattern of behaviour of briefing against councillors to the press and I believe it’s getting to a point where it has become no longer tolerable’, as well as saying ‘he is cold, arrogant, lazy, pompous, and highly disrespectful in remarks he makes in public about elected, backbench Members’.

Another added: “Your comments were ‘Councillor blaming’, you did it publicly and they reflect poorly on the Council – there’s no public ‘officer blaming here’ – only rightful disgust that you seek to brand us as having a parochial mindset when this is far from the truth.”

The text of Cllr Millar’s emails were published as part of the decision notice, but not the full chain of the emails whereby any additional context to them were given.

The standards committee found that Cllr Millar’s had breached the Code of Conduct in that he failed to treat others with courtesy and respect but complaints made by Cllr Ben Ingham that his actions were a pattern of bullying behaviour were dismissed, and that while Cllr Millar brought his office into disrepute, they did not bring the council into disrepute.

The hearing, which was held in private, heard that Cllr Millar, who at the time was an unaffiliated Independent, stated that he had been frustrated by the political situation and felt powerless to influence the Council’s actions.

He explained the difficulty he had experienced while an independent councillor and that he felt unsupported and said felt the actions of the Chief Executive were unwarranted and that this had caused him to react as he did.

Having been found to have breached the code of conduct, Cllr Millar, who is now Democracy & Transparency Portfolio Holder, said he had apologised to Mr Williams.

He added: “I have submitted an apology to the CEO for any hurt caused by comments which I could have worded in a different way.

“I came into local government to act fully in the public interest at all times and stand up for all of the residents living in East Devon, particularly those who been dealt a bad hand in life and are unfairly suffering as a result of the pandemic. For as long as I am a Councillor, I will continue to do this.

“I still have questions about the investigation but I’m really keen now to move on and fully concentrate on helping people in my Ward and continue my progress in working with my amazing colleagues in the new administration in making the Council more open and transparent.”

The complaint made against the conduct of Cllr Millar was made by Cllr Ingham, who earlier in 2020 had been found to have breached the code of conduct by not treating Cllr Millar courtesy and respect.

A standards investigation into the then leader of the council’s conduct found that Cllr Ingham had shared confidential details around health matters to other councillors, as well as making a ‘two fingered gesture’ at Cllr Millar during a scrutiny committee meeting.

The complaint against Cllr Ingham was upheld by the council’s monitoring officer and he was required to give a written apology to Cllr Millar.

A Code of Conduct complaints update report which went to the Standards Committee earlier this month publicly revealed the details of the breach, and while Cllr Ingham was not named as the councillor, the Local Democracy Reporting Service has seen information to confirm he was the councillor.

The report also heard that an allegation that an unnamed councillor who booed a speech made at a meeting was resolved with agreement to informal mediation.

When asked if they wished to comment further on the findings or if Mr Williams wished to say anything, an East Devon District Council spokesman said: “We consider it would not be appropriate for any comment to be given.”

A former mayor has appeared at Exeter Crown Court charged with the sexual assault of two boys.

BBC News www.bbc.co.uk

John Humphreys, 58, of Hartley Road, Exmouth, denied three counts of a serious sexual assault and two of indecent assault on a boy aged 12 to 13 between 1990 and 1991.

He also denied five counts of indecent assault of a second boy, aged 14 to 15, between 2000 and 2002.

Mr Humphreys was the mayor of Exmouth between 2012 and 2014.

He also served as an East Devon councillor for 12 years until 2019.

He has been released on bail and is due to appear for trial on 9 August.

Owl has heard  from the Chairman of Save Clyst St Mary that the applicant has submitted further amendments to the controversial Winslade Manor development. These are to be discussed by the Bishop’s Court Parish Council next Monday 2 November.

The Chairman writes:

Despite all the amendments that the applicant has submitted it has many areas that don’t appear to follow the National Planning Policy Framework Guidance. The Burrington Estates Chairman was one of the four significant people that wrote the guidance and advised the Government on its contents. It’s a real pity that the company he works for doesn’t follow the guidance that he wrote!

The latest amendments have removed the commercial units that were planned for zone B and replaced the area with car parking in a high risk flood zone. We wonder where everyone will park when the area floods!

Zone D (the area backing on to the bottom of Clyst Valley Road) has been split into two buildings enlarged in length and partillary reduced in height. The number of apartments still remains the same at 40. Should this be approved the houses at the bottom of Clyst Valley Road will become significantly overlooked and there remains the possibility that applicants can use Government legislation to increase the height by a further two storeys with permitted development.

The Parish Council has arranged to discuss the latest amendments on Monday 2nd of November at 7.30. Should you want to listen or to/// speak you will need to register with the Parish Clerk (The details are on the Parish Council website) 

The amendments for Planning Application 20/1001/MOUT can be viewed on EDDC’s Planning website here.

This week there has been a dramatic change in the number of deaths caused by coronavirus in England – with dire predictions for the winter ahead.

So what’s going on?

Nicola Davis www.theguardian.com

Last week, a report from Public Health England suggested new cases might be flattening off, but they now seem to be soaring: Why?

The latest figures from PHE showed that in week 42, ending 18 October, there were 101,887 cases, compared with 91,501 cases reported the week before. This amounts to an 11% increase, compared to a 30% increase in the previous week, and a 76% increase in the week before that.

These figures have been revised upwards since last week due to delays in turnaround time, but they appear to show the rise in new Covid-19 cases is slowing.

But there are important factors to consider: while national capacity for testing has increased over time, local capacity varies, which could influence the trend in some results.

In addition, the PHE data largely reflects people who have been tested for Covid because they had symptoms: surveys from the Office for National Statistics and the React-1 study by researchers at Imperial College London involve taking samples from randomly selected members of the public, meaning they are not affected by fluctuations in testing capacity, and pick up asymptomatic cases.

Both of these studies focus on cases in the community – so do not include hospital data – but vary in participant numbers and timing of data collection.

Models by the MRC Biostatistics Unit in Cambridge, meanwhile, use a number of existing datasets to model infections including those in hospitals and care homes.

All of these studies contain levels of uncertainty, but they suggest new cases are rising in most, if not all, parts of the country.

That message is backed up by data on Covid hospital admissions and deaths, which follow a similar, albeit delayed, trajectory compared with infections.

Is there any evidence that the tiered system has slowed the rate of infections?

According to Prof Steven Riley, a co-author of the React-1 study, there is evidence of a slowing in the uptick in new infections in the north-west while the epidemic may no longer be growing in the north-east – although prevalence remains high.

That may suggest tier 3 restrictions are having some impact – but infections are rising in most parts of the country.

Some reports have suggested the death rate will flatten out and not reach the peaks of the first wave, although more may die overall. What is the science behind that?

Experts say it is perfectly possible that this may happen, with the second wave more prolonged than the first.

One reason is that unlike the first wave, when there was a national lockdown, the tiered system means infections may continue to grow in regions below tier 3. They could end up escalating through the tiers, until they reach the highest level.

At that point, restrictions may be tight enough to reduce R, but once restrictions are relaxed, infections could climb once more. The upshot is that the tier system could act rather like a thermostat, with incidence (and therefore deaths), ending up roughly steady.

Has the R gone up significantly?

Possibly. The MRC data suggests R is almost certainly above 1 in all parts of England, with the possible exception of London, although there has been a decrease in R over the past few weeks in most regions – but this is based on data that is, overall, less up to date than that of the React-1 study. The latter puts the R for England at 1.27-1.88, up from 1.05-1.27 two weeks ago.

Riley said the React study found a small dip in R a few weeks ago, suggesting the difference may be down to time lags in data used by the MRC. “We only need small changes in the average behaviour to go from 1.1 to 1.6,” he said, adding that just an extra one or two risky contacts per person might make the difference.

Importantly, R remains above 1 for most, if not all, of the country. That means new infections are growing.

What’s the most reliable picture? How worried should we be?

The ONS and React-1 surveys are the most reliable for a snapshot of the situation, while the daily PHE data is most up to date but prone to biases in sampling. To get a true picture of the situation, it is worth considering all the data, from the different infection studies to numbers for hospital admissions and deaths. But the outlook is very concerning.

“From our data there is a very real threat to the hospital system across the UK over the next two months,” said Riley.

Additional reporting by Niamh McIntyre.