A substance found in hundreds of drinking water samples across England has been categorised as carcinogenic by the World Health Organization (WHO).

The move will increase pressure on the UK government to take action on “forever chemicals”.

Rachel Salvidge www.theguardian.com 

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is one of 10,000 or so chemicals within the family of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that are used in a wide range of products, from cosmetics to clothing and food packaging, as well as in industrial processes and in firefighting foams. PFOA and another member of the family, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), have largely been banned, but remain in the environment because of their persistence. Studies have linked the PFAS family of chemicals to cancers, immunodeficiencies, reproductive harms and developmental effects in children. They are not easily metabolised by the body so build up in humans and animals over time.

PFOA has been linked to cancer for some time but a growing body of evidence means it has now been upgraded to “category one”, which means it is “carcinogenic to humans”, according to the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

A recent report from the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) shows that approximately 12,000 samples taken from drinking water sources contain at least one PFAS of some kind.

The highest concentration of PFOA detected in a drinking water source was 149 nanograms a litre (ng/l), 1.5 times the DWI’s maximum limit for tap water. PFOS, categorised by the IARC as a “possible carcinogen”, was found at levels as high as 1,869ng/l, although these levels will have been diluted before reaching a tap.

Analysis of Environment Agency and water company data by Watershed Investigations showed that PFOA was detected in almost 1,000 drinking water sources sampled between 2006 and 2022. And tap water sampling around England found PFOA in more than half of the 45 samples taken, albeit below 10ng/l, deemed “low risk” by the DWI.

Earlier this year, the Guardian and Watershed Investigations found that effluent from the site of a chemicals company flowing into a protected river in Lancashire contained “extremely high levels” of PFOA.

The government has been accused of dragging its feet over taking action on PFAS compared with the EU, which is considering stricter regulation across all 10,000 or so of the substances.

England is behind the EU on drinking water limits: the DWI allows up to 100ng/l for PFOA and PFOS, while the EU applies a limit of 100ng/l for the sum of 20 PFAS. Denmark has set a limit of just 2ng/l for four individual PFAS, and the US Environmental Protection Agency has proposed dropping limits on some to 4ng/l.

Dr Patrick Byrne from Liverpool John Moores University, said: “Recently the Royal Society of Chemistry called on the government to reduce the maximum allowable level of individual PFAS such as PFOA in drinking water from 100ng/l to 10ng/l. This is to bring the UK more in line with other countries such as the US, who are proposing a maximum allowable concentration for PFOA of 4ng/l.

“UK regulations and environmental standards must keep pace with the scientific and medical evidence to protect our drinking water and us.”

Hannah Evans from the chemicals NGO Fidra said the categorisations were “extremely alarming” and highlighted the urgent need for regulatory action on PFAS. “We must take this opportunity to learn from cases such as PFOS and PFOA, and transition towards a PFAS-free economy as quickly and as effectively as possible.”

Philippe Grandjean, professor and chair of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, said PFAS chemicals were “transferred from a pregnant mother through her placenta to her foetus, and they are excreted in her milk. Thus, a breastfed infant receives a relatively large dose … so we see abnormalities like elevated cholesterol and poor glucose metabolism in children with elevated PFAS exposures. In addition, the immune system is harmed. This has implications for infectious disease but may also be of importance for cancer development, where immune cells are supposed to remove abnormal cells.”

A Defra spokesperson said: “Drinking water quality in England is of an exceptionally high standard and among the best in the world. Water companies are required to carry out regular risk assessments and sampling for any substance – including PFAS – that they believe may cause the water supply to pose a risk to human health.

“Work is continuing across government to help us assess levels of PFAS occurring in the environment, their sources and potential risks to inform future policy and regulatory approaches.”

Rishi Sunak has made a series of claims about the UK’s climate record in defence of his net zero rollback. Speaking at a press conference during a short visit to the Cop28 climate conference in Dubai, the prime minister insisted he had not faced any criticism from other world leaders for watering down his climate pledges.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com

Claim: the UK has decarbonised faster than any major economy

This is true to an extent: according to some models, since the 1990s the UK has decarbonised faster than other large economies. This is because it was once very dependent on coal and was fast to phase it out. However, look at more recent times and the picture changes. Recent data shows Germany has cut greenhouse gas emissions faster than the UK since the 2015 Paris agreement to limit global warming. The UK was good at moving past the age of coal but it is going to be difficult to keep up with countries that have less stringent planning rules on solar and wind, more nuclear power stations, and less leaky, better-insulated homes.

Claim: the UK is one of the largest climate donors

According to Seek development, the UK is the world’s 13th largest climate donor. As it is the sixth largest economy by GDP according to the World Bank, the UK could do better.

Claim: the UK will meet its climate targets even with rollback on net zero

Sunak claimed the UK would still be on track to meet its carbon targets despite the changes he announced. The government’s own climate change committee has worked out that the changes will make this more difficult.

Claim: rollback on heat pump and insulation pledges will save families thousands of pounds

This is debatable. While Sunak has brought forward some exemptions for the gas and oil boiler phase-out, there were always going to be exemptions for people who would find it difficult to heat their home any other way. No one was ever going to be forced to have a heat pump – they could heat their home by another method that did not involve a fossil-fuel boiler. And the insulation rules he scrapped were only for landlords, who were going to be made to ensure their tenants lived in a home they could heat affordably. So while this will save landlords thousands of pounds, it may end up costing renters more.

Claim: climate politics is broken and rhetoric is harming progress

This was a theme Sunak kept bringing up at Cop28. However, it is he who has been criticised by scientists for politicising the Climate Change Committee, and for accusing climate campaigners and other experts of being “zealots”.

Cathy Gardner’s case is referenced in the last paragraph. – Owl

Matt Hancock has accepted that his claim the government threw a “protective ring” around care homes “from the start” of the pandemic was misleading.

Ruby Lott-Lavigna www.opendemocracy.net

On 15 May 2020 at a Downing Street press conference, Hancock said: “Right from the start. It’s been clear that this horrible virus affects older people most. So right from the start, we’ve tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.”

At the time, however, patients with Covid were discharged back into care homes without being tested, leading to the death of over 20,000 residents in the first wave of the pandemic.

“I entirely understand why people feel strongly about this,” Hancock told the Covid inquiry today. “I then went on to explain what I meant – that we put over £3bn into the care sector in March and April, that we’ve released free PPE, that we’ve put in place infection control guidance based on the scientific advice, etc.”

“In that press conference, I went on to list the different things that we were doing… I was trying to simply summarise that we had taken action,” he added.

But Hancock agreed this was misleading when the words of a top government scientist were put to him. Jonathan Van-Tam said in his written evidence statement a ring is a “circle without a break in it”.

“However you describe the protective processes you put in place around the care sector, they did not form an unbroken circle, did they?” lead counsel Hugo Keith asked Hancock.

“It is quite clear from the evidence that Professor Van-Tam is right,” he said.

Hancock’s own advisers were also concerned about some of his care home claims.

A message shown to the inquiry from Jamie Njoku-Goodwin, Hancock’s media adviser at the time, said: “We might have some issues with you telling the PM we ‘locked down’ care homes before the rest of the country.”

When challenged, Hancock said: “It depends on how you define lockdown.”

Care homes were not “locked down” before the country. Government guidance setting out restrictions on care home visits was published in April 2020.

A document revealed by openDemocracy shows the government knew, at least by the autumn of 2020, that it had prioritised the NHS “at the detriment” of care homes.

And in 2022, the discharge of Covid patients back into care homes without testing was ruled to have been illegal.

The inquiry continues. openDemocracy is fundraising to pay reporters to cover every day of the public hearings. Please support us by donating here.

More on Sunak’s new green initiative

Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, has come in for huge criticism from other witnesses to the Covid inquiry, from scientists to civil servants and political advisers. These are their key allegations, and his responses:

Rowena Mason www.theguardian.com 

Dominic Cummings, a former senior adviser to Boris Johnson, said in a text message during the pandemic: “I also must stress I think leaving Hancock in post is a big mistake – he is a proven liar who nobody believes or shd believe on anything, and we face going into autumn crisis with the cunt in charge of NHS still.”

On Cummings, Hancock said: “Systems need to be in place so that if there is a malign actor inside No 10 … whose behaviour is unprofessional, the system needs to work despite that.”

Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser during the pandemic, told the inquiry: “I think he had a habit of saying things which he didn’t have a basis for and he would say them too enthusiastically too early, without the evidence to back them up, and then have to backtrack from them days later. I don’t know to what extent that was sort of over-enthusiasm versus deliberate – I think a lot of it was over-enthusiasm.”

Helen MacNamara, a former senior civil servant, said: “What was said in a meeting as actually being under control or going to be delivered or something that was fine … then subsequently a matter of days sometimes, or sometimes weeks later, we’d discover that that wasn’t in fact the case.”

On whether he was a liar, Hancock said: “I was not. You will note that there’s no evidence from anybody who I worked with in the department or the health system who supported those false allegations.”

Simon Stevens, the former head of the NHS, said: “The secretary of state for health and social care took the position that in this situation he – rather than, say, the medical profession or the public – should ultimately decide who should live and who should die.”

Hancock responded: “The Nimbus minutes do show that the NHS asked the question of how to prioritise when there is insufficient NHS capacity and there was a debate around that, as you can see in the minutes, and then I concluded that it should be for clinicians, not for ministers, to make a decision on this basis, and that’s how we went on and proceeded.”

Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary said there was a “clear lack of grip in DHSC [the Department of Health and Social Care]”.

Hancock responded: “It’s normal for the centre, the Cabinet Office, to be sceptical of departments … I think that the toxic culture that you’ve seen at the centre of government, that’s been the subject of much discussion, was unhelpful in assuming that when anything was difficult or a challenge, therefore there was somehow fault and blame.

“That’s a part of the toxic culture that we have seen and some of these exhibits that you’ve just shown demonstrate a lack of generosity or empathy and understanding the difficulty of rising to such a big challenge.”

Local people and businesses in the Sidford/Sidbury area are being asked for their views on proposals for a new multi-use trail linking Sidford to Hillside,Sidbury.

www.stuarthughes.org

From November 22 to January 5 members of the public can view the draft scheme and provide feedback before formal planning permission is sought.

The proposals are for a multi-use trail, approximately half a mile in length, from the north side of the village of Sidford along the western side of the A375 (Two Bridges Road) connecting to Hillside, Sidbury.

Starting on land adjacent to the Waste Water Treatment Plant on the east of Two Bridges Road, the trail would cross the A375 via a new Toucan controlled signal controlled crossing and run along the western side of the A375 in a northerly direction.

It would cross Ottery Lane with a new cycle/walking pedestrian priority crossing and through the existing agricultural land, eventually connecting into Hillside.

This is Phase 1 of the route, with developers providing Phase 2 between Hillside and Sidbury as part of their development.

These proposals follow a previous planning application for a cycle scheme from Sidford to Sidbury which ran along the eastern side of the A375.

However, a decision was made to withdraw that planning application because of engineering challenges, expected higher costs and concerns that the distance from the main road might reduce the perception of personal safety, particularly when dark.

Additionally, the eastern route would have required agreements with multiple landowners, whereas the western route requires permission from one landowner.

Councillor Stuart Hughes, the local county councillor for Sidmouth and Cabinet Member for Highway Management, said: “These plans for a multi use trail at this location is very welcome news and is something that I have advocated for a number of years and would extend the current ‘Byes’ multi use trail between Sidmouth and Sidford.

“It will provide walkers and cyclists, who at present have to use the busy A375, with a safe alternative route while proposals for a new toucan crossing will provide people with a safe place to cross and will slow down vehicles approaching Sidford.

“Sidbury residents will have a safe route to Sidford, Sidmouth and the Community College, and it will also encourage more people to choose active travel for short local journeys which will benefit their health and the environment.”

“These proposals aren’t set in stone and we want to hear what local people think and any suggestions before we apply for planning permission.”

You can give your views by viewing the plans on the Have Your Say webpage and answering a short survey.

Sidbury to Sidford Cycle Route – Have Your Say

Alternatively, please send any responses to transportplanning@devon.gov.uk

All correspondence should quote the scheme name: Sidbury Walking and Cycling Scheme

An online consultation event will be held on Monday 4th December between 5.30 & 6.30pm. Please email transportplanning@devon.gov.uk to request an invite to the event.

It is anticipated that the formal planning application will be submitted in Spring 2024.

I swear by Almighty God…

Exeter City Council has voted against selling off two multimillion-pound sites for student housing.

BBC

A report for the council had recommended selling the old Clifton Hill leisure centre site and the Mary Arches multi-storey car park site with unrestricted use – going against council policy.

The report said the city council needed to make the maximum amount of money from the sales so it could pay off a debt of about £9m as a result of the failure of its housing development company, Exeter City Living.

On Tuesday, the council’s executive voted unanimously not to allow purpose-built student accommodation on either site.

Council leader Phil Bialyk, Labour and Cooperative, said: “We will continue to work to get the right homes built in the right place, for the right people.

“We will do this even when it is the option that doesn’t give the highest financial return.

“By choosing to invest in the future development of our city in this way we will ensure that our shared vision continues to be delivered.”

Mr Bialyk said figures for the valuation of the sites were confidential but he was confident the sales of both sites would “satisfy the situation of our outstanding debt”.

Diana Moore, Green Party leader on Exeter City Council, said the Labour-led council had “turned council assets into complete liabilities”.

She said: “They are now selling off important sites which should be decent homes, affordable homes for our communities.”

Exeter City Living was set up as an arms-length company by the council to provide social and affordable housing and bring in extra revenue.

Exeter City Council said the project failed due to a series of issues such as Brexit, Covid-19, the invasion of Ukraine, high inflation rates and repeated interest rate rises.

Michael Mitchell, Liberal Democrat group leader, said there was “about a £9m shortfall” that would need to be found from the sale of the two sites.

He said: “We don’t know what the market value of these two sites are, particularly with the restricted use on them.”

Mr Mitchell believed the council would still have to find more money to cover its debt.

Anne Jobson, Conservative group leader on Exeter City Council, said council debt was a growing problem.

She said: “There clearly will be a financial implication on a council who has already, I would say, by its own financial poor decision making, in approximately £163m worth of debt.”

The matter will now go to full council for a final decision.

Rishi Sunak pushed “very hard” for a lifting of all lockdown restrictions during a meeting in July 2021 where Boris Johnson referred to people as “malingering” and “workshy”, the Covid inquiry has heard.

Ben Quinn www.theguardian.com 

The then chancellor and prime minister were pitted against the “more cautious” approach of Michael Gove and Sajid Javid during the meeting, which took place when Covid-19 cases and hospital admissions were rising, according to a diary entry by the then chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance.

“PM looks downbeat and talks of grim predictions,” the entry read. “[Javid] says ‘we are going to have to learn to live with it’, ‘and die with it’, PM says.”

Javid, who was the health secretary from June 2021 to July 2022, told the inquiry on Wednesday it was “possible” that Johnson had said the words attributed to him.

“The prime minister in these meetings often said things that were hard to determine what he actually thought versus a joke,” he said. “Even when you were discussing something as important as this.”

The same entry recorded: “[Sunak] pushes very hard for faster opening up and fuller opening up. Getting rid of all restrictions. Repeats his mantra ‘we either believe in the Vx [vaccine] or we don’t’. I pointed out we would be facing a lockdown now if it was not for the Vx.”

Referring to Johnson, it added: “He says he wants everyone back at work ‘we can’t have the bollocks of consulting with employees and trade unions. They need to come back to work. All the malingering workshy people.’”

Vallance concluded in the entry that the whole meeting was “political posturing” and that civil service officials were worried. He said he and the chief medical officer for England, Sir Chris Whitty, had made the risks “very clear”.

However, a claim by Javid that Johnson was not in charge of the government during the pandemic and that his chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, was “prime minister in all but name” was later contradicted when Dominic Raab gave evidence.

“I just don’t accept the characterisation that there was some sort of puppet regime,” the former foreign secretary told the inquiry.

Raab, who resigned this year after a report on alleged bullying behaviour towards civil servants, mounted a defence of Cummings, who has been accused of contributing to a toxic environment at No 10.

Cummings was there to “galvanise the direction of travel” and act as “some grit in the oyster”, Raab told the inquiry.

In tetchy exchanges, he accused the counsel for the inquiry Andrew O’Connor KC of being “dismissive” when O’Connor suggested Raab was resorting to “managing speak” as Raab told the inquiry about his theory of taking what he called a “perpetual beta” approach to decision-making in crises.

“In any crisis it’s not going to be a manicured response and there will certainly be people who feel bruised by the pressure. Sometimes that will be because someone has behaved inappropriately. I get it,” Raab said, adding that there was a broader problem of delivery in Whitehall.

Raab defended his going on a series of overseas government trips and on a family skiing holiday as the pandemic loomed and as initial cases were appearing in Britain, insisting he very rarely went on holiday in what was a “gruelling” role and that he would have been umbilically linked to chains of communication no matter what.

The former minister also told of how he was given “five minutes’ notice” in April 2020 that he was to deputise for the prime minister, who had been hospitalised with the virus. Planning before it had been “pretty sparse”, he said, but there had been an understanding when he was first appointed as deputy prime minister by Johnson, who he said had told him: “You’ve got my back.”

Raabs said one of his first acts was to “get the team together” and convene a cabinet meeting, and he insisted he was aware of how the moment was perceived.

He said: “I didn’t want anyone saying that Dom Raab’s enjoying this a bit too much, because I wasn’t, and I was there to do a job.”

Nottingham city council has issued a section 114 notice, in effect declaring itself bankrupt, as experts warn an increasing number of councils are “reaching breaking point”.

Jessica Murray www.theguardian.com 

In an announcement on Wednesday, the local authority said it had a significant gap in its budget and the council’s chief financial officer had decided it was not able to produce a balanced budget for this year.

The Labour-run council attributed its financial problems to issues affecting councils across the country, including an increased demand for children and adults’ social care, rising homelessness presentations and the impact of inflation.

It also acknowledged previous issues relating to financial governance and an overspend in the past financial year had played a part but said it still had sufficient financial resources to meet all of its current obligations.

Robert Jenrick, the Conservative MP for Newark in Nottinghamshire, said the council had displayed “breathtaking waste and incompetence” and called for the secretary of state to appoint commissioners to “restore order”.

A section 114 notice means all spending, apart from on protecting vulnerable people and providing statutory services, will be suspended.

Birmingham city council issued a section 114 notice in September because of financial problems compounded by a £760m equal pay bill and failed IT implementation costing £100m.

Sir Stephen Houghton, the chair of the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities (Sigoma), said the government risked “seeing an epidemic of S114 notices” as Nottingham council’s crisis showed “the funding model is completely broken”.

“There are fundamental systemic issues with the local government finance system that have resulted in an increasing number of councils reaching breaking point,” he said.

“The chancellor in his recent autumn statement had the perfect opportunity to help address some of the well-publicised pressures in local government and the wider public sector but failed to do so.”

Accounts showed Nottingham city council was headed for a £23m overspend in the 2023-24 financial year, and government commissioners could be brought in to take charge.

The local authority has been beset by financial difficulties for years. The collapse of a council-run Robin Hood energy scheme in 2020 led to the loss of millions and a government-appointed board being brought in to monitor the council.

It was also revealed that more than £40m of ringfenced cash from the council’s housing revenue account was unlawfully spent as general funds, with the cost of repayment estimated to be £49m-£51m.

However, the council leader, David Mellen, has previously said the council’s financial “mistakes” were small in comparison with the year-on-year reduction of funding from central government, which was estimated to be a loss of £100m over the past decade.

Sigoma said Nottingham city council’s spending power was 28% lower in real terms compared with 2010-11, and the council was spending 31% of its budget on children’s services, up from 19% a decade ago.

Jonathan Carr-West, the chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, said the news from Nottingham was unsurprising.

“Nottingham isn’t the first to issue a section 114 and certainly won’t be the last. More and more well-run and effective councils are saying that they could be next,” he added. “Government is quick to point the finger at ‘failing councils’ but the truth is we have a broken system.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said: “We used our statutory powers to intervene at Nottingham city council last year over serious governance and financial issues and have been clear that improvements must be made.

“We have expressed concern over the lack of urgency demonstrated by the council in addressing these challenges. We are assessing the situation and will consider whether further action is necessary.”

Tory commitments to the British countryside are equivocal, particularly amongst local Tories.

History of broken promises 

In 2018 Michael Gove, then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, commissioned Julian Glover to undertake a review of National Parks (NPs) and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). Glover was given an extensive brief to review the areas’ statutory purposes and their alignment with the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan.

In July 2019 Glover published his interim findings, which included:

“… The message from all this work has been vigorous and clear. We should not be satisfied with what we have at the moment. It falls short of what can be achieved, what the people of our country want and what the government says it expects in the 25-year plan for the environment.

Some of this failure comes from the fact that our protected landscapes have
not been given the tools, the funding and the direction to do the job we should now expect of them.”

In November 2021 Owl reported that Natural England had been tasked by the government to assess the creation of a new National Park based on combining the East Devon and Dorset AONBs. This was in line with the “Ten Point” plan for a green revolution published a year earlier. [The proposal originally submitted to Natural England in 2013 covered the Dorset AONB and East Devon AONB]

Note East Devon “Build, build, build” Tories have consistently refused to countenance or engage with this proposal to combine the two AONBs into a National Park for fear of losing control over planning. As a result of this petty intransigence the proposal is generally described as “the Dorset National Park” and led from Dorset. For similar reasons East Devon lost the lead to Dorset on the Jurassic Coast with consequences for tourism.

In October 2023 Owl reported that the Government was blowing cold on the idea and were set to break their manifesto pledge to do so.

This was followed a few days ago by an email circulating introducing a “rebranding” of the East Devon AONB. 

Owl is always deeply suspicious of the opportunity this gives to water down commitments. 

“Today marks the start of a new chapter in the story of designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) in England and Wales.”

It will now be called East Devon National Landscape.

“The new name reflects our national importance: the vital contribution we make to protect the nation from the threats of climate change, nature depletion and the wellbeing crisis, whilst also creating greater understanding and awareness for the work of the whole National Landscapes family.

This is a significant milestone for the UK and the next step in fully realising our vision to be leading examples of how thriving, diverse communities can work with and for nature in the UK: restoring ecosystems, providing food, storing carbon to mitigate the effects of climate change, safeguarding against drought and flooding, whilst also nurturing people’s health and wellbeing.”

Is this a fudge to blur the distinction between AONBs and National Parks reducing all to the lowest common denominator?

Last minute volte face?

Following the sacking of Thérèse Coffey we now hear the proposal to create more National Parks might all be on again, though the number has been reduced to just one.

There is no official shortlist of locations and the decision process could take some time. But three areas have emerged as early favourites after a government-commissioned landscape review called for three new national parks to be created, in the Chilterns, the Cotswolds and Dorset and East Devon.

Labour’s 2019 manifesto called for 10 new designations of “National Nature Parks”.

Search to begin for a new national park in England amid criticism of ‘true state’ of UK’s landscapes

Report by news.sky.com 

The search for a new national park for England has been announced as part of a plan for nature set out by Rishi Sunak.

Critics have said the environmental package – which includes woodlands and food production covering 200,000 hectares of land – will be unable to hide the “true state” of the UK’s natural landscapes.

The scheme has received a lukewarm response because government funding for nationals parks has fallen by 40% in real terms in just the last decade, reported the Campaign For National Parks.

Critics also pointed to the state of the UK’s waterways, rivers and coastlines with increasing levels of sewage dumping, which the government has admitted is “unacceptable”.

Earlier this year, England’s environmental watchdog, the Office For Environmental Protection, strongly condemned the government’s record on climate and nature – finding the Tories were not “demonstrably” on track to meet a single target.

As part of the new project, an allocation of £15m will be shared by England’s 10 existing national parks and 34 National Landscapes.

Natural England will assess a list of possible national park sites, while there are plans to create two community forests in Derbyshire and the Tees Valley.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unveiled the efforts “to protect these much-loved spaces” ahead of Thursday’s COP28 climate summit in Dubai.

But shadow environment secretary Steve Reed said the Tories had been overseeing the “destruction” of the British countryside.

He added: “Under their watch, the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and waterways face the highest levels of illegal sewage discharges in our history.”

Mike Clancy, the general secretary of the Prospect trade union, which represents a range of professions including engineers and scientists, also highlighted the conditions of the UK’s waterways – and Tory funding cuts to the Department For Environment, Food And Rural Affairs.

“Bold-sounding initiatives can’t hide the true state of our rivers, shorelines and natural landscapes,” he said.

“Without adequate funding for the guardians of our natural environment, there is little chance the government’s rhetoric will be able to meet its stated ambition.”

In August, environmentalist and author Guy Shrubsole, who lives near Dartmoor National Park, told Sky News “we need a balance of areas” to allow habitats to thrive.

He said: “Our national parks are in a pretty shocking state for nature… they’ve actually found that on average, they’re in a worse condition than nature is, outside our national parks.”

We know that Simon Jupp, fearing a wipe out at the general election, puts a lot of thought and effort in upping his profile locally. 

So was it our Parliamentary Private Secretary who advised Mark Harper to introduce a new livery for “Team Transport”? 

Please alert Owl to any sightings of Simon sporting his PPS coat (or is it only for ministers?)

“After March of 2025 the Government doesn’t have any spending plans.” [aka a scorched earth policy – Owl]

No 10 on collision course with Bank of England and OBR over economy

The Government is on a collision course with the Bank of England and Britain’s budget watchdog as they clash over whether or not the UK economy is on the up.

Hugo Gye, Callum Mason inews.co.uk

The Governor of the Bank warned that the UK was facing years of low growth while the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said the Chancellor’s “vague” plans to cut spending put the public finances at risk.

But No 10 hit back at the warnings, pointing out that previous OBR forecasts have been too pessimistic and insisting that business views of the British economy are “very positive”.

Bank chief Andrew Bailey said this week: “If you look at what I call the potential growth rates of the economy, there’s no doubt it’s lower than it has been in much of my working life.” He suggested interest rates would stay high for an extended period of time to deal with stubborn inflation.

Speaking to MPs, the head of the OBR Richard Hughes said: “It is very difficult to assess the credibility of the Government’s spending plans, because after March of 2025 the Government doesn’t have any spending plans.” Jeremy Hunt has promised to limit growth in state spending after 2025 but has not explained how this will affect individual Whitehall departments.

Mr Hughes added: “In effect because he hasn’t provided any detail about the choices involved in delivering those numbers, we don’t know if they’re plausible or not… I think they are a very big fiscal risk, partly because they are so uncertain.”

In response to the warnings from the two institutions, a spokesman for Rishi Sunak said: “We’ve listened very carefully to the OBR and the Bank of England, but we are firmly of the view that the economy has turned the corner. We have halved inflation, and it is forecast to fall below 3 per cent next year.

“You’ll remember the OBR said a year ago, in the first part of this year the economy would shrink by 1 per cent, and obviously it has grown.

“The revisions we’ve seen mean the UK is now growing faster than France, Germany, Italy and Japan. We’ve recovered faster from the pandemic than France, Germany and Japan. The IMF predicts UK will grow faster than Germany, France, Italy, Japan.”

A No 10 source pointed to the promise by companies to invest an extra £30bn in Britain made at a summit this week, saying: “The Global Investment Summit showed what investors think of UK – the mood music was very positive.”

City Minister Bim Afolami urged regulators to be more pro-growth, telling a gathering of bankers on Tuesday: “If you’re regulating a market, in any area, there’s no point having the safest graveyard. Animal spirits need to be there, we need to innovate, we need to drive growth and initiative.”

Transport Secretary Mark Harper added: “The forecast that we had last year said we were going to have a recession this year and actually the British economy turned out to be much stronger than that.”

A Treasury source insisted there was no split between the Government and the Bank of England on the need to tackle inflation despite the growing divide in rhetoric, saying: “We are more aligned in policy terms than we have been previously in the efforts to bring down inflation.”

Charles Goodhart, a former rate-setter at the Bank, said that Mr Bailey was right to warn markets of the risk that interest rates would have to stay at their current high level for at least another year.

He told i: “There is great uncertainty about events, particularly political events, in the next year. We do not know how the two major conflicts will develop. Moreover, the greater reliance on fixed mortgage deals means that the effect of tightening monetary policy now involves greater lags.

“So, there is considerable uncertainty about the likely rate of growth of demand and output. What Andrew Bailey is trying to prevent is markets coming to the conclusion now that rates will come down at some stage in 2024, because that would ease monetary policy unduly at this stage.”

Austerity forcing short term decisions with long term negative consequences? – Owl

A council is considering breaching its own policies by selling off two multi-million pound landmark sites for student housing.

Miles Davis Politics Reporter BBC Devon

A report has recommended Exeter City Council should sell the former leisure centre site at Clifton Hill and the Mary Arches multi-storey car park without restrictions on use.

Councillors are considering the sales despite a council policy not to sell off land for student accommodation.

Exeter City Council needs to raise millions of pounds to pay off debts from its failed housing development housing company, Exeter City Living.

The report going before the executive of Exeter City Council on Tuesday evening shows the council is likely to be left with an outstanding loan of about £9m as a result of the winding down of Exeter City Living.

The report states: “The council’s current corporate policy is not to dispose of any of its land for Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) in the city centre.”

Valuations carried out for the sale of the two sites have not been made public but it said if the council stuck to that policy it could lose out by “something in the region of 70% of the site’s potential value”.

When the council announced the demolition of Mary Arches car park in December 2022 the council leader, Phil Bialyk, said: “I can be clear, if it is the city council’s land, there will be no purpose-built student accommodation.”

On Tuesday, Mr Bialyk, Labour and Cooperative Party, said: “The officers have a duty to advise me and the executive as to the potential value of all the sites for whatever purpose.

“We have to cover the original debt that we now have to deal with going forward.”

According to the council’s report specialist student accommodation is “failing to meet rising demand” with about 29,000 full time students at the University of Exeter, and numbers expected to increase to about 36,500 by 2026.

The Clifton Hill leisure centre closed in 2018 and was demolished in 2022.

Michael Mitchell, Liberal Democrat councillor and Progressive Group co-leader, said: “The community surrounding the Clifton Hill site are rather concerned about the possibility of student accommodation being built on the old Clifton hill leisure centre site.

“A commitment was made by this council not to allow PBSA on this site and I hope they will not renege on this decision as a result of the failure of Exeter City Living.”

‘Dismayed’

Anne Jobson, leader of the Conservatives on the council, said she was “dismayed” to read the report.

She said: “I would have thought that within Exeter there would be a developer for residential housing or for a housing association or for affordable/social housing which is what we need in Exeter.

“What we are looking for is housing that will accommodate people that work in Exeter – care workers, teachers and nurses who find it hard to get into the rental sector and don’t qualify for social housing.”

Diana Moore, Green Party councillor and Progressive Group co-leader, said: “There has simply been a failure by the executive to provide proper oversight of Exeter City Living and it has turned council assets into liabilities.”

A new banking hub has opened in Axminster, a year after the town lost its last remaining bank branch.

The hub, based in the former Lloyds Bank building, was officially opened by local MP Richard Foord on Friday, November 24.

Philippa Davies www.midweekherald.co.uk

It is a shared banking space, offering face-to-face service for customers of all major banks and building societies and access a full range of banking services.

The Community Bankers will work on rotation, with a different bank available on each day of the week. The hub will be open Monday to Friday from 9am until 5pm.

The banking hub is the second to open in Devon, and was established by Cash Access UK, an organisation set up to protect nationwide access to cash. It will be operated by the Post Office. 

Mr Foord joined local community leaders and the Mayor of Axminster to cut the ribbon and formally open the site on Friday.

He said: “This new banking hub will make a huge difference. It will enable local people to access a full range of banking services in their own community and will help resuscitate the high street.

“Rural areas have lost so many bank branches in recent years. Many towns have seen every branch close; that is what happened in Axminster.

“This new hub shows that when we apply pressure to Government and to big business, we can protect vital services like face-to-face banking, which are essential to small businesses and older residents in particular.

“I will continue to advocate for more action by the Government to speed up the delivery of banking hubs across our corner of Devon, so as to protect people’s access to cash close to where they live.

“In particular, I will be pressing for similar progress with a proposed banking hub in Sidmouth – which has been roundly endorsed by the local Chamber of Commerce there.”

Tory candidate for the new Tiverton & Minehead constituency, currently member for Bridgwater and West Somerset, Ian Richard Peregrine Liddell-Grainger, sounds off again. [Use EDW search box to find past harrumphs].

Owl doesn’t think the creation of a Somerset unitary authority, by merging Districts, is entirely relevant to the hoops Devon is trying to jump through to unlock devolution cash.

Beware of who you vote for in Tiverton. – Owl

Lewis Clarke www.devonlive.com

Parliamentary candidate Ian Liddell-Grainger has warned Devon councils not to rush into a merger they might later regret. He says plans to link Devon County Council and Torbay Council and devolve some Government functions could end up saddling taxpayers with unforeseen costs.

Under Government proposals the authorities would merge to become a single, Level 2 non- mayoral council.

Spokesmen for the councils have welcomed the deal, saying it will benefit residents and businesses and give the area a stronger voice in influencing national policies.

But Mr Liddell-Grainger, who intends to stand for the Conservatives in the new seat of Tiverton and Minehead said every caution should be exercised.

“Mergers between local authorities are always talked up as opening the door to a prosperous new world but they don’t always turn out so successful,” he said.

“Take a look at what happened in Somerset where the former county council leader David Fothergill sold the idea of merging all five local authorities with the carrot of £18 million savings.

“Two years later Somerset council is on the dung heap: on the point of bankruptcy with unmanageable debts.

“Somerset’s case should serve as a terrible warning as to how taxpayers can be dragged into chaos as a result of uncontrolled enthusiasm for change.”

New homes for farmland on the edge of an East Devon village have been given the go-ahead amid concerns raised over the impact the development could have on drainage.

Local Democracy Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk

Plans to build up to 70 homes on farmland on the southern edge of Woodbury in East Devon have been approved, writes local democracy reporter Will Goddard.

Since the application was outline only, more concrete plans including exactly how many new houses there would be, and what they would look like, must be put forward later.

A computer generated image taken from the planning documents, shows the proposed layout of the new homes. Image: LHC Design.

Fears about the development’s impact on the sewage system, and therefore a potential increase in raw sewage discharges, led Councillors to put the plans on hold last month to ask the Environment Agency (EA) and South West Water (SWW) again whether they had any pollution-related objections.

Having received no reply, and with the EA saying it would not change its position that it doesn’t object, council officers suggested imposing a condition on the developer to draw up a sewage management scheme before putting forward further plans “to ensure that the network as a whole is not overloaded as a result of the development.”

East Devon District Council principal planning officer Gavin Spiller explained how this method could help the council get more information and evidence than further consultations would.

Satisfied, Councillors granted permission with this condition and several others, including having a pedestrian crossing and two bus stops.

Speaking about SWW’s failure to respond, Cllr Eileen Wragg (Lib Dem, Exmouth Town) said: “It is disappointing that this council did not have a reply from South West Water, but again, are we surprised? No, we’re not. I think it’s deplorable, frankly.”

Cllr Mike Howe (Independent, Clyst Valley) expressed his dismay at raw sewage discharges.

He said: “It is unacceptable for raw sewage in this day and age to be regularly flooding footpaths, footways and anything else in our communities. Full stop.

“We cannot allow development to happen where we are going back to the 1800s, where you just throw it out in the street.”

Members of the public and Woodbury Parish Council also objected, expressing concerns about road safety and infrastructure.

According to the latest financial analysis only if the government offers NatWest shares at a loss to the taxpayer of £28bn.

But this government might be tempted to try anything to stay in power, or is Owl being too cynical? 

NatWest sale ‘could cost taxpayers £28bn’

George Grylls, Ben Martin www.thetimes.co.uk

The government may end up losing £28 billion from selling its shares in NatWest, a financial analysis has shown.

Jeremy Hunt announced last week that the government would explore options to sell its remaining 38.6 per cent stake in the bank, potentially offering the public the opportunity to buy shares. The chancellor said it was “time to get Sid investing again”, a reference to the 1980s advertising campaign during the privatisation of state-owned assets such as British Gas.

The government bailed out the Royal Bank of Scotland, which subsequently rebranded as the NatWest Group, purchasing an 84.4 per cent stake for £45.5 billion between 2008 and 2009 during the financial crisis.

Ministers have been reducing the government’s stake in the bank since 2015, but all of these sales have been at a loss. Financial analysts have questioned the decision to examine ways to expedite the sale of the remaining stake at a time when NatWest is struggling.

The bank has lost a quarter of its value this year after the former chief executive, Dame Alison Rose, was forced to resign over the debanking scandal involving Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, and Coutts, the private bank owned by NatWest.

Analysis by Hargreaves Lansdown, the investment firm, has shown that selling the government’s remaining stake at the bank’s current share price of 206p would lead to a total cost of £28 billion to the taxpayer.

The government has benefited from some returns on its NatWest shares when dividend payments were resumed in 2018 after a ten-year pause. NatWest figures suggest that the government has been paid £4.4 billion since 2018 in dividends. The bank has paid out a total of 70.8p per share in ordinary and special dividends, amounting to only 14.2 per cent of the buy-in price, according to Hargreaves Lansdown.

Derren Nathan, head of equity at the investment group, said that despite those modest returns the taxpayer was still facing an “eye-watering loss”.

“It needs to be said that gain on investment wasn’t the main motivation for the initial bailout, as this was seen as essential for the nation’s financial stability,” he said. “But given where we are in the cycle the timing of a disposal may be somewhat questionable. Based on forward earnings the valuation is close to a ten-year low.

“There are of course still potential economic tripwires ahead, but so far a much-anticipated recession has been avoided and there’s still a chance the landing in the UK will be on the softer side. Meanwhile NatWest is poised to benefit from some of the structural tailwinds that should lift sector earnings over the medium term.”

The Treasury said the government planned to sell its final shares by 2025-26 “subject to market conditions and value for money”. It said: “As part of the plan to return [NatWest Group] to the private sector, the government will also explore options to launch a share sale to retail investors in the next 12 months, subject to supportive market conditions and achieving value for money.”

NatWest Group said: “Any decisions around share sales are a matter for the government. We welcome the government’s continued commitment to returning NatWest Group to private ownership and believe this is in the best interests of the bank and our shareholders.”

The UK Covid-19 inquiry is set to come to Exeter on Monday, with residents invited to share their pandemic experiences in person.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Every Story Matters programme was designed to remove the formality of giving evidence or attending a public hearing, organisers said.

Drop-in sessions are being held at Exeter Community Centre, or people can book 30-minute slots online.

Hearings for the national inquiry are expected to conclude in 2026.

People who visit the community centre will be able to speak to the inquiry staff.

Inquiry secretary Ben Connah said: “Each of us has a story to tell about the pandemic.

“Sadly, hundreds of thousands of people lost loved ones, and many more became ill or suffered hardship or isolation. We really want to hear what you have to say.”

Speaking on BBC Radio Devon, he added that the session was helping to ensure the “human impact of the pandemic is at the centre of this inquiry.

The inquiry was established to “examine the preparedness for, the response to, and the impact of the pandemic and to learn lessons for the future”.

Baroness Heather Hallett opened the national inquiry in June 2022.

It has since opened seven investigations, with more expected.

UK Covid-19 Inquiry – Every Story Matters Drop in Event

www.eventbrite.co.uk

About this event

Come and meet our team in Exeter at the Exeter Phoenix, and help us to understand how the pandemic affected you and your community.

The pandemic affected every single person in the UK and, in many cases, continues to have a lasting impact on lives. This is your opportunity to share the impact it had on you, and your life, to shape the Inquiry’s investigations and help lessons to be learned.The pandemic affected every single person in the UK and, in many cases, continues to have a lasting impact on lives.

Every Story Matters, the Inquiry’s UK-wide listening exercise, is the public’s opportunity to share the personal impacts of the pandemic with the Inquiry, without the formality of giving evidence or attending a public hearing. It will support the UK Covid-19 Inquiry’s investigations by providing evidence about the human impact of the pandemic on the UK population.

The Drop In session at Phoenix Exeter on Tuesday 28th November 2023. It starts at 10am and ends at 12.30pm.

You can just turn up on the day but if you need support, you can also book in for a private 1-2-1 session..

The Drop In session is in Studio 1, 1st floor and for the Private 1-2-1, go ot the Meeting Room, 1st Floor.

The event has been specially created to explain how you can share the impact it had on you, and your life, to shape the Inquiry’s investigations and help lessons to be learned.