Plymouth councillor quits Conservatives amid ‘bullying’ claim

Carl Eve www.plymouthherald.co.uk 

Plymouth’s Lord Mayor has quit the Conservatives accusing the new leader’s regime of “bullying”, just two days after he was voted into the top job. Councillor Terri Beer departure from the group to go Independent came with a blistering attack on new leader Richard Bingley’s Cabinet.

The long-standing Plympton Erle councillor accused Tory group members of “mentally torturing” ousted leader Nick Kelly, who was toppled on Monday, and said she couldn’t work with “people who have a record of doing some questionable things”.

Cllr Bingley told PlymouthLive tonight he was “mystified by the allegations” and said Cllr Beer was “unhappy that her friends were voted out.” But her resignation is a major blow to the ruling Conservative group, who now find themselves with fewer councillors than Labour in the run-up to the local elections in May

Cllr Beer’s decision to leave the party has – yet again – left the city in a position where the ruling Conservative party has 22 councillors, while Labour have 23 and the Independents rise to 12 members. Hers just the latest in a string of resignations among Tory councillors over recent months.

Cllr Terri Beer, who is Lord Mayor until May, presided over Monday’s full council meeting which saw a no-confidence vote brought by Plymouth Labour and backed by a number of Independent councillors – particularly some who had previously been Conservatives themselves. However, at the close of the meeting, while receiving a number of plaudits and thanks from councillors on all sides, Cllr Beer appeared to have been considering her future.

Taking to Facebook this evening she issued a statement – which appears to have been written on Tuesday March 22 – “which will explain why I am no longer part of the Conservative group in Plymouth.” She noted that she remained “very close friends” with Conservative ward councillor Andrea Loveridge and would continue to “work for our residents.”

She continued: “Having reflected on recent events I have no option but to resign from the Conservative Party and the Local Conservative Group. I cannot continue to be associated with questionable people and bullying under the new leadership.

“I really fear for Plymouth under a cabinet who are lacking in experience and ability. It would not feel right to stay in a group with people who have a record of doing some questionable things.

“The Conservatives locally have been run into the ground by unelected chair persons not from South West Devon. Brilliant and well experienced people have been denied the opportunity to serve communities because their face didn’t fit or they failed to to follow the chairperson’s misguided instructions.

“Cllr Kelly has over the last two years been mentally tortured by certain members all of whom need to bow their heads in shame. It hasn’t just stopped at Cllr Kelly but others in the Conservative group have also suffered. If only the public had the full story.

“As from today I will be the first Independent Councillor to be Lord Mayor and will complete my term as just that. In the last 11 months I have dedicated myself to serving the City and being an Ambassador which is why I swore an oath at last year’s Lord Mayors Choosing.

“Cllr Nick Kelly has always been very supportive of me and my decisions alongside Cllr Tudor Evans and several members of the opposition for which I thank them. At yesterday’s full council Cllr Kelly praised me for the work I have done to date in my role as Lord Mayor and I acknowledge his kind words and that of Cllr Evans.

“This last 11 months I have had everything thrown at me from tragic incidents in the City to joyous events and have carried this out with dignity. The residents in Plympton Erle who know me so well will understand and accept the family pressures I have faced through family illness.

“I will continue to serve Plympton Erle residents as I have for the last 15 years following my year as Lord Mayor as an Independent.”

In reply, Cllr Bingley told PlymouthLive: “I and my colleagues are mystified by the allegations of bulling, because we’ve not had any dialogue [with Cllr Beer] since Monday because Cllr Beer was clearly unhappy that her friends were voted out of office. Nevertheless, I personally wish her well in the future and look forward to taking this opportunity to bring in fresh new blood into the Conservative party and the council chamber.”

In February the Conservative group saw the ousting of Cllr David Downie after he was deselected by the Conservative Moor View Association – rather than the Conservative Councillor Group. The previous month the Conservative Group saw the resignation of Cllr Stephen Hulme.

Last October Moor View’s Shannon Burden waved goodbye to the Conservative group and joined the Independents, while in November Conservative councillor Nigel Churchill walked away from his group citing “unacceptable” conduct of senior members.

We really are returning to a darker world – Owl

P&O Ferries boss admits firm broke law by sacking staff without consultation

Gwyn Topham www.theguardian.com 

P&O Ferries broke the law by choosing to sack 800 workers without consultation because “no union could accept our proposals”, the firm’s boss has admitted.

Peter Hebblethwaite told a Commons hearing on Thursday into last week’s firings that the firm was halving its costs under a “new operating model”, which meant international seafarers would be paid less than minimum wage.

Fresh questions also arose about what warning ministers had received of the sackings, after Hebblethwaite said P&O’s parent company, DP World, had told the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, of planned changes to its business model in November.

Hebblethwaite faced an intense examination at a joint hearing of the transport and business committee. The business committee chair, Darren Jones, opened by asking about Hebblethwaite’s recent rise to the chief executive position at P&O: “Are you in this mess because you don’t know what you’re doing, or are you just a shameless criminal?”

Hebblethwaite apologised but said the firm had “otherwise had no future”.

Later he admitted: “There’s absolutely no doubt we were required to consult with the unions. We chose not to do that.”

Andy McDonald MP interjected: “You chose to break the law?”

Hebblethwaite said: “We chose not to consult … and we will compensate every one in full for that.”

McDonald said: “You can’t just absent yourself from the legal framework of the UK.”

Hebblethwaite replied: “It was our assessment that the change was of such magnitude that no union could accept our proposals.”

The P&O boss said the average sacked seafarer on the previous Jersey contracts was paid £36,000 per year.

The replacement crew will receive an hourly rate starting at £5.15, except on the Larne-Cairnryan route between Northern Ireland and Scotland, where it will be bound by UK minimum wage law.

He told MPs he was “saving the business”, adding: “I would make this decision again, I’m afraid.”

Hebblethwaite said he was paid £325,000 with two performance-related bonuses, although he said he “did not know” if he would accept a bonus this year. He did not answer when asked if he could could sustain his own lifestyle on £5.15 per hour, the rate paid to the new crew.

McDonald asked: “How do you expect them to be able to feed their families and pay their bills? It’s incomprehensible that you have broken the law as a business decision.”

Hebblethwaite admitted people were cancelling their trips, especially on the Dover-Calais route: “Some people certainly have.”

He added: “There’s no question the brand has taken a hit. But we now have a competitive, modern business. We have a future now. We don’t have to close the business. I am, again, incredibly sorry.”

Incredulous MPs asked Hebblethwaite to confirm his earlier testimony. Gavin Newlands asked: “What employment law provisions have you breached?”

Hebblethwaite said: “We have not consulted, and for that we are fully compensating people.”

Jones later asked: “You said to this committee you wilfully broke the law …”

Hebblethwaite responded: “I completely hold our hands up that we chose not to consult.”

Hebblethwaite told the MPs that Shapps was informed on 22 November by P&O Ferries’ parent company, Dubai-owned DP World, that it would be changing its business model.

Appearing later in the hearing, Robert Courts, the maritime minister, said: “There was a discussion about challenges to the business but not any more than that.” He said he would send a copy of minutes of the meeting with Shapps to the committee.

Asked if the government intended to prosecute P&O Ferries, the business minister Paul Scully said they were still awaiting guidance from the Insolvency Service, and investigating whether the company had broken the law. But, he added: “You’ve absolutely heard that he has.”

On employment law, he said: “We’ve heard that they have deliberately, wilfully broken the law. That will be for workers and their representatives to address.”

The transport committee chair, Huw Merriman, closed the hearings by describing the evidence as a “tale of corporate thuggery where a huge company thinks it can break the law with impunity”, adding that he hoped the government would seek swift legal remedies against P&O Ferries and legislate to tighten up law.

Unions called for the government to issue an immediate injunction to prevent the ships sailing and reinstate sacked crew. The RMT general secretary, Mick Lynch, said: “This should include the government seizing control of the ships if necessary. We are also calling for the immediate disqualification of Peter Hebblethwaite as a director after he admitted the company broke the law and would do it again.”

Lynch had told the hearing how sacked staff were given until today to accept payoffs, on the basis of non-disclosure and an agreement to forfeit any further legal action.

Legal experts also told the committee that P&O should have notified their ships’ flag states in Cyprus, Bermuda and the Bahamas between 30 and 45 days in advance – rather than on the day.

After the hearings, the Liberal Democrats said Shapps had “serious questions to answer about what he knew and when about P&O’s plans to shamefully sack its workers”.

The transport spokesperson, Sarah Olney, said: “It looks increasingly like Grant Shapps was asleep at the wheel, and missed vital opportunities to intervene and protect people’s livelihoods.”

A Department for Transport spokesperson said DP World did not tell Shapps of “any changes it would be making to P&O Ferries” nor give an indication of the “completely unacceptable changes it has subsequently made”.

Private emails reveal Michael Gove’s role in Tory-linked firm’s PPE deals

Michael Gove was secretly involved in the process through which a PPE company linked to the Tory peer Michelle Mone secured huge government contracts, according to newly released documents that show private emails being used for government business.

David Conn www.theguardian.com 

The correspondence threatens to embroil Gove in the deepening controversy surrounding PPE Medpro, the company awarded government contracts worth £203m after it was referred to the “high-priority lane” for well connected companies.

They will also add to the growing scepticism over Lady Mone’s repeated insistence that she was not involved with the company, and cast further doubt on statements made on her behalf by her lawyers. Her relationship to PPE Medpro is under investigation by the House of Lords commissioner for standards.

In one key email, sent on 8 May 2020, Mone proposed supplying large quantities of PPE face masks to the government, saying they could be sourced through “my team in Hong Kong”.

The email was sent to Theodore Agnew, a fellow Tory peer who was at the time a Cabinet Office minister responsible for procurement. Mone copied Gove in to the email, telling Agnew that Gove had asked her to “urgently” contact him.

Mone used her private email address, writing to Agnew at his private email address linked to his Norfolk private estate. She copied in Gove via his private Gmail account.

The Guardian was only able to establish that non-government emails had been used because of an apparent administrative error by the Cabinet Office, which failed to properly redact documents released after a freedom of information request (FoI) from the Guardian.

The information commissioner, John Edwards, is investigating the use of private emails at the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) during the pandemic, including by then ministers Matt Hancock and Lord Bethell.

While it is not in itself unlawful for ministers to use private emails, there is strict guidance on ensuring it is done in accordance with transparency laws, and Edwards’s predecessor, Elizabeth Denham, expressed “concern” and “worry” at the practice.

The emails released under FoI reveal how Mone laid out a sales pitch to Agnew for the supply of PPE. The government had by then suspended normal competitive tendering processes and, it would later emerge, was fast-tracking to a “VIP” lane offers of PPE referred by politically connected people.

“I hope this email finds you well,” Mone wrote to Agnew, copying in Gove. “Michael Gove has asked to urgently contact you [sic]. We have managed to source PPE masks though [sic] my team in Hong Kong. They have managed to secure 100,000pcs per day of KN95 [face masks] which is equivalent to N95 or FFP2. In order to commit to this 100,000pcs per day could you please get back to me asap as freight will also need to be secured. Hope to see you in the House of Lords when we get out of lockdown. Kindest Regards, Michelle.”

Agnew replied from his personal email address, copying in the government email address of his private secretary. “Michelle, Thank you for your kind offer. I am forwarding this into the appropriate PPE workstream with Dept of Health. They will ask you some basic questions on the details of the offer and then hopefully progress it from there. Best wishes Theodore.”

One of his staff then emailed a Covid PPE “priority appraisals” mailbox, asking them to “pick up with Baroness Mone”. The staff member added the words “VIA LORD AGNEW” and “VIP” to the subject field.

Within weeks, PPE Medpro was awarded two government contracts worth £203m to supply millions of face masks and sterile surgical gowns.

Mone has repeatedly distanced herself from PPE Medpro, despite leaked documents and WhatsApp messages, seen by the Guardian, appearing to suggest that she and her husband, Douglas Barrowman, were secretly involved in the company.

Lawyers representing Mone said the Guardian’s reporting was “not based on accuracy”. They have repeatedly said she “was not connected to PPE Medpro in any capacity”, had no “association” with the company and “never had any role or function” in the process by which contracts were awarded to the firm.

Barrowman’s lawyers have similarly distanced him from the firm, but they have not denied that he benefited financially from PPE Medpro’s business.

The Lords standards commissioner, Martin Jelley, is investigating Mone for “alleged involvement in procuring contracts for PPE Medpro, leading to potential breaches” of three provisions of the Lords code, which requires peers to publicly register “all relevant interests” and prohibits them from lobbying for a company or a person in which a peer “has a financial interest”. Mone denies she broke any rules.

The newly released emails, in which Mone offered PPE sourced by “my team”, raise several new questions for the peer, who was previously involved in the lingerie company Ultimo before David Cameron appointed her to the House of Lords in 2015.

Her lawyers have previously said her involvement in PPE Medpro did not extend beyond a “very simple, solitary and brief step” of referring the company to “the office of Lord Agnew”. However, the emails suggest that it was not a solitary step, because she had already made contact with Gove , and she did not refer the company to Agnew’s office, but to his personal email address.

She also did not technically refer PPE Medpro – which, at the time of the email, had not been incorporated as a company. Instead she referred to PPE that would be supplied by “my team”.

(Link to pdf of original documents here.)

Agnew declined to respond to questions about the issue, explaining that he had recently been interviewed by the Lords commissioner on the matter and had been asked to keep his evidence confidential.

Gove also declined to answer several questions from the Guardian, including about why he was Mone’s first point of contact. A government spokesperson said all emails were dealt with appropriately because they were passed on to officials, and contracts were awarded “in line with procurement regulations and transparency guidelines, and there are robust rules and processes in place to prevent conflicts of interest”.

A lawyer for Mone said there was “nothing new” or “sinister” in the new emails and accused the Guardian of having a “deliberate and vexatious interpretation of them, characterising them in a wholly negative manner”.

The lawyer did not respond directly to questions about the newly released emails, or about a previously disclosed civil servant’s email that appears to show that Mone was still lobbying government officials nine months after she first made contact.

The email was sent to colleagues by Jacqui Rock, the chief commercial officer for NHS test and trace, in February 2021. She revealed that Mone had been contacting officials on behalf of PPE Medpro, which appears to have been seeking government contracts for the provision of Covid tests.

In the email, published by the government last month, Rock told fellow civil servants: “Baroness Mone is going to Michael Gove and Matt Hancock today as she is incandescent with rage on the way she believes Medpro have been treating [sic].”

Burrington Estates Property Development Company!

From a Correspondent:

If you want to be aware of the epitome and personification of two-faced, hypocrisy, exhibiting double standards beyond belief . . . then read on!

How ironic it is to view the YouTube footage (below) of last week’s EDDC Planning Committee meeting (on 16th March 2022) where an Application (21/2989/FUL) for a demolition and re-build in West Hill Road, Ottery St Mary was recommended for approval by East Devon’s Development Manager and after discussion was subsequently approved by the Planning Committee.

(see Planning Committee Discussion/Decision on 21/2989/FUL – located 1hr/05mins into the meeting).

However, living next door to this new-build in West Hill Road, Ottery St Mary and vehemently objecting at the meeting to his neighbour’s proposals was a Director and Property Development Manager of Burrington Estates Limited.

He contributed as one of the opposition speakers, strongly objecting to this two-storey new build that he felt impacted on his adjoining property. He had previously instructed Burrington Estates’ associate professional planners (Avalon Planning) to object on his behalf to this application and consequently a complex list of executive-level planning objections had been prepared within an 8-page submission that was published on EDDC Planning Portal in the documents file for 21/2989/FUL.

Below are some of the objections included on the vast list submitted:-

Overdevelopment of the site with an appearance of cramming, resulting from the excessive scale, mass, height and form of the new development; inappropriate density and incongruous to the immediate surroundings; design is too contemporary with uncharacteristic design, shape, massing and finishes for the locality;  adverse effect on neighbouring property with overlooking, overshadowing and loss of daylight affecting both the home and garden by being too overbearing; too close proximity to existing neighbours detrimentally affecting the amenities enjoyed specifically concerning  privacy, outlook and artificial light spill; contrary to the character of the area; removal/loss  of trees that make a significant contribution to the character and ecological value of the local area; failing to protect the area’s cherished features; development in too close proximity to mature trees resulting in pressure to lop, thin or fell protected species in the future; loss of verdant character and appearance of the area; lack of respect for the key characteristics of the area, particularly the woodland character and the low density plots; detrimental removal of boundary vegetation/trees to provide additional access; unacceptable impact on neighbouring property with no thought minded to neighbours whose outlook and sense of comfort within their home and garden will be detrimentally impacted; increased heights creating additional viewpoints into private gardens and habitable rooms of neighbours; inadequate provision of parking for the new development;  contrary to the Neighbourhood and EDDC Local Plans et al.

At this point, Clyst Valley Road residents in Clyst St Mary will definitely have a feeling of déjà vu because the above objections are almost identical to those that the residents of Clyst St Mary have submitted in opposition to the 40 (equivalent to 5-storey) apartments, with associated service road and multiple parking spaces that Burrington Estates (including the above-featured Property Development Director) have proposed adjacent to residents’ Winslade Park homes and gardens that will tower above the existing woodland area (which provides screening to their homes) and encroaches adjacent to their boundaries  . .  and furthermore Burringtons intend cutting down significantly more TPO protected trees than one West Hill Road cherry tree to achieve these incongruous 40 multi-storey flats on a limited car park site!

Such behaviour seems to display a double standards attitude being practised by property developers and the old adage ‘Practise What You Preach’ comes to mind!

The residents of Clyst St Mary have always been of the opinion that appropriate quality development in a small rural village adjacent to existing homes is acceptable – but can anyone else highlight where 40 (equivalent to 5-storey) flats exist in a small East Devon pastoral settlement – because such designs are, surely, more fitting in an urban locality?

To end on a positive note, both Burrington’s Development Director and the residents of Clyst St Mary obviously are in complete agreement on what should and should not be built next to our homes both in West Hill, Ottery St Mary and the village of Clyst St Mary.

So this would seem a good place to point out that Burringtons should follow their own advice (that was voiced at the meeting on 16^th March) to withdraw the current application in favour of a new application that is far more suitable for the locality and apply those principles to their Winslade Park Zone D application.

In 2020 residents supported Burrington’s design proposals for 14 traditional homes for this Winslade Park car park (that were displayed to all at the Public Consultation at the Village Hall) as highly sustainable and appropriate – but unfortunately Burrington Estates subsequently decided to substitute the 14 homes with 40 towering (equivalent to 5-storey) multiple-occupancy flats, resulting in entirely different plans being submitted to East Devon Planners in this location. These inappropriate plans are still awaiting a decision by EDDC Planners but are due to be heard by Committee in the near future and it is hoped that elected and professional local authority planners will agree that looking forward multi-storey flats do have a developmental role and  place  –  but that place is not in the village of Clyst St Mary!

There is no doubt that when property development encroaches into anyone’s back yard – then it becomes a personal issue – people and, indeed, most species are innately territorial.  It is a human trait to passionately defend our homes (and that is seen as a worthy characteristic) and most people will display some NIMBYism in similar circumstances.

However, to inflict incongruous development on a community when you have a personal,  professional awareness of the plethora of detrimental issues that will harm other people is both unacceptable and totally hypocritical – so shame on you Burringtons – what goes around comes around . . . and sometimes fate will make you face your own personal nemeses! 

Surprisingly, Owl understands that the “New Guard” found that EDDC had neither a strategy for Tourism nor Culture, where various grants might be available.

Paul Arnott www.midweekherald.co.uk 

I don’t think I’ve ever asked readers before to be kind enough to take part in an online survey from EDDC, so this is a first. Curiously, a driver for this is that the administration I am lucky to be leader of wants to do all we can to help grow the local economy.

Now that may not seem consistent with a request to fill in our Public Survey to help us all develop a 10 Year Culture Strategy. But it is. I have been lucky enough to have worked in arts or entertainment, journalism and television or film production and publishing for nearly 40 years, and here is the single most valuable lesson I ever learned:

If you want to feel good about yourself, or be able to lord it over your peer group that your work is the bee’s knees, then get a review in The Guardian or The Independent. However, if you wish to carry on with your project on a sound financial footing, what you also need are good reviews in The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, because to be brutally frank the older readers of both are the ones with the disposable income and the available time to attend.

In other words, don’t ghettoise what you create, always think about how you can do the thing you believe in whilst making sure that the box office is still taking ticket money, or sponsors are happy to donate. This does not mean you have to only produce unchallenging work. Quite the opposite. It means you have a duty to the public to take great care to explain what you are doing, even if it is potentially controversial.

At the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, for every young person in the audience for even the most provocative of work, there is always another who looks at first glance like they most enjoyed a gentle amble around a National Trust house. Don’t judge a sausage by its skin – often this latter group may be comfortably set-up in their middle to later years, but that does not mean they do not have excellent critical faculties.

Which brings me back to the survey. The English language does not really help – even the term “Culture” strategy risks seeming a little elitist. But then that is what we all live in, a culture. It could as well be called an Entertainment strategy, or Arts strategy – all these things mean more or less the same thing.

So what might be considered Culture in East Devon? That’s for you to say. Perhaps a book group, taking part in am-dram or an art class. Private activity such as reading, crafting or knitting. Bouncing around an outdoor festival, or quietly watching a play. Watching or taking part in dance.

Classical or jazz concerts, going to an art gallery or looking at some outdoor art. Nipping to the Picturehouse or the Radway for a sub-titled film or the new Batman, or closer to home supporting film in a screening in your village hall. Folk music. As well of course as visiting our many historic houses, or scheduled monuments.

All of this is “Culture”, which also is “art” and also “entertains”. Crucially, it has the ability to create and sustain many worthwhile and skilled jobs, as well as benefitting our sense of well-being. In some aspects, the creation of something amazing, or just witnessing that, is a life-affirming, even spiritual experience.

Of course, we all get an awful lot from the superb output on British TV, but we are very passive in that context. What we would like to find out through the survey instead, please, is what the residents of East Devon are up to, what they particularly like and what they would love to see more of. The survey is open till March 27th. Please do give it a go. https://eastdevon.gov.uk/community-engagement/culture-strategy-consultation/

Government ignored warnings about Putin’s ‘march to war’ for 10 years, says ex-UK defence official.

In scathing remarks, Mr Scott said the warnings were “subjugated” to the City of London – and making sure financial capital remained a “safe haven for corrupt wealth”.

Is our defence safe in Tory hands? – Owl

Adam Forrest www.independent.co.uk

The UK government consistently ignored warnings that Vladimir Putin could wage war in favour of welcoming Russian money into London, Britain’s former defence attache to Moscow has claimed.

Retired air commodore Carl Scott said he and others warned of the “inevitability of conflict in detail, regularly” during his period in Russia between 2011 to 2016.

The former defence official said Putin’s “long, dark march to war was obvious”, having pointed out many pronouncements from the Kremlin about conflict ahead.

In scathing remarks, Mr Scott said the warnings were “subjugated” to the City of London – and making sure financial capital remained a “safe haven for corrupt wealth”.

In a letter to the Financial Times, he said the Russian president’s aims were “never concealed”, having instigated “colossal” militarisation, control over the media and clampdowns on dissent.

The former attache stated: “The list is remorseless, the consequences could not be ignored. But they were … We reported the inevitability of conflict in detail, regularly and with the despair of Cassandra.”

Mr Scott also said Brexit “emboldened” Putin’s regime. “It was not until I returned to the UK on the eve of our withdrawal from the EU, a manoeuvre which greatly emboldened those in Moscow, that I understood how our society had changed in the years I was serving overseas.”

The retired defence official added: “All was subjugated to the City, all served the interests of our lucrative status as a safe haven for corrupt, and corrupting, wealth. The values we were demanding of other nations had long since faded from our own actions.

“I despair at the decisions Putin has taken, but even more at the prospect of finding credible leadership at home in the UK among those who have compromised so long with his regime and the wealth it offered.”

Boris Johnson’s government has joined allies in imposing punishing economic sanctions on Russian banks and other crucial parts of the economy. But MPs have urged ministers to go further on individual sanctions aimed at targeting Putin’s cronies.

Doubts have been raised about the effectiveness of sanctions after a billionaire hit by an asset freeze earlier this month said he had already handed ownership of UK mansions over to trusts.

A spokesperson for Alisher Usmanov told the BBC and The Guardian that most of the businessman’s British properties and his yacht were “transferred into irrevocable trusts”.

Rachel Davies, Transparency International’s head of advocacy, recently told The Independent that oligarchs were using shell companies registered in Britain’s crown dependencies and overseas territories to hide their wealth in London.

MPs and campaigners are worried that the Economic Crime Bill rushed through parliament last week could still allow some wealthy property owners using overseas companies to hide behind trusts.

It comes as MPs warned that sanctions against Russia will come at a cost to the UK and the poorest households will be hit hardest.

A report by the Treasury select committee revealed the UK is not protected against the economic impact of unprecedented sanctions on Russian oil and gas and that soaring prices will intensify the cost-of-living crisis.

The cross-party group of MPs said the impact on the UK is a “cost worth bearing” to help Ukraine in fighting for its freedom and to damage Russia’s ability to fund the war.

Plans for a big increase in the size of a Devon village which one local claimed would cause “division and alienation” have been approved. Developer Baker Estates has won its appeal to build 60 homes on farmland in Chudleigh Knighton.

The scale of local development used to be set by local councils (remember the “old guard” EDDC “jobs on high growth scenario”), now it’s dictated by the government’s 300,000 houses a year. – Owl

Edward Oldfield www.devonlive.com

Hennock Parish Council objected to the original outline planning application, arguing that the scheme was too big and would increase the size of village by 12 per cent. The developer appealed after Teignbridge District Council failed to make a decision by a deadline set out in planning law. And the inspector has decided after a hearing that the development can go ahead.

The developer has offered 30 per cent of the homes to be classed as “affordable”, including homes for rent and shared ownership, and self-build plots. An agreement sets out financial contributions to public services, and the site will include public open spaces and a play area. Neighbouring farmland will be set aside for biodiversity, and there will be a series of measures to protect rare greater horseshoe bats and improve their habitat.

The outline application submitted in September 2020 is for 10 acres of two fields at Tollgate Farm, alongside the B3344 Plymouth Road at the north-eastern edge of the village. It includes the access onto the main road, a drainage pond and open space.

The planning application illustrates the tensions involved in finding acceptable sites for new housing, including affordable homes, to help solve the housing crisis. Thousands of families in Devon are on the waiting list for social housing as a shortage of accommodation drives up private rents, and the stock is further squeezed by second home buyers and owners switching to short-term holiday lets. Yet many people are concerned about the impact of greenfield housing developments on the landscape and wildlife, and the increased pressure on already stretched local services like health and education.

According to the 2017 census, the village of Chudleigh Knighton had a population of 1,155. Objectors said the site was outside the settlement and not zoned for housing in the Local Plan, and they raised concerns about the impact of the extra residents on village services. One local said: “I worry that this development will drive current residents out of our village if the school can’t cope with the extra influx.”

One Teign Valley resident said: “It is utterly ridiculous to countenance that number of houses in one small village. You’d be doubling the size of somewhere like Hennock and experience shows such actions cause division and alienation within a community as the incoming population take time to assimilate.”

Another local resident commented: “We need to nurture and protect our countryside. Too many of these soulless community devoid developments are being built in Devon, especially around Newton Abbot and Exeter.” Action on Climate in Teignbridge’s Ecology Group objected to the potential impact on greater horseshoe bats, which have special protection.

Responding to the comments, planning inspector Hollie Nicholls said she considered that conditions on the development would allow it to go ahead without harming the South Hams Special Area of Conservation, which gives protection to the greater horseshoe bats in the area.

Illustrative masterplan for around 60 homes on land at Tollgate Farm, Chudleigh Knighton (Image: Focus on Design/Baker Estates)

On the size of the scheme, she said she did not consider around 60 homes “should be considered out of scale or excessive.” On school places, she said she noted the comments from Devon County Council education department that the local schools had enough capacity to cope with the expected extra pupils.

The inspector said the benefits of the development included affordable housing in an area of housing need and an increase in demand for goods and services in the village. The benefits were not outweighed by significant harm, even though the scheme was outside the development plan. Given a shortfall of identified housing sites in the district, there was a titled balance in favour of development, so she allowed the appeal.

The next stage will be a “reserved matters” planning application to Teignbridge Council, including detailed designs of the homes and covering the layout and landscaping of the development.

Full time working mum Trudy Lincoln can’t afford the soaring rental prices which have been pushed up by holiday homes

Becky Dickinson www.devonlive.com 

A single mum and her four children have been left homeless after being evicted from their home in Hartland, North Devon, this week. Trudy Lincoln and her family are now ‘sofa surfing’ and Trudy says second home owners and Airbnbs are to blame.

The family, who had lived in the same property for eight years, were forced to leave after the landlord decided to sell. Trudy says she asked her landlord if they could remain in the house until it was sold, to give them more time to find somewhere else, but he refused.

She told DevonLive: “He says he wants to sell it but it wouldn’t surprise me if he wanted to Airbnb it. People are advertising Airbnb for over a £1,000 per week in North Devon.”

Despite working full-time in middle management, Trudy says she can’t afford the high rental prices in the area, which have been pushed up by second homes and Airbnbs. And she says many estate agents wouldn’t even let her have a viewing because she has four children and three dogs (who have been in the family for years.)

Trudy said: “I have applied for 45 houses since October and I’ve not been able to get one viewing. I’m now in a position where I don’t know what else I can do.”

The family are currently staying with a friend, but need to move out after tomorrow. All their possessions are being put into storage. On top of that, Trudy is trying to cope with juggling work and school runs.

“I’m having to manage it all as well as working full time and trying not to not disrupt the children’s schooling. I’m also having to sort out school transport as their school route changes, I am waiting to hear back from these as to what happens,” she said.

Unsurprisingly, she said the situation is taking its toll on family life. “We are all really struggling and tension is high between us all. Two of the children have been really upset all weekend,” she said.

Trudy said the council offered the family a room in a hostel with a shared bathroom, but she didn’t feel this would be a suitable option. “As I work full time, the children would be home alone for a while till I got home and I really wouldn’t feel safe knowing that they would be in a place with other people they don’t know.” On top of this, the family would have been forced to give up their beloved dogs.

Trudy added: “To all Airbnb and second home owners I would like to say thank you, thank you for making a housing crisis worse than it already is and thank you for putting pressure on families who are struggling to put a roof over their heads through no fault of their own.”

Despite working full time, Trudy said she felt like she was letting her children down by not being able to provide a roof over their heads. For now, the family are relying on the goodwill of friends and will continue ‘sofa surfing’ while they carry on the desperate search for a place of their own.

Our loyal members, Neil and Simon, had a busy day on Tuesday knocking down all those irritating Lords amendments to the borders bill. – Owl

Katie Neame labourlist.org

Yvette Cooper has criticised the “deeply shameful” votes of Tory MPs who have rejected House of Lords amendments to the nationality and borders bill after a parliamentary debate today.

Conservative MPs have scrapped all changes made to the legislation by peers, including an amendment that would have blocked government plans to criminalise asylum seekers arriving in the UK without permission.

Reacting to the votes, the Shadow Home Secretary said: “Tory MPs voted to make it a criminal offence for Ukrainian families to arrive in the UK without the right papers with a penalty of up to four years in prison. At a time when the British people have made clear that we need to help Ukrainian refugees, this is deeply shameful.

“The Conservatives also voted against the international Refugee Convention which Britain helped to draft in the wake of the Second World War, calling on all countries to do their bit to help those fleeing the horrors of war. This should be a source of pride, and for the British government to reject it when war is raging in Europe once more is inexcusable.

“More than three million people have left Ukraine since the Russian invasion, many of them children and elderly people. They need support and solidarity from all countries. The Home Office has already been far too slow to help. Today’s votes make that much worse. Britain is better than this.”

Results of House of Commons votes on House of Lords amendments today:

• Motion to reject amendment four, which proposed to remove a clause that would allow the UK to strip dual nationals of their British citizenship without notice, passed by 318 to 223
• Motion to reject amendment five, which sought to ensure the bill remained compatible with the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, passed by 313 to 231
• Motion to reject amendment six, which tried to force the government to drop its plans to treat asylum seekers differently depending on how they arrive in the UK, passed by 318 to 220
• Motion to reject amendment seven, which proposed to reduce the period asylum seekers are unable to work after arriving in the UK from 12 months to six, passed by 291 to 232
• Motion to reject amendment ten, which sought to make it easier for those already in Europe to be reunited with family members lawfully residing in the UK, passed by 305 to 230
• Motion to reject amendment 11, which would have required the government to commit to resettling at least 10,000 refugees each year, passed by 313 to 227
• Motion to reject amendment 13, which would have removed from the bill a new offence of knowingly arriving in UK without valid entry clearance, passed by 317 to 220

In a speech during the debate today, Labour frontbencher Stephen Kinnock said the bill “doesn’t only fail to meet any of the challenges our migration system faces” but “actively makes the system worse”.

He described the proposal to criminalise people seeking asylum in the UK without clearance as “a particularly disturbing aspect”, saying “we should not be seeking to criminalise refugees desperately looking for a new home”.

The shadow immigration minister also highlighted the proposal to allow asylum seekers to be offshored to overseas processing centres, calling it “perhaps the most unhinged element” of the legislation.

“It’s operationally illiterate because it’s so utterly impractical, and it’s economical illiterate because it costs an eye-watering amount of taxpayers’ money,” Kinnock told MPs today, calling Britain’s asylum system “utterly inflexible”.

The shadow minister said the bill represents “a catalogue of failure on immigration policy” and “a combination of incompetence and indifference from a government that is presiding over a system which is neither fair, compassionate nor orderly”.

Tory rebel Damian Green told the House of Commons that safe routes to the UK are unavailable for “far too many people”, including 87% of those arriving in small boats, as they come from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Fellow Conservative rebel David Davis slammed asylum offshoring as a “moral, economic and practical failure”, saying: “What we cannot do is basically put aside our ethical standards to drive people away from our shores”.

Tory backbencher Robert Buckland argued in the debate that asylum seekers “have a contribution to make to our society” through alleviating labour shortages and bringing revenue to the Treasury.

Andrew Mitchell, a former International Development Secretary, criticised the offshoring asylum seekers idea by noting that “it would be much cheaper to put each one in the Ritz and send all the under-18s to Eton”.

The controversial nationality and borders bill returned to the House of Commons today after the government suffered 19 defeats on the legislation in the House of Lords, where peers made a number of amendments.

Proposed changes to the bill from the Lords included scrapping plans to allow asylum seekers to be offshored to overseas processing centres, as put forward by former Tory immigration minister Lord Kirkhope.

Peers had also voted to reduce the amount of time asylum seekers have to wait before they can work in the UK from 12 months to six months, and to create a statutory resettlement scheme with a target of 10,000 refugees per year.

The House of Lords tried to force the government to drop plans to treat asylum seekers differently depending on how they arrive in the UK, as ministers intend to make arriving in the UK without permission a criminal offence.

Labour’s Lord Dubs – who fled Nazi Germany as a child – described the government move as “a complete nonsense” and “not workable”, highlighting that people often struggle to get to the UK via official routes.

Peers had also voted against plans to allow the UK to strip dual nationals of their British citizenship without notice. Tory peer Baroness Warsi said the proposal would make her and her children “second-class citizens”.

The bill was passed by MPs in December, with 298 for and 231 against, giving the government a majority of 67 votes. Ministers say the legislation will establish a “firm but fair” system and enable the UK to “take full control of its borders”.

Human rights organisation Amnesty International says the legislation would “create significant obstacles and harms to people seeking asylum in the UK’s asylum system”.

Saves his “War Chest” for a pre-election bonanza.

Do you remember the 50’s or will this be a new experience for you? – Owl (who is as old as the hills)

Real household disposable income forecast to fall at the fastest annual rate since 1956 – graphic

If the Tories hadn’t torn up the planning policies on land based wind farms in 2015 we would have had a seven year start to make ourselves less dependent on fossil fuels. There can be no quick fixes from nuclear power as the Hinkley saga demonstrates. Tories aren’t good at strategic planning. – Owl

Ione Wells www.bbc.co.uk 

Boris Johnson’s cabinet is split over proposals to ease planning rules in England to enable more onshore wind farms, sources have told the BBC.

Ministers are next week due to set out plans to produce more energy in the UK to tackle spiralling household bills.

Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is in favour of loosening planning regulations to make it easier to approve plans for more onshore wind.

But the BBC has been told other cabinet ministers strongly oppose the plans.

In 2015, planning laws were changed to give local councils tougher powers over whether onshore wind turbines were built in their areas. Labour have described this as an effective “moratorium” on onshore wind – and have called on the government to end it.

The government wants the UK to become more “energy independent”, as the West tries to wean itself off Russian gas and oil.

Its “energy supply strategy” will focus on:

• Nuclear energy
• Renewable energy
• Making homes more energy efficient
• Increasing North Sea oil and gas production

This week, Kwasi Kwarteng told the i newspaper “the prime minister has been very clear that onshore wind has got to be part of the mix and we’ve got to look at planning”.

Speaking ahead of Wednesday’s cabinet meeting – the last before the energy strategy is due to be unveiled – he said: “We are not saying we are going to scrap all planning rules and all of these things have got to be in line with community support.”

He described 2015 arguments against more onshore wind as “historic”, as the government had not then committed to achieving “net zero” emissions by 2050.

“The circumstances today with Putin, Russia, Saudi Arabia, all of those things, mean that we’ve got to have more energy independence and I think onshore renewables are absolutely part of that,” he added.

Downing Street sources told the BBC the government has “got to be open” to more onshore wind where it works, but that the “big wins are offshore”.

Boris Johnson is thought to be particularly keen on offshore wind and nuclear power, telling nuclear industry leaders on Monday that he was “insanely frustrated” that the UK has “so little” nuclear capacity and was “moving so slowly” on building new reactors.

But multiple cabinet sources have told the BBC they are against relaxing planning laws for onshore wind, with one saying there was “very, very little” support for the idea.

‘Fed up’

Another cabinet source said ministers were generally united on the need for more offshore wind and nuclear power, but onshore wind would cause a “bigger problem” and needed more discussion.

Among the cabinet ministers opposed to more onshore wind turbines is Scottish Secretary Alister Jack, but the BBC understands he backs offshore developments.

The majority of the UK’s large scale wind farms are in Scotland, and onshore wind is Scotland’s main source of renewable energy, with about 70% of electricity generated in Scotland coming from onshore wind in 2020.

Onshore wind farms have been controversial among Tory MPs in the past, with David Cameron saying in 2014 that people were “fed up” with onshore wind farms being built, and Conservative activists criticising the visual impact of them on the landscape.

But in recent years government surveys have shown public support for onshore wind, albeit not always in the areas where turbines are built.

Some cabinet ministers we spoke to were “sceptical”, rather than strongly against, more onshore wind.

Separately, the BBC has been told that Brexit opportunities minister Jacob Rees-Mogg would back whatever would bring “cheap and reliable” energy to the UK, but has long been frustrated by what he views as its unreliability as an energy source.

Collapsed airline Flybe has announced 23 new flight routes ahead of its return next month.

Exeter isn’t even on the map, let alone being a regional hub.

Natasha Meek www.winsfordguardian.co.uk 

The regional carrier will operate up to 530 flights per week across 23 routes, serving airports such as Belfast City, Birmingham, East Midlands, Glasgow, Heathrow and Leeds Bradford.

Flybe flights will resume on April 13, 2022. 

If you’re already planning an adventure, here’s the full list of flight routes for 2022.

New Flybe flight routes

• Belfast City to Birmingham from April 13: Up to 4x daily later in the year
• Belfast City to Glasgow from April 14: Up to 4x daily
• Amsterdam to Birmingham from April 28: 1x daily
• Amsterdam to East Midlands from April 28: 1x daily
• Belfast City to Leeds Bradford from April 28: Up to 3x daily
• Belfast City to London Heathrow from April 28: Up to 2x daily
• Leeds Bradford to London Heathrow from April 28: Up to 3x daily, no head-to-head competition
• Amsterdam to Belfast City from May 28: 1x daily
• Amsterdam to London Heathrow from May 29: Up to 2x daily
• Belfast City to Edinburgh from June 23: Up to 3x daily
• Belfast City to East Midlands from July 7: Up to 2x daily
• Belfast City to Manchester from July 7: Up to 4x daily
• Birmingham to Avignon from July 9: 1x weekly
• Birmingham to Brest from July 9: 1x weekly
• Southampton to Avignon from July 23: 1x weekly
• Southampton to Toulon Hyères from July 24: 1x weekly
• Belfast City to Southampton from July 28: Up to 2x daily
• Birmingham to Edinburgh from July 28: Up to 4x daily
• Birmingham to Glasgow from July 28: Up to 3x daily
• Aberdeen to Birmingham from August 18: 1x daily
• Aberdeen to Belfast City from August 25: Up to 4x weekly
• Belfast City to Inverness from August 25: Up to 4x weekly
• Belfast City to Newcastle from August 25: 1x daily

Flybe was pushed into administration in March 2020 with the loss of 2,400 jobs as the Covid-19 pandemic destroyed large parts of the travel market.

Before it went bust it flew the most UK domestic routes between airports outside London.

Its business and assets were purchased in April 2021 by Thyme Opco, which is linked to US hedge fund Cyrus Capital.

Thyme Opco was renamed Flybe Limited.

The airline will be based at Birmingham Airport.

Caroline Dinenage given approval to take up nonexecutive role at care home developer owned by Tory donor

Rowena Mason www.theguardian.com 

A Conservative MP and former social care minister has signed up for a second job working as a director for a care home developer, just months after Boris Johnson promised a crackdown on outside earnings.

Caroline Dinenage asked for formal approval to take up a job as a nonexecutive at LNT Group, a developer of new care homes owned by Tory donor Lawrence Tomlinson.

Many of her party colleagues have been offloading second jobs following a furore about MPs spending too much time on outside interests after the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal that forced him to resign.

The government pledged to bring in changes to the rules on MP jobs to tighten restrictions around lobbying and consultancy after a consultation held by the Commons standards committee, but last week No 10 quietly dropped support for capping hours and earnings.

Despite the lack of formal new rules, many MPs have cut back their work for private companies.

Julian Smith, a Conservative former cabinet minister, quit all of his private sector advisory roles, which had been earning him £144,000 a year, while Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, ended his advisory board role at Tunstall Healthcare, which had been earning him £20,000 a year.

In contrast, Dinenage, the MP for Gosport, was given approval for the new part-time role at the care home developer earlier this month by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), which noted that she had toured an LNT site while she was a social care minister but said her former department had no concerns about her taking up the job.

It said she must not lobby the government on behalf of LNT, draw on privileged information, advise on government contracts or use contacts from her time in office.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said: “Just as Boris Johnson breaks his promise to crack down on Tory MPs’ outside work, it emerges one of his former health ministers has a second job with a care home firm.

“This is a prime minister who has repeatedly allowed his own MPs to put their own private business interests ahead of their constituents and it must be stopped. Labour will set up a commission for integrity and ethics to make sure the British people’s interests always come first.”

The government’s pledge last year to put tighter restrictions on second jobs came amid a public outcry over lobbying breaches by Paterson, whom MPs were initially whipped to try to protect, and a furore over the former attorney general Geoffrey Cox being paid nearly £6m as a lawyer since joining parliament, voting by proxy on days he was undertaking paid work.

Two cabinet ministers, Dominic Raab and Anne-Marie Trevelyan, backed a time limit on second jobs last autumn, suggesting it could be 10 to 15 hours a week.

But with pressure off Johnson’s premiership because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, ministers submitted their view to the Commons standards committee that a time limit or ceiling on such earnings would be “impractical”.

At least 20 Conservative MPs have lobbied the standards committee investigating new rules on second jobs and their behaviour in the Commons chamber, with many saying they strongly disagreed with time limits on outside work.

Dinenage has been contacted for comment.

Data shows £11.8bn lost in support schemes

Harriet Line www.dailymail.co.uk 

Coronavirus fraud cost taxpayers almost twice the amount Britain lost on Black Wednesday, figures revealed last night.

A staggering £11.8billion was lost to fraud and error in the Government’s business support schemes during the pandemic, the House of Commons library estimates.

It said 1992’s Black Wednesday, when Britain crashed out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, cost £3.3billion – which in today’s prices is around £6billion.

Labour, which commissioned the analysis, accused the Chancellor of having ‘casually written off’ pandemic fraud.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak (pictured) has been accused of writing off pandemic fraud, which is estimated to have cost the taxpayer £11.8billion

Labour have been critical of Rishi Sunak’s response to the fraud, Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves (pictured) said the Conservatives have mishandled public finances

Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves added: ‘Coming on top of billions spent on crony contracts and billions more of unusable PPE burnt away, any claim the Conservatives have to careful stewardship of the public finances is well and truly gone.’

The scale of Covid fraud waste is equivalent to the £12billion expected to be raised each year by next month’s planned national insurance hike.

A Treasury spokesman said last night: ‘Fraud is totally unacceptable, and we’re taking action on multiple fronts to crack down on anyone who has sought to exploit our schemes and bring them to justice.’

Estimated losses due to fraud and error for the five business support schemes most susceptible to fraud are between £8.6billion and £16.3billion. 

The House of Commons library used a central estimate of £11.8billion, which it compared to Treasury estimates for the cost of Black Wednesday.

It estimated the crash cost £3.3billion from August 1992 to February 1994, which in today’s prices is around £6billion.

Rishi Sunak has resisted a clamour of calls for a rethink on the tax rise, insisting the money it will raise is needed to provide long-term funding for the NHS and social care.

But campaigners fear it will exacerbate the cost of living crisis, and insist the Chancellor could afford to delay its introduction.

He is under pressure to deal with the worsening crisis when he delivers his Spring Statement in the Commons tomorrow.

Landfill site in AONB withdrawn just before planners make decision, Owl hopes that it would have been refused. Although planning policies always allow the subjective assessment of “economic benefit” to outweigh the “harm”.

Anita Merritt www.devonlive.com

A controversial planning application to turn farmland owned by the makers of Exeter’s renowned Orange Elephant Ice Cream Parlour into a landfill site has been withdrawn. Just over a week before a decision was due to be made on the proposals by planners at East Devon District Council [? Teignbridge – Owl], the applicant – BT Jenkins – has withdrawn the application. The reason for doing so has not been confirmed.

Lower Brenton Farm in Kennford had been identified as being a replacement for Trood Lane landfill site at Matford in Exeter, which is nearing completion having exhausted its permitted capacity.

The new 33 hectares site had hoped to start accepting fill material as the Trood Lane facility closes within the next 18 months or so. The land is designated as an area of outstanding landscape value and a vast number of objections – said to total more than 700 – were received following a consultation held at the beginning of the year.

News that the application has been withdrawn has been described as a ‘huge collective sigh of relief’ from local residents according to local Devon County councillor Alan Connett.

The location of the proposed landfill areas at Lower Brenton Farm in Kennford (Image: Friends of Shillingford Wood)

He said: “When I put on social media that the application had been withdrawn yesterday it had lots of comments from people across the wider community who were delighted to receive the news.

“There is the concern whether there will be a new application at some point, but at the moment they are relieved to know it has been withdrawn.” He added: “The application received about 700 comments which is one of the highest I can think of for any planning application.”

Among the objectors was the Friends of Shillingford Wood, a registered charity set up by local residents to raise the funds needed to secure the purchase the 12-acre woods, who put together a campaign video. In the video it states: “For centuries this landscape and ancient woodland in the hills south of Exeter has provided food and shelter for its people and its wildlife.

“A hidden gem, known locally as The Bluebell Wood, sit at the top of the hill in this beautiful Devon landscape that belongs to us all, but for how much longer?

“Devon County Council is now currently considering a planning application to create a large waste recycling facility on farmland. between the villages of Kennford and Shillingford St George. This would also include over 80 acres of landfill with 1.2m cubic meters of inert waste material – an area roughly the same size as 40 football pitches. “The site would run up the hills behind the well-known Orange Elephant on the A38.”

It continued: “Local residents, environmentalists, wildlife experts and walkers have all been shocked by the extent and the location of the site., and the lack of any kind of public consultation with Devon County Council.”

The Taverner family have been farming at Lower Brenton for five generations. The farm itself is more than 800 years old. Current owners Helen and Rob Taverner keep a dairy herd of 300 cows that graze outside most of the year.

Their milk is sold to a farmer-owned co-operative that makes cream, butter, cheese, milk as well as being made into ice cream on the farm. The additional of the landfill site would have formed part of its Dadmore Dairy project, named after an old, half-forgotten field name, to help renew the way they grow food and secure the farm’s future.

It would have allowed parts of five of its steepest fields to be filled with inert material from nearby excavation, demolition and construction schemes, before being returned to productive pasture as soon as the valleys are filled and the slopes reduced.

A drawing of the proposed landfill site at Lower Brenton Farm in Kennford

BT Jenkins, which operates the Trood Lane recycling and landfill site, was seeking permisison for the provision of temporary construction, demolition and excavation waste recycling facility.

The land is currently used for agricultural grazing as part of the Lower Brenton farm holding. The village of Kennford lies approximately 400m to the southeast of the site, separated by the A38. Devon Live has contacted BT Jenkins for a comment but has been informed the owner is currently not available this week.

Owl’s talons are well and truly crossed, and will remain so until the day of judgement.

Cathy Gardner: The trial is over, we await the verdict

Our trial concluded today, March 21st 2022, after 6 days during which the Government has sought to justify its failure to protect care home residents during the first wave of the covid pandemic. It has sought to justify the approach it adopted by stating that it considered the risk of asymptomatic transmission to be low at the beginning of the pandemic. It said that its policies therefore on discharging patients from hospitals into care homes, without testing or isolating them, was therefore justified. The Government also sought to argue that the pandemic was an exceptional situation where it and the NHS faced very significant challenges. It was therefore justified in adopting the policies that it did.

During the trial my legal team challenged the Government’s version of events and their justification for the policies they adopted. In particular we pointed out that the risk of asymptomatic transmission was acknowledged early on in the pandemic and the particular risk this posed to care home residents. Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, explained on the Today programme on 13th March 2020 that there was likely to be some degree of asymptomatic transmission, and that care homes were a particular concern. The Government was aware of the risk. It could and should have taken a more cautious approach that would have protected lives. As my legal team told the Court on the first day of the trial, the Government’s policies were always a recipe for disaster in care homes, and disaster is what happened.

What was very unusual in the trial was that there was no direct evidence of what information the Government or NHS were provided with in order to make the key policies we challenged. In a normal judicial review, the decision maker explains what advice they were given, how they weighed it and why they reached the decision they did. On the key decisions in March and April 2020, this was completely absent. The Government has had ample opportunity to provide evidence that the risks to care home residents were taken into account, and that ministers thought about how to mitigate those risks. It has failed to do so. The obvious conclusion is that the lives of vulnerable people were simply overlooked – with devastating consequences.

We now await the judgement of the Court. This could take several months.

I wish to thank everyone who has given so generously to bring us to this critical point. We still have a mountain to climb to meet the legal costs so please do pass this message on if you can. All donations are very much appreciated.

Vince Cable was warning about excessive consumer debt years before anyone else tumbled to the problem. In November 2003 he challenged the then-chancellor Gordon Brown about “the brutal truth” that “the growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level”.

As a result he gained “economic guru” status, though this has been frequently challenged. Owl, certainly, would be critical of the central role he played in introducing Local Enterprise Partnerships.

Here is his view tomorrow’s (Wednesday) Spring Statement:

Vince Cable www.independent.co.uk

Most politicians encounter a hero-to-zero moment (I speak from experience). I suspect Rishi Sunak may be bracing himself for one now, as he approaches Wednesday’s spring statement. But he should not lose hope.

Even before the Russians invaded Ukraine, the outlook was uncomfortable: 5 per cent consumer inflation; a big rise in the energy price cap; a rise in National Insurance to pay for spending on the NHS and care. The latest YouGov survey of 6,000 households shows consumer confidence to be at its lowest level since records began over a decade ago.

The war makes that outlook even worse. There is much uncertainty about how much further punitive measures against Russia may go but supply disruptions and sanctions amount to a big global tax on oil and gas, cereals, fertilisers and several key metals. The effect will be to aggravate “stagflation”: pushing up costs and prices while simultaneously depressing demand.

The geo-political earthquake in Ukraine will generate an economic tsunami, sweeping away comforts and orthodoxies with which we have become familiar in recent decades. We don’t yet know the height of the waves, but we know they are on their way.

The era of low interest rates is first to go. Central Banks, including our Bank of England, are getting alarmed about inflation and moving to higher rates, which further depresses consumer demand and investment. Despite rate rises, some forecasters believe the UK could hit 10 per cent inflation by the end of the year and be in recession.

Given chronic uncertainty, and his very public commitment not to undermine the public finances, there is a strong temptation for Mr Sunak to do as little as possible. But then he runs the risk of doing too little, too late, since tax and spend measures operate with a time lag. The tax tap takes a long time to run hot; the spending tap takes a long time to shut off. He is also in a stronger position to be generous than he might appear, with government borrowing running £25billion below expected levels.

The Chancellor will make a lot of the rising interest cost of servicing government debt as a justification for not doing more to cut taxes or increase spending. That would however be a poor excuse. Only about a fifth of government debt is linked to inflation, and the costs of new borrowing are negative in real terms. The level of government debt to GDP is expected to be shown in the budget statement as falling and is not high in historical terms, against the background of war and pandemic.

Sunak’s guilty secret is that higher inflation will actually help the Treasury in budgetary terms. Income tax is set to rise because tax thresholds are being eroded in value by rising prices: so-called “fiscal drag”. And public spending is squeezed in real terms because departmental spending has been fixed in cash terms over several years. Inflation tax is a big earner.

For that reason, I would expect the Chancellor to make some crowd-pleasing gestures after all. There are strong but competing demands to ease the pain of the current “cost of living crisis”. The best option is to concentrate resources on low-income households who are the main sufferers from high domestic energy and food costs. The most obvious step would be to increase universal credit (and pensions) beyond the 3.1 per cent uplift currently planned. The OECD has urged its members, including Britain, to use their “fiscal firepower” to protect the poorest in society, helping them pay their bills for essentials.

A more politically-popular measure with Conservative MPs would be to cut fuel duty. In remote and rural areas without public transport, there is a real issue. But a policy which provides the biggest help to motorists with gas-guzzlers flies in the face of environmental commitments. The same could be said of a cut in the 5 per cent VAT rate on energy – though it would directly help fuel-poor households with gas and electricity bills.

Meanwhile, although an across-the-board cut in VAT tends to benefit big spenders most, it has both political and economic appeal. Taking VAT temporarily down to 17.5 per cent would be simultaneously disinflationary (slowing the rate of inflation) and reflationary (stimulating spending), offsetting stagflation directly.

The Chancellor will also be expected to boost defence spending and ease the pain of energy intensive industries. And, although he is not relenting on his ill-advised increase in National Insurance rates, he could soften the impact on low earners by lifting the NIC threshold (perhaps with a simultaneous increase in the “cap” at which higher earners stop making NI contributions).

Finally, there are some tax increases which would be popular – not least taxing windfall profits from North Sea oil, despite the risk of suppressing investment in increased production and domestic energy security.

By combining tax hikes on the corporate bogeymen with some spending on a hard-pressed public, Mr Sunak may not hold on to his “hero” status, but he could prove he has some way to go before reaching zero.

Sir Vince Cable’s podcast, Cable Comments with Vince Cable, is available here

Plymouth changes its Leader ahead of the May when one third of the seats come up for election.

Currently neither of the major parties have overall control.

Richard Bingley replaces Nick Kelly as new council leader

Carl Eve www.plymouthherald.co.uk

Plymouth City Council has elected Cllr Richard Bingley as its new leader after Cllr Nick Kelly lost a vote of no confidence. Cllr Kelly, a Conservative for the Compton ward, had been leader of the council since the Conservative group won the largest number of seats in the May 2021 elections.

But his position became less secure after several resignations and suspensions, meaning the Tories had the same number of councillors as the Labour group. Cllr Kelly’s annual budget included a 1.74 per cent council tax increase, but he failed to get it approved after Labour brought an amendment to freeze council tax for the next financial year – other than the one pre cent ring-fenced for adult social care.

Labour launched a vote of no confidence in his leadership, which has now passed with 29 votes for, one absention, and 23 against. Speaking after the vote, he offered his thanks to people including Lord Mayor Terri Beer and other council staff, and described it as an “honour and a privilege” to become leader.

Cllr Bingley and Cllr Vivien Pengelly [both Conservatives – Owl] were proposed as new leaders and in a vote Cllr Bingley won 26 votes, Cllr Pengelly won 12, and there were 15 abstentions. Cllr Bingley is a Conservative and represents the Southway Ward on Plymouth City Council. He is currently chair of Brexit, Infrastructure and Legislative Change. In April last year, just before elections, he was described by his party.

Who is new leader Cllr Richard Bingley?

They said: “Richard is an education and training director, living and working in Plymouth. In Southway, he recognises the urgent need to improve the basics, as the ward’s roads are in disrepair, fly-tipping hotspots are left neglected, green space and play areas are becoming less well maintained.

“Richard has leadership experience – in the government, higher education and security sectors and will use these skills to proactively promote Southway as a place to live, work and invest. Richard will offer a strong voice for all residents living across Tamerton, Southway, Widewell and Belliver.” He also has a number of business interests.

His register of interest lists the following: UK Global Cyber Academy LTD, City Security & Resilience Networks LTD, Saveourstatues.org.uk, Security Consultants Handbook – book sales, and ad hoc consultancy work.

Related to this work, earlier this month he wrote an article for the Express website saying that the Kremlin is trying to control people using social media. You can read it here. In November 2021 he reacted angrily at a debate over speed limits on the A38, adding: “None of us want to see fatalities on the A38 or any other road so to pretend otherwise is distasteful.

The worst debate that we have had since I have been elected to this place.”

In yesterday’s post “Sewage: you should take personal responsibility”, Radio Exe claimed that Susan Davy received a bonus of more than £370,000, on top of her £475,000 base salary.

As previously reported by Owl, The Times quoted a substantially higher bonus figure of £1.2 million:

Water bosses’ pay and bonuses in 2020-21 from www.thetimes.co.uk 

• Susan Davy, chief executive of Pennon, the parent company of South West Water, was paid £1.7 million, including £1.2 million in bonuses

• Steve Mogford, the chief executive of United Utilities, was paid £2.9 million, including £2 million in bonuses.

• Liv Garfield, the chief executive of Severn Trent Water, was paid £2.8 million, including £1.9 million in bonuses

• Sarah Bentley, the chief executive of Thames Water, was paid £1.2 million, including a £273,000 bonus.

• Ian McAulay, the chief executive of Southern Water, was paid £1 million, including £550,000 in bonuses.

From a correspondent:

A South West Water story about “taking personal responsibility ” …

Suddenly, after many years in my home with clean water, dirty black marks on shower head and toilet rim and little, black “worm like things” coming out of all basin taps.  Ugh!  Reported to SWW.

South West Water say it is “biofilm” – a completely harmless interaction of substances inside water pipe and my job to keep it at bay – bleach, etc.  They even sent me a leaflet telling me what to do, which I did, but it didn’t stop.

Refused to accept this and, after pressure my tap water was tested.  Same response from SWW – clear, harmless “biofilm” and my responsibility.

Pointed out an area just behind my home (miles from a water course and on top of a hill) covered in pondweed and always wet and suggested there might be a leak – no response.

I found a university which specialised in biofilm research – yes, it is kind-of harmless ON ITS OWN BUT known to attract bugs and bacteria – including e coli and other nasties.  Remember, I was told I could brush my teeth in this stuff …

A few weeks later, without warning, a repair team turned up and did a “running” repair to the water main (ie water not turned off so no-one needed to be informed).

Since then:

no black stuff in water or toilet

showerhead clean

no “worms”

water pressure has improved enormously

pondweed outside drying up and being replaced by grass and normal weeds

Yep, I took MY responsibility …