“A council surcharge of up to 60 per cent is being imposed on second homeowners in some areas in an attempt to prompt them to sell up.”

Tax shock for Britons with second homes in cities and resorts in France

Adam Sage, Paris www.thetimes.co.uk 

Britons with second homes in cities and resorts in France are facing local tax rises after becoming caught up in a drive to lower property prices in holiday destinations.

A council surcharge of up to 60 per cent is being imposed on second homeowners in some areas in an attempt to prompt them to sell up.

Mayors hope it will increase the number of houses and flats on the market and reverse price rises. Critics accuse them of using second homeowners to top up budgets with tax increases of several hundred euros a year.

A total of 86,000 Britons have second homes in France, according to the French National Institute for Economic Studies and Statistics.

Those with properties in rural France will be unaffected by the surcharge, which can only be imposed in areas with housing “tensions” under a 2015 French law.

But the 8,600 with second homes in Alpine ski resorts are likely to be hit, as are those with properties in Biarritz and other parts of the southwest coast, Nice, Lyons and Bordeaux.

Anne Hidalgo, Paris’s Socialist party mayor, put a 60 per cent surcharge on the tax paid by owners of the 126,000 second homes in the city in 2017. The average council tax bill in France is about €1,000 a year.

She claims the measure has forced 5 per cent of second homeowners to sell. Other councils have adopted similar policies, such as Lyons, Bordeaux and resorts on the Atlantic coast.

The move is more aimed at Parisians, who have been buying second homes in record numbers since last year’s lockdowns. They are accused of making housing unaffordable for locals. In the French Basque country several estate agents have been vandalised with graffiti that says: “Parisians, go home.”

All talk and no action? – Owl

www.northdevongazette.co.uk

Devon County Council leader John Hart has been re-elected as the voice of the South West.

He was voted in unopposed as the chairman of South West Councils for a fifth two-year term.

The organisation represents 33 county, unitary and district councils stretching from Cornwall to Gloucestershire and Wiltshire as well as police, fire and rescue services, national parks and town and parish councils.

Mr Hart said: “It’s a tremendous privilege to have been re-elected to chair South West Councils.

“This region has many issues in common, with the economic recovery from the pandemic as our most urgent task alongside support for our vulnerable residents and our vital tourism, hospitality and food and farming sectors.

“We must also stimulate our economy by improving communications with the rest of the country, ensuring fast broadband coverage for our rural areas at an affordable price and promoting greater skills and employment for our young people.

“We need to present a united front to the Government to ensure we do not remain the poor relation when it comes to funding and that we get a fair share of cash for levelling-up.

East Devon District Council (EDDC)  looks set to take a tougher stand against ‘unscrupulous’ developers cutting down trees before planning applications are submitted.

eastdevonnews.co.uk 

The authority has asked for an outline report on a new tree strategy to inform discussions an ‘overview’ committee will hold in October, writes Local Democracy Reporter Joe Ives.

A motion by West Hill and Aylesbeare representative Councillor Jess Bailey said East Devon’s trees are important for wildlife, capturing carbon, enhancing wellbeing and preventing flooding and erosion.

And a full council meeting on Tuesday, July 27, was broadly in favour of the motion – passed with 38 votes in favour –  but some members had different ideas on how to approach the problem of tree felling.

Cllr Bailey’s motion called for EDDC to recognise the ‘immense contribution’ trees make to the area.

She called for the council to agree a ‘robust’ policy which proactively makes protection orders in a bid to tackle ‘unscrupulous’ developers removing trees ahead of submitting planning applications.

Cllr Bailey also requested a  detailed, district-wide report identifying ways of enhancing and improving the existing treescape be commissioned.

She called on EDDC to implement a community engagement scheme to support town and parish councils in protecting and enhancing trees ‘at the most local level’.

“This council acknowledges that these proposals will increase the workload of the tree officers and additional tree officer capacity will be required in order to give effect to this motion,” added the motion.

“The council will use its general fund balance in the current year and will commit to ongoing costs being met in the 2022/23 budget round.”

Exmouth Brixington ward member Cllr Maddy Chapman argued that EDDC should take a firmer hand in protecting trees – issuing preservation orders in ‘no man’s land’ areas.

She added that, right now, people are cutting down trees ‘and just getting away with it’.

Cllr Fabian King, who represents the Exe Valley and personally looks after trees on his land, agreed with the motion’s sentiment.

But he warned of the dangers of red tape if the same regulations for towns were to be deployed in rural areas where farmers have more work to do with tree husbandry.

Cllr King said: “I understand the fervour that’s going on with those who are bothered about trees being cut down in town.

“Please think about the rural communities and farmers doing their good work as they have to.”

Sidmouth Town representative Cllr Denise Bickley, the authority’s assistant portfolio holder for climate action and emergency response agreed with the motion’s emphasis on a rapid plan.

She said: “This is something that cannot be put off now. It does need to be pulled together very quickly but I would also suggest that we want the best policy possible.”

Cllr Geoff Jung, ward member for Woodbury and Lympstone and portfolio holder for coast, country and environment, added: “We’re going the right direction. It’s not going as fast as a lot of people would like, but it’s a massive issue.”

From a Correspondent:

Is This How Community Involvement in Planning Development Should Work in East Devon? 

The principle guiding community engagement is to ensure that those who will be affected by a development have a genuine opportunity to have their constructive ideas, as well as their opinions taken on board – but the reality is something quite different!

A very few number of Clyst St Mary residents (actually only 21 people) are in the process of being invited by Avalon Planners (acting on behalf of Burrington Estates) to view the Reserved Matters detailed plans for the Winslade Park 79 new homes (39 on green field space historically protected by the Local and Neighbourhood Plans and 40 x four-storey apartments opposite a Grade II* Listed Manor House).

However, this Public Consultation has been significantly limited by Avalon (allegedly due to Covid) to only three one-hour sessions tomorrow afternoon, on 29^th July 2021, from 14.00 hrs –18.00 hrs with a restricted allowance of only 7 residents able to attend at each one hour session, resulting in the grand total of 21 residents being selected by Avalon (on a first come first serve basis), with the chosen few only having 19 hours’ notice to apply for one of the sessions!

Those lucky enough to play this lottery had previously been earmarked by a very specific Burringtons’ leaflet drop that included only those existing homes that are directly adjacent to the 79 proposed new housing developments. Personal names and addresses were mandatory for Avalon’s future selection of attendees to view these detailed plans.

Furthermore, residents have been told to only apply for one person per household to attend a session, leaving many working couples/families unable to attend (no evening sessions are provided!) and, of course, this is the first week of the school holidays – so many residents have opted this week for a holiday away from their homes, which further limits the numbers able to attend!

Since there were around 200 objections to the Outline Application for these homes -only 21 attendees for a Reserved Matters Consultation seems a miniscule proportion of the resident numbers who would wish to view and comment on these plans! 

In December 2020, EDDC Planning Committee approved the entire Hybrid Outline Application (20/1001/MOUT), specifically praising the Developers’ offers of substantial economic benefits within their sizeable commercial/employment proposals also contained in the overall masterplan. 

These economic offers resulted in the Committee ignoring the protection policies in both their own Local and this village’s Neighbourhood Plans – but post-Covid will these economic proposals ever reach such high expectations? 

Hopefully the detailed plans should be displayed online at a later date for residents to view – so that ‘ticks the transparency box’ doesn’t it?  Well….No…. unfortunately it doesn’t   – because many people cannot negotiate ‘the minefield’ that is the EDDC Planning website, and many online images of plans are often indistinct, vague, complicated and confusing for laypeople, who wish to be confident that they fully comprehend the scale, massing and height of the buildings that will overlook them! 

As the entire Winslade Park masterplan proposals result in a very large-scale development in this historic, rural village – the Planning Committee recommended that Burringtons should keep the local community fully informed of their future plans by issuing an Informative Condition on the Outline Approval – but with such restrictions being imposed on the number of attendees at this Public Consultation – Is the local authority steering this development or is this another Developer-led scheme?  

Perhaps, these Developers are trying to severely restrict the numbers of attendees at a Public Consultation to limit public comments on their proposals that could result in them needing to make modifications to their plans before submission to EDDC – or perhaps they are so concerned with our health and wellbeing that they are going to such great lengths to protect us from Covid and keep us all safe in this village?

You can make up your own minds! 

“From 1 August, changed rules on commercial-to-residential conversions will allow landlords and developers to swiftly turn vacant shops and businesses into houses and flats. This deregulatory move will make it far more difficult for local authorities to plan for the precarious post-Covid future of town centres, and for communities to hold them to account.”

Editorial www.theguardian.com

One of the pleasures of post-lockdown life has been the chance to go back to familiar businesses and high street shops, putting some much-needed cash into tills. Though often hit by the long-term shift to online retail – which the pandemic, of course, accelerated – such places continue to knit the social fabric together in vital ways. But despite all the local goodwill and the revival of trade, for some much-loved ports of call it may be a case of too little, too late. According to a review published this month, Britain’s high streets are threatened by a “tsunami of closures”, thanks to the debt taken on by small business owners during the past year-and-a-half.

The report concludes that “urgent support is required” if a trail of destruction is not to unfold, when loans are called in and tax breaks end. Unfortunately, the government is about to make matters worse, not better. Next week, Whitehall plans to unleash a developers’ free-for-all that threatens to irrevocably change the character and texture of town centres and high streets across the country.

From 1 August, changed rules on commercial-to-residential conversions will allow landlords and developers to swiftly turn vacant shops and businesses into houses and flats. This deregulatory move will make it far more difficult for local authorities to plan for the precarious post-Covid future of town centres, and for communities to hold them to account. In an exasperated submission to the housing, communities and local government committee, London councils warned MPs of “a disruptive free-for-all, with short-term financial considerations deciding the future use of vacant high street buildings, damaging the fabric and coherence of our town centres”. As the value of property continues to boom, particularly in the south, there are insidious implications for those outlets managing to cling on. The Association of Town and City Management told the MPs that the new rules could, in effect, “create a licence for the eviction of businesses in favour of residential”.

The government claims that commercial-to-residential conversions can allow developers to respond to changing times. It is also suggested that an influx of new locals will boost footfall for those businesses able to withstand the triple whammy of online retail, Covid debt and Whitehall deregulation. The likelier dynamic, in too many places, is terminal decline as high streets and urban hubs are “pepper-potted” with residential property, losing their identity and ceasing to attract people in viable numbers.

Imaginative plans for our high streets and town centres are undoubtedly needed. Indeed, some of that thinking is taking place. Armed with cash from the government’s Future High Streets Fund, the local council in Stockton on Tees is planning a spectacular reconfiguration of the town centre, including a riverside park, leisure centre and library. High Wycombe council, the recipient of an £11.7m grant from the same source, plans to acquire vacant shops and make them available at affordable rents to independent businesses. But handing virtual carte blanche to developers to replace commercial premises with residential property undermines strategic thinking and empowers the market at the expense of local communities. In the words of the MP Clive Betts, chair of the housing committee, it will “fatally undermine the role of local authorities in shaping their … public spaces and buildings”.

Mr Betts has called on Robert Jenrick, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, to think again. He should do so.

Does this mean that planned car parking spaces on the Science Park now exceed expected demand?

With no dedicated bus service, obvious difficulties for disabled users and potential problems over who has priority to park, this looks very much like a hastily thought through “Plan B”.

Is this what we sacrificed good agricultural land for? – Owl

Exeter’s new ‘park and change’ centre opens

Radio Exe News www.radioexe.co.uk

The £2.24 million facility on the eastern edge of the city has 300 parking bays, enabling people to park up and travel the final part of their journey into Exeter or the Exeter and East Devon Enterprise Zone by bus, car sharing or switching to cycle.

A shared footpath and cyclepath connects to the growing E4 cycle route, which, when complete, will link the east of Exeter with the city centre.

The first 2.5 miles of the route towards the city is in place, keeping walkers and cyclists separate from traffic on a level route with minimal crossings. The route also extends east as a shared use path towards Cranbrook, linking to major employment sites such as SkyPark, Amazon, Lidl and Exeter Airport.

High-security cycle lockers are available to rent and a Co-Bikes electric bike hire dock will be installed later this year.

Although the site itself won’t offer a dedicated bus service, people will be able to use local bus services passing the site. These options are:

• CONNexIONS 56 service to the city centre and St David’s Station via Heavitree Road from the bus stop on south side of Honiton Road. Services to Exeter Airport and Exmouth use the bus stop on the same side of the road as the Park and Change site
• 4/4A/4B to the city centre via Heavitree Road from the bus stop on south side of Honiton Road, as well as to Cranbrook, Honiton and Axminster from the bus stop on the same side of the road as the Park and Change site
• K bus service to the city centre via Pinhoe Road from the stop on Anning Drive

Electric vehicle chargepoints are also planned to be installed at the site from September as part of the County Council’s DELETTI project, which aims to expand the network of chargepoints across Devon to incentivise uptake of electric vehicles.

Councillor Andrea Davis, Devon County Council cabinet member for climate change, environment and transport, said: “We need to reduce car journeys across the county and particularly into Exeter, and the park and change site will help relieve congestion on the Moor Lane roundabout and the A30 Honiton Road approach to junction 29 of the M5.”

Councillor Stuart Hughes, Devon County Council cabinet member with responsibility for cycling, said: “We’re continuing to invest in establishing a network of high-quality walking and cycling routes to achieve our ambitious target of 50% of all Exeter journeys to work and education to be made by foot or bicycle by 2030.”

The project is funded through National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF), Exeter and East Devon Enterprise Zone and developer contributions.

It will open from 6:30am to 8pm Mondays to Saturdays and is closed on Sundays and bank holidays, and will be locked out of hours.

One Conservative councillor calls it a “cock up” over claims that the minutes don’t seem to correspond to recollections that Four Elms would get double white lines and a 40 mph speed limit. If so, would it be Councillor Stuart Hughes’s cock up? He is Devon County Council cabinet member for highway management and chair of East Devon Highways and Traffic Orders Committee. Will there now have to be more consultations?

But could it simply be that double white lines cost more? – Owl

Philip Churm, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

A number of councillors in East Devon have asked the committee responsible for roads to take urgent action in order to improve safety at an accident black spot near Newton Poppleford. 

Repainted – but not well. Four Elms Hill markings suggest overtaking allowed

Members of East Devon Highways and Traffic Orders Committee (HATOC) were discussing Four Elms Hill, the A3052 Exeter to Sidmouth road, after it was suggested that the county council had failed to act on a decision made in July 2019 to paint double white lines along the Four Elms stretch. 

The move would have prevented vehicles from overtaking.  

Earlier this month lines were repainted, but the lining included stretches of broken white lines instead, indicating overtaking with caution is allowed.  

Chair of Newton Poppleford and Harpford Parish Council, Cllr Chris Burhop (Newton Popp. Ward) expressed his concern at the HATOC meeting.  

“The road was duly closed for four nights and the public were told it was going to be repainted with double white lines. 

“The expectation was double white lines and what do we get? We actually get a scheme that doesn’t – believe it or not – even reflect this because they’ve made short dashed lines with overtaking advisable instead of the long dashed lines that were there previously.

“So they’ve actually made the situation worse not better. And the people of Newton Poppleford are, at best, confused and at worst furious.”

An accident occurred on the stretch of road on 21 July but exact details are not available and it is unclear whether it was caused by the concerns outlined by the councillors.

Vice-chair of East Devon Council Cllr Val Ranger (Independent East Devon Alliance, Newton Poppleford and Harpford Ward) also expressed her worries about the road markings.   

She said: “So there’s great frustration on the part of residents, parish councillors, district councillors, Devon county councillors and me about the poor job done on Four Elms Hill.

“There are accidents along the entire length of the hill not just certain hotspots.”

Cllr Ranger suggested that Devon County Council may not know the extent of the dangers because only serious injuries or ‘at fault’ incidents are recorded.  However, she said local police were more likely to understand the true number of accidents.  

“Whatever happened to doing what matters? Why would you shut a major road and only do a half-baked job?” Cllr Ranger added. 

“What is required is a proper survey of all road markings from the base of the hill including the red warning lines and the slow signs which are in dire need of refreshing.  

“It needs double white lines up the entire hill because all drivers understand what they mean.”

During the 25-minute discussion, officers suggested a further report would be needed to consider the issues involved.

Cllr Christine Channon (Conservative, Exmouth & Budleigh Salterton Coastal Division) suggested more urgent action was required. “We can’t wait for any reports of this, that and the other. This was wrong,” she said. “They’ve not followed up what we recommended. And so consequently somebody needs to get down and sort it out PDQ.”

Other councillors reminded the committee of the meeting in July 2019 in which, they said, specific demands were made. 

Cllr Phillip Twiss (Conservative, Feniton & Honiton Division) said:  “I am under no confusion whatsoever that I voted to support a 40 mph speed limit on that stretch of hill. 

“I don’t have any illusion whatsoever about what I voted for and what that meeting was voting for – as far as I recall unanimously – which was 40 mph speed limit and double white lines. 

“To my mind – put simply – this is a cock up it’s a mistake and it needs to be rectified now.”

Councillor Stuart Hughes, Devon County Council cabinet member for highway management and chair of East Devon HATOC, said: “The 40 mph speed limit was implemented as agreed by the HATOC committee in 2019/20, and although the new lining has been installed in accordance with the minutes of the July 2019 HATOC, unfortunately it doesn’t reflect the committee’s understanding of what had been agreed.

“The committee would prefer double white lines where both lines are solid, to remove overtaking manoeuvres from this section of road. A safety audit still has to be carried out on the new lining scheme and we will have to consult again with police before a ‘double solid’ white line system can be introduced.”

Two years ago, a group of residents in Whimple set up an action group called POWR (Protect Our Whimple & Rockbeare) to help local communities to push back on proposed plans to expand Cranbrook ever closer to their village boundaries. POWR has now lunched a petition asking EDDC to finish the development they started and stop over-development of Cranbrook.

www.change.org 

Cranbrook new town is growing at an alarming rate. Proposals are currently under consultation to extend Cranbrook into four new expansion areas – Bluehayes, Treasbeare, Cobdens and The Grange. It is proposed that the four areas will accommodate over 4,000 new homes, three primary schools, two neighbourhood centres, employment land, two gypsy and traveller sites and open space and sports provision. Whilst we understand the requirement to provide housing for people, it does not need to be all in this one area. This additional development will see significant changes to around 1200 acres of land that will change the landscape in this area of East Devon beyond all recognition, at a time when we are already witnessing a very real shortage of land for food production and trees to help fight climate change globally. 

Cranbrook is already a large and growing development with a vibrant community, but residents have been badly let down by East Devon District Council leaving the roll-out of the Town Centre to the Developers who have failed to provide the thriving Town Centre with a supermarket, shops, amenities and work spaces that was promised from the outset. Now that EDDC has accepted the latest offer from East Devon New Community Partners and taken control of some of this next phase of development for Cranbrook, the Council must step up and make this a reality for the many residents living there. It is a crying shame that it has taken this long and that the ambitious plans have been scaled back compared to what they were.

A Governance Review has recently been called for that will look at boundary changes to our local parishes so that more land comes under the control of Cranbrook Town Council, eating away at our village borders. Whilst the plans for the expansion of Cranbrook are still under review, it is rather premature and presumptive to be looking at expanding the boundaries of Cranbrook further and into neighbouring parishes. 

We, the people of East Devon, have the right to make ourselves heard and the power to effect change if we come together as one voice. We demand that Mark Williams, Chief Executive of East Devon District Council and his colleagues, oppose any expansion of Cranbrook beyond the existing town boundary until it has been properly consulted on by appointed representatives of Cranbrook, Clyst Valley, Broadclyst, Whimple and Rockbeare. Any Governance Review should be shelved whilst the expansion plans are still under consultation.

Enough is enough!

Please sign and share this petition and demand that East Devon District Council listen to the many voices crying out for the mass over-development of our local area to stop!

These case rates relate to the seven days to July 18. Last night, BBC Spotlight indicated that rates for the following week show a mixed picture with some South West counties continuing to rise some starting to level off. The message is: there is a lot of Covid circulating.

Joe Ives, Local Democracy Reporter exmouth.nub.news  27 July

Covid cases have increased in every part of Devon, with figures almost doubling in the last week in Plymouth, rising by 1126.

The case rate in the area is now 188 per cent higher than the UK average. The rise means almost one in 1,000 people in Plymouth currently have the virus.

There were also huge spikes in some of Devon’s districts, with cases going up by 125 per cent in Torridge (189 new cases) and 125 per cent in North Devon (547 new cases).

Teignbridge saw the smallest increase in rates of infection, with numbers going up by around 16 per cent (77 new cases).

Overall in Devon, including Plymouth and Torbay, 6,740 people caught the virus in the seven-day period.

Case rates rose by 1245 (60 per cent) in the Devon County Council area and by 382 (65 per cent) in Torbay.

Hospitalisations

Thirty-five patients were admitted to Derriford hospital in Plymouth the week of the latest data (to Sunday 18 July)

Seventeen patients were admitted to the RD&E, while 15 patients were admitted to Torbay Hospital. Two more are being cared for in North Devon.

Deaths

No new deaths within 28 days of a positive covid test were recorded in Devon in the past week.

The total number of people who have died within 28 days of positive covid test remains at 1,046 in Devon, including 206 in Plymouth and 156 in Torbay.

129,044 people have now died within 28 days of a positive covid test in the UK, that number rising by 306 in the last seven days.

Vaccinations

86 per cent of adults in the Devon County Council area have now had their first dose of a vaccine, while 70 per cent have had both.

85 per cent of adults have had their first jab in Torbay, while 72 per cent have had both doses.

There’s a big gap in the number of adults who have had both their first and second doses in Plymouth, with the numbers sitting at 82 per cent and 63 per cent respectively.

The UK average is currently at 88 per cent for one dose and just under 70 per cent for both doses.

• Removal of 6m section of hedgerowThe Old Gospel Hall Frogmore Road East Budleigh Budleigh Salterton EX9 7DRRef. No: 21/1960/HRN | Validated: Fri 16 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Oak – T1 – Fell to ground level Reason – Advanced decay. See Aspect Tree Consultancy report (05658.Tree Risk Assessment with Picus Tomography.02.07.2021) for full details 19 Higher Woolbrook Park Sidmouth EX10 9EDRef. No: 21/1961/TRE | Validated: Fri 16 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Sycamore : Fell as roots are causing blockage of drain and sewage flooding into garden Amberleigh Beatlands Road Sidmouth EX10 8JHRef. No: 21/1982/TRE | Validated: Fri 16 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed New Farm Access Track Hay Farm Yarcombe Honiton EX14 9BQRef. No: 21/1952/FUL | Validated: Fri 16 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Leylandii DBH 30+inches : Fell T2, Leylandii DBH 30+inches : Fell T3 Leylandii DBH 24+inches – Fell Reason : Blocking light to neighbour, unwanted species, wrong trees, wrong place. No amenity value. Regency House Seafield Road Sidmouth EX10 8HERef. No: 21/1937/TRE | Validated: Thu 15 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Part two storey part single storey side extension and single storey side extension with alterations to fenestration Briar Patch St Johns Road Exmouth EX8 5EGRef. No: 21/1940/FUL | Validated: Thu 15 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed garage conversion and alterations 7 Southbrook Meadow Cranbrook Exeter Devon EX5 7DWRef. No: 21/1939/FUL | Validated: Thu 15 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension 16 Hartopp Road Exmouth EX8 1SBRef. No: 21/1947/FUL | Validated: Thu 15 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension Endsleigh Barline Beer Seaton EX12 3LWRef. No: 21/1941/FUL | Validated: Thu 15 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a triple garage Colwell Wood Cottage Offwell Honiton EX14 9RWRef. No: 21/1934/FUL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Single storey side extension 12 Oaklea Honiton EX14 1XHRef. No: 21/1925/FUL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawfulness for a rear dormer174 Hulham Road Exmouth EX8 4RBRef. No: 21/1929/CPL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Laburnum : To dismantle to ground level as the main stem and root system are starting to interfere with the historic boundary wall and also the supporting stone pillar Sid House Sid Road Sidmouth EX10 9AHRef. No: 21/1930/TCA | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear and side extension, first floor extension, and demolition of side extension Higher Metcombe Cottage Higher Metcombe Ottery St Mary EX11 1SRRef. No: 21/1932/FUL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Dormers to front and rear and a single storey front extension Elm View 57 Burrow Lane Newton Poppleford Sidmouth EX10 0BWRef. No: 21/1933/FUL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 – Turkey Oak. Remove 1 small branch on western aspect growing above hedge back to partner limb at 5m above ground level, maximum diameter of cut (MDC) 50mm, crown raise southern aspect, to 6m above ground level, MDC 75mm. T2 – Turkey Oak. Remove epicormic growth on main stem up to a height of 4m, MDC 60mm. Reason for works: Appropriate arboricultural management 8 Grindle Way Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1DFRef. No: 21/1923/TRE | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Beech, T1 : 1.5 m lateral reduction to retain tree height of 15m and lateral spread of 7m, to prevent encroaching into neighbouring propertie; maximum diameter cuts 50mm, as discussed on site with EDDC’s tree officer pre-application. 8 Moorcourt Close Sidmouth EX10 8SURef. No: 21/1918/TRE | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey rear and side extension 58 Primley Road Sidmouth EX10 9LFRef. No: 21/1921/FUL | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Group, A2 2 x Ash – fell to ground level. Multi stemmed Sycamore – remove wounded stem/branch over road. Reason appropriate health and safety Greenend House Green End Lane Plymtree Cullompton EX15 2JRRef. No: 21/1920/TRE | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing veranda with rear balcony and a single storey rear extension. 15 Churston Rise Seaton EX12 2JERef. No: 21/1910/FUL | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Certificate of lawfulness for a single storey rear extension2 Bramble Close Budleigh Salterton EX9 6JSRef. No: 21/1907/CPL | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of condition number 3 (holiday occupancy) of application 02/P0817 Huish Cottage 16 Drupe Farm Court Exmouth Road Colaton Raleigh Sidmouth EX10 0LERef. No: 21/1902/VAR | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey side extension. 9 Comilla Close Exmouth EX8 5PLRef. No: 21/1906/FUL | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of 2 x non-illuminated fascia signs and 2 x non-illuminated hanging signs. H S B C Fore Street Sidmouth EX10 8AARef. No: 21/1903/ADV | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for a proposed single storey rear extension, and alteration of front entrance including internal alterationsSummerlee Sid Road Sidmouth EX10 9AHRef. No: 21/1901/CPL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Withdrawn
• Change of use of land for the stationing of 26 holiday lodges (twin unit static caravans) Lakeview Manor Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4SHRef. No: 21/1889/FUL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Install secondary glazing 2no. windows on front elevation at first floor Pheasant Cottage Yettington Budleigh Salterton EX9 7BWRef. No: 21/1896/LBC | Validated: Fri 16 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• First floor extension over part of building Lakeview Manor Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4SHRef. No: 21/1890/FUL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a single storey flat roof rear extension130 Pound Lane Exmouth EX8 3LERef. No: 21/1881/CPL | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Refused
• Demolition of existing rear extension & construction of two storey rear extensions with new roofs & roof windows to new & main roofs demolition of existing porch & construction of new porch with slated, duo pitched roof; four dormer windows to front elevation roof slope & two to rear Newcourt Barton Clyst Road Topsham Exeter EX3 0DBRef. No: 21/1883/FUL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Single storey front extension raising front gable with two rooflights and alterations to fenestrations. 6 St Marys Park Ottery St Mary EX11 1HZRef. No: 21/1869/FUL | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of Lawful Development for a Proposed single-storey rear extension including roof light and front porch extension3 Chudley Close Exmouth EX8 4DYRef. No: 21/1872/CPL | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Approved
• Variation of condition No. 2 (Approved Plans), and the removal of conditions No. 4 (Materials and Finishes) and No. 5 (Means of Enclosure) of planning permission ref: 19/1490/FUL to allow for alterations to the siting, dimensions, internal layout, fenestration, materials, and site boundary (Part Retrospective). Higher Leyhill Farm Broadhembury Honiton EX14 3JYRef. No: 21/1861/VAR | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed change of use of agricultural land to extend residential garden including additional parking spaces and formation of patio/terrace (Part Retrospective) Higher Leyhill Farm Broadhembury Honiton EX14 3JYRef. No: 21/1863/FUL | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Creation of car parking spaces to the front garden Flat 2 7 Louisa Terrace Exmouth EX8 2AQRef. No: 21/1873/FUL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey rear extension, extension to terrace and retaining wall, relocation of external steps, addition of external insulation and internal alterations including the removal partition wall in the utility room. Relocation of oil tank. Higher Sweetcombe Sidbury Sidmouth EX10 0QRRef. No: 21/1856/LBC | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing sports prefab with a sports pavilion Village Hall Branscombe Branscombe Seaton EX12 3DBRef. No: 21/1852/FUL | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing single storey sunroom and Construction of larger single storey dining area / sunroom. Shapwick Court Rousdon Lyme Regis DT7 3XURef. No: 21/1849/FUL | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a 2 x bed dwelling with associated parking and amenity space and erection of a garage to existing dwelling. Include extension to existing crossover. including alterations to fenestration 1A Jarvis Close Exmouth EX8 2PXRef. No: 21/1853/FUL | Validated: Fri 16 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of track for access and timber extraction to support forestry management plan. (Goldacre Planation) Widcombe Wood SouthleighRef. No: 21/1846/AGR | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Construction of single storey rear extension, extension to terrace and retaining wall, relocation of external steps, addition of external insulation and internal alterations including the removal of partition wall in the utility room. Relocation of oil tank. Higher Sweetcombe Sidbury Sidmouth EX10 0QRRef. No: 21/1855/FUL | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Front single-storey extension including repositioning of pedestrian entrance gate 50 Valley Way Exmouth EX8 4PDRef. No: 21/1804/FUL | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a double garage block building Loxbrook Farm Broadclyst Exeter EX5 3BNRef. No: 21/1771/FUL | Validated: Thu 15 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed balcony 2 Kingslake Rise Mudbank Lane Exmouth EX8 3ELRef. No: 21/1768/FUL | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of first floor dormer onto existing roof (with PD size limits). Window modification. Cladding of existing first floor dormer and section of ground floor wall.Stomorage Cottage Colestocks Honiton EX14 3JRRef. No: 21/1749/CPL | Validated: Mon 12 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of 2no. external doors and 8no. windows on rear flat roof extension of Fairlynch Museum Fairlynch Museum 27 Fore Street Budleigh Salterton EX9 6NPRef. No: 21/1793/FUL | Validated: Fri 16 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Siting of a storage container ancillary to the solar farm. Great Houndbeare Farm Aylesbeare Exeter EX5 2DBRef. No: 21/1721/FUL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use from agricultural to flexible commercial use (class B8) Rosamondford Farm Perkins Village Exeter EX5 2JGRef. No: 21/1719/PDR | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of replacement sewage treatment plant Beeds Farm Maidenhayne Lane Musbury Axminster EX13 8AGRef. No: 21/1701/LBC | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of replacement sewage treatment plant Beeds Farm Maidenhayne Lane Musbury Axminster EX13 8AGRef. No: 21/1700/FUL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Conversion of agricultural building into 2 No. two storey, 2-bed semi-detached dwellings with associated access, parking and amenity space Barton Farm Village Way Aylesbeare Exeter EX5 2FFRef. No: 21/1691/FUL | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retention of building to provide ancillary and holiday accommodation on first floor and car ports, garage and storage at ground floor Rye Errish House Southleigh Colyton EX24 6JBRef. No: 21/1668/FUL | Validated: Wed 14 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed detached chalet bungalow with associated basement Ashcroft Bassetts Gardens Exmouth EX8 4EERef. No: 21/1622/FUL | Validated: Fri 16 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a cottage Coxes Farm Cottage Sidmouth Road Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1DNRef. No: 21/1631/FUL | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a cottage Coxes Farm Cottage Sidmouth Road Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1DNRef. No: 21/1632/LBC | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace dangerous, rotten fence adjacent to A35 (retrospective) Windy Ridge Offwell Honiton Devon EX14 9RRRef. No: 21/1568/FUL | Validated: Tue 13 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Inscription of cottage name on lintel above front door School Yard Cottage 3 St Andrews View Chardstock Axminster EX13 7BXRef. No: 21/1562/LBC | Validated: Fri 16 Jul 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

The story goes national under the headlines: “Millionaire hotspot Salcombe blocks second home buyers” (Telegraph) and “Salcombe pulls up drawbridge against the second-home invasion” (Times).

The Times, however, explains the intricacies of using “Section 106” agreements to ensure the concept of “principal residence” endures. (Planning officers more often chose to use planning conditions because they caused “less hassle”, but the Council wants to remove this option).

Salcombe pulls up drawbridge against the second-home invasion

Will Humphries, Southwest Correspondent www.thetimes.co.uk

Some people will do anything for their own slice of the seaside idyll. Even if it means bending or breaking a few planning rules along the way.

The people of Salcombe, the Devon seaside town nicknamed Chelsea-on-Sea, have become so worried about the influx of second-home owners that they have enacted the strictest code against out-of-towners in the country.

In 2018 the neighbourhood planning steering group calculated that about 57 per cent of homes in the town were second homes. South Hams district council is hoping to curb this trend by making it a legal requirement that all newbuild homes be sold as a principal residence and stay that way for ever.

In the past, planning officers had the choice to attach a planning condition to a new development, stating it must be a principal residence, or draw up a Section 106 agreement with the developer, which makes it legally binding on the property’s title deeds.

Judy Pearce, Conservative leader of South Hams district council, said that planning officers more often chose to use planning conditions instead of Section 106 agreements because they caused “less hassle”.

She said that because planning conditions were not registered on the property deeds, unlike a Section 106, they often get “lost or overlooked” by homeowners and lawyers during house sales.

This allowed properties first bought as a principal residence to be sold on years later and added to the growing list of second homes.

“Particularly in the case of Salcombe, where people will do almost anything to get hold of a property,” Pearce said. “I am not saying people do cut corners but if you were of the mind to, it would be easy [to overlook a planning condition].”

The council has now voted to ensure that its neighbourhood plan demands all new developments, excluding replacement dwellings, must have a Section 106 agreement stating it will remain a principal residence in perpetuity.

“We had to take it to council because the planning officers wouldn’t sign it off,” Pearce said. “The officer who deals with neighbourhood plans agrees with us but the majority didn’t.”

Salcombe has long been a mecca for the boating fraternity. Wealthy out-of-towners arrive in the summer months to sail on the Kingsbridge estuary and moor up in sandy bays for lunch. The population can rise from about 2,000 during the winter to more than ten times that in summer. The closest railway station is a 40-minute drive away in Totnes and trains to London take about three hours.

The new neighbourhood plan amendment will be assessed by an independent examiner before it is officially approved as part of the planning framework for Salcombe. Nikki Turton, the town mayor, said that the blanket use of Section 106 agreements would ensure the town “doesn’t need to keep an eye on every property and report constantly on possible breaches”. She added: “We want families to come and live and work here. We are not just a holiday destination, we are a thriving town and we want to exist in the future.”

The average wage in Salcombe is below the national average but the cost of buying a home is about £750,000, with a majority selling for well over £1 million.

Blair Stewart, a local estate agent with Strutt & Parker, said that there “have been instances” of planning conditions being avoided during house sales. “It’s not rocket science that clever solicitors and lawyers will find ways and means of getting around things,” he said. He believes the new rule will cause “quite a significant issue” for people looking at new developments, which typically cost between £800,000 and £1.5 million, if they have to commit themselves to making it their principal residence.

“It is the significant upper end of the market, which tends to be new developments. There are virtually no affordable homes in Salcombe,” Stewart said.

Property values in and around Salcombe have risen by 10 to 15 per cent in the past year. Stewart said that he had seen a 30 per cent rise in buyers coming to live full-time in Salcombe in the past five years, with draws including Ofsted-rated outstanding primary and secondary schools and improved wifi coverage. “It helps that the head of BT has a house in Salcombe and sorted that out,” Stewart said.

An idea that is catching on

Salcombe is not the first seaside town to move to tighten its planning rules.

St Ives voted to ban the selling of newbuild properties as second homes in 2016, and has been followed by other Cornish tourist hotspots such as Fowey and Mevagissey.

These towns have passed neighbourhood plans stipulating planning conditions that newbuild properties must be sold as principal residences.

However, none of them has gone as far as Salcombe, which is looking to dictate that only a Section 106 agreement attached to the title deeds can be used.

Since St Ives voted for its neighbourhood plan there has been much debate about whether it will have the desired effect of making more affordable properties available to local families. Some estate agents insist that the regulation is hampering supply.

A London School of Economics study published in 2019 said that the policy had led to an increase in the price of existing homes because prospective second-home owners were competing for them with residents. Professor Christian Hilber, who led the study, said a better option would be a local annual tax on the value of a second home.

Councillors have said that it is too early to judge the merits of the policy. However, before the pandemic the average property price had risen 3 per cent since 2016. At times in the past decade prices were growing by more than 10 per cent a year.

The British government is trapped again by the picaresque politics of Boris Johnson. When the pandemic has subsided, the legacy of 2021 could yet be something more long-lasting – the permanent scarring of the landscape, courtesy of the 2019 parliament.

Simon Jenkins www.theguardian.com 

Last spring, the prime minister trumpeted the “tearing down” of English town and country planning regulations, in place since the 1940s. That was enough to have him pummelled at last month’s Chesham and Amersham byelection. The planning minister, Robert Jenrick, then protested that “tearing down” did not mean “ripping up”, whatever that means. He is now wrestling with a shambles of reform.

At the root lies Johnson’s perfectly commendable ambition to “level up” the north and south. Britain has one of the most regionally divided economies in the developed world, with parts of northern England poorer than the regions that used to make up East Germany. Johnson rightly wants to divert wealth, talent, investment and productivity in that direction, but he has no clue what this means.

Jenrick’s response is to seek to cram even more houses – and thus people – into the south-east. Backed by his army of Tory-donor property developers, he hopes to designate specific areas of countryside – mooted as “30% of UK land” – as protected, and with a casual presumption in favour of “developing” the rest. Since protection likely includes the mostly mountainous areas of Wales and Scotland, it is hard to see a vision of southern England as anything but open to a creeping, Los Angeles-style urban sprawl. This means ending 50 years of the once-prized divide between Britain’s towns and their surrounding countryside.

The ambition to promote building in the south plays on Johnson’s other arbitrary ambition, to build some 300,000 houses – their location unspecified – every year. Given that permission already exists for a million homes in land banks, this appears to be mere lobby appeasement. But the consequence will likely be a dramatic rise in housing imposed on the countryside. Analysis by the CPRE, the countryside charity, of the algorithm devised to calculate housing needs shows Johnson’s Uxbridge seat will have to find room for 10 times more houses than Rishi Sunak’s Yorkshire one. This is hardly “levelling up”, and has led Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, to condemn building “the wrong homes in the wrong places”, and the former Tory leader William Hague to label the proposed planning reforms “Johnson’s poll tax”.

The reality is that English housing policy is still in the dark ages. Jenrick should be promoting downsizing, taxes to discourage under-occupation, the renovation of old building and increasing housing density in suburbia. There is no need to build on greenfield rather than brownfield land anywhere in Britain. Ministers seem to think the only “real” house is a car-dependent executive home in a southern meadow. It is, as Jenrick says, a “dream” – but that is not a need.

The way to level up the regional divide is to make northern towns and cities more attractive places to live. This means stopping Manchester and Liverpool letting developers turn them into concrete jungles – and avoiding such humiliations as having Unesco this week strip Liverpool of its world heritage status. It means galvanising the creative potential of old Victorian city centres such as those of Bradford and Huddersfield. It means smart conservation, not mindless destruction. British town and country planning must recover both its architectural flair and its democratic virility.

Rumour has it that Jenrick’s department is now frantically trying to “de-Cheshamise” his planning bill. This could mean abandoning the simplistic zoning plan and restoring democratic control over planning permissions. It is absurd for him to claim that this will impede development. Some 90% of planning permissions in England go through. Otherwise local democracy’s only defence will be endless resorts to the courts. Already, judges are forced to become substitute town planners. Hence Johnson’s frantic steps to curb judicial review. The man is, heart and soul, an anti-democrat.

Jenrick’s other controversial proposal is to loosen restrictions on change-of-use in high streets, to hasten their switch from communal hubs into “volume” housing. That high streets need reappraisal is beyond doubt. The idea that local people deserve no control over the future of their high streets is centralist arrogance.

Jenrick has recently claimed to want houses to be “built of local materials” and erected in tree-lined streets. So do we all, where appropriate. But who is to decide? The answer is apparently a corps of Whitehall aesthetes, replacing generations of planners responsive to their residents. These decisions must be returned to localities. Like politics, all true planning is local. Many terrible things may happen to Britain in the aftermath of the current pandemic. It would be a tragedy if the guardianship of the built and rural environment becomes another casualty. We are told that Britain is not going the way of Los Angeles. Would someone kindly explain how?

Before readers get too excited this Exeter University project is one of six sharing £9.2 million funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). Will any cash actually filter down to local economies? – Owl

Patrick McAndrew www.plymouthherald.co.uk 

The University of Exeter has announced a new project which will aim to aid the economies of UK coastal towns as part of a new nearly-£10million fund.

The “Sustainable Development and Resilience of UK Coastal Communities” project will first focus on a range of locations across Devon and Cornwall before applying the practices across the rest of the UK.

University bosses say the project aims to “build the marine economy while protecting ecosystems and communities”.

With a focus on local maritime communities, the university is working in partnership with Devon Maritime Forum and Cornwall Rural Community Charity in the attempt to revitalise areas that face the challenges of the climate emergency, Covid-19 and Brexit.

Dr Louisa Evans, who will lead the project, said: “Marine resources and coastal heritage are some of the country’s greatest assets.

“I am over the moon to have this opportunity to help coastal communities and marine ecosystems thrive now and in the future.

“Our programme will identify how people and livelihoods can be more resilient to environmental and social change, while also improving the well-being of coastal communities and the health of the marine environment.

“We will deliver these benefits across different projects and policies, ranging from sustainable seafood and marine apprenticeship schemes to coastal heritage decision-making and marine conservation policy.”

Steven Guilbert of the Devon Maritime Forum added: “This project will allow us to focus on key areas of interest, namely: blue growth, marine conservation, and climate and coastal change.

“This, in turn can lead to more effective and sustainable outcomes for the marine environment in Devon and the wider South West peninsula.”

The project has been announced soon after England’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty highlighted the difficulties many coastal towns, including Torbay, face in his annual report last week.

He said: “Coastal areas are some of the most beautiful, vibrant and historic places in the country but they also have some of the worst health outcomes with low life expectancy and high rates of many major diseases.

“These communities have often been overlooked by governments and if we do not tackle these issues vigorously, they will get worse as the current population ages.”

There is something unexplained going on in the data. Tim Spector’s symptom tracker app appeared to have picked up a turning point a couple of weeks ago, but that was considered to be a sampling blip. His app still indicates widespread infections in the South West, see below, and no fall nationally. – Owl

Tom Whipple, Science editor www.thetimes.co.uk 

It is great news that cases are falling. It is also slightly mysterious. In only a few days we have gone from rapid increases to rapid decreases. The graph of UK cases looks like a spiky Matterhorn.

What is confusing is that if this change was a result of infections and vaccinations only we would expect the rounded dome of a Mont Blanc-style summit, as we slowly edge up to and then pass herd immunity.

So what is happening?

The first thing to note is that we have yet to see most of the effects of England’s July 19 reopening percolate through. Neither, though, have we seen the (hopefully) opposite effect of schools closing for summer.

What is happening now, which cannot be explained by falling test numbers, largely represents trends that came before.

It may be partly the consequences of the Euros ending. We know that football affected case numbers because for the first time we could see a gender split. There was a divergence between men, who watch a lot of football, and women, who not only watch it less but are less likely to do so while congregating in crowds with flares up their bottoms.

The fall may also be the effect of better weather — for both fire safety and infection control reasons it is greatly preferable to have such celebrations, and more staid gatherings, outdoors.

Vaccines have had a huge effect, yet it still remains the case that every thousand fewer infections translates into about one fewer death.

But if behaviour rather than immunity is the most plausible explanation, there is also still some reason for wariness. After all, behaviour, not to mention lifted restrictions and worsening weather, can take cases in both directions.

Both Blackburn and Bolton had early outbreaks of the Delta variant and became the Petri dish for the nation’s third wave. In May their peaks declined, which led some to suggest they had reached herd immunity, but they are rising again.

Even so, this is a good day. Many thought reported cases would keep rising until we hit 100,000 a day. Many looked at the trajectory and thought 200,000 a day — a figure that could threaten the NHS — would not be unreasonable.

Today, with due caveats and uncertainty, it is plausible to believe that we have peaked at 50,000 and are on our way down. All of which means there is reason to be cautiously hopeful.

From Zoe Covid Symptom Tracker

Has Heart of the South West (HotSW) been betting on the wrong horse? – Owl

www.theguardian.com 

China’s state-owned nuclear energy company could be blocked from all future power projects in the UK, with ministers understood to be investigating ways to prevent its involvement.

The move would exclude China General Nuclear (CGN) from the consortium planning to build the £20bn Sizewell C nuclear plant on the Suffolk coast, as well as one in Bradwell-on-Sea in Essex.

A Whitehall source confirmed a report by the Financial Times that first revealed the government is exploring ways of removing CGN from future projects.

The move would be likely to stoke further tensions between the UK and China and would also mark a toughening of Britain’s stance towards Beijing. It would come amid major concerns about Beijing’s clampdown in Hong Kong and the treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

China’s involvement in nuclear power in the UK dates back to an agreement endorsed by then prime minister David Cameron and Chinese president Xi Jinping in 2015.

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: “Nuclear power has an important role to play in the UK’s low-carbon energy future, as we work towards our world-leading target to eliminate our contribution to climate change by 2050.

“All nuclear projects in the UK are conducted under robust and independent regulation to meet the UK’s rigorous legal, regulatory and national security requirements, ensuring our interests are protected.”

More cronyism. – Owl

A former Tory councillor was given a £120m government contract for personal protective equipment (PPE) which is now lying unused because of concerns about its quality, it has been revealed.

www.independent.co.uk

Steve Dechan, who owns medical device manufacturer Platform-14, had his offer to supply protective equipment from China fast-tracked through the government’s controversial “VIP” lane.

The Sunday Times newspaper reports that fewer than 1 in 400 of the face shields procured by the company on behalf of the government have been used, because the regulator does not believe they meet the right standards.

The original order for 120 million shields has delivered just 274,200 into the NHS supply chain, representing 0.23 per cent of the overall stock.

It means the shields used so far have cost the equivalent of £423 each, despite similar ones being available to buy online for less than £1.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has to authorise all PPE that is not CE marked (an EU designation that means it complies with European standards).

But the regulator said: “None of the documentation provided to HSE indicated the product to be CE marked.”

The regulator wrote to officials in September last year saying the shields “cannot enter the NHS supply chain” and repeatedly refused to approve them.

But in February, the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) stepped in and directly approved the face shields, with 274,000 used in the NHS so far. At the height of the pandemic last year, none could be used.

Mr Dechan told The Sunday Times that the “application and usage [of the shields] is entirely a matter for the DHSC”.

He said they had met “the required standards” and added: “As an NHS supplier for nearly 10 years, we will continue to provide innovative solutions and support trusts and patients across the UK.”

The reports come amid concern about the government’s procurement during the pandemic. The National Audit Office (NAO) found that firms referred to the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to have been given government contracts to supply PPE.

The NAO, the government’s spending watchdog, said in a report in November 2020 that there was a “lack of transparency and adequate documentation of some key decisions, such as why particular suppliers were chosen, or how the government identified and managed potential conflicts of interest in the awarding of some contracts”.

Another report released by the Commons Public Accounts Committee on Sunday said that the government is still wasting vast amounts of money on PPE that is “not fit for purpose” a year and a half into the pandemic.

Official figures show that overall nearly 7 per cent of all items purchased by the DHSC have failed quality checks, while ministers are spending £6.7m every week to keep the items stored.

An eye-watering 2.1 billion items have already been found unsuitable for use in medical settings, and 10,000 shipping containers are still to be unpacked.

The same committee also warned of “significant financial risks for decades to come”, with the estimated lifetime cost of all the government’s Covid measures reaching £372bn in May 2021.

“It is a once in a century chance on which our political establishment should capitalise, especially the Tory party, which represents nearly all the coastal constituencies it so shamefully neglects.” 

Will Hutton www.theguardian.com 

Britain’s coast is in desperate trouble. As more of us head for our beaches this summer than since the 1950s, spare a thought for the 3.5 million who live on the coast all year round – disproportionately poorer, iller, older, more mentally depressed, in low-paid temporary work, more overweight and more prone to suicide, drug abuse and self-harm than if they lived just a few miles inland. Levelling up is too often associated with derelict industrial Britain, but it is on our coast that the crisis over living standards, life expectancy and health is most acute. If the EU referendum was lost anywhere, it was lost here.

The story is hardly new, as the chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty, recognised in last week’s devastating report on the health and wellbeing of coastal communities. As he says, Blackpool has more in common with Hastings 255 miles distant, in its chronic ill health and poor public health services, than Preston just 15 miles inland. Even adjusting for deprivation and an elderly demographic, rates of mental illness and heart and kidney disease in coastal communities are roughly 10% higher than the national average – just one dimension of the “ shit-life syndrome” endemic on our coast. The quality of NHS care in response is enfeebled by major shortages of health and social care staff – 15% fewer postgraduate medical trainees, 15% fewer consultants and 7% fewer nurses per patient in coastal towns compared with the average inland. In any case, medical and public health services can only make so much progress in the teeth of the economic and social forces that create such a lack of wellbeing. Locked in a despairing vicious circle, coastal towns, often beautiful and with healthy sea air, are forgotten casualties because problems seem worse inland. There must be, declared Whitty, a national strategy to engage with this national wrong.

The underlying reasons are well known. The “blue economy” – fishing, shipping, shipbuilding, port traffic and tourism – has been hit hard by deep-seated trends. Industrial fishing has fatally wounded local fishing fleets; containerisation has killed small ports; shipbuilding has migrated to Asia; the British usually holiday abroad. The evaporation of a vibrant private sector with nothing spontaneously taking its place has seen wages, rents and local house prices suffer, on average over a quarter lower than a few miles inland, so that in general coastal towns have become poverty sinks. Neglect and deprivation beget still more, while teachers and doctors are reluctant to make their lives in these run-down places, exacerbating the decay.

What has given the decline its own special British twist is the way political and administrative centralisation, systemically denying local capability to raise taxes, borrow and spend, has interacted with a refusal to recognise that public and private are necessarily a symbiotic whole, more obvious on the coast than inland. Unless there is a vigorous public infrastructure of beautiful seaside fronts, promenades, well-tended beaches and amenities there cannot be successful coastal private enterprise. But that is impossible to create without sustained public resource and the accompanying structures.

Coastal communities in Holland, northern France, Denmark and Germany battle similar forces to our own, but their localities are afforded more chances to pull themselves up. Our coast’s decline is littered with examples of local energy and initiative running into difficulty for lack of any supportive, long-term framework, so that for every successful beachside art gallery or revived old port there is a parallel story of bankrupt pier companies and amusement parks. The doctrine in response is not to empower, but, rather, create Whitehall-controlled funds for which local communities bid against each for fixed pots of money. The root-and-branch overhaul in the way our towns and cities are governed, from which coastal towns would be prime beneficiaries, is abjured. The heroin addicts hanging out in the derelict seafront bandstand are umbilically linked to our pre-modern system of government.

The prime minister did not single out the plight of coastal communities in his recent speech on levelling up ten days ago – on the government website but surreally with no punctuation –, in which he simultaneously deplored so much spatial inequity in Britain while arguing that tall poppies should remain tall. Hence levelling up – not down. But importantly, he did call for more enabled local leaderships, the mayoral model to be extended to shires and counties, which could then put their plans to the centre. He envisages an extension of the existing model: more people to bid for these fixed pools of cash on which Whitehall would decide.

It can’t and won’t deliver what he wants. Yet for all the derision directed at his over-hyped speech so much of which was reheating pre-existing policies, at least he has put spatial inequality at the political forefront, while recognising any success must involve local leaders. It has created a unique moment that coincides with another break from the past. The working from home revolution prompted by Covid is creating the first mass re-engagement with our coast since the 19th century. Thus the Rightmove property network reports a 115% increase in inquiries this summer from city dwellers about buying property in seaside towns. House prices on the Cornish coast have exploded, while Scarborough is reinventing itself as “Zoomtown-on-sea”.

It is a once in a century chance on which our political establishment should capitalise, especially the Tory party, which represents nearly all the coastal constituencies it so shamefully neglects. Britain’s coast should become the spearhead of a green revolution, cementing the growing readiness of city dwellers to live there. There should be massive investment in beautifying our seafronts; in green energy for which the coast is so suited; in super-broadband; in upgrading housing stock; in quality attractions and creative quarters populated by a new generation of art and music colleges. St Ives, Hastings and Margate have shown what can be done with modern art – it can be universalised. All public sector workers in coastal communities should receive a coastal pay uplift. Coastal authorities should be allowed to experiment with spending, borrowing and tax freedoms.

The coast could and should become emblematic of health and vitality – a source of national pride. Chris Whitty is right. What has happened to our coast is shameful, not least as a public health disaster. It can and must be reversed.

I’m taking a spin on a go-kart track with a difference. It’s the old beauty hall of the Debenhams store in south-west London.

By Emma Simpson www.bbc.co.uk

The escalators are the only trace of the former department store which remain. All four floors are now being transformed into a high-tech entertainment venue.

As we filmed, shoppers stopped to take photos when the shutters briefly opened giving a glimpse of the flashing lights and builders beavering away inside.

“We’re creating a department store of fun,” says Michael Harrison, the co-founder of Gravity which is due to open on 1 August.

“We have three bars, two restaurants, go-karting, a bowling alley, huge screens to watch sporting events and adventure golf. This is the future of the High Street. It’s about experience,” he says.

Michael has no shortage of retail landlords now ringing him up offering him potential new locations.

They’re grappling with the need to rethink, or repurpose, empty shops. Latest figures suggest one in seven stores, on average, are lying vacant. And in some places the number is far higher.

The UK’s biggest property company, Landsec, owns the Southside shopping mall where Gravity is based. Its other centres include Bluewater in Kent and Trinity in Leeds.

Landsec boss Mark Allan thinks a quarter of what is currently retail space will need to be turned into something else.

“For me, it’s really difficult to think of an example where you have 25% of something that it exists in the UK that is no longer required. And so you’re not going to solve that sort of a problem by tinkering around the edges,” he says.

The pain won’t be evenly spread either, says Mr Allan: “Some places are going to be virtually empty and they are not going to survive as retail in any shape or form.

“Some are going to be absolutely fine – rents are lower, sales are lower and they’re worth less than they were but fundamentally they’ve got a role to play longer term and some places are going to be in the middle where they are going to survive but they need some investment.”

Some industry experts think the amount of redundant retail space is even higher. So how did we get here?

We’ve seen a huge proliferation of shops over the last 40 years. Retail has just been growing and growing, from out of town retail parks and shopping centres to so called clone towns dominated by chains, who were willing to pay higher rents.

That retail property boom is now over. Many of our town centres will have to find a new purpose.

We’ve been talking about how to save the High Street for more than a decade but the pandemic has turbo charged the problems now.

Mr Allan says it’s time to act. “Covid has been a tipping point. If we don’t tackle it over the next couple of years together then there’s a real risk some of this redundant retail property sits there for decades empty and that would be a disaster for the communities where that property is located.”

And he says there’s no single party that can solve the problem: “This needs people to come together. I think it’s a significant moment and a really big opportunity, particularly for those centres and high streets where there is no future for retail, for radical, bold, thinking. I think it could be exciting.”

Stockton-on Tees has one of the boldest plans to reshape its entire town centre. It has decided to demolish a large part of its high street.

The local council bought Stockton’s two shopping centres and plans to knock one of them down, creating a new riverside park to make the town a greener, nicer place.

The £37m project is largely being funded with money from the Tees Valley Combined Authority and the Government’s Future High Streets Fund.

The Castlegate mall was built in the 1970s, an era when local authorities were falling over themselves to attract big retail development.

media captionFormer staff reminisce about life at their town’s Debenhams branch

“Retail is still very important, but we now need to consolidate it to meet the demand,” says councillor Nigel Cooke, cabinet member for regeneration.

Businesses who want to stay will eventually move into the other shopping centre further up the street.

The scheme is part of a wider masterplan to market Stockton as an events town. The main high street, the widest in the UK, has been spruced up with new paving, lighting and a big water fountain. The council is also paying for the renovation of the town’s Grade II-listed art deco Globe Theatre.

“I think it is money well spent and I am convinced it’s the right thing to do. We need to get people back onto the high street either to live, to work or to enjoy themselves,” insists Mr Cooke.

“It would be easy to hide under my desk and say guys, we can’t do anything, let’s just wait for the good times to come back. But we have to do something.. nothing is risk free, it’s about managing the risk.”

But Stockton has now got a large, empty Debenhams to contend with, too.

Town centre regeneration is often complicated stuff, with a myriad of owners, stakeholders and issues to solve.

It’s taken Stockton 13 years to get this far and it’s only a third of the way through. But given the magnitude of the challenges now, doing nothing is no longer an option.