The Times: “Builders shun brownfield sites” [what a surprise!]

Are we surprised? Oh, come on – of course not. And interesting that a council, for example, might spend, say, £10 million on a new HQ, but not have the “resources” to identify all suitable brownfield sites for housing in their district!

Parts of the countryside are being needlessly sacrificed to build homes because thousands of small plots of previously developed land are being overlooked by councils, a study has found.

Sites with room for almost 200,000 homes are missing from official registers of brownfield, according to research by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). These include former builders’ yards, disused warehouses and blocks of garages no longer used for parking.

The government says that it has a “brownfield first” policy when identifying land for more homes. To help to achieve this it has ordered all councils in England to publish registers by the end of this month of brownfield land suitable for development.

The CPRE examined 43 of the registers already published and found that only 4 per cent of the brownfield land they identified was on small sites that could accommodate up to ten homes.

In the budget last month the government announced that it wanted councils to identify enough small sites to provide 20 per cent of the new homes needed.

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, also said that the government would “ensure that our brownfield and scarce urban land is used as efficiently as possible”.

The CPRE found that if councils met the 20 per cent target on small brownfield sites, an additional 189,000 homes could be built in England.

It asked a sample of local authorities how they identified land for their brownfield registers and found that they “routinely disregarded small brownfield sites”.

Councils overlooked the sites even though they usually had infrastructure in place, such as rail and road links and schools and hospitals, which were less likely to be available for greenfield sites.

The reasons given by councils for not listing small brownfield sites included that they lacked the resources to identify them and that housebuilders did not favour them because of the perception that the planning system was too burdensome for small plots.

The CPRE said that the failure to identify small brownfield sites was resulting in councils allocating land for development in the green belt, the protected land around 14 cities.

It has called on the government to amend official guidance to ensure that councils identified all the available brownfield sites in their areas.

Rebecca Pullinger, CPRE’s planning campaigner, said: “Up and down the country tens of thousands of small brownfield sites are not included in brownfield land registers and their housing development potential missed.

“The current system of collecting this data must be improved if we are to unlock the potential of brownfield and stop developers finding an excuse to build on greenfield areas.”

In October Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, said on The Andrew Marr Show on BBC One: “I don’t believe that we need to focus on the green belt, there is lots of brownfield land, and brownfield first has been a policy of ours for a while.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Public services are not, and should not be, businesses

“One of the greatest myths of our time is that public services can be made more efficient if we run them as businesses. The commercialisation of our public services has been a manifest failure, and the response offered by the mainstream parties is that we simply haven’t commercialised them enough. What they fail to understand is that a public service and a business are inherently different beasts and asking one to behave as the other is like asking a fish to ride a bicycle.

The primary aim of a public service lies within its name. This service exists to avoid negative social impacts and protect crucial social utilities from the instabilities of capitalism.

Within living memory it was considered basic common sense that essentials like food, water, energy, access to health services, housing, sanitation and sewage, social care and core manufacturing industries were too important to expose to the volatilities of the free market. Aside from this practical view, there were also two core value statements:

Profit should not be sought from a need to eat, heat a homes, drink water, healthcare or have a roof over their head.
2. Access to such necessities should not be based on an ability to pay.

Public services are democratic and accountable at the ballot box. Important matters like wages, pensions and working conditions are the result of negotiation and subject to internal and popular support.

Public services are funded by public money and managed by public representatives working together to deliver social utility. Every penny recycles within the public economy.

Neoliberal Capitalism is inherently unstable, creates inefficiencies and gaps in supply and demand, and does not create full employment. For these three reasons, critical services must be independent of capitalism, commercialisation and profit. In short, they must be universal and eternal.

This is the purpose of a public service.

A business, on the other hand is a commercial entity. The primary responsibility of a business is to create a profit for its shareholders. A corporation may well have other aims, but all must be subservient to this primary aim or the corporation will cease to exist, or be taken over by another corporation.

A business is not a democratic organisation. They are hierarchical, and wages, terms and conditions, are set by the executive and subject to the market forces. This can be mitigated to some degree by collective bargaining through unions, but workers in the private sector has historically delivered lower wages and reduced working conditions for the bulk of its employees.

Of the 23 million UK workers in the private sector, just 3.2 million (13.9%) have a workplace pension. Of the 6 million public sector workers, 5.3 million (88%) have a workplace pension.

Public sector employees are paid on average between 7.7% and 8.8% or £86 a week more than private sector workers. More significantly, this is a twelve year high in the wage gap, as private sector wages continue to fall in real terms.

The pay gap between the private and public sector is nothing compared to the pay gap within the private sector. Unlike the public sector where wages are clustered around a midpoint with a small proportion of very high and very low wages, the private sector has a great wage differential between its lowest and highest earners. Women are also paid a far higher average wage in the public sector, while constituting the bulk of the lowest paid workers in the private sector.

The public purse is picking up the bill for the wage and conditions gap in the form of large increases in state benefits paid to working people. As the current government remove these compensations, the failure of businesses to pay a living wage, together with clear provision for old age and care needs is exposed.

The privatised energy market has provided six energy giants, who dominate the market and have continued to deliver above inflation price rises whilst making record profits each year. The UK now rests at the very bottom of the league tables, with the worst fuel poverty in Western Europe.

The privatised railway is an example par excellence of total lack of accountability for failure to deliver. The rail service is, as always failing to raise sufficient ticket revenues to turn a profit. Ticket prices are rising above the rate of inflation. Train firms give the government £1.17bn in premiums to run their franchises, only for the government to hand them back £4bn in subsidies. So, instead of spending £140m in 1960’s money for a fully nationalised service where costs were kept low. We are now spending almost £3bn a year today simply to fund the profits of private companies. Network Rail profits doubled in 2012, and all rail franchises are running at a profit as the companies prioritise (as they have to, as businesses) making a profit rather than lowering ticket prices or investing in the network. Despite all this, the government are not complaining as they were when the service was nationalised, of a loss making service.

The move away from a social housing policy during the Thatcher government and continued since has been a disaster for housing. We are building 100,000 homes a year less than we need because the housing supply has been almost entirely handed over to the private sector to manage. The National Housing Federation issued a report last year which showed Housing Benefit has doubled in recent years as a direct result of an astronomical increase in housing costs. The report shows an 86% rise in housing benefit claims by working families, with 10,000 new claims coming in per month. House prices are now 300% higher (in real terms) than in 1959. If the price of a dozen eggs had risen as quickly, they would now cost £19. Rents across the UK have risen by an average of 37% in the UK in just the last three years.

The list could continue to include care, employment support services and a litany of other failed attempts to commercialise public services. The project is doomed.

There is No Such Thing as a Loss Making Public Service

If a business fails to recoup the costs of providing its service in money, it is described as running at a loss. This language of business is now being applied to our public services. When Dr Beeching dismantled the railways in 1963, the narrative then and now was that the rail network was losing £140m a year. This is commercial speak. This means the gap between ticket revenue and costs to run the service was £140m. If the railway was a business, this would be a loss. But it was a public service. A well-funded, serviceable, cheap at the point of use railway service was and is an important social utility. We need to be able to get our people around to work, to keep connected to family and friends, to transport goods up and down the country. So we all pitch in taxes and through an economy of scale we run a cooperative service. Unless someone is stealing, defrauding or otherwise ‘disappearing’ public funds, then there is no such thing as a loss making public service. The gap between ticket revenues and running costs in this case could have been entirely expected, since the priority was accessibility and maximum utility of the service. This idea is anathema to business.

[the paper goes on with more examples] …

… We have now reached the stage where enforced accountability of Politicians and those in Public Office is warranted on the grounds that patients are being injured and avoidable mortality is escalating in an NHS that has been engineered to fail. The preservation of Parliamentary Democracy may depend on the ability to make public figures accountable in the Courts.

We need to understand that there is a difference between the provision of healthcare and the causation of personal injury. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 cannot protect the Government from Criminal Negligence and causation of physical harm to patients. There can be no Nuremburg Defence by Government Officials and Agencies in relation to avoidable injuries to patients.”

“How a city is tackling poverty by giving a voice to its poorest citizens”

Can’t see this catching on in East Devon, more’s the pity!

“It’s time to change politics,” says the Mayor of Salford, at a packed meeting of the Truth ­Poverty Commission in his home city. “Either politics is done to us, or we shape it.”

Since being elected a year ago, Mayor Paul Dennett has been radically reshaping the way things are done in Salford.

Last month he gave care workers a 10.7% pay rise. His town hall has given the go-ahead for seven new library sites at a time when many councils are closing them.

As other parts of the UK face ­maternity unit closures, the council has stepped in to ‘Keep Babies Born in Salford’ by opening a new midwife-led unit where 300 babies may now be delivered each year.

Salford has also invested £2million into a development company – in order to kickstart building of social housing that won’t fall under the government’s new Right To Buy policy. The company is called Derive – named after a joke involving ­revolutionary Italian situationists.

All of which looks like a blueprint for a Labour government, or what unashamedly interventionist Dennett calls “sensible socialism”.

The 36-year-old mayor is passionate about using his £200million budget to end poverty , partly because he has never forgotten what it feels like to come up the hard way, through a childhood he describes as at times “horrific” and something “I wouldn’t wish on anyone”.

Scarred by domestic abuse and his younger brother’s fight against leukaemia, he failed his GCSEs and A-levels and by 18 was working in a “sweat shop” call centre.

“I had an interesting journey,” he says wryly, at his offices in Swinton. “I grew up in a family where there was traumatic violence and abuse. My dad became an alcoholic and I struggled at school in my early teens.”

A power station fitter by trade, Paul’s dad went on to manage The Engine pub in Liverpool’s Prescot area, where his alcoholism began. Paul’s mum, a cleaner, ran the pub as her marriage disintegrated.

Later in life, Paul won a place to study International Business at the University of Ulster, where he achieved a first-class honours degree. He went on to Manchester ­Business school before doing a PhD at Manchester Met, working as a civil servant and then for a utilities company.

Now living in Salford – where he became a tenants’ leader and then a local councillor – as council leader he sees the Truth Poverty Commission as part of a new way of doing politics, with people’s consent.

Based on a model that has been used in Glasgow and Leeds, the Commissioners include people with experience of poverty.

“Consultation usually means organisations telling you about their plans,” says community worker Jayne Gosnall, 54, who is recovering from alcohol addiction. “This is about really listening to people with experience.”

The Commission is independent but supported by Salford City Council, the Mayor and the Bishop of Salford, and facilitated by Church Action on Poverty and Community Pride. It has led to the council bringing in a raft of measures that will transform lives – from waiving birth certificate fees for homeless people to changing the way the council chases debt.

Debbie Brown, transformation director at Salford City Council, says: “We come into these meetings and we hug each other – that’s not what normally happens in council meetings,” she says. “But the other thing that stopped me in my tracks was the City Council being identified as a cause of poverty.

“We heard stories about what it was like for people hiding from council tax collection agents, people being afraid, and that’s not a city I recognise.

“We’re changing a lot already. We’re going back to the personal, identifying people who are struggling to pay and looking again at what we can do.

“We won’t be using bailiffs for those in receipt of council tax reduction and young care leavers are exempt.”

Laura Kendall, 33, a mum of two and a youth worker, suffered undiagnosed mental health problems as a teenager and was placed in care.

“Sharing my story for this project was difficult but very powerful for me,” she says. “I want people to know their voices will be heard, that a child growing up in the care system can have a better chance.

“I’d spent my whole life trying to get people to listen to me and got used to being rejected. This area has been written off so many times but it’s full of people with something to add.”

Salford’s mayor is determined to listen. “This is about working-class communities coming together and a spirit of solidarity,” Dennett says. “It’s the spirit of Salford in action.”

“Care Closer to Home”: the Torquay experience (not good)

Concerns that care in the community is failing some Torbay and South Devon residents have been raised by a health campaign body.

Gordon Jennings, chairman of the Community Health and Welfare Alliance, set up at the time of the consultation on the closures of community hospitals in Torbay and South Devon, said they feared the consequences of the closure of at least 74 beds across Torbay alone. One of the main providers of care in the area Mears Care was recently taken out of special measures by Government inspectors but they still rated it as ‘requiring improvement.’

It comes after Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust marked the second anniversary of the launch of the pioneering integrated care organisation in the area.

Mr Jennings said: “We are concerned as we have a high proportion of over 80s in the population, we should be making sure there are suitable arrangements for those people. The integrated care organisation’s argument is that the alternative to community hospitals is care at home. But they haven’t got the staff for home care. How are you going to get quality of care? Changes usually mean improvement, but it’s arguable that under the Devon NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) this is not always the case and is a series of cuts – including the loss of 100 hospital beds.

“Evidence is being gathered on experiences under ‘Care in the Home’, but we would implore Torbay communities to become involved and share your experiences with Healthwatch Torbay, Paignton Library, who are conducting ‘have your voice heard today’ consultation on this and other health subjects.

“We need to remind ourselves that South Devon and Torbay Clinical Commissioning Group admitted at the consultation meetings in regards the lack of staff in this area. With your help it is our intention, not only to seek a meeting with the CCG, with these findings, but also Torbay Council Health and Well Being Board, who have a responsibility in this area.

“We have been seeking evidence that it isn’t working and we have had some cases come forward but we are looking for more. If people can write to us with their concerns we can take it up with the right people.”

Dr Kevin Dixon, chairman of Torbay’s independent consumer champion for health and social care, Healthwatch Torbay, said: “Healthwatch Torbay regularly shares an extensive variety of local feedback from Torbay residents on hospital discharge and community care with both Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust and the Care Quality Commission, along with relevant providers and health commissioners, in order to contribute to their intelligence reports and prompt them into any relevant action.

“Although we have heard public concerns with both discharge and community care, we have also received praise for both.

“The findings of the CQC report into Mears Care Ltd. were reflected in the feedback we have gathered from those people who shared their experiences with us, which indicated that although there was some improvement in the quality of care Mears have provided since the original CQC report in 2016, a number of issues still exist.

“We remain committed to escalating any public complaints and concerns directly with Mears Care Ltd. and continue to monitor the quality of care they provide. Healthwatch Torbay will carry on gathering local public feedback and sharing it with key decision-makers to ensure the public voice is listened to at a commissioning level.”

Michael Rennolds of Coombe Road, Preston, has muscular dystrophy and Muscular Dystrophy UK say the condition is a progressive and life limiting muscular wasting condition for which there is no cure and no effective treatment. That means he has high needs.

Joel Rackham, care and information advocacy officer has written to Torbay and South Devon Healthcare Trust saying Michael required constant individualised care and intervention over each 24- hour period including regular physiotherapy, support with food and drink, toileting and bathing needs.

They say it is critical an up-to-date care plan is in place. But they say he has lost out on several respite days as well as his care hours were reduced from 84 hours a week to 41 which the charity say is ‘insufficient to meet his care needs’ .

At the same time £16,200 was taken out of his bank account which would have been used to pay for care. The charity has asked for the money to be reinstated and say it is ‘not fair’ to expect his mother, who works part time to be expected to care for him as her health is being affected and she cannot be expected to handle Mr Rennolds on her own.

The charity has asked for a minimum of 98 hours of care per week, more than double the amount budgeted for.

Nic Bungay, director of Campaigns, Care and Information at Muscular Dystrophy UK told Devon Live: “Without the right support in place, the difficult job of helping Michael to get out of bed, get dressed, eat his meals and live his life will fall on his mother Susan. The severe and progressive nature of Duchenne muscular dystrophy means that any reduction in care is wrong, but cutting the hours in half and leaving an entire day without any provision is unthinkable. His hours need to rise to the recommended 98 hours a week immediately.”

Mrs Rennolds said the money has still not been reinstated and she had been told the consideration of her complaint had again been adjourned.

“The NHS have taken the £16,200 out of Michael’s bank account, because he wouldn’t sign some papers that were in dispute. Only an idiot would sign some papers they disputed. The charity has written stating that money has to be put back. Michael is really down about this.”

A Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust spokesman, said: “We are currently in the process of responding directly to Mr Rennolds’ complaint. “We are fully committed to providing our clients with the best possible care. We work hard to ensure that people stay as healthy and independent as possible and that those who would be at risk of injury, illness or isolation are cared for as a priority. Each client will have their individual needs professionally assessed on a regular basis and our health and care professionals will work with them to identify the best way for their needs to be met. This means we can be sure we continue to meet individual’s changing needs.

“Whilst we cannot discuss individual client cases, when clients have their needs and care plans reassessed, we always do this working in partnership with the person and jointly agree the outcome.

Direct payments are made to meet an individual’s specific care needs. In addition, as part of the national guidelines, all recipients of Direct Payments sign an agreement that states that we reserve the right to reclaim money that is not being used. If people in receipt of direct payments accumulate a significant amount of money saved from their direct payments, in line with these national guidelines, we will recover a proportion of this money which will then go towards providing care for other vulnerable people. When monies are recovered, we will always ensure a significant proportion still remains in their Direct Payment account to cover their own care costs as well as a contingency for any unexpected expenditure.”

Marilyn and Ivor Martin, of Salisbury Avenue, Torquay say they are struggling with the level of care offered at home after Ivor, 68, had a serious stroke.

Marilyn said he had a stroke out of the blue one lunchtime which has left him affected all down the left side and incontinent. She said: “I cannot fault the hospital staff at all, the ambulance staff they were incredible. He was moved to Newton Abbot and his care there was wonderful, impeccable. Then I had a visit from occupational therapy from Newton Abbot who said he was coming home. I said my house isn’t suitable.

“I have steps in my garden, I was told there was no money to do that. I have a corner bath and they said there were no aids to get him in and out of the bath so he would have to strip wash and he would need to for the rest of his life if needs be. If I wanted adaptations I would have to pay for it myself. I was offered handrails which would take six to eight weeks to install after he got home. He couldn’t get upstairs and I said I was not having him home if it was not safe. They said I would have to put a bed in the dining room. I don’t have a single bed but was told I would have to buy or borrow one. They put a rail on my bed upstairs, a commode, a rail around the toilet so he could get himself up.

“I was told if I don’t have him home he would have to go in a care home. That would cost hundreds of pounds, money which should be put into caring for people in the community. We had him home and within three days he had a hospital appointment at 12noon. I was told there would be transport but it would come at anytime between 9.30am and 11.30am, and they would pick him up any time between 1pm and 4pm. He’s incontinent, he would be sat at the hospital all that time without food. I was told ‘that’s the way it is’. We had three appointments in one week for the heart and lung department, but they said they couldn’t arrange for them all on one day so we had to get him up there three times. I took him up with my son’s girlfriend who helped, but I am lifting him in and out the car and I had open heart surgery last year. There is no thought about the carers.

“They said that while I was at work, there could be someone coming in the morning to dress him and someone to give him a sandwich at lunchtime. They said they could come any time between 7.30pm to 10.30am. He wouldn’t stay in bed that late, he’d be getting himself up and falling. I can’t have that. Then they could be back at 11am and 2pm getting him lunch. It’s ludicrous.

“I had help filling out the forms for attendance allowance but you can’t have that until they have been ill for six months. I have spent nearly £4,000 on having a ramp put in the garden and shower unit changed and putting in a second hand stairlift. The physios have been fantastic but suddenly they were told they weren’t coming again until October. His arm isn’t working at all and his hand is swollen. It’s not right. Having the physio in really boosts his morale as well. If you are going to have care in the community you have to the people to do it. Ivor could go swimming at Plainmoor Pool but there’s no way to get help taking him there, I have got to do it. If someone doesn’t have someone at home to help how do they get there?

“There needs to be an organisation that sets up a package and says you will need this, this and this and get it organised for you. In hospital they were fantastic every single nurse and doctor, but if you are going to do care in the community you need to set up what people need before you throw them out there. Nobody is helping us. “

Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, the integrated care organisation responsible for social care in Torbay, said they could not comment as they had not had a direct complaint from the Martins. On the question of a shortage of carers a trust spokesman said: “We recognise that, like other places in the country, having enough people with the right skills and training to provide domiciliary care for people to be able to continue to be supported at home is a challenge. And there are a number of things we are doing to ensure the right level of care can be provided including supporting the campaign ‘Loving to Care’ to encourage more people to enter this very rewarding career.

A key part of how we are addressing the challenge is our partnership with a national provider of domiciliary care, Mears, This partnership helps to ensure enough carers are recruited, trained and supported to develop their skills. We extend our training and support so that carers working for all care providers are able to benefit from our training provision. This is an incredibly worthwhile profession and by supporting providers to be able to offer increased opportunities for development of their staff they are not only gaining important skills they also benefit from greater job satisfaction and are more likely to want stay in the caring profession.

“In addition to this support we also offer alternatives for people , such as direct payments which enables people to employ their own support assistant directly.”

Torbay residents can share their experiences by calling Healthwatch free on 08000 520 029, visiting upstairs at Paignton library, or even by rating and reviewing a local health and social care service online via If you have a case write to Mr G Jennings, c/o Acorn Centre, Lummaton Cross, Torquay, TQ2 8ET.”

“Axe Valley health hub plan launched as campaigners fight hospital sell off”

“Campaigners will continue to fight plans to sell off Seaton Hospital and to support plans for a new health hub for the Axe Valley. …

[Independent East Devon Alliance] County councillor Martin Shaw [Seaton and Colyton] said: “Forty campaigners from the Axe Valley area met in Seaton this week to review the state of the campaign for the local hospitals.

“I told the meeting that while the battle to save Seaton’s hospital beds had been lost, it had put Seaton on the map in the forthcoming discussions about health services in the area.”

Mayor of Seaton, Cllr Jack Rowland, said that a meeting to set up a steering committee for an Axe Valley Health Hub would take place shortly.

He was encouraged that the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital Trust was putting resources into this and he also pointed out that more than fifty services involving over a hundred staff were still based at the hospital.

Campaigners will continue to fight plans to sell off Seaton Hospital and to support plans for a new health hub for the Axe Valley.

In August, a vigil was held outside Seaton Hospital as the beds inside the hospital were closed, as protesters waved banners, shouted “shame”, and expressed their anger and sadness outside Seaton Hospital as the controversial closures of community hospitals began.

Plans to remove the beds from Exeter, Seaton, Honiton and Okehampton community hospitals have been met with strong opposition since they were confirmed in March.

The North, East and West (NEW) Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) said the move will see more people being given care at home and save £2.6million.

Although the battle to save the hospital beds has been lost, a new campaign though has been set up in the Axe Valley area to support the development of a health hub in the region.

County councillor Martin Shaw said: “Forty campaigners from the Axe Valley area met in Seaton this week to review the state of the campaign for the local hospitals.

“I told the meeting that while the battle to save Seaton’s hospital beds had been lost, it had put Seaton on the map in the forthcoming discussions about health services in the area.”

He was encouraged that the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital Trust was putting resources into this and he also pointed out that more than fifty services involving over a hundred staff were still based at the hospital. ‘Don’t let anyone say the hospital is closed’, he said.

The meeting, chaired by Paul Arnott of the East Devon Alliance, agreed that it was necessary to establish which health services could most usefully be based in Seaton and Axminster hospitals, and this might involve canvassing the views of local residents and a number of people present offered to help with this.

The meeting decided to set up a new Axe Valley Hospitals Campaign to support the development of a health hub around the two hospitals and to oppose any proposals to sell off hospital sites.”

Update on Winslade Park (Clyst St Mary) planning application


“I have been advised that the planning application for Winslade Park, Clyst St Mary has been removed from the agenda for 31st October. This request was made by the owners of the site to East Devon District Council and came about as a result of the concerns made by the residents of Clyst St Mary.

At this stage, we don’t yet know if or when the application will go back on the agenda.

The Save Clyst St Mary group remains committed to ensuring East Devon District Council and the Applicant reach the right decision for our village with regard to this application. Any proposal should be both safe and sustainable.

On a different note, the planning application for Enfield Farm is still on the agenda and should be heard by the Devolopment Management Committee in the afternoon of 31st October. We have two residents speaking for us on Tuesday; should you wish to support them please feel free to do so.

On behalf of the SCSM team, please can I thank you all for your ongoing support over these past three years.”

Councillor and council officer parking perks

Devon County
Staff pay between 50p and £2 per day depending on salary and there are two compulsory car-free days. No information on cost to councillors.
Visitors: up to £7 per day.

Exeter City Council:
120 people can park £2 per day in council car parks in Exeter for which the public must pay £10 per day. No information on who the 120 people are and whether some or all are councillors.

North, East, Mid and West Devon:
Free parking for officers, councillors and visitors.
(Almost every year Independent Councillor Roger Giles presses for charges to be introduced and each time he is voted down)

Permits for £50 per month in nearby car park. No information on whether or not this includes councillors.

Torridge and Torbay:
Refused to provide the information – Freedom of Information request made.