Seems an appropriate post following a night of heavy rainfall and flood alerts on all East Devon rivers.

Does Owl need to spell out where sewers discharge when this happens? 

High phosphate levels in Cornwall’s River Camel being monitored

www.bbc.co.uk

Phosphate levels in a river in Cornwall are being monitored after recent high readings, Cornwall Council says.

The authority said it was using a chemical calculator to measure and monitor levels in the River Camel after an alert by Natural England.

The move has resulted in all planning and development proposals in the area being put on hold, the council said. 

The main source of phosphates was agriculture, with some coming via sewage from homes and other developments that generated waste water, it added. 

The River Camel is part of a Special Area of Conservation.

High levels of phosphates in land can encourage weeds and choke rivers.

Phosphate neutrality

The council said it was notified by Natural England “that the area was at risk from adverse effects due to excessive phosphates and that further development could exacerbate this unless mitigation measures were put in place”.

It said the pause in planning work in the area had primarily impacted housing applications.

But some commercial and agricultural development had also been impacted, and it “could also affect other schemes”, the authority added .

It said it had introduced a phosphate calculator, external to allow planning applicants to calculate whether their development would be phosphate-neutral as a “first step” in keeping levels under control.

But it said: “Until longer-term solutions are found, the council will only be able to approve applications that can show that they meet this [phosphate-neutral] requirement, or can propose mitigation measures to the same effect.”

The council said it was working with Natural England, the Environment Agency and South West Water “to find a solution as quickly as possible”.

Rishi Sunak cuts taxes on domestic flights days before Cop26 climate summit

[At the specific request of Simon Jupp MP and Andrew Bowie, MP (Aberdeen) in the Times “Red Box”]

www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak has been accused of undermining the UK’s response to the climate emergency, after his Budget included measures to make it cheaper to take internal flights and drive cars that emit greenhouse gases.

The moves – branded “astonishing” and “retrograde” by Friends of the Earth – were unveiled just days ahead of the crucial Cop26 global warming summit in Glasgow, at which Boris Johnson will plead with the international community to cut carbon emissions.

And they came just a day after the government’s own Climate Change Committee (CCC) told the prime minister that his administration’s net zero strategy had “nothing to say” on aviation and must take further action to discourage people from flying.

Environmentalists said that a Budget statement that spent longer on the reform of alcohol duty than the government’s net zero targets would effectively “extend the age of fossil fuels” in the UK.

In a Budget that he said would lay the foundations for an “economy fit for a new age of optimism”, the chancellor said he wanted to make internal air travel cheaper in order to “cut the cost of living”.

From April 2023, air passenger duty (APD) on flights between airports in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be reduced from £13 to £6.50 per leg, offset by increased rates for long-haul routes.

Mr Sunak claimed the policy – costing the Treasury £275m between now and 2026-27 – would “help cut the cost of living, with 9 million passengers seeing their duty cut by half”.

“It will bring people together across the United Kingdom, and – because they tend to have a greater proportion of domestic passengers – it is a boost to regional airports like Aberdeen, Inverness and Southampton, which are major regional employers,” he said.

But the policy effectively pushes passengers to switch from rail to flying, by cutting the price of internal flights at a time when rail fares are set to see their biggest rise in a decade.

It is the polar opposite of what is being done in some other European countries, which have increasingly moved to restrict domestic air travel where rail alternatives are available.

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast it would result in around 410,000 more passenger journeys a year (a 3.5 per cent rise).

And the new £91 “ultra-long-haul band” of APD will affect just 5 per cent of passengers, as it applies only to flights over 5,500 miles.

The chancellor also confirmed he would extend state support to English airports for a further six months to “help them get through the winter”.

And he continued the practice of all Conservative chancellors since 2010 by freezing fuel duty, a policy that has made it increasingly cheaper to travel by car than to use more environmentally sustainable alternatives.

The twelfth successive year of frozen taxes on petrol and diesel will cost the Treasury £1.6bn annually and a total of £7.9bn by 2026-27.

According to the OBR, motorists have benefitted to the tune of £65bn from the freeze since 2010, compared to a rise in line with inflation, making it one of the government’s most generous tax cuts. Mr Sunak said it had saved the average car driver £1,600 over the period.

This year’s freeze alone was predicted by the OBR to increase purchases of fossil fuels by 450 million litres over the next five years.

In a statement earlier this week, the CCC – a statutory body that advises the government on its climate change targets – said options for reining in the growth in aviation should be “explored further with a view to early action”.

The CCC said: “The government does not include an explicit ambition on … reductions in the growth of aviation, and policies for managing travel demand have not been developed to match the funding that has been committed.”

Friends of the Earth’s head of policy Mike Childs responded with horror to the Budget package.

“Cutting APD on domestic flights is an astonishing move that completely flies in the face of the climate emergency,” he said. “The chancellor should be making it cheaper for people to travel around the country by train, not carbon-guzzling planes.

“APD for all flights should have been increased, or even better, replaced with a frequent flyers levy, aimed at curbing multiple flights taken by a minority of people each year.

“As the prime minister prepares to host next week’s crucial climate summit, this retrograde step is another illustration that the government’s carbon reduction plans don’t add up.”

Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK, said Mr Sunak was “actively making things worse by making it cheaper to fly between UK cities”, while James Thornton, chief executive of environmental law charity ClientEarth, said the announcement on fuel and domestic flight duties “goes against everything we know about climate change” and warned that the UK had “missed a crucial chance to lead by example”.

Luke Murphy, head of the environmental justice commission at the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank, said Mr Sunak had “used the Budget to extend the age of fossil fuels”.

“Cutting air passenger duty was the most significant new policy mentioned in the Budget speech today, which will have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions – and it will increase them. Rishi Sunak talked for longer about beer duty than our duty to future generations to address the climate and nature crises,” he said.

“The truth is, this climate-void, fossil-fuel-heavy Budget failed to deliver the necessary £30bn of investment needed each year to meet our climate and nature targets.”

And Sam Alvis, head of green renewal at Green Alliance, said the chancellor’s approach to climate was “increasingly difficult to understand”.

“Just days away from a vital climate conference championed by the prime minister, Rishi Sunak barely mentions net zero and encourages people to fly around the UK rather than take the train. The measure on air passenger duty will even cost the Treasury money rather than boost its revenue,” he said.

Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow energy and climate secretary, said: “Another Budget from the chancellor which failed on both the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis.

“No green recovery, no plan to save families £400 on bills, no plan for green steel. Working people will pay the price of Tory climate delay.”

The UK is still in a “very uncertain phase” of the pandemic, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser has said.

Max Channon www.devonlive.com

Sir Patrick Vallance told the Today programme: “There is considerable uncertainty into which direction this goes,” he said.

“It’s wrong to think that the build up of immunity is an all or nothing – it’s a sort of protective barrier that will reduce the spread of the virus so we need to monitor this carefully over the next weeks and months.

He added: “You need to absolutely be prepared (for plan B) and as soon as you start thinking ‘am I, or am I not going to do this? It looks close’ is the time you need to push beyond your natural reluctance to do it and do it.

“This is obviously something the government will have to consider carefully but we need to be ready to move fast if that occurs.”

The Government’s chief scientific adviser said the models around what will happen with Covid-19 are “quite uncertain at the moment” and there is a lot of variability.

Sir Patrick Vallance told BBC Breakfast: “Nobody is really clear which direction this is going in, but they are clear about the two big variables that could change that.

“One is waning immunity, so if immunity wanes faster than expected, you’ll see a bigger increase, and that’s why it’s so important to get booster shots going in the vulnerable and the elderly in particular.

“The second is the behavioural change, how quickly we return to pre-pandemic behaviours… if you aggregate the models, most are saying ‘Actually, it looks fairly flat, don’t expect the very big peaks we’ve had in the past, it looks fairly flat, but at a very high level at the moment.’

“So the high level remains a concern and from a high level you can go up quite quickly.”

He said that, as immunity builds from vaccination and infection in children, “there will be a resistance to transmissions (and) you may expect that (surge in children) to level off”.

Asked if more than 40,000 Covid cases a day is a level that can be dealt with and is acceptable, he said: “Well, that’s a societal question.

“There are high levels, and those high levels, of course, translate into levels of hospitalisation, but the levels of hospitalisation are very much reduced by vaccination.

“The lower the levels, the better in terms of overall overall outcome, but there are costs and consequences of decisions in both directions there.

“So that’s a societal question about what levels are acceptable.

“I will say though – and it’s an important point to make – that, as this infection becomes gradually becomes endemic, it will occur year on year, we will see this circulating every winter, I suspect, in particular.

“And so, gradually, as immunity builds, the protection will be there, the consequences will be reduced, but we’re not not there yet.

“We’ve still got, clearly, people going into hospital, it’s still a significant risk.”

Yesterday, the Government said a further 207 people had died within 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19 as of Wednesday, bringing the UK total to 140,041.

Separate figures published by the Office for National Statistics show there have now been 165,000 deaths registered in the UK where Covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate.

As of 9am on Wednesday, there had been a further 43,941 lab-confirmed Covid-19 cases in the UK, the Government said.

Meanwhile Sir Keir Starmer is the fourth MP to test positive in the past week. Masks are compulsory for staff but optional for MPs. Jacob Rees-Mogg pointedly didn’t wear one during the budget speech. – Owl

Here are the latest rates of cases of Covid-19 in Devon and Cornwall.

www.bbc.co.uk

The figures show the number of coronavirus cases per 100,000 people in the seven days up to and including 23 October, with the previous week’s numbers in brackets.

The breakdown of the figures by local authority area is:

• Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly – 495 (down from 550)
• Plymouth – 528 (up from 465)
• Exeter – 432 (up from 326)
• Mid Devon – 592 (down from 635)
• East Devon – 567 (up from 501)
• Torbay – 490 (up from 423)
• Teignbridge – 510 (up from 413)
• South Hams – 517 (up from 408)
• West Devon – 622 (no change)
• North Devon – 500 (up from 463)
• Torridge – 493 (down from 540)

For comparison, the figure for England is 480.

Owl adds a screenshot of the latest Devon Covid Dashboard for interest. This shows the confirmed case rates in East Devon by age from the beginning of the pandemic. Please remember that testing was very limited at the start, and despite the criticism of “test and trace”, testing has become more widespread.

The government’s flagship test-and-trace system has failed to achieve “its main objective” to cut infection levels and help Britain return to normal despite being handed an “eye-watering” £37bn in taxpayers’ cash, the Commons spending watchdog has warned.

Owl thinks that “Operation Moonshot” – remember that, the much hyped same day mass testing? – was subsumed into NHS test and trace in October 2020.

Andrew Gregory www.theguardian.com 

NHS test and trace was set up in May last year as the UK emerged from the first lockdown. It was led by Dido Harding, a Conservative peer and businesswoman who previously worked for Tesco and TalkTalk. She was appointed by the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, who praised her “brilliant” work on the pandemic.

In a damning report, the public accounts committee concluded that NHS test and trace “has not achieved its main objective to help break chains of Covid-19 transmission and enable people to return towards a more normal way of life” despite receiving about 20% of the NHS’s entire annual budget – £37 bn – over two years.

Instead, the report said, since the end of October 2020 “the country has had two more national lockdowns and case numbers have risen dramatically”. At the time of its launch, Boris Johnson claimed NHS test and trace would be “world-beating”. However, the 26-page report found that its aims had been “overstated or not achieved”.

The timing of the report’s conclusions is hugely embarrassing for the government as it continues to resist introducing measures to stem the rise in Covid cases. NHS test and trace is a key pillar of its “plan A” approach to autumn and winter, which ministers say is sufficient to avoid a crisis.

Even now, uptake of NHS test and trace is still “variable” as some vulnerable people are much less likely to take a test than others, the report says. Urgent improvements are needed in public outreach, with more than 60% of people who experience Covid-19 symptoms reporting that they have not been tested, and certain groups, such as older people, men, and some ethnic minorities, less likely to engage with the service.

The programme is also “still not flexible enough to meet changing demand and risks wasting public money”, the report adds. MPs on the cross-party committee warned that NHS test and trace desperately needs a “proper long-term strategy”.

The report also criticised the handling of the cash awarded to NHS test and trace. It said the programme has still not managed to cut the number of expensive contractors paid an average of £1,100 a day. Some have been paid rates of more than £6,000 a day.

Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the committee, said: “The national test-and-trace programme was allocated eye-watering sums of taxpayers’ money in the midst of a global health and economic crisis. It set out bold ambitions but has failed to achieve them despite the vast sums thrown at it.

“Only 14% of 691m lateral flow tests sent out had results reported, and who knows how many took the necessary action based on the results they got, or how many were never used. The continued reliance on the over-priced consultants who ‘delivered’ this state of affairs will by itself cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.”

Dr Simon Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said the MPs’ report exposed “a great many shortcomings in the NHS test and trace service”.

“Harding previously boasted that the operation was [the] size of Tesco, without conceding that the supermarket chain actually works,” he said. “Greater attention seems to have been paid to headline-grabbing initiatives to build up the system than to ensuring it actually did its job.”

He added: “Failure to cut infections could mean that we suffered more sickness and death, and longer time spent living under restrictions than would otherwise have been the case.”

Michael Hopkins, professor of innovation management at the University of Sussex business school, warned that the report “comes at a crucial time, with Covid cases and scepticism of NHS test and trace both rising”.

A government spokesperson said: “We have rightly drawn on the extensive expertise of a number of public and private sector partners who have been invaluable in helping us tackle the virus.

“We have built a testing network from scratch that can process millions of tests a day – more than any European country – providing a free LFD (lateral flow device) or PCR test to anybody who needs one.

“The new UK Health Security Agency will consolidate the knowledge that now exists across our health system to help us tackle future pandemics and threats.”

Almost £2bn has been slashed from promised development spending in poorer areas of the UK, despite Boris Johnson’s vow to “level up” the country.

www.independent.co.uk 

The government had pledged to match lost EU funding – to “tackle inequality and deprivation” – which would have required at least £4.5bn over the next three years.

But Rishi Sunak’s Budget reveals just £2.6bn has been allocated and reallocates the fund to improving “functional numeracy skills”, to boost job prospects.

The move will provoke fury in many ‘Red Wall’ areas of England and in Scotland and Wales – which were big recipients of EU structural funds before Brexit cut off the flow.

The Conservative party manifesto at the 2019 general election promised to “at a minimum match” the lost funds in each nation of the UK.

Rebecca Evans, the Welsh Government’s finance minister, protested at “clear gaps in funding where the UK government should be investing in Wales”.

“Arrangements for replacing EU structural funds remain unclear, but what we do know is it falls well short of the £375m we were receiving – these are funds that support skills, businesses and decarbonisation.”

Alexander Rose, a public funding lawyer and secondee at the European Commission, tweeted that the announcement “breaks the promise” that the EU funds would be replaced.

“Furthermore, the new fund is heavily centralised with no guarantees the funding on offer will go to the areas which need it most,” he warned.

The long-promised UK Shared Prosperity Fund was already mired in controversy, after being delayed until next year – already costing poorer areas around £1.5bn.

The government promised to match the pre-Brexit grants, to build local economies by attracting businesses and jobs, and said they would flow from next April.

But the spending review document, for the three years from 2022 until 2025, states it will be “worth over £2.6bn”, over that period.

It says funding will only “rise to £1.5bn a year by 2024-25” and says the pot must no pay for “a new UK-wide programme to equip hundreds of thousands of adults with functional numeracy skills”.

Mr Sunak did not mention the disguised cut in his Budget speech, in which he argued the government was “levelling up communities, restoring the pride people feel in the places they call home”.

“For too long, far too long, the location of your birth has determined too much of your future,” the chancellor said, announcing a separate £1.7bn for better infrastructure in more than 100 areas.

Economic experts have also warned that ministers are ignoring where “need is greatest” in the allocation of the limited funds available.

It came after The Independent revealed that seats held by 7 Cabinet ministers are likely winners from the prosperity fund, despite previously being judged as not needing the grants.

The constituencies of Mr Sunak, the foreign secretary Liz Truss, and Stephen Barclay, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, are on a list of “priority places”.

A sharp-eyed correspondent noticed an article posted on the Times “Red Box” column on Tuesday authored by Simon Jupp and Andrew Bowie, MP for Aberdeen.

Both the correspondent and Owl thought it looked suspisciously like a “planted” story.

These two MPs were arguing for the Chancellor to cut air passenger duty on domestic flights as “a bold step towards supporting connectivity across all parts of the Union, as well as boosting our domestic aviation industry which has been at the forefront of the economic impact of coronavirus.”

With COP 26 about to start, arguing for cuts in air passenger duty (when aviation kerosene used by the commercial aviation sector is already exempt from tax) would not seem to be a clever way to support regional aviation. This is an industry that has to be rethought; it can’t just be reset to the “BP” (Before Pandemic) era. 

“Cheap domestic flights might seem a good deal when you buy them, but they are a climate disaster, generating seven times more harmful greenhouse emissions than the equivalent train journey. Making the train cheaper will boost passenger numbers and help reduce emissions from aviation, but any cut to air passenger duty – coupled with a rise in rail fares in January – will send the wrong message about how the government wants people to travel and mean more people choosing to fly.” Paul Tuohy, Campaign for Better Transport’s chief executive.

Nevertheless, the Chancellor obliged by rebalancing the duty, reducing it on domestic flights and increasing it on long flights. 

Obviously Rishi Sunak was expected to name check Aberdeen and Exeter in his speech, illustrating the range of UK domestic flights. Except that Exeter/Devon/Newquay/The South West (and Simon Jupp) must be so beyond his metropolitan radar he forgot to mention it/them.

What he actually said was:

“But today I can announce that flights between airports in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will…

…from April 2023, be subject to a new lower rate of Air Passenger Duty.

This will help cut the cost of living, with 9 million passengers seeing their duty cut by half.

It will bring people together across the UK.

And because they tend to have a greater proportion of domestic passengers…

…it is a boost to regional airports like Aberdeen, Belfast, Inverness and Southampton”

With Exmouth failing to get the Dinan Way grant from the “Leveling up” fund, and Simon having to deny he supported continuing with the tame water quality policy that results, for example, in sewage spewing into the Otter from Honiton, on average, every two or three days, it’s been a mixed week. [Owl repeats “a ludicrous and misleading accusation”.]

Owl believes Simon Jupp has serious questions to answer with regard to his green credentials.

First Axminster was led up the garden path of disappointment and broken “promises”, now it’s Exmouth’s turn. In Owl’s opinion, Westminster isn’t going to take any  notice of Devon until it returns to its radical roots.

A discussion of the timeline of Simon Jupp’s pre-election regeneration promise can be found in this March post.

Will Goddard exmouth.nub.news 

Simon Jupp MP said that he is ‘deeply disappointed’ that the multi-million pound bid to extend Dinan Way and improve the area around Exmouth railway station has been unsuccessful in the first round of the government’s Levelling Up Fund.

The bid was submitted earlier this year by Devon County Council and East Devon District Council.

It comes despite Exmouth being described as ‘exactly the kind of place that these funds were designed to support’ by Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick in Parliament in July, and the Dinan Way extension being Devon County Council’s priority application.

The extension would have seen Dinan Way connected with the A376 to reduce traffic, and has had planning permission since 2017.

East Devon MP Simon Jupp said: “Whilst it is disappointing that our councils’ bid did not succeed in the first round of the Levelling Up Fund, I hope local leaders will continue to work together with me and the government ahead of future opportunities.

“I will be seeking an explanation as to why the bid was unsuccessful which I hope will help further applications, if the council decide to reapply. I have called for a meeting of local council leaders once feedback is received from the government on the councils’ bid.

“I have campaigned hard in Parliament for East Devon, securing on-going support for Exeter Airport and many local businesses. I will continue to work with local councils to back bids for investment.”

Simon Jupp appears to continue to champion the hospitality sector, in this case a very marginal one. What about the impacts on the AONB where these sites are?

In terms of “levelling up” looks to Owl like “for the few not the many”.

Simon Jupp Conservative, East Devon

To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, whether he plans to extend the 56 day rule for temporary campsites into 2022.

• Tweet Share
• Hansard source
• (Citation: HC Deb, 25 October 2021, cW)

Christopher Pincher Minister of State (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)

Nationally set permitted development rights allow for temporary use of land. To support businesses during the COVID-19 restrictions we introduced a new right which increased the length of time during which land can be temporarily used for other purposes, and for moveable structures to be set up on the land. The time was increased from the existing allowances of 28 days generally, and 14 days for particular uses such as motorsports, to 56 days and 28 days respectively.

The right allowing for additional days is due to end on 31 December 2021. This decision was taken on balance, considering the wide nature of the right to allow for the use of land for any purpose and the impacts that this can have on communities.

Boris Johnson has been told that a five-month move to his “Plan B” to control the spread of coronavirus could cost the economy up to £18 billion, leaked Government documents show.

One of the main lessons learned so far in the pandemic is that delay in taking action costs both money and lives. So you can’t really use cost as an excuse for delay, or can you? – Owl

Rachel Hains www.devonlive.com

The Prime Minister has so far resisted pressure from health leaders to implement his back-up measures to slow the spread of Covid-19 and ease the pressure on the NHS this autumn and winter.

Papers drawn up by the Cabinet Office’s coronavirus task force and the Treasury detail the potential cost of mandatory mask wearing and vaccine passports, along with the return of work from home guidance.

Obtained by the Politico news website, the internal Treasury impact assessment suggests the measures lasting throughout winter until the end of March would cost the economy between £11 billion and £18 billion.

However, the Government insisted there is “no planned five-month timeline” as it disputed the assumptions in the document and maintained there is currently no need for Plan B.

While scientists believe working from home will have the greatest effect on transmission, the leaked documents suggested mandatory vaccine certification at large venues would have a “moderate” impact.

The assessment said the move for venues such as nightclubs and music venues could reduce transmission at large events by 40-45% and in the wider community by between 1% and 5%.

A Government spokesman said: “We knew the coming months would be challenging, which is why we set out our autumn and winter plan last month.

“Plan B ensures we are ready, should we need to act, to avoid an unsustainable rise in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS.

“The presumptions put forward here are untrue, and do not reflect Government policy. The data does not currently show that Plan B is necessary – and there is no planned five-month timeline.”

Meanwhile, a separate impact assessment raised concerns over possible knock-on effects of the introduction of mandatory vaccine passports.

The Telegraph reported that the document from the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport warned the move could encourage people to instead go to poorly ventilated pubs and therefore be “counter-intuitive and potentially counter-productive”.

It also suggested that the turnover of venues hit by the move could drop between £345 million and £2 billion.

Greg Parmley, the chief executive of the Live music industry body, said the leak shows the move to mandatory use of passports “would be a mistake”.

“These passports would cost the live music industry billions of pounds while aspects of the rollout would be impractical and potentially dangerous,” he said.

Downing Street has defended its Plan B measures with the Prime Minister’s official spokesman saying it is not a timeline that is “Government policy and is not something we’re planning to”.

He said Plan B would only be bought in when “pressure on the NHS is unsustainable”, which he said “is not the case currently”.

“If it were to become the case, the Plan B measures would allow venues to remain open and remain trading,” he added.

“We are confident the Plan B measures taken as a package will help curb Covid cases while also striking that important balance of allowing parts of the economy to remain open that will otherwise face severe restrictions or even closure.”

A damning new paper has claimed the Government’s ‘Eat-Out-To-Help-Out’ scheme triggered thousands of extra Covid cases.

It is well known that crowded and poorly ventilated places are ideal breeding grounds for virus propagation.

Responsible politicians should have been far more aware of this when devising help for the hospitality sector. 

‘Eat-Out-To-Help-Out’ is one example. Other trigger events come to mind: Cheltenham Festival March 10-13 2020, recognised as the first superspreading event; and Boardmasters 10-14 August 2021, credited by many with seeding infection levels in Cornwall to all time highs which have yet to abate.

In this context Owl has always thought Simon Jupp’s “pub crawl” an ill advised idea and an immature response to the plight of the hospitality sector. A very high proportion of Simon’s constituents feel vulnerable to Covid and its emerging variants. The hospitality sector might be helped more by arguing for the Government to take a more responsible, less “Gung-Ho”, attitude to Covid so that the general population felt more secure to venture out. – Owl

Rachel Sloper www.devonlive.com 

The £850 million subsidised meals initiative was intended to help the hard-hit hospitality sector gets back on its feet following last year’s first Covid-19 lockdown.

But a new Economic Journal report indicates that the scheme actually “accelerated” a second wave of Covid cases by increasing community transmission of the virus.

The findings suggest Eat-Out-To-Help-Out (EOHO) may have been responsible for around 11 per cent of all new detected Covid-19 clusters in the UK emerging during August and early September last year.

The scheme directly subsidised the cost of food and non-alcoholic drinks by up to 50 per cent across participating restaurants nationwide for meals served on all Mondays to Wednesdays from August 3 to August 31 last year.

The discount was capped at a maximum of £10 per person, but there was no limit on how often people could benefit.

Figures suggest that the government subsidised 160 million meals at a cost to the taxpayer of £849 million. Restaurant visits increased drastically on Mondays to Wednesdays, which usually see less trade. Official government statistics suggest that more than 59,000 businesses have registered for the scheme.

Researchers found that the programme did have a “notable” temporary impact on restaurant visits when comparing year-on-year changes from the booking service OpenTable. During days that the scheme was available, restaurant visits increased between 10 and 200 per cent.

But the data also suggests that the scheme may have shifted restaurant visits from the weekend to weekdays on which the discount was available and that the increased number of restaurant visits was temporary.

Study co-author Professor Thiemo Fetzer, of Warwick University, said: “Areas with higher participation in the Eat-Out-To-Help-Out scheme saw both a notable increase in new Covid-19 infection clusters within a week of the scheme starting, and a deceleration in infections within two weeks of the programme ending.

“Areas that had notable rainfall during the prime lunch and dinner hours on days the scheme was active, making customers less likely to visit restaurants and take advantage of the subsidised meals, had a lower infection rate.

“The empirical estimates suggest that the subsidised restaurant meal scheme may be responsible for around 11 per cent of all new detected Covid-19 clusters emerging during August and into early September in the United Kingdom.”

He continued: “The figures suggest that the EOHO scheme may have caused between 4,798 and 6,643 symptomatic infections or 7,759 and 21,824 overall infections, including asymptomatic cases directly.

“This estimate is unlikely to capture the full pandemic impact of the EOHO scheme as this will spread well beyond calendar weeks 32 to 36. The estimates are unlikely to capture the full chain of onward infections.”

Prof Fetzer added: “The most prominent point of divergence between the UK’s fiscal response and that of other countries was a large-scale demand-inducing measure targeted at the restaurant sector.

“A total of £850 million was spent to subsidise the cost of eating out by up to 50 per cent in the month of August. This came at a time when epidemiological studies suggested that restaurant dining may be a particularly risky setting.

“This paper shows that the Eat-Out-To-Help-Out scheme, hailed as a boon for the ailing sector, causally increased Covid-19 community transmission.

“By subsidising an economic activity associated with negative health externalities, the estimates suggest that the scheme may have been responsible for between eight per cent and 17 per cent of all newly detected COVID-19 infections – and likely many more non-detected asymptomatic infections – in late summer.

“This highlights the fact that fiscal responses aimed to cushion the economic fallout from Covid-19 have to pay particular attention to epidemiological risks as, otherwise, they may significantly worsen the pandemic progression and undermine any short-term economic benefits.”

Renewed and urgent calls have been made to help fund the relocation of a primary school on a ‘risk to life’ floodplain after more flooding last week.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

The Environment Agency has been deeply concerned about the welfare of children attending the school since 2015 where it stated in a report that there is a ‘risk to life’ of the children attending the school because of the flood risk, and they maintain this position.

Tipton St John Primary School, which has about 90 pupils, has suffered from repeated flooding with children being evacuated and the school being shut.

Last week’s heavy rainfall once again hit the site and led to flooding, with pictures showing the water still boot-level high even hours after the water levels had peaked during the night.

Cllr Jess Bailey, who represents the Otter Valley on Devon County Council, has once again called on the Government to help fund the relocation of the school

Cllr Jess Bailey at the flooded Tipton St John Primary School

The preferred option had been to try and relocate the school within the village, but after a £3.5m bid to the Government was rejected, and due to the flood risk, a rebuild on the current site was not viable, a move to Ottery St Mary was considered the only realistic option.

Plans to relocate the school to Ottery St Mary, as part of a 150 home housing scheme, had been put forward, but in January 2021 the plans were rejected by East Devon councillors due to the housing element by 11 votes to two.

Cllr Bailey said: “It is vital that the government funds the relocation of Tipton St John school within the village of Tipton St John. This intolerable situation has been dragging on for years and the government needs to do the right thing. There is an established ‘risk to life’ from flooding, which is a matter of huge concern. The government must act now.

“It is ridiculous that the government has previously not taken into account flood risk when deciding which schools to fund. This has meant Tipton St John primary school has missed out and was not one of the 100 selected schools. This must change for the next funding rounds”

“It is not a matter of ‘if’ it is a matter of ‘when and how bad” the next flooding incident will be at Tipton St John School,. I am very fearful of what this could mean for teachers and pupils as there is a clearly established ‘risk to life.”

She said that last week she was concerned about possible flooding at Tipton St John School, and when she arrived at 8am on Thursday morning, she was shocked to see just how much water was on the site – and this was hours after the water levels had peaked during the night.

Cllr Bailey added: “I have written to the relevant government minister Baroness Barran, to highlight the issue of flooding at the school. This situation cannot continue and I am urging the government to fund the relocation of the school within the village.

“I have emphasised the importance of flood risk being a key criteria for funding for new school buildings, particularly when there is an established ‘risk to life’, which is the case at Tipton St John.”

Her letter added: “The site is within flood zone 3 and has experienced flooding events on multiple occasions in recent years.

“Strenuous efforts have been made by the Diocese, Devon County Council and the School Governors to relocate the school for over a decade now. This significant and unresolved flood risk issue needs to be addressed as a priority through the School Rebuilding Programme.

“Flood risk which is dangerous and poses a risk to life – as it is the case at Tipton St John – must be a key factor in assessing priorities. Not only does the flood risk at Tipton St John represent a threat to life, but also could cause long term closure of the school with significant educational disruption to pupils.

“And what is more, the flood risk is set to worsen significantly in coming years due to climate change making this an even more pressing issue.

“I do really feel that the government must fund the relocation of Tipton St John School within Tipton St John. This dangerous situation which represents a threat to life cannot be allowed to continue and the government must provide vital funding.”

Devon County Council has previously argued that as many of the pupils already come from Ottery St Mary, it made more sense for the school to be built there than in Tipton St John.

Flooding at Tipton St John Primary School overnight on Wednesday, October 20/Thursday, OCtober 21

Councillors had been recommended to approve the scheme for a 210 space primary school and up to 150 new homes on land opposite Barrack Farm in Exeter Road, Ottery St Mary, when they met in January.

But the committee rejected the plans on the grounds of the countryside location of the housing scheme which is in an area not allocated for residential development and outside the built up area boundary of the town, the harmful visual impact, and that it didn’t provide the 50 per cent affordable housing required in policy.

Pooh has obviously consulted the interactive map referenced in this post.

With thanks to Paul Freeman for spotting this one.

Correspondence from “The Lorax”

Dear Owl,

I note that Simon Jupp MP: “is a proud Devonian who wants to preserve where we live. I want to tackle the raw sewage issue and I voted for a plan to help get us there.”

I also note that a “Budleigh Correspondent” writes that: “Not only in Budleigh do we get the pollution from the river (farm discharges plus all the sewage discharges from upstream of the Otter) and the two brook outlets.

We had 90 discharges from Newton Poppleford turning up in our bay in 2020! 137 from Honiton!

No wonder our water quality prediction display has not worked all year.” (Advising people in real time against bathing when it rains allows Budleigh to claim an extra bathing water quality “Star”).

How does Simon propose to tackle this problem? Does the beautiful bay in Budleigh Salterton have to wait for his long-term solution? According to Luke Pollard, Shadow Environment Secretary, not one English river is in a healthy condition, there has been zero improvement since 2016. Light touch measures aren’t working.

If Simon is concerned about cost, there is a much quicker and “cost free” answer. Stop all new house building in Honiton and Newton Poppleford and indeed all the way up the Otter catchment until South West Water stops discharging their sewage from these settlements.

The former cabinet minister David Davis has pledged to lead a rebellion against the government’s changes to judicial review, calling them a worrying assault on the legal system and attempt to avoid accountability.

Aubrey Allegretti www.theguardian.com 

Before the first major test of the judicial review and courts bill when it is debated in the Commons on Tuesday, Davis wrote in an article for the Guardian that ministers’ plans would “tip scales of law in favour of the powerful”.

He cited the power of judicial reviews to give “a voice to victims”, pointing to the overturning of the Parole Board’s decision to release the serial rapist John Worboys. The Haltemprice and Howden MP also praised the campaigner Gina Miller for challenging the government’s position at the start of the Brexit process that article 50 could be triggered without parliamentary authorisation.

An overhaul of the judicial review process was promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, which said the mechanism should be “available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state”, but promised it would not be “abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays”.

Davis said judicial review “delivers for individuals on matters affecting everyday life” and was constantly being used “to correct fundamental and dangerous errors of law”.

“Such attempts to consolidate power are profoundly un-conservative and forget that in a society governed by the rule of law, the government does not always get its way,” he said.

Davis also addressed suggestions that so-called Cart judicial reviews could be abolished, which would let the high court review a decision to refuse someone permission to appeal a case. Davis said ministers viewed these as “expensive and unsuccessful”.

“While the attack on judicial review, and in particular Cart judicial reviews, is a worrying assault on our legal system, it is only part of the picture,” wrote the former Brexit secretary, whose former chief of staff Dominic Raab is now the justice secretary.

Davis said ministers were in effect trying to “deny a court jurisdiction in a certain matter” through a mechanism known as an “ouster” clause.

He wrote: “Left unchecked, the use of these ouster clauses could give a government free rein to designate certain decisions it has made, or the use of certain powers it hands itself, to be unchallengeable in the courts. And the government, through this bill, wants to establish a framework for how ouster clauses can be applied to other areas in future legislation. This is entirely wrong.

“It all too clearly leaves the door open for further ouster clauses to be created that remove the courts from decisions in matters such as employment tribunals or social security.”

Davis said it did “not take a wild imagination to picture a future government, racked by constant losses in the courts on welfare matters, to suddenly legislate to remove the court’s vital oversight functions” in decisions about employment tribunals or benefits.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “This bill delivers on our manifesto commitment to protect the rights of individuals, while ensuring the courts are not open to abuse and delay.

“These changes will give the judiciary the power to hold the government to account, while tackling those who look to frustrate the court process.”

The MoJ has previously claimed the number of Cart judicial reviews that succeeded was just 0.22%, though Davis queried this in his article, saying the figure was “wildly incorrect” and likely to be “much higher” at about 5.7%.

And the sea?

Chances are: probably not.

Owl easily finds sites in each constituency discharging on average more than once a week.

Search the interactive map here.

The key is simple, the bigger the brown blob, the worse it is. Hover mouse over online map to get details of how many discharges occurred in 2020 and for how many hours. “Avoid entering the water immediately downstream of these discharges and avoid the overflows, especially after it has been raining.”

Here are some examples averaging well over one discharge a week for each site!

Tory MPs have been defending themselves from accusations they have given the go-ahead to water companies to dump raw sewage in rivers.

Our own Simon Jupp and Neil Parish voted to reject the Lords amendment that would have placed legal duties on the companies to reduce discharges. Have they got any regrets? – Owl

www.bbc.co.uk 

Campaigners are concerned about the impact of sewage discharges on many rivers

A proposal from the Lords to the Environment Bill that would have placed legal duties on the companies to reduce discharges was defeated by 265 MPs’ votes to 202 last week.

The MPs say safeguards already exist and new measures would cost billions.

Critics say the UK is “lecturing” the world while its rivers are polluted.

With just over a week to go until the UK hosts the COP26 climate summit, there is intense focus on ministers’ green credentials.

Last Wednesday, 265 MPs voted with the government to reject an attempt by the House of Lords to toughen up the approach to the discharge of sewage, while 22 Conservative MPs rebelled and voted against the government.

The move has sparked an uproar on social media.

Peers had tabled an amendment to the Environment Bill that would have forced water companies and the government to demonstrate progressive reductions in discharges of untreated sewage and required them to “take all reasonable steps” to avoid using combined sewer overflows.

But ministers said the changes were unnecessary because safeguards are already contained in the bill.

‘Every river polluted’

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, former singer Fergal Sharkey, who now campaigns to clean up the nation’s waterways, said it was a “disgrace”.

“We’re lecturing the rest of the planet on climate change yet the reality is there is not a single river in England that makes good overall environmental health,” he said.

He said “every single river” in England is polluted and “a major cause is the water industry dumping sewage”.

He added: “The truth is what we are looking at is the result of a massive under-investment in infrastructure for the last 30 years and a complete failure of oversight and regulation of the industry by Ofwat, the environment agency and the government itself.”

He said ministers were “unwilling and incapable” of dealing with the situation.

Conservative Huw Merriman, who voted against the government and for the amendment, said “what was being proposed by the government wasn’t enough” and he hoped ministers would “be persuaded” it was the right way to go.

He said: “To have sewage being discharged down streets, when there is too much rain, into the sea” is “just absolutely shocking”.

“It does mean more investment. That may ultimately mean more expensive bills, but we’re talking about decades of investment and it’s got to happen,” he said.

Unfair to taxpayers

But fellow Conservative, Julie Marson, who voted against the amendment, said “there is a lot of misinformation floating about” on the issue and while the proposal itself was “sound”, its “fundamental flaw” was that it “had no plan as to how this can be delivered and no impact assessment whatsoever”.

She wrote: “The preliminary cost of the required infrastructure change was estimated to be between £150bn and £650bn.

“Unless we asked taxpayers to contribute, most of the water companies who would be carrying out this work would go bankrupt, meaning the work could not be completed anyway.

“The cost works out at between about £5,000 and £20,000 per household.

“I felt it would be unfair to sting local people with a bill of this size.”

She said the existing legislation already placed a new duty on water companies to continuously monitor the water quality upstream and downstream of a storm overflow and of sewage disposal works.

Another Conservative, Fay Jones, tweeted that the criticisms of MPs were “deeply misleading”.

She wrote: “It ignores the massive flaw in the amendment (i.e forcing taxpayers to pay up to £600bn to dig up Victorian sewerage system) and the work the government is already doing to reduce discharge from storm overflows.”

And Conservative, John Howell, said in a statement he voted against the amendment because “it is necessary to be realistic” given the age of the sewerage systems and the potential disruption to homes and businesses.

The accusation that he voted to allow water companies to pump raw sewage into rivers “is far from the truth”, he said.

“It would be just as fair to say that Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs voted to pump raw sewage into your home given that resolving the problem by their half-baked proposal of sewage discharges would require rebuilding the sewage system and could cost up to £600bn and take many years,” he added.

Scale of problem

Water companies discharged raw sewage into rivers in England more than 400,000 times last year, according to figures published by the Environment Agency.

Untreated effluent, including human waste, wet wipes and condoms, was released into waterways for more than three million hours in 2020.

The Environment Agency allows water utilities to release sewage into rivers and streams after extreme weather events such as prolonged heavy rain.

This protects properties from flooding and prevents sewage from backing up into streets and homes.

The agency says that overflows are “not a sign that the system is faulty”, and that they are “a necessary part of the existing sewerage system”.

The Environment Bill will return to the Lords on Tuesday, where peers are expected to re-insert the measures before it goes back to the House of Commons later this week.

Council priority three A resilient economy

Covid‑19 has had a significant and detrimental impact on the economy of East Devon. Before the pandemic, the district was in almost full employment. Through the pandemic one third of employees across the district were furloughed and longer term the unemployment rate has been forecast to increase.

During the first half of 2020, over 1,000 jobs were lost due to companies going into administration or relocating, including the collapse of Flybe. Many jobs that have been lost have been high value and skilled engineering roles but just as many are in the lower paid sectors of our local economy.

We understand the shift in patterns of behaviour, including more working from home, and the importance of improving access to and the speed of broadband, especially in rural areas.

We have witnessed an increase in occupation of second homes through the move of people out of cities in response to the pandemic and the impact on our local economy and infrastructure.

We also recognise the impact on our town centres of the loss of footfall, through people working from home and the increase in the use of home delivery, rather than local shopping. This might require us to review our planning policies in relation to the conversion of retail and secondary shopping areas to residential or live-work use.

Covid-19 precautions in Budleigh Salterton

It is our overriding priority to strive for a resilient economy in order to promote prosperity and reduce hardship within the district. Not only will we seek to increase the levels of employment, but we will also seek to improve the quality of employment to raise wages levels across East Devon.

We will consider the use of our assets as a council and our planning policies to support regeneration and create employment opportunities.

We recognise the economic as well as the social value of tourism, art and culture to the local economy and the wealth that is generated in those sectors.

Exeter Science Park

We also recognise the importance of working as a part of Team Devon in order to drive recovery for the East Devon economy. We will continue to promote the development of the Exeter and East Devon Enterprise Zone as key to the prosperity of our district.

Our priority actions for a resilient economy

Promoting the green economy

• Support working from home to reduce carbon emissions through unnecessary travel and facilitate the economic sustainability of our local towns and communities.
• Deliver a tourist strategy with emphasis on the on the green economy.

Our financial stability

• Maintain an active approach sourcing and securing available funds to help with asset management and the promotion of the district’s economy.
• Provide in-house commercial services such as pest control and food safety training that provide value for money to residents and local businesses, whilst creating new and valuable revenue streams for the council.

Supporting employment

• Work with the Department of Work and Pensions, regional and local partners to develop and co-ordinate an effective redundancy response network to respond to the serious economic challenges that the pandemic has brought to our district and our residents.
• Work with our Growth Hub to support local small and start-up businesses through free access to tailored advice and guidance, stepping up that support as businesses grow and develop and addressing barriers to business growth and innovation.
• Ensure that all our assets (including car parks) are used in the most effective way and that their development potential is evaluated to support employment and create economic growth and prosperity for all.

Supporting our local economy

• Develop the infrastructure needed to support our local economy, including transport and housing.
• Use the procurement power as a council to support local businesses.
• Provide support and advice to businesses through investment in our Environmental Health department.
• Explore the use of the doughnut economic model to guide policy and decision-making and ensure that ethical, socially responsible, and financially-sound decisions are made in an open, transparent and democratic manner.

Financial stability for a better future

We recognise that the Council Plan needs to be affordable. However, councils in England face acute financial challenges, especially as central government financial support for councils has been reducing over the past decade and demand for some services has been increasing.

The council’s Medium Term Financial Plan shows that existing service costs and expected income leaves a budget gap of £3 million in 2022/23 and a further gap of £1.2 million in 2023/24. This is against a net budget of £15.8 million. Difficult decisions will need to be made in respect of prioritising and delivering services and operating as an organisation.

In response to declining government grant, some authorities invested heavily in commercial property by borrowing via Public Works Loan Board loans in the hope that the rental yield would cover the loan costs and realise a profit to pay for services. However, over the last nine months, rental yields have plummeted. In some cases, this has resulted in the local authority being banned from any new expenditure except for statutory services. Fortunately, East Devon District Council has not had a commercial exposure to this extent, but despite government assistance regarding the impact of Covid‑19, we are still faced with challenges to balance the books for the foreseeable future.

Planning to address the identified funding gap has started, but we still need to look at ways of increasing our income and reducing costs to be able to sustain our current services, meet new requirements and needs and benefit from new opportunities.

Several our services are statutory like our recycling and waste collection. Other services are discretionary, but no less valued by residents such as public toilets and parks. Looking ahead the challenge is to get the balance right between the cost to residents and businesses and the benefits provided in terms of the quality of our environment, the health and wellbeing of residents and the strength and resilience of our local economy.

We also realise there will be a long-term impact of the pandemic on the local economy, both on businesses and on individuals, that will influence the council’s priorities, resources and services.

There are a number forthcoming decisions that impact on our budget. There is a refuse and recycling contractual tipping point that will be triggered by further property growth that will lead to higher costs plus the government changes to the national recycling requirements that may affect our collection policy and costs. We also need to implement the review of car parking charges plus and to install electric vehicles chargers to prepare for more green travel. Through 2021/22 we are undertaking a review into the provision of public toilets.

In the light of these pressures, we will need to focus on statutory services that we must deliver and discretionary services that the public value to help us to prioritise services through the Council Plan.

To deliver the vision through our Council Plan, we will refocus our resources and efficiently utilise our assets, invest to save and innovate, ensure a sound return on investment (both financial and social), keep our Council Tax within government guidelines and agree legally required balanced budgets.

We will identify new funding streams as they become available and ensure we bid for additional income where possible to secure the income needed to implement the Council Plan.

Where necessary we will lobby the government for changes in policy and funding so that we can implement our priorities, securing the resources required for delivery.

Council priority two A greener East Devon

Our commitment to addressing the climate change and ecological emergency is a key priority for the council. Our focus will be on achieving carbon neutrality by 2040 and taking care of and enhancing our built and natural environment in our towns and villages, countryside and coastline now and for future generations. The details of this work is included in our Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan.

The council will change all its current working practices to reduce its carbon emissions to the minimum.

The objective for the whole district will be to work with all residents, businesses, and partners to:

• reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings through low carbon development and retrofitting
• apply for funding to encourage energy reduction and promote green energy
• implement carbon offsetting schemes within the district
• reduce further the waste generated and increase the percentage of recycling
• prepare the community for climate change so we can all become more resilient

In recent times, we have seen the value of green and open space for recreation and health and wellbeing. We shall be implementing re-wilding, nature recovery and conservancy schemes to enhance our precious environment.

Green space in the Clyst Valley

Covid‑19 has resulted in changes to work and lifestyle patterns in the district. We need to explore and understand the impact of new ways of doing things, such as working from home and the impact of online meetings on carbon emissions.

We recognise the importance of working with others on this journey; we will work with partners and contractors, town and parish councils, businesses, visitors and community groups to support them in reducing their carbon footprint.

Greener East Devon for us also means placing the highest emphasis on the natural capital of our stunning environment – coast and countryside – and the value and importance of biodiversity within it. As custodians for future generations, preserving and enhancing our natural environment is key.

Rewilding project in the Broadclyst area

We want to provide a healthier, more beautiful natural environment that inspires, educates and involves residents and visitors to East Devon.

This commitment to greener East Devon comes at a price. It needs to be appropriately funded and resourced. However, we believe it to be essential for the future of our district.

Recently there has been a staffing shortage affecting our recycling teams, we have begun to address this and will keep it under review. We will also need to respond to any future contractual tipping point that could be triggered by further local property growth as this would lead to higher contract costs. We will also need to respond to anticipated government changes to the national recycling requirements that may affect our collection policy and costs.

Our priority actions for a greener East Devon

Carbon reduction

• Fulfil the actions and commitments in our Climate Change Strategy (aimed at reducing the council’s carbon footprint and that of our partners, contractors, businesses, communities, residents and visitors through green procurement, reducing carbon use in our supply chain and seeking to influence the businesses from whom we purchase) and update our Carbon Plan which will be the primary vehicle for delivering our intentions.
• Develop a Local Plan policy that protects the existing biodiversity and to improve and add to it significantly, to provide for communities to be more sustainable and provide improved interconnecting greener routes with cycle and foot ways.

Meeting high environmental standards

• Using the council’s investments and bank accounts to support the green economy.

Planning in our environment

• Work with landowners and developers to deliver habitat mitigation on-site with new developments or to provide mitigation close to the development site.
• Ensure that we are giving appropriate protection to our built heritage, including developing policies for the new Local Plan to continue to conserve and protect our listed buildings and conservation areas.
• Work with our communities to review our conservation area boundaries and their management plans, to develop a list of locally important heritage assets and progress the other actions in our Heritage Strategy.
• Develop planning policy to protect the nature corridors with new developments; protect and enhance our natural habitats, green spaces and the existing treescape across the district; increase tree planting and replacement schemes; review our tree management policies and promote best practice.
• Complete the review of the Playing Pitch Strategy and develop policies in the new Local Plan to protect existing playing pitches and support our sports clubs and communities to deliver new and enhanced facilities.

Promoting recycling and reducing waste

• Continuously strive to increase recycling rates and reduction of residual waste tonnages so we are amongst the highest recyclers nationally and the lowest council in England for residual waste disposal per household and continuing the promotion of the green waste collection service and home composting.
• Improve on street recycling including starting a programme of replacing older dog waste bins with dual mixed waste/recycling bins.
• Continue working with all district and unitary councils in Devon with a Keep Devon Litter Free campaign and other countywide recycling projects and explore ways to further reduce on street littering.

Protecting and enhancing our natural environment in coast and country

• Continue to develop our nature reserves including the award-winning Seaton Wetlands, and to work with landowners and groups on projects that will benefit to climate change and biodiversity net gain.
• Continue to work with partners to deliver the important Clyst Valley Regional Park.
• Address the risk of flooding and erosion by strengthening community resilience and extending flood prevention measures.
• Monitor carefully the progress of the Environment Bill 2020 and prepare appropriate plans to address the implications for East Devon District Council.

Council priority one Better homes and communities for all

We want to increase access to social and affordable homes as one of the council’s highest priorities.

We want to ensure better build quality of new homes, more social and affordable housing and a good standard of maintenance, to ensure homes are fit for purpose across all sectors. To us, delivering better homes is about far more than bricks and mortar; it is about using our resources and influence to keep people healthy and safe. It is about the quality of the setting of the homes, whether that is town, village or countryside and about the amenities, the open space and infrastructure that serve the houses and contribute to the wellbeing of residents.

Ian Williams, our home repairs contractors

We believe that as the planning authority we have a crucial role to play in delivering better quality homes, ensuring the right homes in the right places and enforcing high build standards. Through our enabling activities, we intend to drive the delivery of much needed social and affordable housing. We will be pressing harder than ever for the ending of the Right to Buy which deprives the council of crucial housing stock.

As a council we also wish to reduce poverty and deprivation and intend to use our resources to achieve this.

Recognising the significant contribution of the voluntary sector to building community, we will seek to strengthen the sector and to support volunteering and the third sector.

A portfolio has been introduced to cover leisure and culture, recognising the importance of these sectors for our local economy, our communities, tourism and health and wellbeing.

The Creative Cabin at Queen’s Drive Space, Exmouth

Our priority actions for better homes and communities for all

Promoting better homes and stronger communities

• Prepare and promote robust policies in our local plan to address the need for more and better quality homes and communities for all.
• Deliver more social housing and explore new ways to build more affordable homes.
• Deliver on the commitments in our Housing Strategy and Housing Service Plan.
• Implement our Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy to assist those in greatest housing need, providing options through our own housing revenue account, by working with our partner housing associations (registered providers) and by responding to the consultation of Devon Homes relating to their banding of property and their assessment of those in need of housing.
• Promote Home Safeguard services and develop our supported housing offer.
• Ensure that council homes are well-managed, in good repair, fit for purpose and safe for our tenants and that we obtain high performance and value for money from our integrated asset management contract for repairs and maintenance and continue to invest in tenants’ homes, guided by stock condition data.
• Engage with and involve tenants in decisions affecting their homes and to improve communications between tenants, the council and its contractors.
• Apply for grants to promote energy efficiency and promote access to grants through greater publicity to residents of available options.
• Advise on and enforce standards in the private sector to attain suitable management and safety standards, including affordable warmth, houses in multiple occupation, mobile homes and private water supplies.
• Through our planning policies and the spending of Community Infrastructure Levy monies seek to secure the timely delivery of new infrastructure to support new development.
• Continue to work with our communities to support them in developing Neighbourhood Plans that reflect the community’s future aspirations and where those include community-led housing schemes work with them to progress their proposals through the planning process and towards delivery.
• Acquire a site to facilitate self-build plots and support their delivery.
• Research the ability for local communities to control the number of second homes in their communities.

Promoting health and wellbeing across the community

• Implement our Anti-Poverty Strategy, designed to reduce hardship and inequality in the district.
• Implement the actions contained in the Public Health Strategic Plan designed to improve public health, wellbeing and the quality of life of our residents.
• Ensure that our services and facilities are Covid‑19 secure and that the community support hub continues to be supported.
• Promote our natural environment, culture and leisure opportunities as part of our plans to deliver public health (including mental health) projects.
• Take forward the agreed recommendations of the strategic leisure review in a timely manner.
• Work with Devon County Council and the Devon Clinical Commissioning Group to ensure that a model of place-based care is in place to make the best use of the existing space in community hospital sites, the better to serve the communities of East Devon; this will reduce travel requirements to Exeter and assist in meeting the targets on carbon reduction as a by-product.
• Review our public toilet requirements, including their location, to ensure they are fit for purpose, working with town and parish councils.
• Ensure that developers pay the required contributions towards infrastructure through Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements, and that where monies are available to be spent by the community, that they are supported by public engagement on spend and given easy access to funds.

The Gate to Plate food festival in Honiton

Promoting culture and community

• Develop a stronger commitment to and offers in arts and leisure through the development of a Culture Strategy and an Events Strategy for our own land.
• Encourage town and parish councils (and the third sector where appropriate) to protect and support their community spaces.
• Promote community wellbeing programmes through a culture and activities offer, led by the Thelma Hulbert Gallery, Seaton Wetlands, Wild East Devon, and expand our community development activities.
• Promote the links between arts and culture and climate change through the Creative Cabin and other initiatives, raising awareness of the public and seeking to change behaviours.
• Support communities through the transfer of appropriate community assets to towns and villages, enabling local communities to own, manage and develop assets in support of community aspirations and benefits.