“Take back control” – shut the city gates! – Owl

Guy Henderson www.radioexe.co.uk 

‘Let’s make the most of the government’s faith in us’

Exeter is ready to seize a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity to take control of its own destiny.

The city council has unanimously backed a plan for it to become a unitary authority as part of the government’s nationwide shake-up of local authorities and sent its proposals to ministers.

So far in Devon, Plymouth wants to go it alone, expanding to absorb more than a dozen parishes in the South Hams.

Torbay also wants to stay as a small unitary authority, as it is now, but concedes that it will also have to spread out to absorb other areas in order to meet the government’s target for the population of the new unitary councils.

Devon’s seven district councils, have signed up for a structure that sees Plymouth standing alone and all the rest of Devon split into two large, new authorities.

The districts’ plan includes Exeter, but the city is determined to stand on its own two feet instead, possibly extending its boundaries to bring in some neighbouring parishes. The government has indicated that it might be open to allowing some of the new councils to come in below its planned population threshold of 500,000. Exeter’s current population is just under 140,000.

Exeter’s chief executive Bindu Arjoon told a meeting of the full council that there is a ‘compelling case’ for a unitary authority based on the city.

Unlike Plymouth, which has already published a list of the 13 South Hams parishes it wants to absorb to help it reach the population target, Exeter has not drawn up a map. It says that if it needs to expand outwards, it wants to consult properly first.

Council leader Phil Bialyk (Lab, Exwick) said: “Exeter is a young city with a rapidly growing population. It is an economic powerhouse which is out-performing the UK average.”

He said a single Devon-wide authority would not work for Devon, and neither would the district councils’ ‘1-5-4’ proposal to split the county.

“That option has no logic,” he said. “It recognises that one of Devon’s cities – Plymouth – is deserving of unitary status, but Exeter is not.

“It is simply a political plan that does not address the needs of the people of Devon, and it must be rejected.”

He stressed that local town and parish councils should be included in discussions ahead of the formation of any new authority.

Cllr Zoe Hughes (Ind, Pennsylvania) added: “We deserve to stand on our own two feet, and not stand in line with a begging bowl waiting for our turn.” And Cllr Diana Moore (Green, St Davids) urged: “Let’s make the most of the government’s faith in us.

“Exeter is a generous and friendly city. I hope we can invite our neighbours to join us in shaping the city’s future in a meaningful way.”

But Cllr Michael Mitchell (Lib Dem, Duryard and St James) said the ‘elephant in the room’ was finance, and warned that the districts would be overwhelmed by the debts left behind by a disbanded Devon County Council.

“Without an overhaul of how councils are funded these changes and their associated costs are just going to establish new bankrupt unitary authorities from day one,” he said.

“This is not a decision to be imposed by the few on the many.”

Pothole repairs, recycling services and adult social care could all bear the brunt of a wave of cuts expected to impact local authorities – with fears those in rural areas losing out the most.

Richard Vaughan inews.co.uk

Some councils are bracing for up to 11 per cent cuts to their budgets as Rachel Reeves prepares to slash local government spending.

The Chancellor is under mounting pressure to further squeeze public spending after official figures showed borrowing costs overshot forecasts as she tries to stick to her fiscal rules and keep the public finances on track ahead of the spring statement on Wednesday.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics released on Friday showed that public sector net borrowing was £10.7 billion in February, £4.2 billion more than had been forecast by the Government’s official forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and more than some economists had been expecting.

Borrowing over the financial year to date was up nearly £15 billion on the same period a year before, the ONS said, while spending was also up, prompting economists to warn the Chancellor faces increasingly “tough decisions” on the public finances next Wednesday.

Isabel Stockton, senior researcher for the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the data “underscore the challenges facing the Chancellor as we head into the week of the spring statement”.

“Having boxed herself in with promises to meet her fiscal targets, not to raise taxes further and not to return to austerity for public services, easy or risk-free options for the Chancellor are in short supply,” Stockton said.

Reeves has ruled out introducing more tax rises, The i Paper understands, meaning spending on unprotected government departments – those outside of health, schools and defence – will bear the brunt of the spending restraint.

Fears in local government

The potential for further cuts to local government funding has prompted serious jitters within government ranks with Communities Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner understood to have criticised the plans in last week’s Cabinet meeting.

A Labour MP told The i Paper: “Local government has been hammered so much. People really feel local services disappearing and that just carrying on would be really, really difficult. So that’s a real danger point for us.”

County councils believe they face deeper cuts than other local authorities – up to 11 per cent over the parliament – in next week’s Spring Statement and forthcoming spending review due to a change in how the Government will fund local authorities.

Ministers are currently undertaking a review into the funding formula for councils, and authorities representing more rural areas believe the criteria will be heavily skewed towards levels of deprivation, meaning more money will be funnelled towards urban, Labour-run local authorities.

Cllr Tim Oliver, leader of Surrey County Council and chair of the County Councils Network, told The i Paper: “They are looking at how they distribute the funding as part of their new fair funding formula. Our concern is what metrics are they going to look at?

“We saw in the Budget that some ringfenced funding, called the Recovery Grant, was based solely on deprivation, while they cut the rural services grant. So if the rumours are true [that local government funding will be cut] we could be looking at cuts of up to 11 per cent over time.”

Services struggling

Councils have warned that chronic underfunding from the Government has left many services struggling, despite record rises to council tax over the last three years, insisting several frontline services will be affected with fresh cuts.

Local authorities have statutory obligations to provide for adult and child social care as well special educational needs provision, but Oliver warned that even these areas could be cut back.

“The biggest area of demand county councils face is adult social care, which is not deprivation driven,” Oliver said. “We have statutory levels we have to deliver, but there is discretion in topping those up.”

This would mean reducing the number of hours of support for those in need, at a time when “people are also losing their benefits, so we would be severely impacting their quality of life,” Oliver added.

Road maintenance budgets would also be the first to be cut, including repairing potholes and carrying out bridge maintenance, while plans for specialist education facilities will be shelved. Efforts to increase recycling will also be hit, with money for recycling centres being cut to fill funding gaps.

“It does feel as if rural communities are being put under considerable pressure,” Oliver said. “It feels as if there are certain sectors across the country that are potentially now being left behind, and that can’t be right. There has to be equality for all types of different communities, whether those are metropolitan, town, cities or rural areas.”

Read Next

A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said:  “This is untrue speculation. This government is under no illusions about the financial issues facing councils and we are determined to make progress on the inheritance we’ve been left.

“That’s why we’re allocating £69 billion to council budgets across England, reforming the funding system and bringing forward the first multi-year funding settlement in a decade, so we can deliver better public services and drive forward our Plan for Change.”

This Labour reorganisation is beginning to look like it has the potential to set neighbour against neighbour.

Oh, and don’t forget Exeter’s “Exeter Centric” option.

Exeter proposes a unitary authority which includes parts of East Devon, Teignbridge and Mid Devon in order to cover a population of between 300,000 and 350,000 (with potential to grow to 500,000) to meet the criteria. – Owl

‘Plymouth has no experience of delivering rural services’

Guy Henderson – Local Democracy Reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

Plymouth has been accused of ‘over-stretching’ its bid to absorb 13 South Hams parishes in a major local government shake-up.

“What business does Plymouth have, pushing so far out?” Cllr Chris Oram (Lib Dem, Bickleigh and Cornwood) asked a meeting of South Hams Council. “This Plymouth plan should be robustly resisted.”

The government has begun a nationwide move to do away with district councils in favour of larger unitary authorities, and Plymouth plans to absorb part of the South Hams in a bid to hit a population target for setting up one of the new unitary councils.

The move has been condemned as a ‘land grab’ by critics.

South Hams Council says Plymouth has no idea how to provide services in rural areas, and should look west to Saltash and Torpoint instead.

Local councillors also believe the government has underestimated the complexity of restructuring Devon’s complicated council structures.

A meeting of the full South Hams Council endorsed what is dubbed the  ‘1-4-5’ option for re-organising Devon, a strategy favoured by all seven of the county’s district councils.

It would mean Plymouth standing alone, with one new council taking in South Hams, West Devon, Torbay and Teignbridge, and another containing Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon and Torridge.

South Hams leader Julian Brazil (Lib Dem, Stokenham) told members the 1-4-5 option would still create financial uncertainty, but was the best solution for the people of Devon.

Cllr David Hancock (Lib Dem, South Brent) said of the Plymouth strategy: “This clearly is a land grab, and we should make it quite clear that we are opposed to it. It will be to the detriment of our residents who live in the 13 parishes.

“Plymouth City Council is very urban and has no affinity with the rural parts of the South Hams.”

Cllr Nicky Hopwood (Con, Woolwell) agreed, and said: “Plymouth has no experience of delivering rural services. It has no idea about interacting with the farming community.”

Cllr Lee Bonham (Lib Dem, Loddiswell and Aveton Gifford) warned that the costs of the re-organisation would be high.

“Maybe people don’t care too much about who ruins their council,” he said. “But they will care if their costs go up and their services are reduced. We need to be honest and say that those things are likely to happen as a result of this.”

Some councillors had misgivings over the confrontational tone of the motion they were voting on, and questioned the use of the phrase ‘land grab’. They also acknowledged that some people in the 13 parishes might actually want to be part of Plymouth, and should be fully consulted.

Twenty four councillors voted in favour of the motion to back the 1-4-5 solution and resist the Plymouth expansion, with just one abstention.

The 13 parishes which would increase Plymouth’s population to 300,000 are Bickleigh, Shaugh Prior, Sparkwell, Brixton, Wembury, Cornwood, Harford, Ugborough, Ivybridge, Ermington, Yealmpton, Holbeton and Newton and Noss.

Jim McMahon’s invitation to Devon Council leaders to submit options for reorganisation of local government has opened a can of worms  [He is Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution].

He obviously intended councils to work together to provide a single proposal. Read his lips:

“I am writing to you now to formally invite you to work with other council leaders in your area to develop a proposal for local government reorganisation….”

Instead he has received ten different options, with County submitting five of them. 

The five Labour councillors present at the debate to agree the final submission voted against because it failed to include an “Exeter-centric” option.

Now we wait to see what Jim McMahon, a metropolitan through and through,  makes of it all! – Owl

Labour votes against Devon’s council revamp proposals

Bradley Gerrard, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

Labour has vented anger over the absence of an Exeter-centric option for how Devon’s councils could be revamped.

All five Labour councillors present at a Devon County Council meeting to debate what to suggest to the government voted against the motion.

The county council has put forward five proposals ahead of the biggest changes to local councils in decades.

Cllr Yvonne Atkinson (Labour, Alphington & Cowick) said she couldn’t support the council’s proposals “for the very good reason that it doesn’t include a greater Exeter option”.

“I take issue with the fact that an Exeter option has not been put into this report,” she said at a special council meeting convened at Devon’s County Hall a day before proposals have to be submitted on Friday.

“This council has supported the Exeter local transport plan, which recognises the travel to work area, but no options reflecting this have been included.”

Cllr Atkinson complained that around 2,000 homes had been built on the border of her Exeter constituency which are technically in Teignbridge.

“That development is called south west Exeter, not north west Teignbridge, all the houses are not marketed as ‘come to Newton Abbot’, but ‘come and live in Alphington’,” she added.

She said she felt the five options proposed are “politically driven rather than sensible geographic options that reflect the feeling and identity of the people”.

However, Cllr James McInnes (Hatherleigh & Chagord), the outgoing Conservative leader of Devon County Council, said he did “not see how Exeter could stand alone” and that it needs the support of other Devon residents.

Exeter City Council wants to become a unitary council, responsible for all  services within its boundaries.

At present, the county council is responsible for some services in Exeter, and Devon’s other districts, including highways and education. It is this so-called two-tier system that Westminster wants to eradicate.

While Exeter’s population is only around 130,000 now, it has published proposals that would see that rise to between 300,000 to 350,000 by absorbing parts of neighbouring districts.

The government wants new unitary councils to cover populations of at least 500,000, but there is disagreement between the parties in Devon about how cast-iron this is.

In his letter from December, Jim McMahon MP,  minister for local government and English devolution, said: “there may be exceptions” to the 500,000 population guideline “to ensure new structures make sense for an area”.

Cllr Tracy Adams (Labour, Pinnhoe and Mincinglake), thought unitary status for an extended Exeter would be “in the best interests of the people we represent”.

She continued:“Our support is firmly for a unitary Exeter, as presented by Exeter City Council to the minister; that option was not on the table for us to vote for today at Devon County Council.”

But Cllr McInnes said the report still left room for the new administration, which will be in place after May’s elections, to tweak existing options or even to suggest new ones.

Other councillors raised fears about the cost of reorganisation, not only the price of enacting the changes, but what the long-term financial picture would look like for the new unitary councils.

Cllr Caroline Leaver (Liberal Democrat, Barnstaple South) thought the cost would be borne by council taxpayers.

“We’re not going to get money from the government,” she said.

“We know this process will result in less money for councils whatever the shape is, and the money spent on the reorganisation itself will come out of council coffers or [day-to-day spending] budgets and could impact service delivery.”

Cllr Leaver highlighted Somerset as an example of a council that had become unitary around six years ago, but that the new Liberal Democrat administration had “inherited some considerable financial difficulties”.

Conservative member Cllr Jeff Trail (Exmouth) urged councillors to put “politics aside”.

“The government has forced our hand, but we will only get one chance to make this work and so I say we should put the people of Devon before politics,” he said.

The majority of councillors at the meeting voted to propose five options for new unitary councils in Devon, with Labour’s five members present voting against it.
 

Here is the text of the covering letter the seven District Leader’s have, this afternoon, sent to Jim McMahon, Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution with their interim plan for reorganisation.

In it they note that the government believes it has identified a “two-tier premium” in local government that, if eliminated, can solve the existential financial crisis in Adult and Children Social Care.

The local leaders go on to say: “We have been unable to find any evidence to support that claimed projected savings will be delivered, and are concerned that abolition of Districts to plug the financial gap is not a reality.” Indeed they estimate the cost of reorganisation to be £100m.

As Owl has recently pointed out, District Councils only account for 7% of your total council tax bill. Most of the services they deliver are essential, such as refuse collection and council housing. So even if 10% of costs could be saved it would only amount to less than 1% of your total Local Authority bill.

The cost of just adult social care in Devon is projected to be around a quarter of the County budget this year.

The County accounts for 73% of your council tax. In round terms the County budget is approaching £2,000m.

Breakdown of Devon County Budget

The District Leaders Covering letter

Date: 21 March 2025

Jim McMahon OBE MP

Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution

2 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DF

Dear Mr McMahon,

This letter accompanies the Interim Plan being submitted here from the Leaders of 7 of the 8 Devon District Councils. We have worked very hard across a wide geography and a range of political backgrounds to develop this plan.

However, we are deeply concerned with both the process and the timetable of Local Government Reorganisation being imposed on Devon, and we are aware that you and Baroness Taylor have been advised of this by many in local government. Moreover, the specific recent context of the financial settlement, and the withdrawal of the Rural Services Delivery Grant does not instil confidence.

We heard at the Districts’ conference that government has identified a “two-tier premium” and that, in its understandable need to solve the existential financial crisis in Adult and Children Social Care, you expect savings by driving LGR through to cover this. We have been unable to find any evidence to support that claimed projected savings will be delivered, and are concerned that abolition of Districts to plug the financial gap is not a reality. If there is such evidence, we would request sight of relevant real-life examples. We feel sure that you are aware of the extreme risk using theoretical data from consultants with limited local government experience.

In Devon, the opposite of cost-saving is probable in this ‘cliff-edge’ approach to reorganisation. We estimate the true costs to be in the region of £100 million. If government is so confident that savings will be delivered, then we suggest these costs are paid to us up front to be recouped from the supposed savings in future years.

We would emphasise that efficiencies and savings can be delivered and that we are best placed to do that. Ironically, we were actively in the process of integrating services at a more strategic level particularly around waste and leisure centre provision. The inevitable upheaval of LGR has somewhat curtailed this constructive and positive action.

Given the chance, we can deliver a road map with tangible targets moving towards savings under a plan which will be less expensive to deliver and will deliver a much more resilient outcome. We share government aspirations around cost-saving but ask you that we are given the opportunity to achieve these outcomes.

As a group, we would be pleased to have the chance to meet with you for further discussion.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Owl, 

Like the MP for Exmouth and Exeter East, I’m an “incomer” to East Devon, so am not fully aware of what has gone on in the area over the years. 

I enjoy reading your articles in East Devon Watch as they provide background information on the political scene in our area. I found your article with the headline ‘”BUILD, BUILD, BUILD” SKINNER BACK ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL’ dated 17th March very informative. 

From my understanding, Mr David George Reed stood as a Conservative councillor candidate for Cheltenham Borough Council – Park Ward in May 2022. So presumably he came to our constituency in 2023, as he was selected to be Conservative Parliamentary Party Candidate for Exmouth and Exeter East in the summer of 2023. 

My husband met Mr David George Reed in Brixington in April 2024 when he handed him a leaflet as he was campaigning for Mrs Aurora Bailey, the Conservative candidate in the by-election. Mr David George Reed told my husband that he’d been selected to be the parliamentary candidate for his political party. 

I have read the MP for Exmouth and Exeter East’s Facebook post dated 13th March, that you refer to in your article. I noticed that he was keen to blame the “Lib Dems-led East Devon District Council” for the “extra housing”. He stated the obvious: “Our current sewage network in #ExmouthandExeterEast cannot cope with this.” There are many reasons why the sewage network can’t cope with the present infrastructure. Mainly because the water companies have put profit and dividends before investment in replacing sewage pipes, updating pumping stations and sewage treatment works. It was the Conservative privatisaton that has been a contributory factor to the problems we have in East Devon and across the country. It was also the former Conservative government, including the former MP for East Devon, where Exmouth was the largest town in his constituency, who voted to relax legislation on water companies. 

East Devon District Council is led by the Democratic Alliance Group which consists of Liberal Democrats, Greens and Independent Councillors. Apparently, the Democratic Alliance Group was formed because although the Liberal Democrats had the most councillors elected in May 2023, there weren’t enough of them to form a majority. I have checked East Devon District Council’s website and whilst the Leader of the East Devon District Council is Liberal Democrats, not all of the Portfolio and Assistant Portfolio holders are members of the Liberal Democrats political party. I would have thought that having campaigned on behalf of candidates to be district councillors in Brixington and Exe Valley wards, our MP would know the political situation at East Devon District Council. 

I read the article with the headline “BUILD BABY BUILD” ANGELA RAYNER WANTS TO STRIP COUNCILLORS OF PLANNING POWERS’ in East Devon Watch, dated 10th March and found this very informative. From my understanding, it appears that the former Conservative government imposed housing targets, just like the present Labour government. Apparently, the government can take over council’s planning departments if the targets aren’t met.

I was under the impression that the MP for Exmouth and Exeter East was keen to have a cross party approach to solve problems in our constituency. I presumed that this was because he recognised that having gained a majority of only 121 votes, he realised the importance of good communication skills with others, who have different political opinions to his own. The outcome of the general election in July 2024, showed that this constituency is more of less a three-way split – Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats. 

The day before the Exe Valley by-election, their MP stated in his Facebook post, dated 12th March. “It’s worth noticing that this by-election has come about because the former Lib Dems councillor failed to turn up and do the job he was elected to do. This unavoidable by-election is costing us all money.”

It seemed very coincidental that the MP for Exmouth and Exeter East decided to criticise the Liberal Democrats the day before the by-election and also on the same as the by-election for Exe Valley ward. Maybe after reading their Conservative MPs social media posts, voters in Exe Valley ward made up their mind not to vote Conservative in this by-election. Perhaps they decided to vote for the Reform UK candidate instead!

We don’t know what is going on in councillors’ personal lives. There were probably very good reasons why the former Conservative district councillor for Brixington ward and the former district councillor for Exe Valley ward didn’t attend meetings/stood down. I would have hoped that the MP for Exmouth and Exeter East would have been less judgmental and shown more empathy to the former councillors, who relinquished their position, irrespective of political affiliations. 

The former MP for East Devon used to criticise East Devon District Council and those in other political parties. That could have been a factor why he wasn’t elected to be the MP for Honiton and Sidmouth. 

Interestingly, in May 2024 the result of the by-election in Brixington was Conservative hold and the result of the by-election in Exe Valley ward last week was Liberal Democrats hold. 

Yours sincerely, 

An incomer like the MP for Exmouth and Exeter East

All in the name of devolution, District Councils are to be merged into Unitary Authorities and a new second tier of local government introduced above these with elected mayors.

Jim McMahon OBE MP Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution has invited leaders of all local authorities in Devon to submit interim plans, jointly or severely by 21 March. Ideally in consultation with neighbours.

Owl understands that the following submissions from Devon authorities will be made today:

Ten different options

County submits five options:

• Two unitary authorities – one covering Plymouth and another covering the rest of Devon.

• A two unitary north Devon/South Devon split, with one council for Plymouth, Teignbridge, South Hams and Torbay, and another for Exeter, East Devon, North Devon, Torridge, West Devon and Mid Devon.
• A two unitary south west and north east split, with one council for Plymouth, South Hams and West Devon and another for Exeter, East Devon, Torbay, Teignbridge, North Devon, Torridge and Mid Devon.
• A three unitary option of Plymouth, greater Exeter (formed of Exeter, East Devon and Mid Devon) and the rest of Devon.
• A three unitary option, with Plymouth remaining on existing boundaries, a new unitary council formed of Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon and Torridge and another made up of Torbay, South Hams, Teignbridge and West Devon.

Plymouth submits a single option:

Will propose retaining its unitary status expanded into the “Plymouth Growth Area”. This option proposes extending the city’s boundaries to include 13 neighbouring parishes, approximately 30,000 additional residents. This modest expansion would create a more cohesive and efficient local government structure for the City, better equipped to meet the needs of our growing population. [Still too small to meet the current Government set population threshold of 500,000)

Plymouth Growth Area

Torbay submits three options

• Remain a unitary authority (like Exeter Torbay’s population falls well below the government’s threshold).
• Join the 1-4-5 proposal from the eight Districts (see below).
• Expand into the NHS area (see map below – though just how fixed these boundaries are must now be open to question)

Local NHS areas

Exeter submits a single option

Proposes to become a unitary authority by including parts of East Devon, Teignbridge and Mid Devon in order to serve a population of between 300,000 and 350,000. [Son of GESP – Owl]

The seven Devon Districts submit a single option (Exeter council currently equates to a district though it has no constituent town or parish councils and has chosen to go it alone).

The seven jointly propose the “1-4-5 option” [probably the only one to answer the exam question to the letter – Owl]

This proposed two new unitary model alongside the retention of Plymouth aligns with the six criteria for unitary government, using existing district areas as building blocks and aiming for populations near 500,000 for each authority. The proposed model anticipates the creation of a;

• Exeter and Northern Devon Authority: East, Mid, North Devon, Torridge, and
  Exeter
• Southern Devon Authority: South Hams, Teignbridge, West Devon, and Torbay.
• alongside
• Plymouth City remains as a retained unitary authority

(The seven are: North Devon, Torridge, Teignbridge, West Devon, Mid Devon, East Devon, South Hams)

Never mind the chaos: Jim’ll Fix It!

 (Here’s where he’s coming from: Jim McMahon is a Mancunian born and bred and former Leader of Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council )

Motion carried at last night’s extraordinary council meeting.

Now we wait to see what happens with the other seven district councils.

The so called 1-5-4 option

The key document is this 26 page draft report. The final draft is due to be submitted on 21 March. The draft has been agreed by eight Leaders of Devon’s District Councils

• 190325 Interim Plan FINAL 19032025 Appendix C , item 6. PDF 887 KB

In the forward the Leaders say:

We, the Leaders of seven of the district councils of Devon together with the Leader of
Torbay Council, acknowledge the government’s intent and are committed to responding
constructively to this. We have collaboratively developed interim proposals to meet the
government’s initial deadline. We propose the creation of two new unitary councils
(alongside the retention of Plymouth City unitary): one encompassing South Hams,
Teignbridge, West Devon, and Torbay, and the other uniting East, Mid, North Devon,
Torridge, and Exeter. We believe this model better serves the interests of Devon and
Torbay’s nearly one million residents rather than a single ‘mega-council’.

Despite the progress made in developing these proposals, we have significant concerns
and reservations regarding the proposed scale and timeline for LGR, particularly its
potential for financial unsustainability. The existing system, while imperfect, delivers
effective, locally tailored services and possesses established community connections
and a strong sense of place. We believe the government’s proposals fail to address the
critical funding challenges facing Devon and Torbay, notably in Adult and Children’s
Social Care, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, and in the NHS.

This submission represents an initial framework for how two new local authorities could
be formed. There is considerable further work required to develop these proposals. We
are actively engaged in this further development, including ongoing dialogue with Torbay
Council, and are mindful of the need for flexibility and agility as the LGR process
evolves. We are committed to maintaining local distinctiveness while pursuing service
improvements and we will engage extensively with residents, partners, and
stakeholders throughout this process.

Executive Summary

This Interim Plan responds to the government’s invitation for Local Government
Reorganisation (LGR) towards a single tier. Acknowledging the English Devolution White
Paper’s intent to replace existing councils with larger unitary authorities, this
submission proposes a balanced two-unitary solution for Devon and Torbay, alongside
Plymouth City as a retained unitary authority, aiming to meet LGR objectives while
preserving local identity and ensuring sustainable service delivery.

The proposed two-unitary model aligns with the six criteria for unitary government,
using existing district areas as building blocks and aiming for populations near 500,000
for each authority. The proposed model anticipates the creation of a;

• Exeter and Northern Devon Authority: East, Mid, North Devon, Torridge, and
  Exeter
• Southern Devon Authority: South Hams, Teignbridge, West Devon, and Torbay.

This offers a comprehensive solution for the whole area, establishing a credible
alternative to a single ‘mega’Council whilst guarding against the creation of an
urban/rural divide.

The Interim Plan recognises that significant further work is required to develop these
proposals. A programme is set out for how this will happen through to November 2025.
This includes extensive stakeholder engagement.

[There is a feeling that the government could well change the ground rules to lower the population threshold for a unitary authority to 350K in whch case something very different may emerge. Also worth pointing out that Districts only account for 7% of your council Tax so the potential saving can’t be huge. – Owl]

The human cost of yet another NHS reorganisation Letters

NHS England’s abolition makes us reflect on disastrous 2012 reforms, writes Dr Michael Cohen, while Jeremy Wainman decries the dismantling of a skilled workforce, Nigel Turner explains the reorganisation cycle, and Martin Shaw invites the health secretary to visit his local hospital

Tue 18 Mar 2025

As the Labour party plans yet another costly NHS reorganisation, we should reflect on the former health secretary Andrew Lansley’s disastrous and expensive reforms in 2012 (Keir Starmer scraps NHS England to put health service ‘into democratic control’, 13 March). I worked as an NHS GP and hospital specialist for 25 years. Those of us working in the service could see where many of the major problems lay, but rather than listening to those working at the coalface, David Cameron seemed to be seduced by Lansley’s ideas.

The disastrous effects of the reorganisation were seen most clearly when the Covid pandemic struck, with respect to provision of personal protective equipment and the test-and-trace debacle. Effective public health pathways had been changed and there was no joined-up thinking whatsoever.

Now we have elderly patients fit for discharge lying in hospital beds as plans for social care reform are again kicked down the road. Patients awaiting hospital admission lie in corridors, where care is clearly substandard despite the heroic efforts of doctors and nurses. It is scandalous.

What happens if we have a new administration in four years, another reorganisation? We must stop the NHS becoming a political football and have some cohesive and effective forward planning before it really is too late.
Dr Michael Cohen
Bristol

 The cuts to integrated care boards are yet another example of short-term cost-saving measures that will weaken our economy, public services and workforce (30,000 jobs could go in Labour’s radical overhaul of NHS, 14 March). Good jobs are not just expenses; they are investments in a stable, productive society.

Beyond the numbers, there is a deep human cost. Many of those losing their jobs are the very people who worked tirelessly to keep the NHS from collapsing after years of underfunding. To reward them with redundancy rather than support is an insult. What’s even more troubling is that a Labour government, supposedly the party of workers and vulnerable people, is making these cuts instead of pursuing fairer ways to raise revenue. Rather than increasing taxes on those who can afford it, they are targeting NHS staff while ignoring the system’s deeper issues.

The NHS is inefficient, but not because of its workforce. The real causes are years of deliberate underinvestment and the unchecked power of NHS trusts, which act as bureaucratic fiefdoms obstructing modernisation.

Frontline staff today are less efficient than their predecessors, not due to lack of skill but because they are trapped in an outdated, fragmented system.

If Labour is serious about fixing the NHS, it must invest properly, break down power imbalances, and implement long-term change. Instead, it is choosing the same failed austerity playbook. The UK cannot afford to dismantle its skilled workforce under the guise of fiscal responsibility.
Jeremy Wainman
Pontefract, West Yorkshire

 When I joined the NHS as a manager nearly 35 years ago, my boss explained to me that there was a fundamental rhythm to the reorganisation of the NHS. Incoming governments, he said, centralised things, believing that they could “fix the NHS”, and then, when they discovered that they couldn’t, they decentralised again to avoid the blame. Here we go again…
Nigel Turner
London

 Matthew Weaver (How did Andrew Lansley reorganise health and create NHS England?, 14 March) misses one change that had a big impact on communities: the transfer of the ownership of many health service buildings to a company, NHS Property Services (NHSPS), charged with obtaining national market value from them. In Devon, community hospitals paid for by local donations became the property of NHSPS without anyone being informed, and wards were closed with the intention of selling sites for housebuilding.

In Seaton, more than a third of the hospital – a wing funded entirely by local people – has been empty for nearly eight years, partly because NHSPS won’t vary its rental charges to allow for new uses, despite a huge local outcry and lengthy discussions. Wes Streeting should look into NHSPS, and would be welcome in Devon to see the problems for himself.
Martin Shaw
Seaton, Devon

At the beginning of February Devon claimed it was on “the fast track” to create a single unitary authority as part of Angela Rayner’s local government reorganisation plans. But it lost  its bid to cancel the May elections and has now come up with FIVE alternative options, demonstrating quite clearly that it was never in a position to make such a claim.

Here are the county proposals, the eight district councils, have all coalesced around one idea known as the 1-5-4 proposal which will be published separately.

The government has opened a can of worms. Owl doesn’t expect them to make a quick decision.

Data ‘vital’ in council shake-up as Devon poses reorg options

Bradley Gerrard www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Data has to be the driving force behind Devon’s upcoming local authority shake-up, according to the county council’s outgoing leader who has warned against hopes of “massive savings”.

A report outlining five potential ways that Devon’s 11 existing main councils could be merged into either two or three new, larger ones has been published, with a special meeting of Devon County Council planned this Thursday (March 20) to debate the proposals.

A sixth option of one Devon-wide council is acknowledged, but “only for benchmarking purposes” rather than being viewed as a viable option.

Cllr James McInnes (Conservative, Hatherleigh and Chagford), the outgoing council leader, said his plan is for all five options to be submitted to the government this week, with a pledge that data would be gathered over the coming months to help identify which make the most sense.

Jim McMahon, minister of state for local government, had asked councils to submit interim reorganisation plans by Friday, but Cllr McInnes said Westminster’s emphasis had changed slightly in recent weeks.

“The government has shifted its position, which I’m aware of as I wrote to Mr McMahon asking various questions, one being whether 21 March was a decision point,” Cllr McInnes told the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

“But he quite clearly said that it was not a decision point and that he merely wanted to know what we had been up to so far.”

Different strategies

The move to submit five proposals differs from the strategy of Devon’s eight district councils, which have all coalesced around one idea known as the 1-5-4 proposal.

That would see Plymouth remain a unitary council with potentially expanded boundaries compared to now, while Devon’s other councils would be merged into one of two new unitary councils.

That idea is included as one of Devon’s five suggestions.

Cllr McInnes said third parties are collating data for the county council to work out which proposal would be the most effective, and this would be shared with district councils.

“I support the principal and advantages of a unitary in terms of residents knowing who to go to and get support, or complain to, and it would be better for one organisation to oversee housing and social care, for instance, compared to it being split between two different councils now,” he said.

“But we need to use data to make sure we make the right decisions for the long-term sustainability of services.”

Fears have been raised that the government views reorganisation as a way to save money, but Cllr McInnes said that is optimistic.

“If you think how much money has been taken from local government since 2009/10, through austerity, the pandemic and now the cost-of-living crisis and the spike in inflation we’ve had, there simply isn’t the meat on the bone to make massive savings,” he said.

“I think we can make efficiencies in terms of having one front door and integrating services [that are currently split across two councils] but we cannot make savings and if someone thinks they can take millions of pounds out of local government, it’s already been done.”

The government announced in December that it wants to abolish the two-tier system of local government whereby district and county councils are responsible for different services in the same geographic area.

Devon’s five suggestions for local government reorganisation are:

• Two unitary authorities – one covering Plymouth and another covering the rest of Devon.

• A two unitary north Devon/South Devon split, with one council for Plymouth, Teignbridge, South Hams and Torbay, and another for Exeter, East Devon, North Devon, Torridge, West Devon and Mid Devon.
• A two unitary south west and north east split, with one council for Plymouth, South Hams and West Devon and another for Exeter, East Devon, Torbay, Teignbridge, North Devon, Torridge and Mid Devon.
• A three unitary option of Plymouth, greater Exeter (formed of Exeter, East Devon and Mid Devon) and the rest of Devon.
• A three unitary option, with Plymouth remaining on existing boundaries, a new unitary council formed of Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon and Torridge and another made up of Torbay, South Hams, Teignbridge and West Devon.

Last week, the Leader of the Tories in East Devon District Council (EDDC), Mike Goodman, published a letter denigrating the conduct of Paul Arnott, the Council leader. Inevitably, Paul Arnott used his right of reply. Both letters are published below.

Owl recalls Mike Goodman’s chequered history both in Sidmouth and Surrey

He became leader of the Tory minority in EDDC after his predecessor, Phil Skinner, was kicked out in the May 2023 election. This seemed to Owl to be a surprising choice as he was a Surrey County Councillor as recently as 2022 but perhaps they had little remaining talent to choose from.

As Owl reported during the 2023 general election campaign, he was the publisher of a “fake” local newspaper, the “East Devon Echo”, receiving a formal rebuke from the Press Watchdog.

Mike Goodman has a history of previous “angry outbursts” in EDDC, and of provoking outbursts in others in Surrey (two fingers and the “f” word). 

Could his “robust” form of politics have contributed to the LibDem gain in his Bagshot patch of “True Blue” Surrey Heath in the general election?

Mike Goodman www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Letter: Does the East Devon Council leader value democracy?

In last week’s paper, we had the leader of the Lib Dem-led East Devon District Council writing about the need to protect democracy and reminding residents about elections for Devon County Council in May.

We agree that democracy needs protecting, but I do wish he’d act in the same spirit as he writes.

However, we know he’s standing for the county and probably wants to present a good image.

Sadly, if you scratch the surface at EDDC, the good image tends to rot away – and it seems some have an eye towards the local elections in May, where both the leader and deputy leader of the council want to win more influence as part of Devon County Council.

I want to take this opportunity to highlight examples of how the leader of the council has tried to silence me as an elected representative.

Firstly, at the most recent cabinet meeting on March 5, I was called “discourteous” because I dared to ask a question.

I was elected to ask questions in a democracy.

They were two important questions, and despite both the directors and one of the portfolio holders being in attendance, they were silenced and stopped from speaking.

The first question was a clarification on the ongoing challenges and problems of the condition of council housing stock.

In November, the stock condition survey results were presented to councillors privately, and the intention was for the details to be made public.

I first raised this matter in January, and no answer has yet been forthcoming.

It doesn’t look good, does it?

The second question, which was first asked and not answered on February 25, was around the council’s plans to hike the price of some rugby and football pitch fees by up to 50 per cent.

At the budget meeting on January 15, I asked for this policy to be reconsidered.

However, when the item went to full council, the fees had not been amended, and no explanation was given.

No response to my concerns was forthcoming, either.

Democracy in action?

I think not.

This policy is totally unacceptable and goes against encouraging people to play sports.

It will hurt so many clubs in a cost-of-living crisis, and there is no justification apart from lining council coffers.

I can only hope the council reduces the fees and makes the survey of the stock condition of our council housing public, like they said they would.

Hundreds of tenants across the district know the truth, and it shouldn’t be hidden away with legitimate questions shouted down.

I agree that democracy matters, let’s see more of it within East Devon District Council.

Councillor Mike Goodman
Sidford

Cllr Paul Arnott www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Letter: In response to Cllr Goodman’s ‘untrue’ letter

By Cllr Paul Arnott

In this week’s papers, the East Devon Conservative district councillor, Michael Goodman, who joined the Sidmouth Conservatives on relocating from Surrey to Sidmouth in 2022, mentions me. I would be grateful for the right to reply.

In essence, Mr Goodman states that officers “were silenced and stopped from speaking” when he asked two questions at a Cabinet meeting I chaired. This is untrue.

Both questions required complex answers, one confidential as he well knew, and instead of Mr Goodman being allowed to stage his own personal interrogation he was advised by me that he would receive written answers.

This is common practice, completely constitutional, and what is happening. It may be that as a Surrey councillor Mr Goodman was allowed to push officers with not a moment’s notice of his question to satisfy him. In East Devon it is more courteous than that.

I am sorry that Mr Goodman has taken your readers’ time with yet another ad hominem attack on me, and also sorry I have to bore them with a reply for the record.

Paul Arnott
East Devon District Council leader and councillor for the Coly Valley ward.

This selfie taken by Conservative David Reed MP shows him campaigning with “Build, build, build” Phil Skinner in support of the latest failure to get veteran candidate of many wards, Patsy Hayman, elected in the Exe Valley by-election.

Why is Owl surprised?

Only last week David Reed was falsely claiming that the level of housing in East Devon was down to the Lib Dem-led East Devon District Council. Here is what he wrote on 13 March, on his facebook page:

“We all know that our current sewage network in #ExmouthandExeterEast cannot cope with our current level of housing, let alone the tens of thousands of extra houses that the Lib Dem-led East Devon District Council are proposing for our area.“

This attribution to the Lib-Dem District Council couldn’t be wider from the mark. The real culprit is the man on his left – Phil Skinner!

Philip Skinner’s record as a primary architect and driving force behind the long standing Tory policy of building in East Devon is copiously recorded on “The Watch”. His, and his EDDC Tory colleagues’ policies, resulted in the current Local Plan having a development target of 950 houses/year. This was driven by the adoption of an aggressive “jobs led policy on” scenario.  Comprehensive studies showed only around 580 houses/year would be required to satisfy purely demographic and normal migration growth trends. 

This policy, therefore, resulted in an uplift of 370 or 64% on what is strictly necessary and is the target that the current EDDC coalition has inherited and the basis on which the government thinks reasonable to set its own growth strategy. Owl has already pointed this out to David Reed in a post last September.

Phil Skinner was also one of the drivers of the now defunct “Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP)” which tried to get green field sites in East Devon to take the lion’s share of Exeter’s housing needs. It seems that there were always farmers in East Devon willing to “sacrifice” their land to this end. At the time planners confirmed that the GESP targets would over-ride East Devon’s local plan.

When the Tories lost control of EDDC, one of the first things the coalition did in August 2020 was to vote, by a massive majority, to pull out of GESP. Exeter is now having finding sites elsewhere to satisfy their needs.

To be fair, David Reed hasn’t been in East Devon all that long. Like his predecessor, Simon Jupp, he’s a “Blow in”. He still needs to read himself in before sounding off like this.

Here is puppet master Phil with David Reed’s predecessor as featured on Tory mailshots in the old Devon East constituency.

Phil Skinner was the leader of the Tories in East Devon until he was kicked out by the electorate in the May 2023 local election.

Despite this he is still pulling the strings.

Is this an omen for the Tories in Devon and the reason they tried to cancel this May’s County elections? – Owl

East Devon District Council – By-election 13 March 2025

Declaration of results for East Devon District Council Exe Valley Ward 13 March 2025

Name of Candidate	Description (if any)	Number of votes	Elected?
BENNETT Julie	Labour Party Candidate	54
HAYMAN Patsy	The Conservative Party Candidate	137
KING Fabian	Liberal Democrat	256	ELECTED
VANSTONE Nat	Reform UK	135

Electorate: 2,042
Ballot Papers Issued: 582
Rejected Ballot Papers: 0
Turnout: 28.7%

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”

The proposed planning bill, yet to be drafted but intended to produce the “biggest building boom’ in a generation, obviously needs a lot more time and thought. Here is an example that caught Owl’s eye from the list of eight key measures announced by Angela Rayner on Monday.

Strategic Planning

“The Bill will introduce a system of ‘strategic planning’ across England known as spatial development strategies, which will help to boost growth by looking across multiple local planning authorities for the most sustainable areas to build and ensuring there is a clear join-up between development needs and infrastructure requirements. These plans will be produced by mayors, or by local authorities in some cases, and will ensure the level of building across the country meets the country’s needs.”

We have been here before with so little impact that Owl suspects that few will remember. 

Strategic planning for each of the nine English regions became formalised from the 1990s.

Regional Assemblies

1.  1999 The South West Regional Assembly (SWRA) was established in 1999. It was not a directly elected body, but was a partnership of councillors from all local authorities in the region and representatives of various sectors with a role in the region’s economic, social and environmental well-being. It was made up of 119 members.

Worth noting that there was much opposition to the formation of the South West Regional Assembly with critics saying it was an unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable quango, and the area covered was an artificially imposed region and not natural. This opinion was based upon geography, arguing that having the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall in the same region as Gloucestershire would be comparable to linking London with Yorkshire.

Spatial strategies

2. 2004 Regional spatial strategies (RSS) to provide regional level planning frameworks for the regions were introduced in 2004. 

3. 2010 The functions of regional assemblies were planned to pass to regional development agencies in 2010 but the new Conservative/Liberal Democrat government abandoned spatial strategies and revoked regional development agencies in favour of the equally “unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable” Local Enterprise Partnerships.

4. 2024 In April, the government abolished Local Enterprise Partnerships transferring the functions to local authorities.

What does a coherent planning system need to recognise?

In 2010 under the heading “Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum” the House of Commons committee on Communities and Local Government put their finger on the nub of the problem:

A coherent, efficient planning system has to recognise and relate to issues from the point of view of a range of players operating at different levels: individuals, developers, community and resident groups, businesses, local authorities, and the Government. Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) bridged the gap between planning issues determined by local policies and concerns, and those subject to nationally-determined policy aspirations, such as housing or renewable energy. Views are mixed on the merits of Regional Spatial Strategies: opposition to them has highlighted the length and complexity of their preparation; the undemocratic nature of the bodies preparing them; the difficulty of influencing their outcomes; and the ‘top-down’ housing development targets they contained. Support for them has highlighted their comprehensive, strategic view of planning across each region and their ability to deal with controversial and sometimes emotive developments, such as waste disposal, mineral working and accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. 

Who drives the strategic plan?

Not only do these problems remain but the government is only just starting to consider how to create the Mayoral Strategic Authorities intended to carry this forward. Bigger than counties, these will sit as a new top tier of local authority presiding over a single tier of unitary authorities created from an amalgamation of counties and districts. This process inherently presents dangers of recreating the artificially imposed regions of the abandoned regional assemblies.

Given the lack of impact these regional bodies have had since 1999 and the transfer back and forth of the strategic planning function, we have to start afresh. Where are the teams with the appropriate skills? Who now holds the local economic and social data? How long will it take and how much will it cost to produce the first spatial development strategy? We must be talking years rather than months.

In the interim where are we going? – Owl

Government press release in full (with hearty endorsement from developers)

‘Biggest building boom’ in a generation through planning reforms 

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government www.gov.uk

• HOMES AND KEY INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE BUILT FASTER UNDER PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE BILL
• ENERGY SECURITY WILL BE BOLSTERED WITH CHEAPER, CLEAN HOMEGROWN POWER
• BILL IS KEY TO DELIVERING ON OUR PLAN FOR CHANGE TO BUILD 1.5 MILLION HOMES, MAKE BRITAIN A CLEAN ENERGY SUPERPOWER AND DRIVE UP LIVING STANDARDS

Homes and key infrastructure that hundreds of thousands of hard-working people and families need will be built quicker thanks to transformative reforms to get Britain building, tackle blockers and unleash billions in economic growth.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will be introduced to Parliament today (11 March), will see significant measures introduced to speed up planning decisions to boost housebuilding and remove unnecessary blockers and challenges to the delivery of vital developments like roads, railway lines and windfarms. This will boost economic growth, connectivity and energy security whilst also delivering for the environment.

By ensuring shovels can be put in the ground more quickly and projects are freed from unnecessary bureaucracy, these measures will help deliver a building boom that will deliver a major boost to the economy worth billions of pounds, and create tens of thousands more jobs as houses and infrastructure are built. It will make Britain a more attractive prospect for investment and development with a planning process that works for the builders, not blockers.

This Bill comes alongside wider planning reforms including the new National Planning Policy Framework and is at the heart of our Plan for Change missions to deliver the 1.5 million homes this country needs alongside 150 major projects, ensure Britain can become a clean energy superpower through building the necessary infrastructure, and help to raise living standards by ensuring working people have more money in their pocket.

People living near new electricity transmission infrastructure will also receive up to £2,500 over ten years off their energy bills, ensuring those hosting vital infrastructure benefit from supporting this nationally critical mission.

Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Angela Rayner said:

We’re creating the biggest building boom in a generation – as a major step forward in getting Britain building again and unleashing economic growth in every corner of the country, by lifting the bureaucratic burden which has been holding back developments for too long.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will unleash seismic reforms to help builders get shovels in the ground quicker to build more homes, and the vital infrastructure we need to improve transport links and make Britain a clean energy superpower to protect billpayers.

It will help us to deliver the 1.5 million homes we have committed to so we can tackle the housing crisis we have inherited head on – not only for people desperate to buy a home, but for the families and young children stuck in temporary accommodation and in need of a safe, secure roof over their heads.

These reforms are at the heart of our Plan for Change, ensuring we are backing the builders, taking on the blockers, and delivering the homes and infrastructure this country so badly needs.

KEY MEASURES

Planning Committees

Housebuilding will be backed by streamlining planning decisions through the introduction of a national scheme of delegation that will set out which types of applications should be determined by officers and which should go to committee, have controls over the size of planning committees to ensure good debate is encouraged with large and unwieldy committees banned, and mandatory training for planning committee members. Councils will also be empowered to set their own planning fees to allow them to cover their costs – with the stretched system currently running at a deficit of £362 million in the recent year. This money will be reinvested back into the system to speed it up.

Nature Restoration Fund

A Nature Restoration Fund will be established to ensure there is a win-win for both the economy and nature by ensuring builders can meet their environmental obligations faster and at a greater scale by pooling contributions to fund larger environmental interventions. These changes will remove time intensive and costly processes, with payments into the fund allowing building to proceed while wider action is taken to secure the environmental improvements we need.

Compulsory Purchase Reform

Land needed to drive forward housing or major developments could also be bought more efficiently thanks to reforms to boost economic growth and drive forward local regeneration efforts. The compulsory purchase process – which allows land to be acquired for projects that are in the public interest – will be improved to ensure important developments delivering public benefits can progress. The reforms will ensure compensation paid to landowners is not excessive and the process of using directions to remove ‘hope value’ – the value attributed to the prospect of planning permission being granted for alternative development – where justified in the public interest is sped-up. Inspectors, councils or mayors where there are no objections, will take decisions instead of the Secretary of State. 

Development Corporations

Development Corporations will be strengthened to make it easier to deliver large-scale development – like the government’s new towns – and build 1.5 million homes alongside the required infrastructure. They were used in the past to deliver the post-war new towns and play a vital role when the risk or scale of a development is too great for the private sector. Their enhanced powers will help deliver the vision for the next generation of new towns – a new programme of well-designed, beautiful communities with affordable housing, GP surgeries, schools and public transport where people will want to live.

Strategic Planning

The Bill will introduce a system of ‘strategic planning’ across England known as spatial development strategies, which will help to boost growth by looking across multiple local planning authorities for the most sustainable areas to build and ensuring there is a clear join-up between development needs and infrastructure requirements. These plans will be produced by mayors, or by local authorities in some cases, and will ensure the level of building across the country meets the country’s needs.

National Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP)

The Bill will ensure a faster NSIP regime that delivers infrastructure projects faster. It will make sure the consultation requirements for projects – such as windfarms, roads or railway lines – are streamlined, and ensure the national policies against which infrastructure applications are assessed are updated at least every five years so the government’s priorities are clear. Other changes will be made to the Highways Act and the Transport and Works Act to reduce bureaucracy so transport projects can progress quicker.

The government will further overhaul the process by which government decisions on major infrastructure projects can be challenged. Meritless cases will only have one – rather than three – attempts at legal challenge. Data shows that over half – 58% – of all decisions on major infrastructure were taken to court, including windfarms in East Anglia which was delayed by over two years as a result of unsuccessful challenges.

Clean Energy

Further changes will make sure approved clean energy projects that help achieve clean power by 2030, including wind and solar power, are prioritised for grid connections. Some projects currently face waits of over 10 years. A ‘first ready, first connected’ system will replace the flawed ‘first come, first served’ approach to prioritise projects needed to deliver clean power, unlocking growth with £200 billion of investment and protecting households from the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets, while reforming the grid queue will accelerate connections for industrial sites and data centres.

Around twice as much new transmission network infrastructure will be needed by 2030 as has been built in the past decade and Britain’s electricity grid needs a 21st century overhaul to connect the right power in the right places.   

Bill Discounts

People living within 500m of new pylons across Great Britain will get money off their electricity bills up to £2,500 over 10 years, under these plans. Alongside money off bills, separate new guidance will set out how developers should ensure communities hosting transmission infrastructure can benefit, by funding projects like sports clubs, educational programmes, or leisure facilities.   The new community funds guidance means communities could get £200,000 worth of funding per km of overhead electricity cable in their area, and £530,000 per substation.

This would mean an upcoming project like SSEN Transmission’s power line between Tealing and Aberdeenshire could see local communities benefitting from funding worth over £23 million. Developers will closely consult with eligible communities on the funds and how best to spend them, to ensure a fair and consistent approach across Great Britain.

Mark Reynolds, Executive Chair of Mace Group and Co-Chair of the Construction Leadership Council, said:  

For too long the UK’s planning systems have inhibited growth, with layer upon layer of checks and balances stifling productivity, confidence, investment and jobs. 

These proposed changes show this government is listening to industry and taking reform seriously; recognising that new homes and infrastructure are necessary to inject life into the economy. 

Our construction industry is ready to meet the challenge, and the measures highlight how mindful growth can support communities and our net-zero ambitions.

Neil Jefferson, Chief Executive of the Home Builders Federation, said: 

The swift moves to address the failings in the planning system are a very welcome and positive step towards increasing housing supply. Removing blockages, speeding up the decision-making process and ensuring local planning departments have the capacity to process applications effectively will be essential to getting more sites up and running. If the other constraints currently preventing house builders delivering more homes can be tackled, the changes made to planning will really allow output to accelerate.

Brian Berry, Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders, said: 

The new Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a crucial first step in getting Britain building again. In the 1980’s around 40% of new homes were built by SMEs, yet today that figure is around 10%. Small builders across the UK stand ready to play their part in delivering the homes we need, but time and time again we’ve seen barriers keeping them out of the market.

We know from research carried out by the FMB that around three quarters of small builders view the planning system as the number one issue holding back the delivery of new homes, while lack of viable and available land are also major challenges. Supporting small builders through the planning system and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy will be key to opening up small sites, and today’s announcement will be welcomed by many across the industry.

Kate Henderson, Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation, said:  

At a time when the housing crisis continues to blight lives across the country, it’s welcome to see the introduction of this bill. With more than 160,000 children in temporary accommodation, it’s never been more urgent to build the social homes we need. 

Planning reform is an essential part of solving the housing crisis, and a return to strategic planning is welcome. A focus on certainty and enabling local areas to work together to plan for the homes, jobs and infrastructure needed in communities will ensure every area benefits from growth. Measures to reform compulsory purchase orders in the bill are also welcome, and will support the delivery of affordable housing and other local infrastructure such as GPs and schools.

David Thomas, Chief Executive of Barratt Redrow, said:  

It has been clear from day one that government is serious about tackling the housing crisis, and it continues to take strong action to unlock stalled projects and reshape the planning system to deliver the high-quality homes and sustainable places the country needs.  

We share government’s ambition to build more homes, to create good quality jobs and to drive economic growth. We look forward to supporting them on this mission and will respond positively to the bold reforms set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.  

Other measures included in the Bill:

• Streamlining the process to install EV charging infrastructure to help meet our net-zero ambitions
• A new scheme to unlock billions of pounds of investment in long duration electricity storage (LDES) to store renewable power and deliver the first major projects in four decades.
• Changes to the outdated planning rules for electricity infrastructure in Scotland that will streamline the consent process to enable decisions to be made faster.  
• An extension to the generator commissioning period from 18 to 27 months to reduce the number of offshore wind farms requiring exemptions when applying for licences to connect to onshore cables and substations.  
• Allowing forestry authorities in England and Wales, including the Forestry Commission, to bring forward development proposals, on the land they manage, relating to the generation of electricity from renewable sources– and to sell resulting electricity.

The Bill builds on work the government has already carried out to get Britain building including overhauling the National Planning Policy Framework, including new and higher mandatory housebuilding targets for councils, a comprehensive modernisation of the Green Belt, and far greater support for growth-supporting development such as labs and datacentres.  

South West “abandoned by the government” – Richard Foord MP

Last week the government announced £1.5bn in funding to tackle deprivation in 75 areas across the UK, to “restore pride in Britain’s neighbourhoods and boost local growth” at £20m a throw. But only one of these was in the South West: the unitary authority of Torquay. Bear in mind the South West covers: Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Devon, Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire.

Readers may recall that Torquay was one of the leaders in using “iconic” developments on the seafront to drive “regeneration”, closely followed by Exmouth’s Ocean Bowling Alley.

Living Coasts, built on the site of the former Torquay Marine Spa, opened to the public on 14 July 2003. It officially closed in June 2020,

How East Devon had to take over the Ocean Bowling Alley to avoid the same fate can be found in the post “The sad planning history of Exmouth’s Albatross”

Sidmouth and Honiton MP praises East Devon towns in debate

Adam Manning www.midweekherald.co.uk

Richard Foord is calling on the government to think again after East Devon towns miss out on rejuvenation funding.

The statement from the MP for Honiton and Sidmouth comes after a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons last Tuesday (March 4).

Mr Foord said Axminster, Honiton, Ottery St Mary, Seaton and Sidmouth all have special and important features and would significantly benefit from the £20m per area designed to ‘tackle deprivation and turbocharge growth.’

He is is calling on the government to think again on its decision last week to plough funding into 75 areas, that he said saw the South West almost entirely excluded from the £1.5bn announcement.

The UK government announced £20 million was being given to 75 areas selected across the UK.

The only community in the South West region earmarked for funding was in south Devon.

Mr Foord said: “Many businesses and organisations in market towns across Mid- and East Devon feel abandoned by successive governments and the distribution of additional funding has meant the South West and Devon has been almost entirely forgotten. Funding for vital local projects would revitalise our towns and ensure they are fit for the future.”

Mr Foord has long called for better funding for towns in the South West, and has described the region as “abandoned by the government.”

In Parliament, Mr Foord has demanded better funding by the government to ‘rejuvenate market towns.’

Mr Foord spoke warmly of the six market towns located in the area that he represents: Axminster, Cullompton, Honiton, Ottery St Mary, Sidmouth and Seaton.

In 2022, he visited a Honiton maker of a lace jabot and cuffs with the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsey Hoyle. The speaker then wore them at King Charles’ coronation in 2023.

During the debate last Tuesday, Mr Foord talked about how market towns “tell a story of resilient, creative and proud communities”.

He cited Ottery St Mary – one of Devon’s oldest market towns – and its tar barrels festival; also Axminster, for its fine carpets. 

Following the debate, Mr Foord highlighted how market towns need investment in order to flourish in future.

He said: “Market towns are the hubs for our communities, and provide us with much of our history and culture.

“We have a rich heritage here in Devon, but we can’t rely solely on that for future prosperity.”

Complete list of neighbourhoods receiving £20m

Scotland

• Arbroath
• Elgin
• Kirkwall (Orkney Islands)
• Peterhead
• Dumfries
• Irvine
• Kilmarnock
• Clydebank
• Coatbridge
• Greenock

Wales

• Barry
• Wrexham
• Rhyl
• Cwmbrân
• Merthyr Tydfil 

Northern Ireland

• Derry/Londonderry
• Coleraine 

North East England 

• Blyth
• Darlington
• Eston
• Hartlepool
• Jarrow
• Spennymoor
• Washington 

North West England

• Accrington
• Ashton-Under-Lyne
• Burnley
• Chadderton
• Darwen
• Farnworth
• Heywood
• Kirkby
• Leigh
• Nelson
• Newton-le-Willows
• Rawtenstall
• Runcorn 

Yorkshire and the Humber

• Barnsley
• Castleford
• Dewsbury
• Doncaster
• Keighley
• Rotherham
• Scarborough
• Scunthorpe
• Grimsby 

East Midlands

• Boston
• Carlton
• Chesterfield
• Clifton (Notts)
• Kirkby-in-Ashfield
• Mansfield
• Newark-on-Trent
• Spalding
• Worksop
• Skegness 

West Midlands

• Bedworth
• Bilston
• Darlaston
• Dudley
• Royal Sutton Coldfield
• Smethwick 

East of England

• Canvey Island
• Clacton-on-Sea
• Great Yarmouth
• King’s Lynn
• Thetford
• Wisbech
• Harlow 

South East England

• Bexhill-on-Sea
• Eastbourne
• Hastings
• Ramsgate
• Ryde 

South West England

• Torquay

Town hall leaders condemn ‘ill-thought-out’ plan to merge English councils

Patrick Butler www.theguardian.com 

Ministers’ plans to shake up the structure of English local government by merging councils are “ill-thought-out”, “insane” and a “bizarre diversion” that will fail to deliver savings, according to a survey of town hall leaders.

The depth of unhappiness with the plans is revealed in an annual poll of senior councillors and executives, most of whom said the changes would be costly, time-consuming and do little to address the dire financial crisis facing councils.

Most local authorities are preparing to cut local services from April while increasing council tax, fees and charges, as they battle with cost pressures that could put up to 19 town halls into effective bankruptcy over the next year, the survey found.

The Local Government Information Unit (LGIU), which carried out the survey, said the scale and speed of the proposed reorganisation had added a “new layer of uncertainty” to a sector already in a “state of crisis management”.

The government defended its plans on Wednesday night, saying it was prepared to take “tough choices” to rebuild the local government sector. It insisted it had thoroughly consulted local leaders and its ambitious timetable was intended to provide certainty for councils and increase their resilience.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “Reorganisation is a tough choice but it is the right one to end the two-tier premium and create streamlined, more accountable local government.

“We know the challenges councils are facing, which is why despite the inheritance we have been left we are making available £69bn of funding to councils across England and working with them to drive forward the government’s plan for change.”

The government’s devolution plans, published in December, include abolishing the current two-tier system and creating a smaller number of unitary authorities covering large geographical areas. Critics have called these “mega councils”.

Ministers have previously argued that effectively abolishing scores of smaller district councils would help drive economic growth, deliver significant financial efficiencies and improve accountability, despite cutting the number of elected local politicians.

The LGIU said its survey showed the vast majority of local government leaders were not onboard with the government’s plans. Many were unhappy with the costs of the changes – put at £16m per area, according to one estimate – and the amount of time and resources it was taking up.

One unnamed senior district council leader told the survey: “Reorganising local government to save money is insane. Local government has already had a 40% real-terms cut since 2010. Reorganise to deliver more local outcomes, sure, but not to save money.”

An unnamed county council treasurer said: “Local government reorganisation will be a distraction from needing to balance the books for all councils … It is making everything much more uncertain and challenging.”

A deputy mayor of a unitary council described the changes as “rushed, ill-thought-out and potentially undeliverable”, while other respondents called them a “bizarre distraction” and “the last thing we need at the worst possible time”.

Labour made no manifesto promise to reorganise councils, and many in local government are baffled about why it has embarked on such extensive and disruptive changes when most town halls are fully focused on the rising demand for social care, temporary accommodation and special educational needs spending.

There are also concerns among Labour councillors and backbench MPs that the creation of councils with target populations of 500,000 will result in areas such as Norwich, Ipswich, Brighton and Hove and Oxford that often vote centre-left being subsumed into neighbouring Conservative-voting areas.

Jonathan Carr-West, the LGIU chief executive, said: “To put it bluntly, respondents are not happy with the way that reorganisation is being carried out. The vast majority feel that the government is not providing enough clarity, enough genuine involvement for councils in the process, or realistic timeframes.”

Council tax will rise in 94% of town halls from April, the survey found, while nearly nine out of 10 councils reported they would increase fees and charges in areas such as car parking, household green waste collection, school dinners, and burials and cremations.

Nearly two-thirds (63%) of councils said they planned to reduce spending on services from April. The areas most commonly sought out for cuts were parks and leisure centres, local business support, arts and culture, adult social care, and libraries.

One unitary council leader told the survey that local authorities would find it increasingly hard to justify council tax rises as an ever-greater proportion of resources was spent on social care at the expense of more visible “public realm” services such as parks and street cleaning.

They said: “The burden of paying for services continues to shift to our residents … In short, residents are paying more for worse public services – they can’t understand why.”

The LGIU survey, which informs its annual state of local government finance report, received 186 responses from senior elected and executive leaders at 150 unique councils in England.

Not only is Labour planning to make access to local councillors more distant by abolishing districts, they now want to strip councillors of planning powers at the same time.

In 2020 Boris Johnson proposed making planning more technocratic by introducing a land zoning system where land would be divided into three categories – “growth”, “renewal” or “protected”.

For land designated for “renewal” councils would have to look favourably on new developments. In “growth” areas, new homes, hospitals and schools will be allowed automatically.

This is what Sir Keir Starmer said at the time: “This is a developers’ charter, frankly, taking councils and communities out of it.

“And on affordable housing, which is the critical issue, it says nothing. In fact it removes the initiatives that were there for affordable housing.”

The Local Government Association has written to ministers to express reservations, pointing out that it is already “larger or more controversial schemes” that are taken over by councillors.

“This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded,” it warned.

Cranbrook is a good example of what happens with developer led planning. – Owl

Councillors to be stripped of powers to block planning schemes

Chris Smyth www.thetimes.com 

Councillors will be stripped of powers to block all but the biggest and most contentious building schemes under plans to turbocharge development.

Ministers will next week set out plans to ban councillors from interfering in the vast majority of planning applications in an effort to push through more houses, offices, factories and other large development projects.

Experts said the changes could lead to tens of thousands more homes a year and offer a “holy grail” to developers exasperated with political delays in building projects. But councils warned they risked eroding local democracy because residents would be denied the chance to use the ballot box to oppose unpopular schemes.

Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, will next week publish a planning and infrastructure bill designed to liberalise rules as the government promises to build 1.5 million homes this parliament and speed up infrastructure and other development projects to boost growth.

Sir Keir Starmer has made overhauling planning the foundation of his push for growth, attacking the current rules as “ruinous” and promising to take on “nimbys” who have held Britain “to ransom” and “choked” the economy.

Last year, ministers signalled that they wanted to overhaul local authority planning committees, where councillors can take decisions on local applications for development. At present councils can make their own decisions on which projects are decided by such committees, and which by professional planning officers.

Next week, Rayner will promise to go significantly further than originally thought, setting a national rule that would stop committees of councillors playing a role in all but the biggest projects and those that most clearly go against local development plans.

Exact details are still being finalised, but the threshold below which councillors cannot step in is expected to be set somewhere between ten and 100 houses. Once a project has outline permission, councillors will also not be given a say on details of housing style and layout.

Ministers are keen to use the rules to encourage small and medium developers to put forward more mid-sized schemes, and will also set a minimum size threshold for councillors to intervene in commercial development.

“We will modernise how planning committees work, making sure they are focused on key applications for larger developments rather than small scale projects or niche technical details,” a government source said. “This is about making sure the right decisions are taken at the right level.”

Matthew Spry, of the planning consultancy Lichfields, said that delegating more applications to officials “helps move us towards more consistent, policy-driven decisions: for many, the holy grail of England’s planning system. Some councils already delegate a lot to their officers, but in others, committee members expect even small schemes, and those that have been approved previously, to come before them. This means uncertainty — which is an enemy of investment — delays, some poor decisions, and wasted public money.”

While in some councils barely any applications go to planning committees, at others 20-30 per cent of decisions are made by councillors, often including almost all schemes beyond simple kitchen or loft extensions.

Spry said the change “could make a real difference” and mean more and quicker approvals, but said the definition of “major” development to be sent to councillors was crucial. “Ten houses might be a big deal in a small rural council, but is almost de minimis in large urban areas.”

Developers complain of having to repeatedly ask local councillors for permission, with their decisions far less predictable than those taken by planning officers. “Every time you have to engage with a committee of politicians is an enormous risk that could end up setting your project back years and costing you millions of pounds,” said Zack Simons KC, a leading planning barrister.

“The fundamental problem is that the way the system is set up at the moment is that if you’re bringing forward a new scheme of development of any sort you have to run it through a democratic process with input from local politicians multiple times.

“In the meantime you can have a change in administration and it’s the members who were running in opposition to the [previously approved] plan who are now judging the outline application.”

He said the proposed change would be “enormous because it would give us more certainty”, potentially leading to tens of thousands more homes. But he said “it will be incredibly important where they set the threshold”.

However, the Local Government Association has written to ministers to express reservations, pointing out that it is already “larger or more controversial schemes” that are taken over by councillors.

“This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded,” it warned.

“Many councillors stand for election on the basis of the role they could play in positively supporting the growth or protection of the environment and community in which they stand. Potentially removing the ability for councillors to discuss, debate or vote on key developments in their localities could erode public trust in the planning system and local government itself.”

Councillors will be stripped of powers to block all but the biggest and most contentious building schemes under plans to turbocharge development.

Ministers will next week set out plans to ban councillors from interfering in the vast majority of planning applications in an effort to push through more houses, offices, factories and other large development projects.

Experts said the changes could lead to tens of thousands more homes a year and offer a “holy grail” to developers exasperated with political delays in building projects. But councils warned they risked eroding local democracy because residents would be denied the chance to use the ballot box to oppose unpopular schemes.

Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, will next week publish a planning and infrastructure bill designed to liberalise rules as the government promises to build 1.5 million homes this parliament and speed up infrastructure and other development projects to boost growth.

Sir Keir Starmer has made overhauling planning the foundation of his push for growth, attacking the current rules as “ruinous” and promising to take on “nimbys” who have held Britain “to ransom” and “choked” the economy.

Last year, ministers signalled that they wanted to overhaul local authority planning committees, where councillors can take decisions on local applications for development. At present councils can make their own decisions on which projects are decided by such committees, and which by professional planning officers.

Next week, Rayner will promise to go significantly further than originally thought, setting a national rule that would stop committees of councillors playing a role in all but the biggest projects and those that most clearly go against local development plans.

Exact details are still being finalised, but the threshold below which councillors cannot step in is expected to be set somewhere between ten and 100 houses. Once a project has outline permission, councillors will also not be given a say on details of housing style and layout.

Ministers are keen to use the rules to encourage small and medium developers to put forward more mid-sized schemes, and will also set a minimum size threshold for councillors to intervene in commercial development.

“We will modernise how planning committees work, making sure they are focused on key applications for larger developments rather than small scale projects or niche technical details,” a government source said. “This is about making sure the right decisions are taken at the right level.”

Matthew Spry, of the planning consultancy Lichfields, said that delegating more applications to officials “helps move us towards more consistent, policy-driven decisions: for many, the holy grail of England’s planning system. Some councils already delegate a lot to their officers, but in others, committee members expect even small schemes, and those that have been approved previously, to come before them. This means uncertainty — which is an enemy of investment — delays, some poor decisions, and wasted public money.”

While in some councils barely any applications go to planning committees, at others 20-30 per cent of decisions are made by councillors, often including almost all schemes beyond simple kitchen or loft extensions.

Spry said the change “could make a real difference” and mean more and quicker approvals, but said the definition of “major” development to be sent to councillors was crucial. “Ten houses might be a big deal in a small rural council, but is almost de minimis in large urban areas.”

Developers complain of having to repeatedly ask local councillors for permission, with their decisions far less predictable than those taken by planning officers. “Every time you have to engage with a committee of politicians is an enormous risk that could end up setting your project back years and costing you millions of pounds,” said Zack Simons KC, a leading planning barrister.

“The fundamental problem is that the way the system is set up at the moment is that if you’re bringing forward a new scheme of development of any sort you have to run it through a democratic process with input from local politicians multiple times.

“In the meantime you can have a change in administration and it’s the members who were running in opposition to the [previously approved] plan who are now judging the outline application.”

He said the proposed change would be “enormous because it would give us more certainty”, potentially leading to tens of thousands more homes. But he said “it will be incredibly important where they set the threshold”.

However, the Local Government Association has written to ministers to express reservations, pointing out that it is already “larger or more controversial schemes” that are taken over by councillors.

“This democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system and our reservations about a national scheme of delegation centre on this role potentially being eroded,” it warned.

“Many councillors stand for election on the basis of the role they could play in positively supporting the growth or protection of the environment and community in which they stand. Potentially removing the ability for councillors to discuss, debate or vote on key developments in their localities could erode public trust in the planning system and local government itself.”

East Devon leader Paul Arnott writes about upcoming elections

Paul Arnott 

March has arrived, a hint of Spring is in the air, and it’s County Council election season.

The last ones were in 2021, and although the Conservatives at Devon County tried to cancel those due on May 1st 2025, on some feeble pretexts about proposals to reorganise councils, the government didn’t allow them.

Ironically, many of those Conservatives shooting their hands up at the Devon County meeting in January to cancel the May 1st elections – giving themselves a bonus year, possibly two – will be pleading for your votes in May. In Exmouth, Sidmouth, Honiton, Whimple and the Blackdown Hills, they’ll be putting leaflets through your doors for the very election they wanted to scratch from the fixture list.

It’s not great, is it? It could be ventured that even Trump would hesitate at that, but let’s face it, he’d leap at the chance.

Cynical self-interested ploys like these do so much to harm local and national faith in politicians. This creates a void which Putin apologist Nigel Farage fills with his dodgy anti-migrant offer.

Reform has had a terrible week. Farage needed to condemn Trump for bullying Ukraine’s President Zelensky. Instead, he puffed that Zelensky should have worn a suit and is repeating the canard that Zelensky is dodging his electorate.

Well, while Devon’s Conservative excuses to try and swerve the county election were wafer-thin, most might say that, as we did in World War Two, Zelensky can be forgiven for holding on. Russian missiles are raining down on his country much of which Putin illegally occupies.

Farage is now walking a tightrope between two “strong leaders/men”. Trump is holding one end and Putin the other. What could possibly go wrong?

Meanwhile, at East Devon District Council last week we passed a motion to demand that Devon County Council get its act together about highways, and holes in the road in particular. During the debate, one councillor asked how many of us had punctures this year caused by a crater in the road and a fifth of our hands, including mine, shot up.

But with roads, you can tell its election time here too. Suddenly, chasms in the tarmac are being filled, the most visible ones anyway, some even by Conservative candidates in hi-vis jackets.

This comedy spectacle happens every four years as county elections loom, often absurdly. There has been a bit of welcome patching here in Colyton, but electrical contractors are going to dig Dolphin Street back up a fortnight after the elections!

The other comedy tradition honoured by Conservative candidates recently is them posing with outsized cheques (paid for by your money through their localities funding) for local organisations. Their purses and wallets have been clutched tight for three years, but all of a sudden with votes up for grabs they can’t wait to splash our cash.

If the last few weeks have taught us anything, it is about how precious it is to honour democracy. Don’t try to cancel elections, or play with tarmac when you’ve failed. Democracy for all its flaws is a precious freedom; it needs protection not cynicism.

Dear Susan Davy, 

I have just received my water bill with an enclosed leaflet stating 

INVESTING IN WHAT MATTERS TO YOU: how water bills are changing. 

The investment will : 

Provide reliable safe water supplies 

Support healthier rivers and seas. 

And of course I will be paying extra on my water bill until 2030 for this to occur. (A rise of 22.7 % excluding inflation, and in addition the government contribution of £ 50.00 will cease next year) 

But will we have  healthier sea and rivers In Budleigh Salterton and Exmouth? 

NO. I am deeply unhappy, because your answer to the almost 10,000 hours of untreated sewage into the River Otter in 2024 is not to upgrade the Maer Lane Treatment Works.  

No, your answer is just to dump any untreated sewage unable to be treated at Maer Lane when it rains 200 METRES OUT FROM STRAIGHT POINT. 

Lyme Bay will still suffer from Victorian technology in 2030. We must also keep our fingers crossed that wind and tides do not send untreated sewage back into our beautiful bays.