Peter – or Baron, as for now we must call him – Cruddas was once a Treasurer of the Conservative Party.

us15.campaign-archive.com /

In March 2012 the Sunday Times published a rather mean piece about him which included the claim that (as the Court put it) “in return for cash donations to the Conservative Party, [he] corruptly offered for sale the opportunity to influence government policy and gain unfair advantage through secret meetings with the Prime Minister and other senior ministers.”

He sued the Sunday Times for defamation and, to be fair to him, he won but the Court of Appeal also said the claim above was substantially true. As a candidate for a great honour you would think he was, well, you would think he was an odd one.

On the other hand, he is Very Rich. And he has given quite a lot of money to the Conservative Party: over £3m. He gave a quarter of a million quid to them on 10 January 2020 and a few weeks later it emerged he’d been nominated as a Baron by Boris Johnson.

He was crowned, or whatever happens to them, ‘Baron’ Cruddas on 2 February 2021 and a few days later, on 5 February 2021, he gave the Tories another half a million. We’re not saying any of this was pre-arranged – there’s no evidence of that and buying and selling peerages is a crime – but the timing of it all is, well, it is odd.

Given his past record, the House of Lords Appointments Commission thought he wasn’t the kind of man we should be giving a peerage to. And it advised Boris Johnson not to make him a Baron. But Boris did anyway – making history by ignoring the Appointments Commission for the first time ever.

We don’t only think it is odd. We also think it is unlawful. We think a fair-minded and informed observer, presented with the facts of the matter, would conclude that there was a real possibility or danger of bias in the Defendant’s decision making. We also think that the Prime Minister took legally irrelevant considerations – past donations and the prospect of future donations – into account in making him a Baron.

And so we’re suing. We’ve instructed Bindmans LLP, Dan Squires QC and Alice Irving. You can read our letter here.

Make no mistake, we intend to issue proceedings. But this time, we’re not setting up a crowdfunder. What we’d really like you to do instead is (1) sign our petition calling for him to be stripped of his peerage and (2) share this update with your friends and family.

Thank you,

Jo Maugham

Director of Good Law Project

A dozen Devon and Cornwall police officers are isolating after a coronavirus test taken by one of them proved positive.

Radio Exe News www.radioexe.co.uk

They’ve been in accommodation on a ship off the Cornwall coast whilst policing the G7 summit of world leaders at St Ives.

In a statement the force says: “As part of our testing regime, during the early hours of 11 June we have identified one officer who is currently supporting G7 policing and accommodated on the ferry has given a positive lateral flow test for covid.

“The officer, plus those who have come into close contact, are currently self-isolating at another designated location.

All who have come into close contact or are in the bubble of those who tested positive are also currently self-isolating which equates to 12 officers in total. The next stage is for those who have tested positive to undertake a PCR test.”

The force hasn’t said whether the officer who tested positive has been in contact with any of the delegates at the G7. Members of the royal family, including the queen, have also been in Cornwall on Friday to welcome the international leaders.

Begs the question as to whether the local management of designated landscapes is “safe in our hands”. Think Old Guard EDDC and the East Devon AONB, and how you manage consistent standards, expertise and funding.

Remember also who actually owns Dartmoor? – Owl

Daniel Clark, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Any proposals to remove local responsibility for Dartmoor and Exmoor will be strongly opposed in Devon, the leader of the county council has declared.

There has been considerable speculation that the government is planning to centralise the management of Britain’s national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty in a new National Landscape Service.

But Cllr John Hart, Devon County Council’s leader, has written to the secretary of state for environment, food and rural Affairs, George Eustace, and Devon’s MPs urging them to keep the management local.

Cllr Hart sent the letter on behalf of Team Devon, the organisation representing the county council as well as district, town and parish councils, saying he was alarmed and had grave concerns about the potential impact that this might have.

However, Devon County Council’s cabinet meeting has recommended to full council that while any merger of the functions of our National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty would be strongly opposed, there remains a case for a National Landscape service bringing together and strengthening existing national support and protection.

Cllr Alan Connett, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, who had put forward his motion on saving the National Parks, said that doing so would be seen as a coded signal that Devon does support this and the admissions would undermine the efforts being made.

In the letter, Cllr Hart said: “All Devon’s local authorities were alarmed to read media reports referring to the consideration being given to the possible role and structure of a new National Landscape Service.

“We share grave concerns about the potential impact that this might have on the management of Devon’s unique series of nationally protected landscapes.

“The Dartmoor and Exmoor National Park Authorities, together with our five areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs) are instrumental in conserving, enhancing and promoting Devon’s natural environment and the social and economic benefits that they provide.

“The localised management of each of those areas is critical to their success and we would strongly oppose any centralised merger of their functions.

“When the Government responds to the 2019 Landscapes Review, I hope that you can urge it to make a positive contribution to the ability of National Parks and AONBs to continue their important work and retain their autonomy.”

But he said that a National Landscape Service which brings together and strengthens existing national support for landscape conservation and the protection of the natural environment could be of great benefit and that it could also provide a strong national voice for all protected landscapes.

“Such increased national support, coupled with local autonomy in governance and operation, provides the most effective model to improve upon the fantastic work which is already led and managed in Devon,” Cllr Hart added.

Cllr Connett’s initial motion had called for Devon County Council to urge Government not to proceed with a National Landscape Service or to take any step which will remove local engagement and involvement in our precious national parks and Council instructs the Chief Executive to write urgently to the Prime Minister and local Members of Parliament serving Devon and Somerset setting out our support for our local National Parks.

But Cllr Hart’s recommendation from the cabinet was for the Council to note that they had already indicated to Government and local MPs that any merger of the functions of our National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty would be strongly opposed, but there remains a case for a National Landscape service bringing together and strengthening existing national support and protection of our natural environment and providing a strong national voice for all protected landscapes.

Cllr James McInnes, deputy leader of the council and also a member of the Dartmoor National Park Authority, added: “We accept some form of National Landscape Service. There needs to be cohesion between national parks and how they speak to the government, and that’s why we have written the response we have, as we do think there is some way to make national parks cohesive on the national stage which at the moment they are not.”

But Cllr Connett pleaded with them to remove the second part of their recommendation, saying: “I understand the first part but am hugely disappointed by the second part. The admission the county thinks that may undermine the efforts to protect Dartmoor and Exmoor and undermines the responses that have been sent

“You should remove the sentence about the National Landscape Service as this shoots us in the foot in the stance to defend Dartmoor National Park. It will be seen as a coded signal that Devon does support this which I don’t think Devon does and I don’t. It will draw support away from National Park authorities and will be the thin end of the wedge.

“I can live with the first part, but I cannot with the second, and so if you don’t withdraw it, I will move an amendment at full council.”

A final decision on the response to the motion will be taken when Devon County Council’s full council meets on 22 July.

(And they still keep arguing that they can’t afford to build all the “affordables” required in planning permissions. – Owl)

Don’t forget the small, regular, donations from developers to MPs such as the Carter donations linked to Simon Jupp.

Aubrey Allegretti www.theguardian.com

Labour has accused the Conservative party of “selling out communities to pay back developers” after figures revealed that 13% of the Tories’ recent donations came from property tycoons and companies.

Labour’s analysis of declarations released by the Electoral Commission show the firms gave £891,984 to Tory central office and eight local associations – a sizeable chunk of the £6,418,295 the party reported receiving in the first three months of 2021.

It comes as the government prepares to launch sweeping changes to the planning system that Labour says will remove communities’ right to object to inappropriate individual developments in their area.

Ministers are aiming to centralise and accelerate the housebuilding process in England to help boost homeownership in areas across the north and Midlands, which have seen increased levels of Conservative support.

But opposition among Tory MPs has been well aired in advance of the planning bill being introduced to parliament, with the former prime minister Theresa May among the potential rebels who told the government to “think again”. Another backbencher, Bob Seely, said last month that the plan “threatens to give our opponents throughout England a rallying cry of ‘save local democracy from the Tories’”.

It has now been revealed that 36 donations from developers were made to the Conservatives in the first three months of this year.

Most sums were paid to Conservative central office, with the largest single donation made by Bloor Holdings Ltd, which gave £150,000 and has reportedly had an application to build 1,000 new homes at Sandleford Park in Berkshire “recovered” by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, meaning it will be ruled on in Whitehall.

Local associations that received money directly include Witney – the constituency of the junior transport minister Robert Courts – as well as Tatton, Suffolk West and Enfield Southgate. There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by the donors or the party.

Labour’s Steve Reed, the shadow communities and local government secretary, said the new figures were “yet more evidence of the cosy relationship between the Conservative party and property developers, who for their investment will be allowed to concrete over communities at will”.

He said the planning bill would “reward developers by gagging residents so they have no say over plans to bulldoze local neighbourhoods” and added: “The Conservatives are paying back developers by selling out communities. Labour will fight this developers’ charter so that communities have right to a fair hearing in planning decisions.”

The Lib Dems have also sought to use the controversial planning changes as fodder for attacking the Conservatives in the Chesham and Amersham byelection on 17 June. The frontbencher Layla Moran recently said the bill would “create a developer’s free-for-all across the Chilterns” and mean builders could soon be “riding roughshod over the views of local people”.

A Conservative party spokesperson said: “Government policy is in no way influenced by the donations the party receives – they are entirely separate.

“Donations to the Conservative party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law. Fundraising is a legitimate part of the democratic process. The alternative is more taxpayer funding of political campaigning, which would mean less money for frontline services like schools, police and hospitals.”

The spokesperson added that “working with the housing industry is an essential part of getting new homes built and regenerating brownfield land”.

Boris Johnson may have to spend up to £40bn to try to repair NHS waiting times and end the long delays being faced by patients, according to unpublished Downing Street estimates.

Denis Campbell www.theguardian.com

Calculations for No 10 drawn up by the Cabinet Office make clear that the prime minister may have to commit anywhere between £2bn and £10bn a year for up to four years, on top of core NHS funding, to tackle what is fast becoming a major political headache for the government.

The figures, disclosed by Whitehall sources, underline the huge scale of the challenge in getting NHS waiting times back to manageable levels before the next election.

The latest NHS England performance figures, out on Thursday, showed that the total number of people waiting for hospital treatment, especially surgery, had topped 5 million for the first time. It stood at 5,122,017 in April, the highest since records began in 2007.

However, despite negative publicity, Downing Street thinks it does not need to start throwing money at the problem soon because the public are not yet “distressed” about long delays, a source with knowledge of No 10’s thinking said.

The projections were put together by the Cabinet Office as part of its work looking at the scale of post-Covid support needed in health, education and justice. Some Tories are tipping Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, to succeed Matt Hancock as health and social care secretary.

The Treasury is reluctant to hand over large sums to tackle the deepening waiting list problem, sources say. NHS England plans to give Downing Street a detailed analysis soon of how long it will take to start providing care again within its existing set of targets, to help inform No 10’s thinking before the comprehensive spending review in the autumn.

The waiting list has soared by almost 425,000 people in just the past two months as people who either could not access non-Covid NHS care during the pandemic or were reluctant to do so belatedly saw their GP and were referred to hospital.

Hospitals in England managed to get back to providing 90% of pre-pandemic levels of non-urgent care in April. But they are hamstrung by personnel shortages, staff sickness linked to the strain of dealing with Covid and having fewer beds because of social distancing measures.

Of the 5.1 million, almost 400,000 people have had to wait more than a year for treatment for conditions including cancer and heart problems, hip and knee replacements and cataract removals. A small number – 2,722 – have already been waiting longer than two years. The NHS has not met its target of treating 92% of all patients on the waiting list within the supposed maximum 18 weeks since 2016.

Prof Anita Charlesworth, an NHS finances expert at the Health Foundation thinktank, said it had estimated that ministers would need to spend £6bn over three years to tackle the backlog. However, the sums needed will have gone up as a result of the second wave of Covid over the winter, which once again disrupted key services.

“The health service now has a mountain to climb. Reducing the backlog of long waits and getting the NHS into a position where waiting time standards are consistently met will need a major increase in funding,” Charlesworth said. But that would also need 5,000 extra beds, 4,100 more consultants and 17,100 additional nurses, she added, as the NHS was too under-resourced to ramp up the number of patients treated.

Richard Murray, the chief executive of the King’s Fund thinktank, said the NHS’s lack of scanners and operating theatres would severely limit its ability to increase activity.

Downing Street declined to comment on the leaked figures.

The Department of Health and Social Care said: “We’re backing the NHS with £1bn to tackle the waiting lists which have built up, providing up to 1m extra checks, scans and additional operations, and the NHS is providing £160m to trial innovative ways to accelerate elective recovery in key areas and enable more hospitals to go further, faster.

“That’s on top of an extra £7bn funding we’re giving health and care services this year.”

Chris Hopson, the chief executive of the hospitals group NHS Providers, said: “Trust leaders are deeply aware of how frustrating long waits for care are, and are doing all they can to prioritise those who need to be seen urgently.”

Ministers, NHS chiefs, medical groups and health charities are worried that lengthening waits for treatment could lead to patients’ health deteriorating and some even becoming untreatable.

The latest official figures show that there were a further 7,393 lab-confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the UK by 9am on Thursday. Seven more people have died within 28 days of testing positive, bringing the UK total to 127,867.

Public Health England data shows that infections are now rising again in every area of England, especially in the north-west.

Danny Mortimer, the deputy chief executive of the NHS Confederation, warned that hospitals might once again have to shut down normal care if the rising number of Covid infections produced a third wave that put serious pressure on them. He urged Boris Johnson to be ready to delay the lifting of restrictions as planned on 21 June.

In one positive element in the latest figures, the number of people being forced to wait at least a year for planned, non-urgent treatment in hospital has fallen from 436,127 to 385,490.

“Despite the extensive disruption to care caused by the pandemic, it’s encouraging that today’s figures show routine operations, cancer and mental health care have now all rebounded sharply,” said Prof Stephen Powis, NHS England’s national medical director.

“Average waits for non-urgent care have fallen to 11 weeks, and the number of people waiting over 52 weeks fell by more than 50,000 in April. Mental health services are back at pre-pandemic levels, and treatment rates for cancer are also now back to usual levels.”

A hotel in Cornwall reportedly hosting media and security staff for the G7 summit has closed following a coronavirus outbreak.

Neil Shaw www.devonlive.com

The website for the Pedn Olva hotel in St Ives said it has temporarily shut on Thursday and directed inquiries to its owners, St Austell Brewery.

The hotel said a number of staff had been affected and it would close for deep cleaning following discussions with Public Health England (PHE).

German media reported that two security guards for Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel were staying inside the hotel, although it is not clear if they are quarantining or have been relocated.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed Ms Merkel would still be attending the summit.

According to reports, the hotel had identified a coronavirus outbreak on Wednesday.

The hotel owners, St Austell Brewery, said: “We can confirm that a number of our team at the Pedn Olva, St Ives, have tested positive for Covid-19.

“We immediately notified Public Health England of these cases and have been working closely with them to ensure we follow all appropriate safety guidelines.

“Following extensive discussions over the last few days with PHE and Cornwall Council, we have taken the decision to fully close the hotel.

“We fully appreciate the inconvenience given the limited accommodation options available in the area at the moment but the safety and security of our team and guests is our upmost priority.

“The hotel will reopen once a full Covid-19 deep clean has taken place and we have the available staff to run it.”

Simon Norris, 62, who also lives near the hotel, said his wife saw people checking out of the hotel and leaving with bags at about 5pm.

“We don’t have a lot of direct contact with the hotel, I’m really saddened by the outbreak,” he told the PA news agency.

“I feel very sorry for the staff that work there because they have done a lot of work to open the hotel up for the G7 and visitors. It’s extremely disappointing.

“When we’ve gone there they’ve met all the Covid protocols, I think they’ve just been very, very unlucky. It’s a great shame really. Prior to this we have had no incidents of Covid in St Ives.”

PHE and the Department for Health and Social Care have been approached for comment.

Elsewhere, Devon and Cornwall Police denied claims of a coronavirus outbreak on the ferry used to accommodate officers to the G7 summit, saying none had tested positive.

Rachel Wigglesworth, director of Public Health for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, said that public health teams were used to dealing with outbreaks of coronavirus.

When asked on Sky News on Friday about a hotel, reportedly hosting G7 media and security staff, having to close due to a Covid-19 outbreak she said: “As we know from living with this global pandemic there’s always these cases that arise but we are used to dealing with these sort of incidents across the country now.

“Our public health teams and the expertise around them are helping to support venues where there are any outbreaks and sometimes a business has to make the decision that they operationally cannot continue to work rather than it necessarily being a public health issue where staff have to self isolate.

“What we are seeing across the country is there are outbreaks, we have slightly increased the rates of Covid over the last few weeks, I think related to the relaxation of the restrictions from May 17, so a lot more cases amongst hospitality venues and amongst younger people that are not vaccinated.

“So we do need to continue to vaccinate but also to then suppress these cases where we do identify them.”

Matt Hancock has promised to reveal internal advice that is alleged to have required testing for people discharged from hospitals into care homes at the start of the Covid pandemic, amid claims the guidance was weakened following pressure from his department.

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

The claims go to the core of a decision that meant thousands of people were discharged without Covid tests from hospitals into care homes in March and April 2020.

Giving evidence to MPs investigating the government’s Covid response, the health secretary denied knowledge of the advice that a whistleblower said was produced by two senior officials at Public Health England in March 2020, according to a report in the Byline Times. However, he said he would provide whatever they produced.

The practice of discharging without testing was driven by a need to free up hospital beds, but it seeded outbreaks in care homes where thousands died in the first peak of the pandemic. Testing only became mandatory in mid-April, but care operators have said they told Hancock and his officials several weeks earlier that testing was needed to stop outbreaks spreading from hospitals.

Public Health England (PHE) declined to comment on the claim. A spokesperson for Department of Health described it as “categorically untrue”.

“Our primary duty has been to save lives and our approach has been guided by the latest scientific evidence,” they said. “We have been committed to transparency throughout this pandemic, including working closely with Public Health England to ensure scientific advice and data is published honestly, openly, safely and in a timely manner.”

Hancock has previously claimed that the government put a “protective ring” around care homes, but he told the joint hearing of the health and social care and the science and technology select committees: “I think the most important words in the sentence are: ‘We tried to.’ It was very hard.”

He said that the decision to empty hospital beds amid rising cases was not made “to favour the NHS” and recalled seeing a TV news report from Spain early in the pandemic in which a care home had been abandoned and all of the residents had died.

However, he played down the effect of hospital discharges. He claimed that a study by PHE, which showed that only 1.6% of outbreaks in the first wave were caused by people discharged from hospitals, suggested that community transmission was a far bigger cause of infection in care homes.

However, the true number is likely to be significantly higher, as so little testing was available. Greg Clark, the chair of the science and technology committee, suggested it was therefore “completely impossible” for Hancock to make the claim. The health secretary stood by the figure but conceded it was based on “imperfect information”.

Hancock told the committee that “each and every death in a care home weighs heavily on me and always will” and he denied the explosive claim last month by the former No 10 adviser Dominic Cummings that he had misled the prime minister in March by telling him people discharged into care homes were being tested.

“We set out a policy that people would be tested when tests were available and then I set about building the testing capacity to be able to deliver on that,” Hancock said.

He said he did not recall Boris Johnson being angry about what had happened in care homes in April after he had been in hospital with Covid, as Cummings has claimed.

He said: “The clinical advice was that a test on somebody who didn’t have any symptoms could easily return a false negative and therefore give false assurance … Clinicians were worried that because it took four days to turn a test around that if you leave somebody in hospital those four days, they might catch Covid and therefore go back to a care home with a negative test result but having caught it.”

That appeared to be supported by Dr David Oliver, a consultant in geriatrics and acute general medicine, who wrote on Wednesday in the British Medical Journal that concerns raised by social care leaders about discharges were overridden as much by clinicians and NHS managers as by politicians.

Oliver said: “Keeping lots of care home residents in scarce beds, waiting for tests we had insufficient access to, with a high first false-negative rate and no clear understanding of how long people remained infectious, could have posed other risks to these residents and to other patients in need.”

Following a safeguarding investigation, East Devon home care agency Charity Earnshaw has been rated ‘inadequate’ and placed in special measures.

Anita Merritt www.devonlive.com

The domiciliary care service, which supports adults in the community who require assistance with personal care – including people living with dementia, physical disabilities, mental health needs and sensory impairments – has had local authority placements suspended, as well as new private placements.

Independent health and social care regulator Care Quality Commission (CQC) recently inspected the service and fund it was failing in an number of areas. These include:

• Safe and effective care
• Risks were not well managed
• The administration of medicines was not safe
• Safeguarding concerns had not always been managed appropriately and had not been reported
• People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives
• Inadequate staff training and support
• ‘significant delay’ in Covid-19 infection control training

The CQC said the Newton Poppleford based provider had not recognised the quality of the service had significantly deteriorated and had therefore put people at risk of unsafe care. It added it had only begun to make improvements when other agencies became involved through the safeguarding process.

The recently published report said: “We undertook this targeted inspection to follow up on specific concerns we had received about the safety and quality of the service. These concerns were subject to individual and whole service safeguarding investigations.

“A decision was made for us to inspect and focus on the management of risk, staff training,medicines administration and quality assurance. During the inspection, we found additional concerns related to protecting people’s human rights; the management of safeguarding and the knowledge and skills of the provider.

“We therefore widened the scope to become a focused inspection which included the key questions of safe, effective and well-led. We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements.”

It added: “Prior to our inspection we found peoples experience of the service was poor and made a number of safeguarding referrals. A whole service safeguarding enquiry was in progress with the local authority. A suspension of local authority placements was in place, and a voluntary suspension of new private placements.”

It continued: “Concerns about people’s health and safety had not always been escalated by staff, and not all staff we spoke with were aware of the processes for doing so. External health professionals and relatives told us the provider did not always work effectively with other agencies to provide safe and effective care.

“Safeguarding concerns had not always been managed appropriately and had not been reported to the local authority or the CQC. Safeguarding policies and procedures were out of date.”

It was noted Charity Earnshaw had expanded significantly since the last inspection in June 2019, when 18 people were being supported.

By August 2020 it had increased to 33 people. The staff team had increased from five to 14. It provides services in Newton Poppleford, Sidmouth, Ottery St Mary, Woodbury, Seaton, Tipton St John, Exmouth and Colyton Raleigh.

The report said: “The provider told us the training and development of the staff team and service had been delayed as a result of the pandemic and lockdown.

“The provider and staff team were committed to improving the quality and safety of the service. One member of staff told us, ‘a lot of things need to be updated. I know the provider is doing their utmost to get everything in place. I’m happy now it’s being put in place. It’s improving’.”

Inspectors also received positive reports about the service. Overall people said the service was reliable. One person said: “I have no objections. They turn up on time. They are nice carers, very helpful… I have a list of who is coming and what times and they turn up on time.”

Charity Earnshaw is working with the local authority and has drawn up a service improvement plan.

The overall rating for this service following the CQC inspection is now ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’. It means the CQC will keep the service under review and will reinspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

Charity Earnshaw were approached for a comment.

Police have concluded an investigation into a Sidmouth care home where 11 residents died following a major Covid-19 outbreak – with no further action to be taken against two staff members who were arrested.

Jamie Hawkins www.devonlive.com

The deaths were reported at the Holmesley Care Home in Sidford between February 25 and April 16, which were all believed to be related to a coronavirus outbreak.

An investigation, led by Devon and Cornwall Police, was launched in partnership with a multi-agency safeguarding response to ensure the well-being of the residents in the home and specialist officers have been liaising with family members.

Following extensive enquiries, which involved interviewing staff and residents’ family members and searches of the home, and with early consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, the decision has been made that the criminal threshold for neglect has not been met.

As part of police enquiries, no further action will therefore be taken against a 57-year-old woman from Sidmouth and a 30-year-old man from Exeter, who were investigated on suspicion of wilful neglect under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Both the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are now considering offences relating to the Care Act 2014 and health and safety legislation.

Senior investigating officer, Detective Inspector Lesley Bulley, said: “Our priority has been to understand the cause of the outbreak at Holmesley Care Home and ensure that safeguarding concerns were addressed.

“We would like to thank the families of the deceased for their patience throughout what has been a really complex case.”

A CQC spokesperson, added: “Following the inspection of Holmesley Care Home, CQC imposed urgent conditions upon the service. Following this, CQC are considering what further action we may want to take.”

www.mirror.co.uk

Is this East Devon’s “flagship” industry?

Summary findings from Clive Betts’ Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee report on planning reforms:

“The Government should reconsider the case for the three areas proposal.” (Growth, renewal and protected).

The future of the planning system in England – Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee

publications.parliament.uk 

Or here for pdf

Summary

This report considers the Government’s proposed reforms to the planning system announced in August 2020. It also builds on our predecessor committee’s report into land value capture. We will continue to examine future proposals for reforming the planning system, and stand ready to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the Planning Bill.

We heard consistently in our evidence that there was a need for greater detail about how the Government’s proposed reforms would work. There were concerns about the omission of various important issues relating to housing and to non-housing elements of the planning system.

The Government’s three areas proposal

The Government has proposed that local areas will be divided (through Local Plans) into three parts: growth, renewal and protected, with different planning rules applying in each. We have sympathy with the Government’s wish to enhance the importance of Local Plans, but we are unpersuaded that the Government’s zoning-based approach will produce a quicker, cheaper, and democratic planning system.

The Government should reconsider the case for the three areas proposal.

If the Government does proceed with the principle of the three areas proposal, consideration should be given to the inclusion of additional categories. Further details also need to be provided—particularly around how much detail will be needed in Local Plans, the impact of the three areas proposal on vital infrastructure, and who will determined if Local Plan requirements have been met.

Local authorities should set out detailed plans for growth and renewal areas which specify heights of buildings, density of development, minimum parking standards, access to retail, education, transport, health facilities and other local amenities. This may be by way of a planning brief for particular sites, which may be undertaken subsequent to the local planning process and which is subjected to detailed consultation with local people.

Public engagement and reforms to Local Plans

The Government proposes to shift public engagement from individual planning applications to the Local Plan stage. We found that far more people engage with individual planning proposals and fear that the proposed change will reduce public involvement in the planning process.

All individuals must still be able to comment and influence upon all individual planning proposals.

To ensure that public engagement throughout the planning process is facilitated we welcome the Government’s plan to expand the role of digital technology. The benefits of virtual planning meetings have been demonstrated during the Covid-19 pandemic and should be retained. This needs to sit alongside exploring new methods of interaction such as citizens assemblies; ensuring the public is consulted about the draft Local Plan before rather than concurrently with Secretary of State; and through retaining more traditional methods of notification about planning proposals such as signs on lampposts.

We sympathise with the Government’s wish to enhance the importance of Local Plans in determining where development should take place. But achieving public acceptance of any increased importance for Local Plans requires them have credibility as an accurate reflection of public views in an area.

We welcome the introduction of a statutory obligation that requires that all local authorities have a Local Plan. We also support a timeframe for introducing the new Local Plans. But we heard it would be impractical to deliver them within the Government’s proposed thirty-month timeframe, and in particular for statutory consultees to comment on each plan during its development. To ensure there is effective cooperation between local authorities the Government also needs to explain how it plans to replace the duty to cooperate that places a legal duty on councils to work together on planning issues that cross their borders.

The Government should consider a staggered roll-out of the new types of Local Plans across the country. It should be permissible and straightforward to undertake quick updates of Local Plans every two years, including with appropriate time for public consultation.

Housing formula

In August 2020 the Government proposed reforms to the current formula (the ‘Standard Method’) used to determine housing demand in each local authority. Whilst our evidence endorsed the principle of having a nationally set formula, the majority disapproved of this new proposed formula. In December 2020 the Government announced a new approach, preserving the existing formula whilst adding an ‘urban uplift’ to the demand figures for twenty major town and cities. This would greatly increase the numbers in those areas. We would like clarity from the Government on how these major towns and cities can deliver the housing demanded given restrictions on the availability of land, both in terms of brownfield sites and constraints posed by seas, rivers and protected green spaces.

We think the Government’s abandonment of its proposed formula for determining housing need is the correct decision. There remains a need for additional information about how the Government’s revised approach, announced in December 2020, might work in practice.

Housing delivery

To meet the Government’s 300,000 housing unit target there is a need to speed up the delivery of housing. The problem of ‘build out’ rates needs to be tackled, with a mixture of carrots and sticks needed to achieve this.

The Government should set a limit of 18 months following discharge of planning conditions for work to commence on site. If work has not progressed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority then the planning permission may be revoked. An allowance of a further 18 months should be allowed for development to be completed, after which the local authority should be able, taking account of the size and complexity of the site, and infrastructure to be completed by other parties, to levy full council tax for each housing unit which has not been completed.

To command public support there also needs to be greater clarity on why and how the housing target needs to be delivered, including why relying on brownfield sites alone would be insufficient.

The Government should lay out the evidential basis for its 300,000 housing units a year target and how it will achieve it, both by tenure and by location.

We support measures to promote specialist, affordable and social housing. Given the failure of the previous Starter Homes programme, a clear timeframe is also needed for delivering First Homes without adversely affecting other housing tenures. To reflect local circumstances, local authorities should have discretion over what proportion of affordable houses must be First Homes.

Funding infrastructure

The Government has proposed replacing the current Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy with a national infrastructure levy. We find that there is a case for replacing the latter, but not the former. Preserving Section 106 will protect against a possible loss of affordable housing. We think that the proposals of the 2017 review into the Community Infrastructure Levy and our predecessor committee’s recommendations for greater land value capture represent the best way of ensuring sufficient revenue. If the Government does proceed it will need to charge various local rates and provide additional funding for the infrastructure that will not be met out of the levy revenues.

Resources

There is a need for additional resources for planning departments, and specialist skills. The pressures on the system will only increase if the Government proceeds with its reforms, including the thirty-month timeframe for Local Plans, at the same time as local planning authorities are also operating the current system.

The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government should now seek to obtain a Treasury commitment for an additional £500 million over four years for local planning authorities. Providing this certainty of funding should precede the introduction of the Planning Bill.

Design and beauty

We welcome the Government’s commitment to enhance the place of design and beauty in the planning system. It was emphasised to us that this enhancement needs to consider a broader definition of design than one focused on aesthetics, important though that is. This should include ensuring innovations in design are not unduly stifled and the subjective nature of beauty is recognised.

Green Belt, and environmental and historical protections

One of the most contentious issues in planning is the status of the Green Belt. We heard passionate defences of it; whilst also hearing calls for a review of its status.

A review should examine the purpose of the Green Belt, including whether it continues to serve that purpose, how the public understand it, what should be criteria for inclusion, and what additional protections might be appropriate.

A major feature of the planning system since the Second World War has been ensuring the protection of environmental and historic sites and buildings.

We recommend that the Government publish an assessment of the impact of its proposed changes on historic buildings and sites.

Six out of a family party of 10 holidaymakers who stayed at a Devon holiday park during half-term have tested positive with Covid-19 – and they blame poor hygiene.

Colleen Smith www.devonlive.com

They say one of the caravans was particularly dirty when they arrived – and some of the mess included a previous occupants’ discarded test kit.

Now they are terrified that they may have passed on the virus to their elderly father who was too ill to travel with them to Devon because he has serious lung problems. Now he is also feeling ill and the family is awaiting the result of his Covid test.

The holiday was planned as a nostalgic get-together to celebrate the end of lockdown at Devon Cliffs at Sandy Park in Exmouth – which they used to visit as children.

Devon Cliffs owners Haven Holidays say they have strict cleaning protocols in place and say the family did not complain when they first arrived. Haven says no team members has Covid “at the time of the family’s break” and the person who cleaned their caravans has had no symptoms: “Whilst we take all complaints seriously we also hold our cleanliness to the highest standards and would, if we had been made aware on arrival, re-cleaned the family caravan in line with our Caravan Cleanliness Guarantee.”

The family – several of whom work in the NHS – had travelled to Devon from Portsmouth and Derby, because they have happy childhood memories of Devon Cliffs. But now they say: “We wish we had never gone.”

The family say they complained via the check-in App about one of their caravans being dirty – they cleaned up most of the dirt themselves and park owners Haven Holidays came and took away cushions which appeared to have blood stains the following day.

One of the family said: “The cutlery and crockery were all dirty. There are no dishwashers in those vans so we had to clean all of those again. The cushions and walls were dirty with what looked like blood stains.

“When we first arrived mine looked OK at first sight, but my sister told them she wasn’t satisfied and asked to speak to somebody – nobody came and so she went to reception the next day to complain.”

They also found packaging which they later realised was from a Covid test kit discarded by the previous occupants.

One of the party who has tested positive is a senior NHS nursing Sister who has been caring for people with Covid for the last 18 months: “It’s been a horrible time – I’ve not seen my parents in all that time because I wanted to protect them. We didn’t see them at Christmas – and now we have put them at risk and contracted Covid because of poor hygiene.

“It’s not good enough. I’m off work – my daughter works for the NHS and she’s off work. My youngest daughter is a student with a part-time job. She’s off work and won’t get paid – the domino effect of this is massive.”

She drove from Derby with her two grown-up children and picked up her mother. They met up with two of her sisters and four nieces.

The NHS worker said: “I feel exhausted. I suffer with asthma and I am trying to stop it going on to my chest.

“Dad has had part of his lung removed. What worries us is that before we knew we had Covid, some of us hugged dad when we got home. When we left the holiday park – one of my sisters thought she was ill with hay fever on the Friday because they were cutting the grass.

“It wasn’t until we got home that we were tested and found out six out of 10 of us are positive.”

The family has raised the issue with Devon County Council’s Environmental Health department and the CEO of Haven Holidays Jane Bentall.

A spokesman for Haven said: “Since the start of the pandemic Haven has taken a number of steps to ensure that the safety and security of its guests, owners and team remains its number one priority. We have very strict protocols in place in relation to Covid 19 with regard to the cleanliness of our holiday homes and would ask guests to contact our teams immediately on arrival if they find their accommodation has not been cleaned to our high standards.

“In the case of this family, after checking in they updated our arrival app confirming they had reached their holiday home and when asked to score the cleanliness of the caravan and if they required a call back they did not raise any issues.

“The following morning they contacted our team regarding the cleanliness of the scatter cushions which was addressed at the time, with one being taken from the caravan as a stain could not be removed. The cleaning was undertaken by a senior member of the team and the family were happy with the cleaning response. Later that day the family asked if the scatter cushion could be returned which was duly done. No other concerns were raised during the stay.”

The family dispute this and say they ticked ‘not satisfied’ on the check-in App and asked for a member of staff to contact them.

The Haven spokesman said: “Since reopening Haven has made huge investment in cleaning teams including extending the amount of dedicated park teams focused on public areas on park as well as extending the cleaning time allotted to each individual holiday home and the usage of specialist cleaning materials known to kill viruses such as Coronavirus and would refute any claim in relation to this.

“Once a holiday home has been cleaned with particular attention to high touch areas such as work surfaces, handles and television remotes, it is checked by a specialist team member and then a special seal is placed across the door to show it meets Haven’s new standard.

“At the time of the family’s break we had no team members with symptoms of Covid or any team self- isolating, in addition the cleaner who cleaned the caravan also has had no symptoms of Covid pre or post break. We are also not aware of anyone who has stayed in the caravan prior to the family stay that has contracted Covid19.

“Over the course of the last year we have worked closely with the local primary authority who have viewed our standard operating procedures and Covid Risk Assessments and have always been satisfied with our procedures and paperwork. Whilst we take all complaints seriously we also hold our cleanliness to the highest standards and would, if we had been made aware on arrival, re-cleaned the family caravan in line with our Caravan Cleanliness Guarantee.

“We are aware that the family have contacted Environmental Health Officers and we have provided them with full details surrounding the claims from the family.”

In September 2017 Owl reported: We’ve had the Heart of the South West LEP! We’ve had the “Golden Triangle” LEP (Exeter, Plymouth, Torquay).We”ve even had the “Golden Quadrangle” LEP (Owl’s suggestion for adding in Cornwall or Dorset).NOW we have the “Golden Pentangle” (adding in Cornwall AND Dorset), yet ANOTHER unelected, unaccountable and non-transparent quango: The Great South West, the LEP for LEPs

In February 2020, with incredibly bad timing, The Great South West sent its latest report to Savid Javid just as he was replaced by Rishi Sunak “The Great South West pitches to the wrong man. A week is a long time in politics”  . Then the pandemic broke.

In July 2020 The Great South West appeared to be defunct, but it has re-awakened in time for the G7 (is anyone in Government listening?):

Report says South West needs ‘levelling up’ as much as ‘red wall’ north

William Telford www.business-live.co.uk 

The South West needs “levelling up” as much as the so-called “red wall” areas of the north, a new report tells the Government.

Pennon, the South West’s biggest employer and parent company of South West Water, has written a document on behalf of the Great South West economic task force calling for the region not to be overlooked in the Government’s plans. The report demands a “green jobs boom” to stop the brain drain of talented young people leaving the region.

The call is timed to coincide with the G7 summit being held in Cornwall from June 11, which looks at the economic challenges and opportunities facing the region.

The report, Levelling Up the Great South West: A G7 Legacy, analyses every parliamentary constituency in Devon and Cornwall and says they deserve as much political attention as those in the electoral battleground of the so-called “red wall” in the North of England and Midlands.

The new ‘levelling up analysis’ in Pennon’s Great South West report finds that:

Devon and Cornwall trail the rest of the UK in terms of productivity – Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly has the lowest productivity of any UK subregion, and Devon is the seventh lowest productivity area in the UK.

On a ranking of all parliamentary constituencies in England and Wales by productivity, 13 out of 18 Devon and Cornwall constituencies are in the lowest third, with St Ives, Torridge and West Devon, South East Cornwall, North Cornwall and Torbay in the bottom 25 in the whole of England and Wales.

The working age population of the region is declining as a share of the total, with an exodus of young people to larger urban areas, especially London. 70% of 15-17 year olds in Cornwall say they will need to leave the county in order to obtain a good job.

Many parts of the region have high levels of empty shops, a key indicator of the health of the high street, reflecting low spending levels and lack of investment. In Camborne and Redruth the rate of empty shops is 38% higher than the England and Wales average, in Torbay it is 30% higher, and in Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport it is 43% higher.

The new figures point to some of the biggest economic challenges facing England’s two most south-westerly counties. Yet the report says that with the right investment and support the Great South West has huge potential too.

The combination of the natural environment and environmental science specialisms in the region means Devon, Cornwall and the wider South West could set its sights on becoming Britain’s greenest regional economy, turning global concerns over sustainability into locally-led economic growth.

It recommends that every British region, including the South West, has an economic growth plan delivered by regional leaders with regional accountability; a Transport for the South West body which can champion regional transport infrastructure projects; the delivery of ultra-fast broadband across the region; more investment in research and development in the South West’s advanced manufacturing and environmental science clusters; and more STEM pathways for students in further and higher education in the region.

What is the Great South West initiative?

The Great South West initiative is the coming together of a wide range of organisations across the South West, including three Local Enterprise Partnerships, seven county and unitary authorities, six universities and major businesses.

The Great South West partners published growth prospectus in January 2020 that aims to deliver £45billion of economic benefit and 190,000 new jobs during the next 15 years.

Michael Gove broke the law by giving a contract to a communications agency run by long time associates of him and Dominic Cummings, the High Court has decided.

us15.campaign-archive.com /

The Court found that the decision to award the £560,000 contract to Public First was tainted by “apparent bias” and was unlawful. The Court found that Gove’s:

“failure to consider any other research agency… would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, that the decision maker was biased” (paragraph 168).

Michael Gove had claimed that the work was such that only Public First could carry it out. However, the High Court rejected that version of events. The simple truth, it held, was that the Cabinet Office didn’t even consider whether anyone else should have the contract.

The decision vindicates Good Law Project’s long-running characterisation of pandemic procurement as “institutionalised cronyism”.

Emails released in the case also showed that both Michael Gove and Number 10 were keen that Public First (and Hanbury) should win no-tender polling contracts. Good Law Project’s judicial review of the decision to award a contract to Hanbury will be heard on 26 July.

The decision is the second in our long slate of crowdfunded procurement judicial reviews – and we have succeeded in both. Two Cabinet Ministers – Michael Gove and Matt Hancock – have now been found to have broken the law.G

Following the first decision, Good Law Project wrote to Matt Hancock making proposals to improve procurement and get better value for money for taxpayers. We offered, if that invitation was accepted, to drop our further procurement challenges to save public money. Mr Hancock did not respond. Since that letter, huge further sums in public money have been wasted in fruitless defence of unlawful conduct.

Good Law Project repeats its invitation to the Government to learn lessons – and to stop wasting more public money staving off political embarrassment.

Good Law Project is grateful to its legal team of Jason Coppel QC and Patrick Halliday of 11KBW Chambers, instructed by Rook Irwin Sweeney. And of course to the tens of thousands of people whose financial contributions make litigation like this possible.

We are the arrow but you draw the bow.

Thank you,

Jo Maugham

Director of Good Law Project

Investment in three Cornish towns worth more than £65m and a major nature recovery initiative across 21,000 hectares of land were announced by Prime Minister Boris Johnson last night, as he prepared to host the G7 Summit of major world leaders in Carbis Bay.

(From the print edition of today’s Western Morning News)

The Town Deals announced for Penzance, St Ives and Camborne will fund projects at the heart of communities in some of Cornwall’s most deprived areas.

This includes creating a new network of foot and cycle paths across Camborne, Penzance and from St Ives to St Erth. Community hubs including theatres, sports clubs and historic buildings will also be restored and expanded, to ensure both residents and visitors can fully enjoy the cultural heritage of the region. 

Other funding will go to sustain businesses and commercial sectors most badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic and to create new business hubs in the towns designed to re-establish them as “economic powerhouses and centres of innovation” – creating new jobs.

And in an effort to reverse the decline in biodiversity and restore Cornwall’s natural environment the Government, in partnership with Natural England and the Cornwall Wildlife Trust, is launching a land restoration and regeneration programme, planting trees, restoring peat, making improvements to water quality, recreating scarce habitats and reintroducing lost and declining species such as dormice and the marsh fritillary. 

Boris Johnson, said: “As the eyes of the world look to Cornwall this week, not only will they see an area of outstanding beauty, they will witness a region that is innovative, exciting and looking firmly towards a bright future.

“The exciting projects we have announced today are a fitting legacy for a region playing host to some of the most important diplomatic talks in a generation. As the world builds back better from coronavirus, Cornwall will lead the way.” 

Natural England Chair, Tony Juniper, said: “We are very pleased to announce this new G7 environmental legacy project in Cornwall. It will assist with nature recovery through reconnecting habitats and ecosystems across the region, contributing to the conservation of rare species, carbon capture and improved water quality.”

The Government says it is working closely with Cornish leaders and institutions to shape the long-term legacy for the region from hosting the G7.  The Summit this week will profile local contractors – including its website being designed in Cornwall, tables for the Summit being made in Falmouth and gifts for world leaders being sourced from St Ives. Ahead of the Summit, the Government has also made a £7.8m investment into Cornwall Airport Newquay’s facilities.

Visit Cornwall estimates the total economic impact of hosting the G7 Summit will be £50 million – £24m during the event itself, and over £26m from future growth in the international tourist market over the next five years.

A correspondent writes:

One benefit of the proposed boundary changes is that there will be 2 coastal towns in the Honiton constituency and not one (Seaton).  Parish, with his Somerset farming background and farming interests in Parliament, seemed oblivious to the needs of the coast.  Perhaps now Sidmouth is included any future MP might feel the need to balance rural and coastal issues more carefully than heretofore.

Though maybe it would have been more sensible to split the constituencies into “East Devon Rural” and “East Devon Coastal” to allow MPs to concentrate on the very different issues and avoid conflicts of interest.

THE UK is the only country in Europe seeing a surge in Covid cases, grim graphs reveal.

Infections are being driven by the new Delta variant that first emerged in India.

Vanessa Chalmers www.thesun.co.uk (Extract)

The UK is the only nation in Europe seeing a surge in Covid cases, having had the lowest infection rate for months

At least 3,500 cases of Delta have been detected in the UK.

But the true figure is likely to be twice as high, given that only half of Covid tests are screened to see which variant they were caused by.

Daily new cases per million people have doubled in the UK between May 25 and June 7, according to official Covid figures collected by Our World in Data.

During the same period, other EU nations have continued on a downward trend.

Only France has seen a marginal uptick in cases, as health officials say there have been scattered clusters of the Delta strain.

The UK, diagnosing 74 cases per million a day, does not have the highest infection rate.

France, the Netherlands and Denmark among those with worser case rates.

However, if the UK’s cases continue to grow at the same pace, it looks to soon overtake those countries. 

Between January and mid-April, the UK’s case rate dwindled rapidly thanks to lockdowns and the vaccine drive.

Meanwhile, the rest of Europe battled a “third wave” which peaked around April time as its jab programme started at a snail pace.

But the tables have turned once more thanks to the Delta variant making its way onto British soil.

It ends an almost three-month spell of the UK having the lowest case rate in Europe.

Plans to allow an NHS system to extract patient data from doctors’ surgeries in England have now been pushed back by two months amid worries over privacy. Here are some of the key questions and concerns about the proposals.

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com

What is the plan?

Officially known as General Practice Data for Planning and Research, it had been due to come into force in England from 1 July, but has now been delayed to 1 September. The plan is to compile information about physical, mental and sexual health from GP surgeries into a central database, including diagnoses, symptoms, test results, medications, allergies, immunisations and referrals, as well as data on sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation, and on who has treated patients. It will exclude any identifying details such as names, addresses, images or details of conversations. Postcodes will be included, but in a coded form.

What data will be collected?

It will include everything for the last 10 years, and will be updated constantly as more data is added to GP records. Some elements of data are not allowed to be shared under law, for example about IVF treatment, and some information about gender re-assignment. Individual patients can also opt out from the scheme. They had been given until 23 June to exercise this right, but a now likely to have longer, though a new deadline has not yet been announced.

Why is it being collected?

According to NHS Digital, the data will be used for a “wide variety of research and analysis to help run and improve health and care services”. Among areas it highlights include the long-term impacts of Covid, health inequalities and research for serious illnesses. However, it will also be available to private sector organisations with the necessary provisions, although the data cannot be used purely for commercial purposes.

How is this different to what existed before?

It replaces a data system called General Practice Extraction Service, which also allows for the study of pseudonymised data (and in certain cases, data with identifying elements). However, rather than being one ever-updated central store of data, it is a more bespoke system, with individual GP practices voluntarily agreeing to take part and sending information when requests are made.

What are the objections?

There are two main worries. One is the sheer amount of data being held centrally, and the concern for breaches, or for the leak of any identifiable information. The other is what is seen as a lack of public information about the scheme, and the limited time for people to opt out. Similar concerns led to the scrapping of an earlier data-sharing scheme in England in 2016 called Care.data.

Who is concerned?

Primarily doctors’ groups. The Royal College of General Practitioners has written to NHS Digital to say that, while it backs the idea of data sharing, it was “critical that this is transparent and that patients have confidence and trust in how the NHS and other bodies might use their information”. On Friday last week, the British Medical Association called for the scheme to be delayed “until patients and the public have had time to be aware of and understand the programme and choose to opt-out if they wish”. On Sunday, Labour also called for a delay to allow for a wider consultation.