Tiverton’s MP has joined his fellow Lib Dems in branded the Conservative plans on heating oil a “slap in the face” for rural families in Devon as they offer off-grid homes just £100 extra help.

Lewis Clarke www.devonlive.com

The average household on heating oil is facing a £1,200 increase in their heating costs, meaning the £100 help from the government will make little difference. In Devon, 40,511 homes use heating oil to keep their homes warm. It means families in Devon on heating oil are facing a total increase of £44,561,992 to the cost of their heating, even including the £100 help from the government.

Richard Foord, Liberal Democrat MP for Tiverton & Honiton, said: “People in Devon are facing unprecedented hikes in their energy bills, yet those who use heating oil are being forgotten about. Over 40,000 households are left facing a £44 million increase in their bills, and all the Conservatives have offered them is just £100 to help. Once again rural homes are being forgotten by this out of touch Conservative Government.”

Responding to the government’s announcement on energy bills for small businesses, he added: “The announcement is nothing more than a sticking plaster that comes far too late for many local businesses. The Conservatives have had months to act, but instead chose to sit on their hands whilst local shops, pubs, and cafes went to the wall. Now, they are trying to push the problem down the road for another six months. This simply isn’t good enough. It leaves many uncertain about the future and shows the Government still doesn’t have a plan to tackle this crisis. Our high streets need support to cover at least the next year; with a strong focus on improving energy efficiency and cutting bills in the long term. This is the only way to provide certainty and protect the beating heart of our towns and villages.”

Tim Farron MP, Liberal Democrat Rural Affairs Spokesperson said: “This is a slap in the face for rural communities across the country. People in rural areas often face higher bills yet despite this the Conservatives are offering them less. The promise of only an extra £100 for people facing a £1,200 hike in just their heating bill alone shows that the Conservatives don’t understand the needs of rural communities who cannot rely on the mains grid. These communities are sick of being taken for granted and this announcement is proof – if ever it was needed – that the Conservative Government does not understand or care about rural Britain. Liberal Democrats are calling for a price cap on heating oil to protect homes facing sky high bills this Winter.”

“Undeveloped and under-developed areas” are suitable for investment zones bids, no caveats -Owl

Julian Glover www.thetimes.co.uk

The Lake District, William Wordsworth wrote in 1810, should be “a sort of national property”, a place for everyone who has an “eye to perceive and a heart to enjoy”. In that phrase lies the origin of something precious: an understanding that the countryside enhances the common good. We look after it to make our lives — and those that come after — richer, deeper, happier and healthier.

So “horror” is not too strong a word to describe the prospect of England’s national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) falling prey to investment zones, thinly thought-through wheezes to get things built in what government describes menacingly as “undeveloped and under-developed areas”.

Of course, if you want to see it that way, the peat bogs of Dartmoor are badly undeveloped; the summit of Helvellyn is notably lacking useful housing and car parks; and there would surely be room for profitable industrial warehousing in the New Forest, if only someone could remove pesky rules holding such things back.

It sounds absurd. But might it happen? On Sunday, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities issued rules for its light-touch investment zones intended to “drive growth and unlock housing”. Far from exempting national parks or AONBs, the green belt or sites of special scientific interest, it asks applicants to note simply “whether the proposed development would be on land” that includes them. A hasty tweet followed from the minister, Simon Clarke. He said — heaven forbid! — investment zones would “categorically” not be happening in national parks. But policymaking by social media is not the same as a guarantee to parliament. The formal guidance has not changed and he did not rule out, by accident, ignorance or intent, other protected areas, including AONBs.

The thrust of this government is that rules of all sorts get in the way of pouring concrete. We are not wrong to be scared.

If the problem is confusion, it should be straightforward for Clarke and the new Defra secretary, Ranil Jayawardena, to clear it up. They should make it clear they will respect landscape, heritage and environmental protections set out in law. Many of these laws were passed by Conservative governments under Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson, neither known for their addiction to red tape.

The new Environment Act sets clear targets for natural recovery. The government’s response to the recent landscapes review promised to “leave our protected landscapes in a better condition for future generations”. This is radicalism of the right kind.

Rating agency Fitch lowered the outlook for its credit rating for British government debt to “negative” from “stable” on Wednesday, citing risks posed by the measures announced in the chancellor’s mini-budget.

www.theguardian.com 

“The large and unfunded fiscal package announced as part of the new government’s growth plan could lead to a significant increase in fiscal deficits over the medium term,” Fitch said.

The downgraded outlook came just days after a similar move by rival ratings agency Standard & Poor’s. Fitch maintained its “AA-” credit rating for Britain, which is one notch lower than S&P’s.

The UK chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, announced £45bn of unfunded tax cuts in the 23 September statement alongside large energy subsidies and other measures aimed at boosting growth, but financial markets balked at the extra borrowing required.

The pound fell to a record low against the dollar and some British government bonds took the deepest tumble in decades, forcing the Bank of England to stage a £65bn intervention to try to stabilise markets.

Fitch said the lack of independent budget forecasts, as well as an apparent clash with the BoE’s inflation-fighting strategy had “negatively impacted financial markets’ confidence and the credibility of the policy framework, a key longstanding rating strength”.

On Monday, Kwarteng said he would not go ahead with part of the tax cuts – scrapping the top 45p income tax rate, which it was estimated would have cost the Treasury £2bn a year.

Fitch said this was not enough to change its broader assessment. “Although the government reversed the elimination of the 45p top rate tax … the government’s weakened political capital could further undermine the credibility of, and support for, the government’s fiscal strategy,” Fitch said.

The ratings agency forecast Britain’s general government deficit would reach 7.8% of gross domestic product (GDP) this year and 8.8% in 2023, while general government debt would rise to 109% of GDP by 2024.

“It’s now clear that an appreciation of Latin poetry and a PhD in 17th-century coinage aren’t enough to stop a man from crashing the economy. …..Two medieval universities stand squarely in the centre of our national myth of intelligence. In other countries, exceptional learning summons images of lab coats, test tubes and industry. In Britain, it will always be mixed up with port and privilege.” (James Marriott, the Times)

Standby for a repeat. – Owl

Kevin Schofield www.huffingtonpost.co.uk 

Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget was definitely to blame for the subsequent economic chaos which hit the UK, the Bank of England has confirmed.

Ministers have insisted that the plummeting value of the pound and spike in interest rates was down to global factors like the war in Ukraine.

But in a letter to Tory MP Mel Stride, the chairman of the Treasury select committee, Bank of England deputy governor Sir John Cunliffe produced data linking the crisis to the chancellor’s Commons statement on September 23.

It showed that the cost of government borrowing spiked in the immediate aftermath of the mini-budget, and only started to come down again after the Bank made £65 billion available to bail out the UK pensions industry.

By contrast, the cost of government borrowing in America and the EU remained relatively flat while Britain’s financial markets went into meltdown.

The Bank of England graph showing the effect of the mini-budget – Bank of England

The knock-on effect saw mortgage rates for homeowners go up, with the average cost of a two-year fixed rate deal reaching 6 per cent for the first time since 2008.

Pat McFadden, Labour’s shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “This shows once and for all that the Tories’ kamikaze budget is responsible for the economic chaos we have seen, leaving people with skyrocketing mortgage rates.

“This is a Tory crisis made in Downing Street. The government’s reckless mistakes show they cannot be trusted to manage the public finances.

“They must revisit this budget as soon as possible and urgently publish Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts tomorrow when they receive them.”

EDDC Leader Cllr Paul Arnott writes for the local press:

THIS is the most challenging article I have had to write in the last two years, and as with all difficult stories it is best to begin at the beginning. In the dying years of the last century an underage male was sent from Exmouth Community College for ‘work experience’ with a man called John Humphreys, who ran a gardening business and was eager to offer such opportunities.

Before long, the underage male (who I will refer to as DE) was sexually abused by Humphreys. This went on over a prolonged period of time. Eventually DE’s mother could see an awful change in her son.

She challenged him, and he told her about Humphreys’ abuse. In 2001, she took DE to the police.

From 2001 until the day Humphreys was sent to jail in August 2021 for an unprecedented 21 years, DE’s suffering was compounded by the way he was treated by the authorities. To DE, Humphreys was a living monster, seemingly untouchable.

He boasted of being a town councillor in Exmouth, and eventually its mayor, an East Devon District Councillor for Exmouth, and a swaggering bully in meetings about the development of the seafront. He was a mason of the highest lodge and, beyond parody, was sent by the Conservative party to be East Devon’s representative on the Police and Crime Panel. He was adored by the MP, Hugo Swim, whose wife Sasha couldn’t praise him enough in her indiscreet political diaries published last year.

One cannot find a Conservative today who will admit that they knew that Humphreys had been arrested back in 2016. If asked why they didn’t wonder what possible reason there was for such a powerful man not to stand for re-election to district in May 2019, they look the other way. It took them SIX months after he had been sent to prison to admit that Swire’s successor, Simon Jupp, had for months in the lead up to the December 2019 election been a guest in a property owned by Humphreys, where he’d committed his offences. The defence for Humphreys made much of what a great public servant he was, belittling DE’s evidence. At the trial, DE stated that Humphreys had traded on his social and political connections both to offend and then to evade prosecution for twenty years.

The council I lead was one of those organisations that leant him credibility – DE was owed a hearing. Over the ensuing months I met with DE, along with his mother, his victim support worker, a current officer in the police sex crimes unit, and eventually four other female councillors, who all saw that DE is a damaged but heroic man, now in his late thirties, paying the mental price for what Humphreys did to him every day of his life.

Last week, five months after EDDC voted to ask for an independent investigation, an experienced company called Verita was finally appointed to draw together what had happened to DE.

It is the least the people of East Devon can do for him.

In the debate last week I prayed that the Conservatives would not stoop low enough to describe this as ‘a waste of public money’ or ‘a political witch-hunt’, even as they either abstained or voted against (or just didn’t show up for) the vote. But of course they did

One of them even managed to twist his argument to accuse me of bullying the council into appointing Verita, when the idea and the motion to do so came from an entirely independent group of councillors. DE contacted me a few days before the debate; he wanted to speak at last. My job was to guarantee his anonymity on the day. Even as the Tories ranted against any investigation, and laid into me as well, he smiled at me across the room where he was safe. None of it came as any surprise to him

In response to this post “South West Water boss trebles pay with huge bonus as beaches are shut due to raw sewage in sea”, and others, a Correspondent writes: 

I do not understand how Ms Davy, chief executive of South West Water’s parent company Pennon with a base salary of £456,000 has any bonus payments for SWW’s results for last year. These amount to an extensive £1,144000!

What are the criteria for these bonus payments? It is obviously not inclusive of the waste water spills and sewage into our rivers and onto our beaches.

The Environmental Performance Assessment of the water industry name the two worst performers as Southern Water and SWW.

SWW has sunk from a 2 star rating to 1 star. This after, she committed in 2020 to work closely with the EA to target 4 stars by 2024.

£13.3 million has to be paid back to us users.

 In July 2022 she wrote

“for the first time ever, we’ve achieved 100% bathing water quality,” 

What world does she live in? Not where I live on the coast in East Devon.

I would have thought she should fall on her sword and resign. Not take any bonuses.

Years of waiting for a town centre in Cranbrook will be over by the end of 2023 after a turf-cutting ceremony officially marked the start of the building work.

Becca Gliddon eastdevonnews.co.uk

The diggers have moved onto the site, and at the end of September East Devon District Council (EDDC) leader Councillor Paul Arnott officially broke the ground with spade in a ceremony, held at the junction of Tillhouse Road and Court Royal.

Construction work will take around a year and once built, the town centre is expected to have a Morrisons supermarket, children’s day nursery, retail shops, residential apartments and a new market square.

The new town centre is expected to be ready by the end of 2023.

Cllr Arnott said the turf-cutting brought months of negotiations to a close and the town centre deadlock to an end.

He said: “My administration is thrilled to have broken the deadlock over the future of a new town centre in Cranbrook.

“This has taken dedicated negotiations by our officers and the political will to invest.

“I was delighted to meet the construction team on a very well-run site and can’t wait to go shopping in Morrisons as soon as possible.”

East Devon District Council leader Cllr Paul Arnott breaking ground alongside (left to right) Acheson operations director Colin Johnson, HDD managing director Scott Davidson and Acheson Commercial manager David Green.

The town centre will be built by Henry Davidson Developments (HDD) and local building contractor Acheson Construction.

Scott Davidson, HDD managing director, said: “It is an important part of the wider Cranbrook development and with a great range of retail occupiers it will prove to be a real asset.

“There has been a lot of interest in its progress since the plans were announced, so it is very satisfying for construction to begin and deliver the much-needed town centre.”

The site of Cranbrook town centre. Image: Still Imaging

Attending the turf-cutting ceremony was Richard Harrison, for Taylor Wimpey Exeter, and Gareth Jones, for LiveWest.

Mr Harrison said: “We’re all very excited for what we’re about to see here in Cranbrook. A lot of time and hard work has been put into the making of this new town and we can’t wait for everyone to see what the town centre has to offer.”

Plans for Cranbrook town centre. Image: EDDC

Mr Jones said: “It’s fantastic to see the town centre being constructed and for LiveWest to play its part in supporting the delivery of the residential homes.

“It is just what Cranbrook and its residents need and adds an essential element to the new community.”

Only six affordable homes were provided in Exeter last year, a public inquiry has heard today. According to the Exeter City Council’s (ECC) housing register in September, there were 2,727 people in registered housing need in Exeter.

“Not financially viable” – usual old story, not much trickle down from profits except into pockets. – Owl

Anita Merritt www.devonlive.com 

To help boost its delivery of affordable housing in the city, the council is looking to gain contributions from developers who wish to build housing in Exeter. It is currently seeking £4.3m from Churchill Retirement Living, who have submitted a planning application to build 84 retirement apartments on the site of the former Royal Academy for Deaf Education campus on Topsham Road.

Construction work has already begun on the land to build 146 new homes. The plans also include a nursery and a 68-bed care home.

In December 2021, Churchill submitted its plans to the council and despite being recommended for approval at a planning committee meeting in April, councillors voted to defer the plan for further discussions due to uncertainty surrounding affordable housing provision and vast opposition against using Weirfield Road as an access road.

Churchill insists the affordable off-site housing contribution being demanded by ECC is not financially viable and the proposed scheme already makes a ‘significant contribution to housing and specialist housing need in a sustainable location’. A four-day public inquiry has begun today following a failure by Exeter City Council to reach a decision on the application within a designated period of time.

Sasha White, representing Churchill, told the inquiry the proposal complies with policies on meeting specialist housing needs and the use of land in urban areas. He argued that the scheme can only provide up to £862,253 for affordable housing payable through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), a planning charge to help deliver infrastructure to support the development of a local authority’s area.

Mr White said in his opening statement: “The local planning authority’s (LPA) case utterly overestimates the monies consequently that will be available if the development is implemented.”

He continued: “Not one authority has sought the vast amount that the LPA say is available here. They are seeking £4.3m. It is striking that in the past three years of considering retirement developments where viability was a factor there are 33 Churchill schemes. There is not one example where the full policy compliant payment has been sought by any LPA.

“Exeter are unique in this regard. It is also noteworthy that irrespective of location, scale of development and local context not one has the agreed sum exceeded £608,000. That needs to be contrasted here where the LPA seek incredibly £4.3m.

“That figure is far far too high and again can be corroborated by the bizarre outcome that the actual off-site provision amounts to an equivalent of 54 per cent of the total number of units to be provided well in excess of the policy of 35 per cent. Additionally, the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on which the calculation emerges is significantly out of date having not been reviewed or updated in the past nine years.

“Overall, the LPA’s viability evidence overstates the Gross Development Value (GDV) for the appeal scheme and unjustifiably reduces build costs. The appellant’s position is far more reliable, is properly evidenced, and should be preferred.”

The site plan

Arguing that the ‘much-needed, sustainable development’ should be granted approval, Mr White said: “Permission can only be refused where the adverse impacts of development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits… The benefits of the scheme should be given substantial weight. In no way are these substantial benefits significantly and demonstrably outweighed by impacts.”

Timothy Leader, representing Exeter City Council, said: “There is nothing wrong with this scheme except the appellant is not delivering affordable housing they can afford which is what this city needs. It makes the scheme unsustainable.”

He compared the scheme to being like a three-legged stool with ‘one leg missing’ which would make it fall over. Mr Leader claimed the site was purchased for £4m, but since lodging an appeal the benchmark land value given by Churchill is £1.74m. Regarding contributions ECC has received from other developers, he argued some were ‘significant’ such as land at Pinhoe Road.

Mr Leader said: “The council’s case is straightforward. Its assessment of the appellant’s scheme is that the difference between the gross value of the development for which permission is sought, less the cost of the development leaves headroom for a policy compliant financial affordable housing contribution of £4,382,876.”

The hearing is being conducted by inspector John Wilde, a chartered civil engineer who has been appointed by the Secretary of State. The location of the public hearing has moved from Exeter Corn Exchange to the Civic Centre in Paris Street to provide a bigger space for participants to meet.

A decision is expected to be issued by the planning inspectorate before November 25, 2022. When planning permission for the site of the former Royal Academy for Deaf Education campus on Topsham Road was first granted, a 61-bed assisted living complex was also in the original permission.

The south elevation of the proposed retirement homes

The chair of Churchill is said to have confirmed the company will implement that proposal if the appeal fails. The original permission also states that access via Weirfield Road was granted and Devon County Council Highways Authority raised no objection to the scheme.

Although local residents have been supportive of the need for housing for the elderly, vast opposition has been raised about the impact of Weirfield Road – a steep, quiet and narrow cul-de-sac is used by many pedestrians and leads down to Exeter Quay – being used as an access road.

Nearly 1,000 people signed a petition that stated the ‘detrimental impacts’ would include unsustainable traffic congestion and reduced safety for pedestrians and vehicles.

Weirfield Road resident Helen, who started the online petition, was given an opportunity to raise her concerns about access onto the proposed development at the planning inquiry. They included the increase in the proposed number of homes on the site being a ‘fresh threat’ to the parking system in Weirfield Road with residents having lost a total of 12 spaces, the impact of increased traffic on residents and pedestrians.

She added Weirfield Road had been dug up five time for utility repairs of power cables since 2018 with works ranging from three days to three weeks, and future works could leave Churchill residents without emergency vehicle access.

Helen said: “It is not practical or safe. A certain level of planning permission was granted four years ago and I believe your hands are tied over this decision, but I hope we will not have lost this battle.”

Exeter city councillor Tess Read, who represents St David’s. also voiced her concerns about access via Weirfield Road. She said: “The residents of this area are not against this redevelopment of a brownfield site or the need for housing provision in Exeter, but it must not come at their expensive when other solutions are available.”

She added she had attempted to contact Churchill to engage in ‘constructive discussions, but had only received a ‘stock email’ response.

Ms Read said: “It shows the developer does not appear to be interested in engaging with the community to serve the whole of the city of Exeter. We are left to feel the city and its residents are unimportant.”

She continued: “Exeter is in dire need of affordable housing for a lot of people… Churchill says it is not in a position to provide or contribute to this vital need.”

The public inquiry continues.

Apparently, this “anti-growth coalition” includes all opposition parties, “militant unions” and the 15 million member environmental campaigners who have joined forces to oppose Trusses “attack on nature”.

[Didn’t Labour unveil a “Green Growth Plan” at its conference though?]

Think she could be in a minority on environmental concerns. – Owl

Green charities urge millions of members to oppose Tories’ ‘attack on nature’

Environmental charities are mobilising their millions of members to take on the UK government over what they say is an attack on nature in the push for growth.

Sandra Laville www.theguardian.com 

Groups including the RSPB, the National Trust, the Wildlife Trusts, and Wildlife and Countryside link are encouraging supporters to put pressure on Conservative MPs over proposals that they say strike at the heart of environmental and wildlife protections.

The main charities involved have a combined membership of more than 15 million.

Their concerns include:

• The removal from the statute books of 570 laws derived from EU directives that make up the bedrock of environmental regulations in the UK, covering sewage pollution, water quality and clean air. These include the habitat regulations, which have protected areas for wildlife for more than 30 years.
• The ending of the moratorium on fracking.
• The creation of low-tax investment zones from Cornwall to Cumbria where environmental protections would be relaxed to encourage development.
• The feared scrapping of the post-Brexit environmental land management scheme (Elms), which pays farmers to enhance nature.

The charities’ campaign asks members to contact their Conservative MPs to leave them in no doubt of their opposition to the proposals.

Beccy Speight, the RSPB’s chief executive, said: “We are gearing up to fight the biggest attack on nature in a generation and the immediate outpouring of support from all quarters has been overwhelming.

“The economy, food security and our own health and well-being is wholly reliant on a healthy natural environment, yet this government appears intent on amending or scrapping crucial environmental laws. As we hold urgent talks with our partners across the sector, we are calling on all nature lovers to stand up for wildlife, contact their MPs, and make their voices heard.”

Craig Bennett, the chief executive officer of the Wildlife Trusts, said: “Nature is under attack from a raft of dangerous decisions by government and we know people are furious at the new threats.

“Vital legal protections for wildlife are at risk, fossil fuel extraction is being favoured over renewables, and the government is going back on plans to reward farmers for managing land in a nature-friendly way.

“The government wants deregulation that will lead to yet more poo in rivers, less wildlife and land that’s unable to adapt to climate change.

“We are calling on the public to contact their elected representatives and share just how concerned they are. These actions will affect us all – the communities where we live, our wild places, food security, and our futures.”

Hilary McGrady, the director general of the National Trust, which has 5.7 million members, said environmental protections were being dismissed as burdens, while investment and growth were pitted against nature and climate action.

Mark Lloyd, of the Rivers Trust, called for the government to meet environmental NGOs to work in collaboration. He said: “We urge the government to discuss urgently with environmental NGOs and others how we can develop collaborative plans to achieve sustainable economic growth while restoring the health of our natural environment. Each is dependent on the other.”

The campaign comes as the former environment secretary Michael Gove and ex-environment minister Rebecca Pow signed a letter in the Times calling for the retention of payments that reward farmers for environmental improvements such as cleaner water, improved soil and more pollinators.

A government spokesperson said: “Claims we intend to go back on our commitment to the environment are simply not right. A strong environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. We have legislated through the Environment Act and will continue to improve our regulations and wildlife laws in line with our ambitious vision.

“We want every corner of our country to prosper too. Bureaucratic processes in the planning system do not necessarily protect the environment so, by making sure we have the right regulations for our nation, we can make this happen.”

PS Then there are the 40,000 members of CPRE not happy with Jacob Rees-Mogg’s gung-ho attitude to fracking.

The government must rethink its plans on fracking – our petition – CPRE www.cpre.org.uk

“Fracking is a huge threat to our countryside and wildlife. It industrialises our landscapes and fuels climate change. Rural communities have already endured a host of disturbances from the minimal fracking operations that have taken place in the past decade – no wonder it’s the least popular form of energy generation.”

Liz Truss was given more than £500,000 for her leadership campaign, with about half of it coming from donors linked to hedge fund bosses, venture capitalists and other City financiers.

Rowena Mason www.theguardian.com 

The prime minister, who has made a virtue of being pro-business and cutting taxes, saw a further round of donations declared on the register of MPs’ interests on Wednesday.

Since she was chosen by party members last month, Truss and her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, have embarked on a programme of deregulation, promising reform to financial services regulation and looser planning rules.

More than £230,000 of her funding has come from people linked to the world of finance, while £200,000 came from those linked to the property and construction sectors.

The second tranche of donations takes the amount she has received to more than £500,000 – way above the campaign spending limit of £300,000.

The donations included £50,000 from Graham Edwards, the millionaire cofounder of Telereal Trillium, a property investment firm owning 6,000 commercial sites.

He is also on the board of the rightwing thinktank the Centre for Policy Studies, and wrote a paper for it two years ago proposing long-term fixed rate mortgages to first-time buyers to help them deal with high interest rates.

Truss was also given £5,000 by Lord Vinson, a Tory peer who contributed to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the climate science-denying thinktank.

The largest single sum, declared last month, came from Fitriani Hay – the wife of James Hay, who has a construction and luxury goods empire and is a former BP executive. She gifted Truss £100,000.

Other supporters included the Tory peer Greville Howard, whose Westminster townhouse was used by her campaign team as a headquarters.

Michael Spencer, founder of the interdealer broker Icap, also gifted £25,000 to Truss at the start of August, one week after giving the same sum to Sunak and two weeks after doing the same for another failed candidate, Penny Mordaunt.

Truss accepted £20,000 from Jon Moynihan, a former prominent member of the Vote Leave campaign who has called for the Electoral Commission to be abolished.

He has also written paper for the Institute of Economic Affairs, a rightwing thinktank, called “Removing the barriers to enterprise”.

This argued for regulators to be trained to favour “light-touch” approaches, for fewer people to be required to be “auto-enrolled” into pensions and to reduce employer auto-enrolment contributions to zero.

She also accepted £10,000 donated by a smoked salmon firm run by the former Brexit party MEP Lance Forman.

One of the critical questions for the next General Election in the United Kingdom will be whether the Conservative Party can hold onto the mostly northern, traditionally Labour voting constituencies that they won in 2019—often described, if somewhat inaccurately, as the Red Wall.¹ Accordingly, we at Redfield and Wilton Strategies have taken up the challenge of regularly polling this cluster of politically salient constituencies.

Redfield & Wilton Strategies redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com

In the forty ‘Red Wall’ seats that we poll, the Conservatives won all in 2019 but Hartlepool (which was won in a subsequent parliamentary by-election) with 46.7% of the vote to Labour’s 37.9%. Reform UK, previously known as the Brexit Party, came third in these seats with 6.5% of the vote.

Our latest Red Wall poll finds Labour leading the Conservatives by 38%, a staggering twenty-three points more than in our previous poll two weeks ago, and the largest lead ever achieved by any party in our Red Wall polling. Altogether, the results of our poll (with changes from 19-20 September) are as follows:

Labour 61% (+12)

Conservative 23% (-11)

Reform UK 3% (-4)

Liberal Democrat 7% (+2)

Green 4% (–)

Plaid Cymru 1% (+1)

Other 1% (–)

When those who say they do not know how they would vote in a General Election are included, the Labour Party leads by 31%. After weighting by likelihood to vote, 16% of the sample says they do not know how they would vote, including 19% of those who voted Conservative in December 2019 and 4% of those who voted Labour. 

Altogether, 93% of those who voted Labour in 2019 say they would vote Labour again, while just 43% of those who voted Conservative say they would vote Conservative again.

Prime Minister Liz Truss’s approval rating in the Red Wall registers at -38%, 45 points lower than her rating of +7% in the Red Wall two weeks. 56% of those in the Red Wall, including 50% of those who voted Conservative in 2019, say they disapprove of Truss’s performance. Only 18% of respondents approve. 

36% approve and 24% disapprove of Keir Starmer’s job performance since he became Leader of the Labour Party, giving him a net approval rating of +12%, ten points higher than two weeks ago.

When asked which would be a better Prime Minister between Keir Starmer and Liz Truss, 47% of Red Wall voters choose Keir Starmer (+14), 22% choose Liz Truss (-18), and 31% say they don’t know (+4) which would be a better Prime Minister.

On policy delivery, respondents in the Red Wall are most likely to say they significantly (15%) or fairly (28%) trust the Conservative Party to deliver on the coronavirus pandemic. 

By comparison, majorities of respondents say they do not at all trust the Conservatives to deliver on taxation (55%), ‘Levelling Up’ (54%), the economy (53%), and the NHS (50%).  

With regard to the Labour Party, respondents are most likely to say they significantly (21%) or fairly (32%) trust Labour to deliver on the NHS. 51% significantly or fairly trust Labour on education and on benefits.

On the flipside, Labour is most likely to be not at all trusted on the economy (34%) and on immigration (32%).

When the two parties are pitted against each other on the issues, Labour are more frequently trusted than the Conservatives on all the policy issues listed. Labour holds leads of more than 30 points over the Conservatives when voters are asked who they trust most to tackle poverty (47% to 13%), to support the NHS (47% to 15%), to manage housing (45% to 14%), and to invest in ‘left behind’ areas (43% to 13%). 

Labour is also more trusted by Red Wall voters to manage the economy (43% to 17%).  

On the cost-of-living crisis, 73% of members of the Red Wall public say no, the Government is not taking the right measures to address this crisis. This figure is 9 points up from the 64% who answered no to the same question two weeks ago. 

Finally, 63% of Red Wall voters say no, they do not feel like the Government has been making a clear effort to ‘level up’ the area in which they live.

¹ Prior to the 2019 General Election, the term ‘Red Wall’ originally pertained to a broader set of adjacent Labour-voting constituencies whose profile made them susceptible to being won by the Conservatives’ pro-Brexit platform. However, many of these constituencies were not ultimately won by the Conservative Party in 2019. Since then, the term ‘Red Wall’ has, in the media and elsewhere, interchangeably referred to both its original, broader definition and the traditionally Labour constituencies that the Conservatives won. For the purpose of this tracker polling, we refer to the post-2019 GE definition.

A full list of the constituencies polled can be found in the data tables.

• Erection of two storey 4-bed detached dwelling, erection of a detached single garage and demolition of existing dwelling. Weetwood Offwell Devon EX14 9SBRef. No: 22/2122/FUL | Validated: Fri 23 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement single storey rear extension. Byways Upottery Devon EX14 9PLRef. No: 22/2123/FUL | Validated: Fri 23 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Reduce crown height of Ash (nearest to house in rear garden) by 15% (3-4m) and reassess it every 3-5 years to consider another reduction, with the ultimate aim for the height of the tree being brought down to 11m and maintained at that size indefinitely. 17 Glebelands Uplyme Devon DT7 3TBRef. No: 22/2125/TRE | Validated: Fri 23 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed new haulage trailer storage facility/compound Land Opposite Greendale Business Park Woodbury SaltertonRef. No: 22/2121/FUL | Validated: Fri 23 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of condition no.2 (approved plans) of planning permission 21/2482/FUL to amend the schedule of the approved drawing and minor alterations to fenestration Flint House Fremington Road Seaton Devon EX12 2HXRef. No: 22/2114/VAR | Validated: Thu 22 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey front extension 2A Cyprus Road Exmouth EX8 2DZRef. No: 22/2116/FUL | Validated: Thu 22 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side extension 8 Stevenstone Road Exmouth EX8 2EPRef. No: 22/2110/FUL | Validated: Fri 23 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Sweet Chestnut : Fell. The tree represents a significant and immediate danger to the fabric of a listed wall and a listed dwelling known as The Wardens House. It is also a health and safety threat to those living in the Wardens House. Wardens House The College Ottery St Mary Devon EX11 1DQRef. No: 22/2113/TCA | Validated: Thu 22 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Fell 2x Sycamore suffering from ‘bark death’. 10 Old Home Farm Rousdon Devon DT7 3YLRef. No: 22/2111/TCA | Validated: Thu 22 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective application for the installation of a track to access building Harcombe Acres Land North Of Ashcombe Woods HarcombeRef. No: 22/2096/FUL | Validated: Wed 21 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed alterations to, and subdivision of, existing dwellinghouse to form 2 no. dwellinghouses. High Croft Wyke Axminster EX13 8TNRef. No: 22/2098/FUL | Validated: Wed 21 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two-storey rear extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include dormer and two side roof lights 8 Grange Avenue Exmouth EX8 3HURef. No: 22/2102/FUL | Validated: Wed 21 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Roofing over slurry separator system Sutton Barton Wilmington Honiton EX14 9SHRef. No: 22/2073/FUL | Validated: Tue 20 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of condition No. 5 (approved plans) of planning permission ref: 21/2490/MRES to allow for an updated electric vehicle charging point plan. Land North Of Old Tithebarn Lane Clyst HonitonRef. No: 22/2072/VAR | Validated: Tue 20 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey side extension and associated internal alterations Lake Farm Town End Broadclyst EX5 3HWRef. No: 22/2094/LBC | Validated: Tue 20 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey side extension and associated internal alterations Lake Farm Town End Broadclyst EX5 3HWRef. No: 22/2093/FUL | Validated: Tue 20 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey front extension and conversion of garage to office/utility room. 21 Travershes Close Exmouth EX8 3LHRef. No: 22/2090/FUL | Validated: Tue 20 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Cypress tree with stem diameter of 27cm. The tree is well away from any boundaries (>5m). Proposing complete removal of tree due to proximity to property leading to reduced light and concerns with root damage to foundations and drainage as well as damage to property in event of the tree coming down uncontrolled. Renovation and extension work due to start on the property exacerbates these concerns. The Conifers Brampford Speke Devon EX5 5DPRef. No: 22/2082/TCA | Validated: Tue 20 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Application for the erection of silage clamp walls on existing site. Broadley Farm Yarcombe EX14 9BJRef. No: 22/2092/FUL | Validated: Fri 23 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawful development for the 30 acres that is used as an aerodrome, this involves taking off, landing and manoeuvring of aeroplanes on the ground, 365 days per year; existing outside parking and an established hangar for the storage of the same; operation of a commercial flying school from the airfield Moorlands Farm Mincombe Post Sidbury Devon EX10 0QWRef. No: 22/2087/CPE | Validated: Fri 23 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension and removal of rear porch. 40 Anson Road Exmouth EX8 4NYRef. No: 22/2078/FUL | Validated: Thu 22 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Provision of single parking space within front curtilage accessed from existing shared private driveway. 11B Marine Parade Budleigh Salterton Devon EX9 6NSRef. No: 22/2074/FUL | Validated: Wed 21 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of 2 x illuminated fascia signs and 1x non illuminated fascia sign. Sidford Branch Surgery Church Street Sidford Devon EX10 9RLRef. No: 22/2071/ADV | Validated: Tue 20 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a garden studio and demolition of old shed and adjacent store. Oaklea Ham Devon EX13 7HLRef. No: 22/2059/FUL | Validated: Tue 20 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of the existing uPVC conservatory and construction of a new sun room extension in its place. Millbrook Farmhouse Chard Road Axminster Devon EX13 5EGRef. No: 22/2056/LBC | Validated: Wed 21 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Outline application with some matters reserved for Phase 1, including highway access, layout and landscape, and scale and appearance for Block A and Block C, and for Phase 2, access, layout, and landscape only, creating a total additional business space of 1,701 sqm. Alexandria Industrial Estate Station Road SidmouthRef. No: 22/2063/MOUT | Validated: Wed 21 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of the existing uPVC conservatory and construction of a new sun room extension in its place. Millbrook Farmhouse Chard Road Axminster Devon EX13 5EGRef. No: 22/2055/FUL | Validated: Wed 21 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Repainting and update of strapline text of 3no. existing fascia signs, replacement of 2no. existing projecting signs and brackets with new ones and redecoration front and side elevations. Joules Market Place Sidmouth Devon EX10 8ARRef. No: 22/2034/ADV | Validated: Wed 21 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Application for approval of reserved matters (layout, scale and appearance) for the erection of a new dwelling following approval of outline application ref. 21/1692/OUT. Not EIA development. 29 Winters Lane Ottery St Mary EX11 1ARRef. No: 22/2031/RES | Validated: Wed 21 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Ash Tree : Pollard by 50%: located in the northeastern corner boundary. It shows signs of ash die-back and its location is not accessible by machinery, so the tree will need to be climbed and tree surgeons advise reduction of tree necessary before disease advances further. Salcombe Regis House Salcombe Regis EX10 0JHRef. No: 22/2009/TCA | Validated: Tue 20 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Outline application, with all matters except access reserved, for up to 44 residential units including demolition of 76 Douglas Avenue, open space provision, drainage and the creation of a linking pedestrian access Douglas Gardens Douglas Avenue ExmouthRef. No: 22/1954/MOUT | Validated: Tue 20 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of 18-20 ground solar panels on removable mountings in adjacent field. Ford Farm Luppitt Honiton EX14 4TRRef. No: 22/1930/FUL | Validated: Sun 25 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of a replacement shed Mundys Farm West Down Lane Exmouth EX8 2RHRef. No: 22/0781/FUL | Validated: Tue 20 Sep 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

And likely to get more unaffordable every time Kwasi Karteng opens his mouth – Owl

Phase two of the Tiverton junction has been paused

Ollie Heptinstall, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

The junction under construction at Tiverton (courtesy: Devon County Council)

Plans to complete a new junction on the A361 North Devon Link Road at Tiverton are currently ‘unaffordable,’ councillors have heard.

On Tuesday [4 October], members of Mid Devon District Council’s ruling cabinet reluctantly agreed to pause phase two of the junction, which involves adding a bridge across the link road along with northern slip roads and landscaping.

Southern side slip roads were completed four years ago as part of the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension of hundreds of new homes. A new road is currently being built to link the junction with Blundell’s Road.

Without phase two, a further area for new housing – ‘area B’ – cannot be built, although this is a longer-term aspiration and will not impact the current housing projects.

The council was already short of the previous £10.1 million estimated cost, having only secured £8.2 million of funding from Homes England, but a previous cabinet meeting in July heard how an updated estimate would now “significantly exceed” the earlier one.

The increased amount, which was not revealed, is blamed on significant rises in construction costs, volatile prices of materials and the need for a greater contingency.

After temporarily pausing the project in the summer, the council asked officers to find either additional funding or revise the scheme to make it affordable whilst still achieving its ‘core objectives.’

But in an update to members this week, Councillor Richard Chesterton (Conservative, Lower Culm), cabinet member for planning and economic regeneration, said this has proved unsuccessful.

Asking cabinet to support an indefinite pause, he said: “Clearly, this is not a recommendation which is made lightly, but it is felt to now be the most sensible course of action available to the council.

“Members will be well aware of the trying financial times in which we find ourselves currently and we’re not alone as a council in considering difficult decisions around pausing infrastructure schemes in the face of escalating costs.

“A decision to pause the scheme at this time does not mean that the scheme will not or cannot be delivered, but just that delivery will have to be reconsidered at a point in the future.”

The council is currently unwilling to borrow money to cover the shortfall.

It would add “significant further financial pressures … at a time of increasing economic and financial uncertainty and pressures and this approach is therefore not one which is considered prudent,” a report says.

As well as agreeing to pausing the scheme, cabinet also backed a second recommendation for officers to liaise with Homes England about “identifying alternative options to utilise” its funding to support other aspects of the eastern urban extension.

If these alternative options are found, it also asks officers to develop them into a “viable proposition” that can be considered by cabinet.

Trickle down economics in action.

As Susan Davy gets more so do we.

But it’s not just trickling it’s gushing forth and spewing onto our beaches.

A palpable success for Trussonomics. – Owl

David Parsley inews.co.uk 

South West Water boss Susan Davy has more than trebled her annual salary with an award of more than £1m in bonus and benefits despite overseeing the closure of beaches after raw sewage was pumped into the sea around Devon and Cornwall.

Ms Davy, who is chief executive of South West Water’s parent company Pennon, is paid a base salary of £456,000, but with her bonus, incentives and benefits the company’s latest set of accounts show her total pay was bumped up to £1.6m.

The boost to her bank account comes as more than a dozen beaches across Devon and Cornwall have been shut due to pollution.

In the last week, Exmouth beach in East Devon has been unsafe to swim in since Tuesday’s heavy rain, either through continuous sewage dumping, or at least two separate dumping incidents.

A live interactive map created by Surfers Against Sewage displays a red cross on the beaches that have had sewage overflow discharges in the past 48 hours.

Exmouth had a red cross on Tuesday evening, indicating a recent spill, and still had a red cross on Thursday evening, indicating a second, or constant, spill.

Eleven beaches across the Cornish coast were also unsafe for 48 hours after overflow sewage was pumped into popular surf spots by South West Water.

Ms Davy’s bonus was paid despite South West Water having the worst environmental record of any water company in the UK.

The company has a one star Environment Agency rating, and is considered “below target” or “significantly below target” across the board for its environmental performance.

The company, which claims to be committed to the environment in its annual report, is also currently under investigation by watchdog Ofwat over the management of its sewage plants.

In June, David Black, chief executive of Ofwat, said: “Our concerns have grown further about South West Water’s operation of its wastewater assets and environmental performance. As a result, we have opened an additional enforcement case into South West Water.

“We have now opened enforcement cases against the majority of wastewater companies in England and Wales. From what we have seen so far, the scale of the issue here is shocking. Companies must resolve any problems at wastewater treatment works and do so quickly. Where they have breached their obligations, we will not hesitate to act.”

Last autumn, the Government voted to continue to allow the pumping of raw sewage into the sea around popular tourist beaches. If they had outlawed the practice, private water companies would have been forced to invest in improving their treatment of sewage.

Richard Foord, the recently elected Liberal Democrat MP for Tiverton and Honiton, said: “Our children should be encouraged to enjoy the natural world around them, especially during the summer holidays. But this week our rivers and local beauty spots have been channels for human sewage, making them a serious health risk.

“Still, South West Water executives have the audacity to take bonuses that are almost double their outrageously high salaries. With a one star rating from the Environment Agency, how can they justify this?”

A spokesman for South West Water  said: “The investments and changes we are already making across our network are delivering real results, including a one-third reduction in pollution incidents last year to the lowest number in 10 years.

“We are committed to bringing this down further year on year by strengthening our round-the-clock response, increasing resourcing levels by 25 per cent, and investing £330 million over the next three years in our wastewater network.”

Liz Truss gave broadcast interviews today as she visited a construction site in Birmingham with her chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng.

Ben Quinn www.theguardian.com 

Asked if she had confidence in her chancellor, the prime minister twice refused to say so. Here she is being interviewed by Sky News:

Watch on twitter here

The decision by the Truss government to put Jacob Rees-Mogg, a notorious climate sceptic and advocate of squeezing every last drop out of our North Sea oil stocks, in charge of UK climate policy, when we are co-presidents of the UN’s Cop climate conference, is a heinous crime inflicted on future generations.

Donnachadh McCarthy www.independent.co.uk 

It sends a message to the world that the UK believes that all nations should likewise squeeze every last drop from their reserves, a message if acted upon, would ensure global temperatures would soar above a civilisation-ending 6C rise.

As Rees-Mogg announced the lifting of the fracking moratorium and a huge new round of fossil fuel licences for the North Sea, my first thought was the complete lack of democratic legitimacy for these extremist actions.

The announced policies are the antithesis of the 2019 Conservative election manifesto, which promised that they would not borrow to fund day-to-day spending, and would fund farmers to protect the natural environment, ban fracking unless categorically safe, lead global fight on climate change, and invest £9.2bn in energy efficiency.

But what the Truss government is doing is borrowing over £60bn to subsidise day-to-day fossil fuel consumption by homes and businesses, having failed to invest in insulation and enough renewables over the last 12 years. It is deregulating environmental protections for endangered species habitats, and “reviewing” the promised environmental payments for farmers to replace the EU’s CAP, with a view to reverting to payments per acre to increase “productivity”, which would benefit the richest landowners, at the expense of protecting soils and nature.

It has abandoned the fracking moratorium, despite the British Geological Survey reporting that associated earthquake risks were still unquantifiable.

The chancellor’s statement did include a tiny rise of £0.3bn per year for home insulation, a sum that will reduce energy bills for a paltry few hundred thousand homes, when 2.4 million homes a year were being insulated in 2012, prior to the Cameron government’s cuts.

A second source of illegitimacy is that Truss’s parliamentary majority is not based on a majority of votes cast in the 2019 election. They won only 43.5 per cent of the vote, but due to the UK’s unfair electoral system, this gave them a majority of 80 seats.

If the Liberal Democrats got an MP for every 38,300 votes that it took to elect a Tory MP, then they would have 96 MPs and held the balance of power. But as it took over 334,000 votes to elect each Lib Dem MP, they got only 11 MPs. If we had a legitimately fair electoral system, Truss would not be able to pursue this new extremist climate and nature destructive agenda.

Finally, there is the illegitimacy that these policies are the opposite of what the general public has supported in endless opinion polls over the last 12 years. Nearly two thirds of the public support redirecting the billions allocated to North Sea oil & gas expansion to renewable energy technologies and insulation/energy efficiency.

The government’s Public Attitudes Tracker shows that, by a majority of two to one, the public oppose fracking for natural gas. In a YouGov poll, 49 per cent backed renewables as their top priority for government investment, with just 7 per cent backing nuclear power. In an ECIU survey on the energy price crisis, 51 per cent saw renewables and insulation as the best way to reduce reliance on gas. Only 9 per cent backed expansion of North Sea oil and gas exploration, and a tiny minority of 8 per cent backed fracking, as the best long-term solution.

In the midst of Truss’s destructive extremism, there were two positives. Her deregulatory extremism did miraculously include ending the insane seven-year Tory ban on onshore wind farms in England. And the second piece of good news, is that Labour were putting the creation of a carbon-free electricity grid by 2030, at the centre of their economic plans for growth and better paying jobs for British workers.

We now need to shout from the rooftops that our new empress Truss is devoid of any legitimate electoral clothing for her announced climate and ecological destruction. A general election must be held immediately, so that whatever existential climate choices are being made, they have the legitimacy of an electoral mandate.

Martin Lewis has branded a government claim over stamp duty savings as “irresponsible nonsense”.

Dodgy sums from Kwarteng’s Treasury – Owl

Maryam Zakir-Hussain www.independent.co.uk

The consumer champion said messaging from the Treasury could give some people “false hope” about buying properties during the cost-of-living crisis.

A Treasury post on Twitter said: “Thanks to the Growth Plan, a typical first-time buyer in London moving into a representative terraced house will save £11,250 on stamp duty & £1,050 on the household’s energy bills – and if they earn £30,000 almost an additional £400 on tax. This is around £12,700 in total.”

The Money Saving Expert (MSE) founder retweeted the post, writing: “This is nonsense. To make that stamp duty saving you’d need to be buying a £500,000+ property. With 10% deposit, cheapest fix mortgage would cost £2,400/mth (£28,000/yr). How can someone on £30k afford that. I am asking treasury to remove. “

Mr Lewis then questioned Treasury Chris Philp over the claim on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on Monday

“Your example is for somebody who earns £30,000 a year”, Mr Lewis said. “Clearly, they would not get that mortgage. And clearly on £30,000 a year before tax you cannot pay a mortgage of £28,000 a year.

“This seems fundamentally irresponsible for the Treasury to be putting out this kind of statement in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.”

Mr Philip admitted he had not seen the message.

“But I imagine, I’m just sort of speculating, when they used the £30,000 to work out the tax saving, they were doing that to illustrate the income tax saving of someone on approximately medium earnings,” he added.

“You are right to point out that someone on that particular level of earnings would be unlikely to be able to get a mortgage to fund a £500,000 house, unless, of course, they were doing so with a partner, but I suspect that’s why they did it.”

Mr Lewis replied: “It doesn’t mention the partner’s income and the headline includes all the savings added in one…”

He later asked Mr Philp: “Can I ask you to look at those messages? These are big, bold messages… to have them taken offline in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, where they give people false hope?”

He added: “Can I ask you to personally take a look at that? It seems irresponsible at the moment.”

Mr Philp said: “You’re right to point out the anomaly between the salary and the house value and I’d be happy to take a look at it.”

The choice of mortgage products on the market fell sharply following the mini-budget, as many lenders pulled deals off the shelves and re-priced their products upwards.

For some home-buyers, higher mortgage rates could outweigh any stamp duty savings they may stand to make.

According to Moneyfacts.co.uk, there were 2,262 residential mortgage products available on Monday October 3, down from 3,961 on the day of the mini-budget.

The squeeze on public spending is one reason why Truss can kiss goodbye to hopes that her mix of tax cuts and supply-side reforms will boost growth in the months ahead. A more important factor will be higher interest rates.

Despite yesterday’s U-turn, the damage is done to UK’s credit standing – Owl

Larry Elliott www.theguardian.com (extract)

The day before Kwarteng’s mini-budget, the Bank raised interest rates by half a percentage point to 2.25% – deciding against a bigger increase because it thought the UK was in recession. As it happens, an upward revision to growth in the second quarter means the economy is not actually in recession, but the respite is certain to be brief.

Huw Pill, the Bank’s chief economist, has warned that “significant” increases in interest rates can be expected at the next meeting of the monetary policy committee at its next meeting, and the financial markets currently expect official borrowing costs to keep on rising to 6%.

Make no mistake, if the Bank does push rates anywhere close to 6%, it had better be prepared for a colossal recession. Already last week there were signs of trouble ahead from the mortgage market, where more than a thousand home loan products were pulled by lenders watching what was happening to bond yields and the expected path of official Bank of England rates.

Many home buyers have taken out mortgages at high multiples of their incomes in the belief that permanently low interest rates will make them affordable. That assumption now lies in tatters, and floating rate mortgage holders and those whose fixed-rate terms are coming to an end face huge increases in their monthly payments. The supply of new buyers will quickly dry up. House prices will fall.

The irony is that the first budget of a supposedly pro-growth government has made recession more, not less, likely. The government can introduce supply-side reforms in the months ahead, but if interest rates stay high to placate jittery investors, the trend growth rate will be lower, not higher. Britain’s economic history is scattered with budgets that have quickly unravelled: Kwarteng’s is in a class of its own.

Investment zones with “liberalised” planning laws to accelerate development could be designated within national parks and in the most environmentally protected areas of the UK, government documents reveal.

The Tories are desperate. – Owl

Sandra Laville www.theguardian.com 

Details of the government’s new zones to increase housebuilding and commercial development reveal councils can apply for zones in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, (AONBs) sites of special scientific interest, (SSSIs) and green belt land.

The deadline for councils to apply to host an investment zone is 14 October. The government says the zones “will benefit from tax incentives, planning liberalisation and wider support for the local economy” and will be granted after a “rapid” selection process.

Councils applying for the zones are asked: “For each proposed investment zone please provide details about whether the proposed development would be on land which is in:

• A national park.
• An area of outstanding natural beauty.
• A site of special scientific interest, or equivalent designation.
• The buffer zone of a world heritage site.
• Designated green belt.

The document states: “Key planning policies to ensure developments are well designed, maintain national policy on the green belt, protect our heritage and address flood risk, highway and other public safety matters along with building regulations will continue to apply.”

Councils will also have to answer one question, with a yes or no, on whether they agree to mitigate environmental impacts of the investment zone and have to agree to accepting “a streamlined overarching planning system” within the zones.

There is no mention of environmental constraints on building in protected habitats under the habitat regulations, which provide protections for some of the most vulnerable habitats and wildlife in a network across England. The regulations also aim to prevent water pollution from excessive nitrates and phosphates, for example from sewage discharges and ensure that new developments do not lead to over abstraction of water from rivers.

Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said the documents showed environmental protections being removed and downgraded. They also went against the government’s proposals to make every new development provide a “net gain” for nature, he said.

“There are countless examples of where mitigation is simply inappropriate or ineffective. You can’t mitigate for the loss of an ancient woodland or wetland. In many cases, supposed mitigation simply fails. Sometimes, where precious nature is at risk, you simply have to say no. The false philosophy that everything can be traded or replaced would be seriously damaging for nature,” he said.

“If large swathes of the country were made investment zones where environmental planning rules were weakened, all the government’s hopes of reversing the decline of nature could be dashed.”

The documents say the investment zones, which are being organised by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, will benefit from “planning liberalisation”, remove “planning matters impeding delivery” and will be “streamlining the planning system”.

The government says the zones will focus on bringing growth, housing and commercial development to “undeveloped and underdeveloped areas”.

Joan Edwards, the director of policy for the Wildlife Trusts, said: “Pursuing unsustainable development on some of our most important sites for nature is a disgrace. We cannot have a thriving economy without a thriving natural world. This government has committed to protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030 – the minimum required to give nature a chance to recover. How can we achieve that if developers are given the green light to build all over our last strongholds for wildlife?”

The RSPB said the guidance published by the government further confirmed the charity’s fears that ministers were embarking upon an attack on nature. A spokesperson said: “There is no requirement to avoid impacts on nature, abandoning the mitigation hierarchy which places priority on avoiding – rather than mitigating or compensating for – losses. Furthermore, the government could have specified that investment zones should avoid protected sites for wildlife, national parks and AONBs.”

The zones are currently only applicable in England but the document says the government will work with devolved administrations and local partners to introduce investment zones across the UK.

…..and I would like to move on and talk about growth.

Social media captures the moment

Kwarteng’s “mistake” cost us £65 billion. And he gets to keep his job?