But there are some catches – what happens if you have to sell to relocate? 

And it could lead to fewer homes being sold through cheaper alternative schemes such as Shared Ownership, and less social housing.

Here are two accounts of the scheme which expose different parts of the “small print” : 

First-time buyers in England offered new homes at up to 50% off

Rupert Jones www.theguardian.com

First-time buyers in England will be able to apply for a discount of up to 50% on a new-build home under a government scheme.

The First Homes initiative could save buyers £100,000 or more. But some experts say that with demand for these cut-price homes likely to exceed supply, it could spark a scramble for properties and add more fuel to the house price boom.

The government says the scheme is aimed at first-time buyers in the area where the homes are built, many of whom will be keyworkers such as NHS staff and those on the pandemic frontline such as delivery drivers and supermarket staff. It is aimed at helping them on to the property ladder by offering homes at a discount of at least 30% compared with the market price.

However, local authorities will be able to offer a bigger discount – either 40% or 50% – “if they can demonstrate a need for this”.

Crucially, the discount will be passed on with the sale of the property to future first-time buyers, meaning homes will always be sold below market value, thereby “benefiting local communities, keyworkers, and families for generations to come”, the government said.

“The scheme will support local people who struggle to afford market prices in their area, but want to stay in the communities where they live and work,” the housing ministry said.

First Homes is the latest initiative aimed at tackling the challenges of getting on the property ladder and follows a government guarantee scheme for 95% mortgages.

Years of rising prices have put home ownership out of reach for many and the current housing boom – fuelled by stamp duty tax breaks – has led to double-digit annual price growth, meaning that many would-be buyers have been left behind once again.

The scheme is for first-time buyers only; households with a combined annual income of more than £80,000 – or £90,000 in Greater London – cannot apply. Local councils will be able to bring in their own requirements such as prioritising keyworkers or local people.

There are also price caps: after the discount has been applied, the purchaser cannot be required to pay more than £250,000, or £420,000 in Greater London. However, councils will be able to make the case for imposing lower price caps.

The initial First Homes properties went on the market on Friday as part of the opening phase of an early delivery project in Bolsover, Derbyshire.

More new homes will be offered to first-time buyers under the scheme across the country in the coming weeks. The government said it would be funding a further 1,500 homes which will come on to the market from the autumn, and plans to have “at least 10,000 homes a year being delivered in the years ahead, and more if there is demand”.

Those who can afford to buy a First Home without a mortgage will not be eligible, and there are measures aimed at preventing people buying the homes purely as an investment.

With the property website Rightmove putting the current average asking price for first-time buyers in Great Britain at £205,925, some buyers using the scheme could save £100,000 or more.

However, Tim Bannister, Rightmove’s director of property data, said: “There’s likely to be a scramble for properties under this scheme as they become available, especially as we’ve already seen an influx of first-time buyers enter the market recently, helped by more lower deposit mortgages being available.”

Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, said: “First Homes will offer a realistic and affordable route into home ownership for even more people who want to own their own home.”

First-time buyers may get 50% off new-build homes

www.thetimes.co.uk 

First-time buyers will be offered discounts of up to 50 per cent on new-build home under a government scheme.

Ministers hope to offer thousands of homes to key workers at reduced prices as part of the initiative, a feature of the government’s “levelling up” agenda. A trial has begun in Shirebrook, near Bolsover, Derbyshire, where the first 12 homes are being sold at 30 per cent under market rate.

The two to four-bedroom houses, built by the developer Keepmoat, will be sold at a discount to first-time buyers, with the saving passed on to any future buyers.

Prices start from £189,995, so buyers will save at least £59,998.50 on the purchase price.

A further 1,500 homes in England will go on sale at least 30 per cent below market value this autumn and there could be discounts up to 50 per cent off the sale price if local councils “can demonstrate a need for this”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government aims to sell at least 10,000 homes at a discount through the First Homes scheme in years to come if there is enough demand.

Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, said he hoped that the scheme would make it easier for first-time buyers to stay in their local area rather than being forced out by rising house prices.

The UK average asking price is a record £333,564, the property website Rightmove said. According to its data, the average asking price for a home in Bolsover is £168,782, which is 28 per cent higher than five years ago.

Jenrick added: “First Homes will also support our fantastic key workers who are looking to get their first foot on the housing ladder – from front-line doctors and nurses to delivery drivers and supermarket staff – by giving many of them the chance to buy a home at a 30 per cent discount.”

Councils will be able to prioritise key workers and people with a local connection when deciding who is eligible for the scheme.

A number of regional and national lenders, including Nationwide and Lloyds, are working with the government to provide high loan-to-value mortgages for First Homes.

Tim Bannister, Rightmove’s director of property data, said: “There’s likely to be a scramble for properties under this scheme as they become available, especially as we’ve already seen an influx of first-time buyers enter the market recently, helped by more lower-deposit mortgages being available.”

He added: “Based on current available stock levels it’s unlikely there will be enough of these properties to satisfy the high levels of demand, so eligible buyers will need to get in quick to have the best chance of securing one.”

First Homes was praised as a “creative initiative” by Nathan Emerson at Propertymark, which represents estate agents in England, because it is only available on new homes. He says: “That is key because we have a very busy market right now, full of hungry buyers, and there is a danger that introducing more buyers without increasing supply could further push the supply and demand out of balance, meaning house prices would continue to rise.”

Emerson said the government now needed to incentivise older generations to downsize to address the shortage of family housing.

Under current proposals, 25 per cent of all affordable housing — homes sold or let at a discount — would be sold through First Homes, which critics argue could lead to fewer homes being sold through cheaper alternative schemes such as Shared Ownership, and less social housing.

A first-time buyer would have to earn £34,125 a year to buy the average 700 sq ft, two-bedroom flat using the First Homes scheme, according to analysis carried out last October by the estate agent Savills.

An NHS nurse would be priced out with an average annual income of £33,384. The starting salary for a nurse can be as low as £18,000.

Lawrence Bowles, a Savills research analyst, said: “Our modelling shows that Shared Ownership homes can offer people a route to home ownership with lower deposits and lower income requirements than First Homes.

“By restricting the supply of Shared Ownership, government risks raising the barriers to home ownership, not lowering them.”

Michael Gove is set to avoid self-isolation rules despite having come into contact with someone who tested positive for Covid-19.

By VMware www.thelondoneconomic.com 

As part of a new pilot scheme for workplaces, the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be able to skip the normal 10-day quarantine period, and instead take a Covid test every day for a week.

Gove received an alert from the NHS app less than a week after a trip to Portugal to attend the Champions League final, an event attended by more than 12,000 people.

It is believed that the former education secretary’s exposure to someone with the virus could have occurred during the match between Chelsea and Manchester City last weekend.

Due to meet the first ministers of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Daily Mail reported Mr Gove had received the alert during a meeting at Downing Street with Boris Johnson, which he immediately left.

‘One rule for you’

During an interview with housing secretary Robert Jenrick, temporary Good Morning Britain host, Richard Madely, condemned Mr Gove’s inclusion in the new scheme, suggesting it amounted to “one rule for you, and another for us”.

Link to tweet and video

He said: “Forgive me for my cynicism, but you talk about caution – how is it your cabinet colleague Mr Gove has been pinged on track and trace and yet like the rest he doesn’t have to isolate, he’s just doing tests?

Mr Jenrick replied: “Well, I haven’t spoken to Michael so I don’t know all of the details exactly what’s happened to him.

“It sounds like the system worked. He went to a country on the green list, he then pinged, he’s self isolating and will be doing testing – so that’s encouraging.

But Mr Jenrick appeared unaware that Mr Gove was partaking in the workplace pilot scheme, telling BBC Breakfast that the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was in fact “self-isolating and testing regularly.”

Only later did he tell Good Morning Britain that Mr Gove was in-fact involved in the pilot scheme.

“He’s taking part, as I understand it, in a pilot where people can have other circumstances to otherwise, but I’m sure he’s taking all the necessary cautions.”

The news has attracted a barrage of criticism on social media, with many branding it “one rule for them”.

Football

One user tweeted: “So, Michael Gove gets to take his son to the football in Portugal and Portugal is then added to the amber list once they’re home. Interesting.”

Another tweeted: “It’s one rule for us, and a completely different rule for any Tory MP. What a surprise!”

A football fan who returned to the UK on the same flight as Mr Gove told Sky News that he had also been contacted by the NHS app and was told to isolate until Sunday 6 June – 10 days after the final.

Holiday plans in flux

It comes on the same day as the government announced that Portugal will move from the green list to the amber list, a move that will see travellers returning from holiday destinations forced to quarantine upon entering the UK.

Speaking to BBC Breakfast, the transport secretary, Grant Shapps referenced rising cases and a new Covid strain identified in Portugal, adding that ministers did not want to take risks before the final easing of lockdown restrictions on 21 June.

The Department for Transport (DfT) said the measures are being implemented “to safeguard public health against variants of concern and protect our vaccine rollout.”

No new destinations were added to the green list in the first review of England’s traffic light list for international travel, which is due to be examined again on 28 June.

Meanwhile, seven countries – Afghanistan, Bahrain, Costa Rica, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Trinidad and Tobaga – have been added to the red list from the amber list.

A pair of by-elections are set to be held in East Devon in July after the resignation of two councillors.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

Vacancies on the council have arisen in the Feniton and the Honiton St Michaels ward, with polls pencilled in to take place on Thursday, July 8.

One of the Honiton St Michaels seats became available after Cllr Luke Jeffery [Lib Dem] stepped down to focus on his University course, while the Feniton seat is vacant following Cllr Susie Bond [Independent] having moved to Berkshire to be closer to family and the end of virtual meetings, plus the allowing of by-elections again, meaning it is no longer practical for her to carry on in the role.

The notice of elections for both seats have now been published by East Devon District Council, and assuming more than one nomination is received, voters in the two wards will go to the polls on July 8.

Anyone wishing to stand in the election must hand in their nomination papers to the Returning Officer at Blackdown House in Honiton by 4pm on Friday, June 11.

Following the two resignations, the composition of East Devon District Council consists of Conservatives (21), East Devon Alliance (13), Independents (12), Liberal Democrats (7), Cranbrook Voice (3), and Green Party (2), with two seats vacant.

The council is currently run by a coalition of the East Devon Alliance, Liberal Democrats, Greens, and some of the Independents.

[Owl understands that, a couple of weeks ago, Susie Bond voted for a Tory leader (did she come all the way from Berkshire to do so?); and last year she voted to stay in the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan- not a “New Guard” Indy, more a Ben Ingham one.

In fact she was chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee and Portfolio Holder of Strategic Development in Ben’s “independent” regime where much of the strategic development was run by “Build, build, build” Phillip Skinner.]

The Conservatives have been fined £10,000 by the data watchdog for sending marketing emails to 51 people who did not want to receive them.

BBC News www.bbc.co.uk

The messages were sent in the name of Boris Johnson in the eight days after he became prime minister in July 2019.

The party was also criticised by the Information Commissioner for a mailshot in December 2019 after concerns had been raised.

The Conservatives said they accepted the fine and had improved processes.

It is against the law to send direct marketing emails, unless the recipient has given their consent.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said it would continue to take action against “nuisance marketing emails”.

Between 24 July and 31 July 2019, the Conservatives sent out more than a million marketing emails.

The ICO said some of the emails were “validly sent” but the party did not have the necessary consent from 51 of the recipients.

The watchdog said the problem resulted from the Conservatives’ failure to transfer records of who had unsubscribed from its marketing emails when the party switched its email provider.

Later that year, during the 2019 December general election, the Conservatives also sent out nearly 23 million emails – something the ICO says resulted in a further 95 complaints.

The watchdog expressed concern that the party had conducted the “industrial-scale marketing email exercise” while the ICO’s investigation was still ongoing.

Stephen Eckersley – director of investigations at the ICO – said: “It’s really concerning that such large scale processing occurred during the ICO’s ongoing investigation and before the Conservative Party had taken all the steps necessary to ensure that its processing, and database of people who would receive emails, was fully compliant with the data protection and electronic marketing regulations.

“Getting messages to potential voters is important in a healthy democracy but political parties must follow the law when doing so.

“The Conservative Party ought to have known this, but failed to comply with the law.”

The Information Commissioner’s Office also said its investigation had taken a long time because “the party repeatedly failed to provide responses within time periods set, even when those periods were extended”.

“The commissioner does not consider that this was satisfactory compliance with reasonable requests from the statutory regulator,” it said.

A Conservative Party spokesman said it accepted the fine and had since “reviewed and improved our processes and are fully compliant with all prevailing data protection and electronic marketing legislation”.

• Disgraced Conservative Lord Peter Cruddas has donated more than £500,000 to Boris Johnson’s party after becoming a peer.
• Cruddas resigned as party co-treasurer in 2012 after offering undercover reporters access to then Prime Minister David Cameron in exchange for £250,000 in donations.
• He was subsequently nominated for a peerage by Boris Johnson despite the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

Henry Dyer www.businessinsider.com 

A Conservative member of the House of Lords, whose peerage was forced through last year by Boris Johnson despite his role in a cash-for-access scandal, has handed the prime minister’s party half a million pounds.

Lord Peter Cruddas donated £500,000 to the Conservative Party’s central office on 5 February 2021, only three days after he was introduced into the House of Lords where he now sits as a Conservative peer, the latest Electoral Commission records show.

Cruddas was nominated to become a member of the House of Lords by Boris Johnson in December 2020, despite objections from the House of Lords Appointments Commission, an independent group that vets nominations.

The Appointments Commission was unable to support the nomination owing to concerns over allegations made following an investigation by undercover reporters from the Sunday Times after he offered them access to the then Prime Minister David Cameron in exchange for £250,000 in donations.

Following the Sunday Times’s story, Cruddas stepped down as co-treasurer of the Conservative Party. He would go on to sue the Sunday Times for libel, initially winning £180,000 in damages. The Sunday Times then appealed the judgment, with judges in the court of appeal reducing the damages to £50,000, after they ruled that the paper’s central allegation of selling access to Cameron and other senior politicians were accurate.

The judges described Cruddas’s actions as “unacceptable, inappropriate and wrong”.

A letter from Boris Johnson to Lord Bew, the chair of the Appointments Commission, published by Downing Street in December along with the announcement of Cruddas’s peerage dismissed the Commission’s refusal to support the nomination.

He described the concerns as “historic” and assured Bew “that I see this case a clear and rare exception.” Johnson’s decision to overrule the Appointments Commission was the first time their advice had been overruled.

Johnson wrote: “The most serious accusations levelled at the time were found to be untrue and libellous. In order to avoid any ongoing concern, Mr Cruddas resigned from his post, and offered an apology for any impression of impropriety, and reflecting his particular concern for integrity in public life.

“An internal Conservative Party investigation subsequently found that there had been no intentional wrongdoing on Mr Cruddas’ part.”

Cruddas, a British businessman and philanthropist, donated a further £10,000 to the local Conservative association of Nickie Aitken, MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, a constituency which has voted for the Conservatives since its creation in 1950. He has given more than £3 million to the Conservatives since 2009.

Cruddas also gave £10,000 to Conservative Voice, which describes itself as “an exciting and dynamic group set up to unite all generations of the centre-Right of the party […] a place for the grassroots to make themselves heard”.

The opposition Labour party said the donation raised serious questions.

“The Conservative Party that brought us allegations of cash for access when Peter Cruddas was Treasurer seems to have turned its attention to peerages,” Anneliese Dodds MP, Labour Party Chair, said in a statement.

“Whether it’s handing out taxpayers’ money to their mates or giving peerages to disgraced donors, there is always one rule for the Conservatives and their chums and another for the rest of us.”

Professor Liz David-Barrett at the University of Sussex’s Centre for the Study of Corruption said: “This is yet another example of the Prime Minister disregarding advice from the public bodies that are there to uphold standards in public life, in this case ignoring the fact that Peter Cruddas is understood to have failed the vetting process. That completely undermines these public bodies and puts the UK on a very slippery slope of declining standards.

“We will never know whether there is a link between political donations and elevations to the Lords, because those conversations happen in secret. But in this case, the timing will lead people to draw the conclusion that there is a link.”

Criminal lawyers watched Dominic Cummings’ electric testimony at the health and science select committees last week with considerable interest. Not just because every select committee cries out for forensic cross-examination, but because if some of Cummings’ key claims are true then legal alarm bells should sound.

Alex Bailin www.theguardian.com

Cummings’ central claim was “We were told categorically in March that people would be tested before they went back to care homes. We only subsequently found out that that hadn’t happened … The government rhetoric was we put a shield around care homes … it was complete nonsense.”

Following Cummings’ testimony, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, was specifically asked in parliament whether he had indeed told the prime minister that patients being discharged from hospital would be Covid-tested before re-entering care homes. His response was that the government had followed clinical advice, which was not a direct answer. He later added that testing could only be carried out for people being discharged to care homes once the necessary capacity had been built – implying they had not been tested but still not clarifying what Downing Street had been told by him and his department.

Of course, politically motivated testimony needs to be treated with caution, but if Cummings’ claims are true – that there was a policy for patients to be discharged to care homes without being tested – then the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has difficult questions to answer. The fundamental issue to be addressed is whether the DHSC implemented a policy that forced care homes to readmit infected patients knowing that they had not been tested.

Hancock’s truthfulness on the topic is legally a side issue. The real question is whether such a reckless policy was a gross breach of duty that created an avoidable risk of death. If so, then there are serious questions to be asked about whether the DHSC could be liable for corporate manslaughter. Part of the rationale for the enaction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act in 2007 was to enable the aggregation of fault within an organisation to establish liability and to limit so-called crown immunity, which had previously provided a legal shield to government departments from homicide prosecutions.

Although the act still immunises public authorities from certain policy decisions, such as the allocation of public resources or emergency services’ rescue responses, it is doubtful that a policy that effectively forced care homes to import Covid-infected patients into a highly vulnerable environment would be shielded from prosecution. It would not matter if the policy had been formulated by a number of senior individuals who were collectively, rather than individually, at fault. The DHSC certainly owes discharged hospital patients a duty of care and that duty must extend to those with whom they reside.

If the DHSC were to argue that it had no choice whether to implement such a policy, because the testing capacity at that time made it impossible to test discharged patients, that claim would have to be scrutinised under the legal microscope at a corporate manslaughter prosecution. A jury in such a prosecution might well be interested that in February the government advice was little short of extraordinary: “[There is] currently no transmission of Covid-19 in the community … it is therefore very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected.”

That guidance was hastily withdrawn two weeks later. Yet on 2 April, government guidance was merely that discharged patients should isolate before re-entering care homes – no mandatory testing requirement was advised. Although some care homes decided to implement their own routine testing, it was not until 15 April that the DHSC finally published guidance that required compulsory testing of all those discharged to care homes. That week, it was announced that almost 100 care homes had reported Covid outbreaks within the previous 24 hours. Some 40% of all Covid-deaths in the first wave occurred in care homes: a total of almost 20,000 deaths. The testing capacity during that period would have to be assessed very carefully against that backdrop.

That disturbing chronology appears to support Cummings’ testimony that DHSC policy was initially to direct that discharged patients should be returned to care homes without mandatory testing – and that policy was only changed after the virus had firmly taken hold in care homes and many lives had avoidably been lost as a result. If correct, that would potentially place the DHSC in a very serious position as regards liability for corporate manslaughter. Further details should emerge during the public inquiry into the government’s handling of the pandemic. Although evidence at a public inquiry is usually protected from subsequent use in criminal proceedings, criminal lawyers will be watching very carefully.

• Alex Bailin QC is a barrister who specialises in criminal and human rights law

Independents have had a strong presence on the Torridge District Council for much of its history, with no political party having won a majority until 2015. In 2015 the Conservative party won a small majority of 2 with 19 of the seats on the council, however the council returned to no overall control in 2019 after a large number of independents were elected. 

Obviously not happy with “Build, build, build”  – Owl

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

Plans for 39 homes for the edge of Northam in the ‘undeveloped coast’ have been refused by councillors.

The scheme, for land at Bloody Corner, was rejected by six votes to three by Torridge District Council’s plans committee on Thursday morning.

Planning officers had recommended that the scheme be granted outline planning permission, but councillors went against their views and turned down the controversial plans.

There had been 77 objections to the application, with no letters of support from the public, and despite Torridge not having a five year land supply, tilting the balance in favour of approval, the committee felt that the detrimental impact it would have was so large that the scheme should be refused.

In red, where the homes for Northam would have gon

Proposing refusal, Cllr Dermot McGeough said that the development would alter the character of the site within the Undeveloped Coast, and this was the grounds for refusal, adding: “It would have demonstrable harm to the residential amenity, so I propose we refuse regardless of the fact that we don’t have a five year land supply. I don’t think we should approve this.”

Committee chairman Cllr Chris Leather added: “The key to this is the protection of the coast and estuary side zone and the detrimental impact to people in the area will be huge if it is developed and I am absolutely opposed to this development.

“We are not short of development sites in Northam. This is in the undeveloped coast and contrary to that, and I just cannot see how this can be recommended. For me, looking at the balance, I am strongly in favour it should be refused.”

In their report which recommended approval, officers had said that the 39 dwellings proposed would make a valuable contribution to the housing stock within Northam at a time when the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land, and significant weight must be given to this issue, and 30 per cent of these dwellings would be affordable homes, which would provide a social benefit.

It added: “The proposals would deliver economic benefits associated with the creation of employment opportunities during construction and to the local economy from 39 new households. Biodiversity net gain at the site would also be delivered by the proposal, which would also provide on-site green space provision to meet the needs of the future occupiers of the site and the surrounding area.

“The development would alter the character of the site within the Undeveloped Coast and would adversely affect the setting of the memorial stone at Bloody Corner, but it is considered that the harm to the memorial stone would be outweighed by the provision of affordable housing, which is a clear public benefit associated with the proposal, and the adverse impacts of granting planning permission do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.”

But councillors decide that the fact the site was in the Undeveloped Coast and therefore against the coast and estuary strategy, the impact it would have on residential amenity, it was outside the development area, and that have a detrimental effect on the area, outweighed the benefits and voted for refusal by six votes to three.

More double standards? – Owl 

“The prime minister’s marriage to Carrie Symonds in Westminster Cathedral has left many Catholics with a question. If the mother church of the Catholic church in England and Wales can kill the fatted calf and welcome the twice-divorced prime minister as a prodigal son, why are so many other divorcees being turned away?

Christopher Lamb www.theguardian.com  (Extract)

People are upset by what feels like double standards. Too often it seems church leaders are willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the powerful in ways the poorest, or those without influence, are simply not offered.

While the prime minister’s colourful record on marriage presents no impediment to a cathedral wedding, there are countless of other divorcees who have been refused a church marriage unless they get an annulment. Same-sex couples, meanwhile, were told by the Vatican recently that church blessings are impossible for them because God “cannot bless sin”.

According to church rules, the prime minister and his wife, who is a Catholic, were within their rights to be married in the cathedral. They got the green light because Johnson’s earlier marriages took place outside the Catholic church and without the necessary permissions. As he is a baptised Catholic, those marriages are invalid in the church’s eyes and he was free to marry. All of this is fine if you are comfortable with the intricacies of canon law, but to outsiders it looks like Mr and Mrs Johnson found a legal loophole……………”

(See also “In the court of King Henry”)

Plans “restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts”. – What rot – Owl

Proposals to restrict judicial review are an affront to the principles of fairness and government accountability and should be dropped, a cross-party group of MPs and peers has said.

Haroon Siddique www.theguardian.com 

In a letter to the justice secretary, Robert Buckland, the signatories, including Liberal Democrat, Labour, Green party and Scottish National party MPs, say changes to the way legal challenges against the government can be brought are unjustified.

After a four-week consultation, the government confirmed in the Queen’s speech that it would press ahead with a judicial review bill, legislating to “restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts”.

In their letter to Buckland, the Lib Dem leader, Ed Davey, Labour’s Clive Lewis, the SNP’s Joanna Cherry QC, the Green MP Caroline Lucas and 28 others say the proposals “would weaken both individuals and the courts, and effectively put government actions beyond the reach of the law.

“Together, these changes would make it much harder for people to put things right when mistakes are made or governments overstep their bounds. They would undermine the rule of law and the crucial principles of fairness and accountability.”

A judicial review is a court proceeding where a judge examines the lawfulness of an action or a decision of a public body. The review looks at the way a decision has been reached, rather than the rights and wrongs of that decision.

The letter, also signed by Plaid Cymru, Democratic Unionist party and Alliance party MPs, says the changes are based on a “false claim” by the government that a panel led by Lord Faulks QC had found that courts in judicial review cases had become more prone “to edge away from a strictly supervisory jurisdiction”.

Faulks has since said the panel did not identify such a “trend” and “was not ultimately convinced that judicial review needed radical reform”. The Bar Council, Law Society, Constitutional and Administrative Law Association, Liberty, Justice and the Public Law Project have all pointed out this disconnect with Faulks’s review, the letter says.

Wera Hobhouse, the Lib Dem justice spokesperson, who initiated the letter, said: “The government’s proposals to restrict judicial review are another Conservative assault on the rule of law. On top of their crackdown on the right to peaceful protest, they are now trying to limit people’s ability to hold governments to account through the courts.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We made a manifesto commitment to ensure the judicial review process is not open to abuse or delay, or used to conduct politics by another means.

“Our bill – set out in the Queen’s speech – delivers on that pledge and will protect the judiciary from being drawn into political controversies. Its measures will be informed by the responses to our consultation.”

More bricks in a former Labour “red wall” seat are to turn blue, as Tory-run Darlington Borough Council prepares to introduce a £20,000 rebranding exercise that would see the the town hall signage, crest and even the local bins change to match Conservative colours.

Maya Wolfe-Robinson www.theguardian.com

Labelled as “sheer political opportunism” by a local Labour councillor, the funding for the redesign comes from £23m awarded to Darlington, in the Tees Valley, from the government’s “towns fund”, according to the council’s deputy leader who is behind the plans.

But councillor Jonathan Dulston insists that the new logo is “not blue – it’s actually teal … It’s a colour that has been widely used by the council for a number of years now”, he told the Guardian. He maintains that the choice for the redesign, which sees the red, green and yellow elements of the crest change to a single colour for all council related business, has nothing to do with Conservative branding.

“Absolutely nothing. That would be inappropriate, and we know that. Ultimately the council – although we are in control – has to be independent from any party politics, so we wouldn’t want to go down that road in any way, shape or form,” he said.

But Dulston did admit that the aim was to distance the current council from previous administrations. Labour lost control of Darlington Borough council after decades in power in May 2019, months before the town voted in a Tory MP for the first time since 1992.

The Darlington council old logo as it currently looks. Photograph: Darlington council

The council is undergoing “a transformation project” in an effort to “reconnect” with residents “because we know that the relationship under previous administrations has been damaged”, he said.

The £1bn scheme intended to boost struggling towns, announced by chancellor Rishi Sunak in this year’s budget, has been criticised for appearing to show bias towards areas with Conservative MPs. When the pot was announced, Labour accused the government of attempting to “shore up” Tory votes with “cosmetic” projects in hand-picked constituencies after a Guardian analysis showed that 39 of the 45 recipients of towns fund handouts have Conservative MPs.

The rebranding exercise voted through will “provide a visible and symbolic signal to residents” that the council is undergoing change and is part of its “progressive transformative agenda”, according to council documents.

Dulston said the reinvention had been supported by local MP Peter Gibson who – following last month’s local elections – wrote an article in the Northern Echo headlined “The world is turning blue, and we’re only just getting started”.

Study in blue: Darlington council’s proposed facelift. Photograph: Darlington council

Labour councillor Nick Wallis said many Darlington residents had expressed unhappiness with the proposals, particularly, he said “as we’re a local authority under the cosh, in terms of austerity and council tax has just been put up by 5%”.

He said the way the decision had being taken, without consultation or planning and “the sheer political opportunism” was becoming a hallmark of the local Tory administration, emboldened by newfound popularity for Conservatives across the Tees Valley, symbolised by the landslide re-election of mayor Ben Houchen.

“What’s different is the way in which they’re getting about cementing their power, and that is all about image,” Wallis said.

“They’re going about their business in a very clever and very cynical way. I’ve never seen anything like this before. I don’t think in the long term, the people of this town will be fooled by it.”

“This doesn’t paint, dare I say it, Darlington Council in a good light,” added Wallis. “We don’t want to be in the headlines for these reasons. It’s a misuse of the town’s fund money and I’m sure it won’t be the last occasion.”

This was meant to be a quiet week. Commons in recess, a ‘holding pattern’ on Covid, Whitehall treading water while it waits for the latest data on the pandemic. Aside from an update on foreign travel from Grant Shapps on Thursday, the big ‘event’ marked on the No.10 grid was today’s catch-up cash for schools. 

Paul Waugh www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

An emergency £1.4bn, on top of an extra £1.7bn already announced for pupils, could have been spun as a statement of intent, an interim measure pending a bigger funding settlement in the chancellor’s spending review later this year. But thanks to some great work by the Times, which exclusively revealed earlier this week just how much cash had been requested, the PR plan was smashed to bits.

Sir Kevan Collins, the catch-up czar, had wanted £15bn but instead got less than a tenth of that, at least in the short term. And his resignation words tonight blasted both barrels not just at the hapless Gavin Williamson (whose departure from Education in a reshuffle seems all but guaranteed), but also at Boris Johnson himself.

By referring explicitly to the failure to provide help to pupils in deprived areas in the north, Collins appeared to expose the PM’s “levelling up” agenda as a hollow trick played on all those who voted Tory in May. “In parts of the country where schools were closed for longer, such as the north, the impact of low skills on productivity is likely to be particularly severe,” he said.

It’s worth remembering that Collins was never going to be a government pushover. He is widely respected for his work in education, and as recently as March he told the education select committee that the £1.7bn first pledged was “not sufficient”. He wanted a comprehensive recovery plan, not a sticking plaster, so it’s perhaps no surprise he’s ripped it off to lay bare the wounds underneath.

This isn’t just about the education gap. For Johnson, this underlines once more the yawning gap between his rhetoric and actual delivery. Back in June 2020, he promised “a massive summer catch-up operation”, but nothing of the kind materialised. Yes, the fresh lockdowns knocked things even more off course, yet parents, pupils and teachers won’t easily forget the promises made.

This March, I remember vividly Johnson telling a No.10 news conference how much catch-up mattered. “The legacy issue I think for me is education,” he said. “It’s the loss of learning for so many children and young people that’s the thing we’ve got to focus on now as a society. And I think it is an opportunity to make amends.” If the PM can’t deliver on his own professed personal priority coming out of the pandemic, what chance do all the other policy areas have?

Critics will point out too that unlike other areas of government (social care, anyone?), there is at least a plan worked up by Collins to “make amends”. His bigger package was about extra teaching time, not just tutoring. Still, there are some in government who tonight are pointing out the idea of an extra half hour on the school day did not go down well with teachers.

The longer day was “not thought through” and not “evidence based”, both of which are red flags to the Treasury. Moreover, doling out £15bn – half the annual primary and pre-primary school budget – between spending reviews was seen as imprudence fiscal management. Allies of the chancellor insist this isn’t about being stingy. “If we just start signing off massive cheques outside of a formal process, there lies mismanagement of taxpayers’ money!” one says.

Yet ultimately the PM is, as he joked in recent months, the First Lord of the Treasury. If he’d really wanted a big, bold plan for education catch-up with big, bold spending to match, he could have got it. The political problem is that an independent expert in schooling has now delivered a damning verdict on Johnson’s central “levelling up” policy, or rather the lack of one

Collins has also made early years education his priority, stressing its social as well as academic benefit, and its underfunding in recent years. The Tories’ closure of SureStarts is perhaps one of their biggest policy errors in the past decade of austerity. Amazingly, Labour has failed to ram home that very point, and has shown a woeful lack of focus on childcare and early years (evidenced by Jeremy Corbyn’s priority of student tuition fees, but under Starmer there’s been no real grabbing of the agenda either).

A cynic might say that the expected grade inflation in this year’s GCSE and A-level exam results will smooth over the problem. But if metrics emerge that younger children of all backgrounds are falling behind expected benchmarks, the lack of a proper “catch-up” or “recovery” plan will be received bitterly by parents who struggled with the home-schooling imposed on them this past year.

It’s possible Johnson will again wriggle out of this latest tight spot. But remember that two of the biggest U-turns forced on him over the past year both involved education: the A-levels fiasco and free school meals. And both were issues of competence.

Collins’ resignation may have gifted Starmer his most powerful weapon yet, offering at the next election a simple way to sum up broken Tory promises and incompetence. Whether Labour can capitalise is another matter.

A group of travellers who occupied Sidford rugby field during the Bank Holiday weekend were moved on by East Devon District Council, which owns the land.

Philippa Davies sidmouth.nub.news 

A number of caravans and other vehicles were seen on the site, which is used by Sidmouth Rugby Club, on Sunday, May 30.

Their arrival was reported to the district council (EDDC), which took swift action.

A spokesperson said: “Council representatives visited the site over the weekend and followed usual procedures to serve the travellers with notices to leave.

“They left on Monday morning. The site has now been secured.

“Some litter was left on the site, but our Streetscene Team quickly reacted and the site was tidied within an hour.”

On Monday, Sidmouth RFC posted a message of ‘heartfelt thanks’ to the council for dealing with the issue.

It said: “We would like to sincerely thank EDDC estates & property team for their reactiveness & robust response in ensuring sports fields in Sidford are once again available for boys & girls to enjoy rugby & recreational activities.

“EDDC have been superb & communicated with the club throughout.”

The World Health Organization, in an attempt to simplify labels for COVID-19 variants – and to avoid stigmatizing certain countries – has renamed the various variants of the virus.

Instead of referring to them by the name of the country in which they were first discovered, such as the Indian, Brazilian or British variants, the WHO wants them to be known by letters of the Greek alphabet.

So the so-called Indian variant (B.1.617.2), the cause of much alarm around the world, is to be known as Delta, the Brazilian (P.1) variant as Gamma, and the British one (B.1.1.7) as Alpha.

These are “easy-to-pronounce and non-stigmatising labels” according to the organisation, which will be “easier and more practical to be discussed by non-scientific audiences”.

Despite the recent “awards” for our local bathing beaches, the reality is that their water quality was not tested in 2020. See interactive maps referenced below. – Owl

Fiona Harvey www.theguardian.com

Swimmers in the UK hoping to enjoy waters certified clean and healthy this summer have been let down again. Only 110 coastal and inland sites were judged excellent in the latest bathing water quality data from Europe’s environmental watchdog.

Most of the UK’s bathing sites were not classified in 2020, however, because Covid-19 restrictions prevented sampling. This meant that out of 640 sites, 457 received no verdict in the rankings, compiled annually by the European Environment Agency and published on Tuesday.

Twelve sites where a verdict could be delivered were found to be poor, 29 of sufficient quality and 32 good.

The lack of data pushed the UK to the bottom of the European league table, rivalled only by Poland, where just 22% of sites were rated excellent, in the 31-country rankings of EU member states plus Albania and Switzerland. The other 29 countries all had at least 50% of the monitored bathing sites classified as excellent quality, and for the vast majority – 24 countries – the figure was at least 70%.

Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Croatia and Austria led the pack with 95% or more of their sites qualifying as excellent. All of Cyprus’s sites received top marks.

The 2020 data will be the last to include the UK. The EEA includes EU member states and non-members such as Turkey, Iceland and Switzerland, but the UK has chosen to opt out of EEA membership post-Brexit, meaning no such comparisons will be possible in future.

The UK has performed poorly in bathing water quality for years, regularly appearing near the bottom of the table while other countries, including eastern European states, have made marked improvements.

A Guardian investigation last year found that water companies had poured raw sewage into rivers on more than 20,000 occasions in 2019, and dumped thousands of tonnes of raw sewage on beaches.

A government spokesperson said: “The quality of bathing waters in England has improved significantly in the last 20 years. The latest data from 2019 shows that that 72% achieved the highest standard of Excellent, while 98.3% passed the minimum standard.

“Visitors to coastal and inland swimming spots have over 400 bathing waters to choose from and can find out more information of the Environment Agency’s ‘Swimfo’ website.”

Overall, the EEA said 83% of coastal and inland sites around Europe were found to be excellent in 2020, broadly in line with recent years. Only 1.3% of the sites tested, or 296 across the continent, were judged to be of poor quality, down from about 2% in 2013. Coastal sites fared better than inland sites, with 85% and 78% respectively classified as excellent.

About 6% of the sites normally monitored across Europe could not be reached because of Covid-19 restrictions. Countries also tend to leave out many bathing sites that are used in practice, so the true picture could be different, especially for inland sites, and people could be put at risk if the bathing places they use are not monitored.

Lidija Globevnik, a project leader for bathing water at the European Topics Centre and an author of the report, said: “There are many sites that are not identified as bathing waters, but people still swim there. There should be higher attention paid by the authorities to observe these sites, and act if there is a problem.”

She said the climate crisis was also having an impact on bathing water and on inland sites especially, because dry spells reduce the amount of water in rivers and lakes, which could concentrate pollutants from agricultural runoff and other sources.

“There is not enough water in some places, which means a proliferation of bacteria in inland waters and higher risks,” she said. “This can be managed better through looking at agriculture, hydrology and water extraction. These all need to be carefully managed.”

The European Commission has recently launched a review of the bathing water directive as part of its zero-pollution action plan. The current rules could be updated, and an online public consultation is planned for suggestions on the improvements needed.

Virginijus Sinkevičius, the European commissioner for the environment, fisheries and oceans, said: “Bathing water quality in Europe remains high and it’s good news for Europeans who will be heading to beaches and bathing sites this summer. This is the result of more than 40 years of the bathing water directive, hard work by dedicated professionals and cooperation. The zero pollution action plan adopted in May will help to keep the waters healthy and safe, and our seas and rivers clean.”

The Covid-19 pandemic had no impact on the quality of water, but led to many bathing sites being closed or access limited because of social distancing requirements, although many people were driven to take up wild swimming.

Hans Bruyninckx, the executive director of the EEA, said: “The quality of European bathing water remains high after four decades of action aimed at preventing and reducing pollution. EU law has not only helped raise the overall quality, but also helped identify areas where specific action is needed.”

Exeter City has refused plans for significant development just outside the built up area of Exwick. This is a site on the other side of the Exe, on the western boundary of the city. The reasons for refusal are the harmful impact they would have on the landscape character of the area. However, Exeter doesn’t have a five year land supply, the pressure is on to find land. 

The EDDC “New Guard’s” bold decision last year to pull out of GESP (Greater Exeter Strategic Plan) has removed the soft option of simply expanding east of the Exe.

Think how Topsham has now effectively become an Exeter suburb and how much Grade I agricultural land was sacrificed for Cranbrook.

Exeter will have to confront the implications of their expansionary plans – Owl

Plans to build homes on the edge of Exeter have been refused because of the harmful impact they would have on the landscape character of the area they were built in.

Daniel Clark, Local Democracy Reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

The proposals would’ve seen the dwellings located beyond the built-up area of Exwick on the land to the east of Redhills. 

The application included 80 homes, with 35% being affordable housing, as well as two play areas.

Officers’ planning assessment concluded that the benefits of the proposed housing do not outweigh the harmful impact the development would have on the landscape character of the area, and councillors agreed with that at Thursday night’s planning committee meeting.

There had been 281 objections from local residents to the plans, on the grounds of the impact on landscape character, the impact on wildlife and biodiversity, concerns about flooding, the need to follow Liveable Exeter’s vision and build on brownfield sites, and that with the plans for development on the Teignbridge site, it would be overdevelopment of the area.

Cllr Rachel Sutton said that the scheme on the site would have a detrimental impact and that it will be visually intrusive, adding: “We need to be looking at brownfield sites for development before green field sites. We are keen to encourage people to walk and cycle but looking at that footpath, the idea that anyone with a shopping trolley or a small child will go up or down the hill is frankly ludicrous, and the bus stops are miles away.”

Cllr Rob Hannaford added: “This is a huge concern given the location and the challenging topography of the site. At our last meeting, we were discussing a car-free development, but this is the opposite to that, and the way it has been developed with sustainability, this would be a car essential development if you are not careful. It would be isolating if you didn’t have your own transport.”

The report read: “The fact that housing on-site is visible within an area of land does not necessarily make a development unacceptable and as the application is in outline and therefore the appearance of the proposed dwellings is not for consideration. However, it is the impact the built development would have on the overall landscape character of the area, which remains the fundamental consideration as to whether the scheme is acceptable.

“The fundamental consideration, therefore, is whether the provision of 80 dwellings (including 28 affordable units), provision of onsite open space/play areas and the associated highway improvement and mitigation measures put forward in support of the application take precedence against the detrimental impact the development would have on the landscape character of the area both locally and from a wider landscape setting.

“The assessment is clearly a balanced one, however, it is considered that the landscape quality of this valued site and the harmful visual impact intrusive created by the housing development should be afforded greater weight, in this instance.

“It is considered that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, and accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.”

• Construction of barn/garage in front garden. Riverside Cottage Taleford Ottery St Mary EX11 1NFRef. No: 21/1454/FUL | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of replacement dwelling. Woodstock Church Road Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5JURef. No: 21/1437/FUL | Validated: Thu 20 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension and alterations to fenestrations and garden walls. 6 The Lawn Budleigh Salterton EX9 6LTRef. No: 21/1423/FUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Internal alterations works and modified shop front and change of use from restaurant with ancillary takeaway into separate restaurant and fast food takeaway 31 The Strand Exmouth EX8 1AQRef. No: 21/1432/FUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Landscaping and terrace Bridleways Holyford Lane Colyford Colyton EX24 6HWRef. No: 21/1431/FUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a replacement dwelling with associated amenity space and erection of a detached single storey double garage Cringleford Cottage Stepps Lane Axmouth Seaton EX12 4ASRef. No: 21/1435/FUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of thatched roof with natural slate The White Hart Inn Wilmington Honiton EX14 9JQRef. No: 21/1433/FUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Part two storey part single storey side extension and single storey rear extension 1 Laburnum Close Exmouth EX8 5PTRef. No: 21/1415/FUL | Validated: Tue 18 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension.49 Foxholes Hill Exmouth EX8 2DQRef. No: 21/1412/CPL | Validated: Tue 18 May 2021 | Status: Approved
• Proposed conversion of outbuilding into one bed flat & construction of new wall and gate 20 Fore Street Sidmouth EX10 8ALRef. No: 21/1406/LBC | Validated: Tue 18 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Hip to gable roof extension incorporating a new, South facing dormer. Additional refurbishment of external elements to include re-modelled second floor bay window, enlarged South facing balcony, replacement fenestrations, updated cladding and finishes palette. Picton House 72 Beer Road Seaton EX12 2PRRef. No: 21/1404/FUL | Validated: Tue 18 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Timber shed outbuilding to house water tank 52 Salterton Road Exmouth EX8 2EJRef. No: 21/1396/FUL | Validated: Tue 18 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey side extension, porch to side and addition of a balcony 4 Hollis Close Broadhembury Honiton EX14 3LFRef. No: 21/1417/FUL | Validated: Tue 18 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Oak (T1) Fell and replace with planted tree as required. Land At Tigers Way Axminster DevonRef. No: 21/1418/TRE | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Side extension above existing single storey side extension. Alterations to fenestration. 52 Sidford High Street Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9SQRef. No: 21/1385/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Western Red Cedar (WRC): High Prune up to 12ft around circumference of tree. Ash: Fell all ash between wall and garage. Grey Alder: Fell. Clyston Mill Broadclyst EX5 3EWRef. No: 21/1399/TCA | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side extension51 Malden Road Sidmouth EX10 9NARef. No: 21/1397/CPL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Application for reserved matters approval (layout, appearance, scale, and landscaping) for the construction of 114 dwellings and associated infrastructure, drainage, and open space pursuant to outline application 12/0975/MOUT (Phase 3A) including the partial discharge of outline planning conditions 6 and 8 relating to Phase 3A and compliance with relevant Section 106 obligations Land At Pinn Court Farm Pinncourt Lane Exeter EX1 3TGRef. No: 21/1390/MRES | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension, rear wall and terrace 49 Partridge Road Exmouth EX8 4PHRef. No: 21/1381/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement garage and decking and first floor extension and balcony. 10 Oak Close Ottery St Mary EX11 1BBRef. No: 21/1380/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Demolition of single garage; two storey extension to rear of property, and new car port; new windows for the whole property Corner Cottage Luppitt Honiton EX14 4UERef. No: 21/1360/FUL | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of proposed lawfulness for addition of a rear dormer and 6 x rooflights with alterations to the roof coveringsThe Limes Old Ebford Lane Ebford Exeter EX3 0QRRef. No: 21/1366/CPL | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing dwelling and garage and erection of replacement dwelling and garage with detached swimming pool, reinstatement of a secondary access off Cranford Avenue 28 Cranford Avenue Exmouth EX8 2PZRef. No: 21/1348/FUL | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of porch to front and rear of dwelling Popehayne Farm Stockland Honiton EX14 9ETRef. No: 21/1346/FUL | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed front porch 2 St Nicholas Rise Combe Raleigh Honiton Devon EX14 4AGRef. No: 21/1339/FUL | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of aluminum framed building Van Guard Accessories Ltd Fair Oak Close Exeter Airport Clyst Honiton Exeter EX5 2ULRef. No: 21/1320/FUL | Validated: Thu 20 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Annexe/shed/store for ancillary and holiday purposes 2 Higher Bridge Cottages Stoke Canon Exeter EX5 4AXRef. No: 21/1319/FUL | Validated: Thu 20 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side/rear extension and porch to side. 116 Pound Lane Exmouth EX8 4NRRef. No: 21/1323/FUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of detached two storey double garage with home office on first floor. Meadow Lea Boughmore Road Sidmouth EX10 8SHRef. No: 21/1322/FUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• First floor side extension and alterations to ground floor fenestration 4 Turlake Mews Three Horse Shoes Cowley Exeter EX5 5ERRef. No: 21/1321/FUL | Validated: Thu 20 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Installation of parking area to front. Broxholm Clapps Lane Beer Seaton EX12 3HQRef. No: 21/1303/FUL | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Addition of rear dormer 7 Springfield Membury Axminster EX13 7ABRef. No: 21/1306/FUL | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective installation of access to solar farm approved under application 11/0321/MFUL Beechgrove Farm Hawkchurch Axminster EX13 5TXRef. No: 21/1294/FUL | Validated: Thu 20 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey extension and grey cladding to gable end and rear wall Wymcot Church Road Whimple Exeter EX5 2TARef. No: 21/1301/FUL | Validated: Tue 18 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of roofing over farm yard manure store. Little Mercombe Higher Metcombe Ottery St Mary EX11 1RURef. No: 21/1291/FUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing workshop to be replaced with a new self-build dwelling. 1 Hamlet Cottages Weston Honiton EX14 3PBRef. No: 21/1295/FUL | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing conservatory including the relocation of the doors and removal of a block work planter Flat 2 Barton House Barton Close Sidmouth EX10 8NLRef. No: 21/1283/FUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Reserved matters comprising layout, scale, appearance & landscaping for the erection of 9 dwellings, Discharge of conditions 4 (drainage), 6 (ground infrastructure), 8 (external lighting), 9 (landscaping), 10, (finished floor levels), 11(ecological recommendations), 12 (refuse storage) and 13 (materials) in respect of subsequent outline application 18/2588/OUT Land At Southbrook Lane Southbrook Lane WhimpleRef. No: 21/1285/RES | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of existing conservatory including the relocation of the doors and removal of a block work planter Flat 2 Barton House Barton Close Sidmouth EX10 8NLRef. No: 21/1284/LBC | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed dwelling to the rear of Douglas Avenue 54 Douglas Avenue Exmouth EX8 2HERef. No: 21/1276/FUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Retention of repairs and remedial works specific to the west gable of main range and south gable of south cross wing including return to east chimney stack Cookshayes Farm Northleigh Colyton EX24 6BXRef. No: 21/1278/LBC | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective application for a single storey flat roof extension to side of coffee shop Honiton Starbucks Monkton Honiton EX14 9QQRef. No: 21/1265/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of single storey cattle building (Phase 2) New Farm Buildings Woodbury Road Clyst St GeorgeRef. No: 21/1261/FUL | Validated: Thu 20 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, T2 Poplar. Reduce branches overhanging the carpark by up to 5m, Crown clean the remaining canopy to remove any dangerous branches or dead wood. Tesco Stores Ltd Shand Park Axminster EX13 5NGRef. No: 21/1268/TRE | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side extension, ground floor infill extension, first floor side/rear extension, conversion of garage to habitable use and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 6 x rooflights and raising of roof ridge and alterations to fenestration Woodlands Higher Greenhead Sidbury Sidmouth EX10 0RPRef. No: 21/1258/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing single storey extension, erection of new two storey extension, minor internal remodelling and essential maintenance work to windows and doors, external render and masonry on the existing property. Tower House 8 Ryalls Court Seaton EX12 2HJRef. No: 21/1259/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing single storey extension, erection of new two storey extension, minor internal remodelling and essential maintenance work to windows and doors, external render and masonry on the existing property. Tower House 8 Ryalls Court Seaton EX12 2HJRef. No: 21/1260/LBC | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing garage and store and construction of new garage/store and leisure facility. 25 Northview Road Budleigh Salterton EX9 6DDRef. No: 21/1262/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of decking (Retrospective) 19 Whitmore Way Honiton EX14 2GRRef. No: 21/1264/FUL | Validated: Tue 18 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• First floor front extension and installation of cladding. 12 Brent Close Woodbury Exeter EX5 1JHRef. No: 21/1267/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Erection of a single storey cattle building (Phase 1) New Farm Buildings Woodbury Road Clyst St GeorgeRef. No: 21/1247/FUL | Validated: Thu 20 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Creation of six scrapes. Floodplain Fields And Bank Downstream Of Ellerhayes Bridge HeleRef. No: 21/1233/MFUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Barn conversion. Fawnsmoor Farm Lyme Road Axminster EX13 5SWRef. No: 21/1237/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use from Use Class B2 (General Industrial) of external overflow parking/surplus workshops land to Use Class B8 (Storage or Distribution) storage compound. Installation of 2 metre high perimeter fencing and gates. Manstone Workshops Manstone Lane SidmouthRef. No: 21/1220/FUL | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition and replacement of two storey rear extension and one storey side conservatory, construction of one storey side extension, internal alterations, and raising of roof to allow for additional third storey for habitable use. Construction of terrace to front and side of dwelling, side porch and creation of two parking spaces and turning area. Broadhill River Front Exton Exeter EX3 0PRRef. No: 21/1225/FUL | Validated: Fri 21 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of Use of unused land to recreational space and erection of storage shed Car Park Queens Drive ExmouthRef. No: 21/1196/FUL | Validated: Thu 20 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use from agricultural field to dog exercising paddock to include erection of 1.8 meter exercise area fence, gate, creation of 2 car parking spaces and installation of dog waste disposal bins Land Adjacent Honiton Sewage Works HonitonRef. No: 21/1181/FUL | Validated: Tue 18 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a livestock building Alston Farm Alston Axminster EX13 7LGRef. No: 21/1178/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of conditions for application 19/1941/FUL change of condition 5 (colour change of windows) and condition 2 (addition of plans). Ridgeway Farm Awliscombe Honiton Devon EX14 3PYRef. No: 21/1167/VAR | Validated: Thu 20 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing property and replacement new dwelling. Badger Down Marley Drive Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5DYRef. No: 21/1163/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Erection of a livestock building Alston Farm Alston Axminster EX13 7LGRef. No: 21/1177/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a livestock building Alston Farm Alston Axminster EX13 7LGRef. No: 21/1173/FUL | Validated: Mon 17 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Extension to the rear of existing commercial warehouse with one new side shutter door and one new rear personnel door Unit H Mushroom Road Hill Barton Business Park Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1SBRef. No: 21/1151/FUL | Validated: Thu 20 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of existing balcony windows and associated mullions, and installation of new doors. Flat 4 15 Morton Crescent Exmouth EX8 1BGRef. No: 21/1139/FUL | Validated: Wed 19 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Prior approval of construction of additional top floor providing 5no. dwellings (Resubmission 20/2874/PD20A) Kings Court Harbour Road SeatonRef. No: 21/1124/PD20A | Validated: Tue 18 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replace 11no. windows: front elevation 2no. ground floor, 1no. first floor and ground floor porch; rear elevation 2no. adjacent to chimney stack, 1no. ground floor and 3no. first floor and roadside 1no. first floor Beckford Cottage Dalwood Axminster EX13 7HQRef. No: 21/0976/LBC | Validated: Tue 18 May 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision

Impact, the parish-level carbon emission estimator, gives parishes and small communities usable data on their carbon emissions that is easy to interpret and easy to share.

[Developed with major contribution from University of Exeter’s Centre for Energy & the Environment.]

impact-tool.org.uk

It tells you how people in the parish travel and heat their homes, and other activities in the area that contribute to the local carbon emissions total.

Impact identifies the main ‘carbon impact areas’ in the parish or town – those places where focused community-based action can make the biggest contribution to cutting local emissions.

This tool was developed by the Centre for Sustainable Energy as part of their Climate Emergency Support Programme, working jointly with the University of Exeter’s Centre for Energy & the Environment as part of their South West Environment and Climate Action Network.

It was built in response to a demand from smaller settlements like parishes, town or city neighbourhoods to have robust and accurate data on their carbon footprint, so that they can best direct their efforts to tackle the climate emergency.

We have assumed that most parishes and small communities don’t want to analyse detailed data sets but would rather have the information graphically displayed. However, if you do want to access the raw data, this is available on our Downloads page.

Impact meets all national data protection regulations. No personal or individual household information is contained in any of the data used.

The tool was funded by CSE, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund.

At this time, the default geography for the tool is the Civil Parish. This means that you need to find your community by searching for the name of the parish or town council that serves your area (if you don’t know the name of your parish, you can find it by using the Ordnance Survey Electoral Boundaries map).

Once you enter your parish name, the tool will display the carbon footprint for your community.

You can view your community’s carbon footprint in two ways. ‘Territorial’ emissions only show the emissions that are directly produced from your parish (from heating buildings, transport, any industry or agricultural operations within your boundary, for example). This follows the same methodology as national emissions data sets, but many people find this a frustrating approach at the very local level as it largely ignores what we buy and what we eat (where that is imported from other parts of the UK or the world).

So you can also select to see your emissions displayed on a ‘Consumption’ basis. This will most likely give a slightly higher footprint in most cases, but includes our best estimate of these additional emissions. The differences between the two approaches are explained in detail in our Methodology document, which you can download here, and you can see a more detailed exploration of the differences between the two approaches on the Using the Tool page

You can use the ‘Compare’ page to see how your area’s footprint compares to other parishes in your area, your district council’s average, and the national average.

During 2021, we will be working on improving and extending the tool, so any ideas you have for additional features should be emailed to impact-tool@cse.org.uk.

We already have a set of features that we want to build next, so visit our ‘Support Us/Donate’ page to see more details about those, and contact us if what you want is not already on the list.

To learn more about the tool, what the footprints show you, how to use it, and for resources on what to do next, visit the Using the Tool page.

GET STARTED to find what is driving your community’s carbon footprint. You can also compare it with other local communities and with the average for East Devon.

Lots of rain followed by hot sunshine on sandstone cliff faces leads to……?Owl

Alex Green www.devonlive.com

People moored up on a beach in Sidmouth looked on as part of the cliff face crumbled down, leaving behind a huge sandy red cloud that could be seen from across the beach.

The cliff fall prompted a warning from Drew Parkinson, HM Coastguard Area Commander for South Devon & South-East Cornwall Coastline, as tourists head down to the South West for a Bank Holiday break.

Sidmouth-based Jurassic Paddle Sports, who took to their social media channels to spread awareness of the dangers around the edges of cliffs, is within close proximity to where the cliff face fall happened.

A post on their Facebook page reads: “Please take care around the cliffs they are constantly falling down and this mornings cliff fall was close to town and large.

“Please take note of warnings signs, they are there for good reason. Thank you”

Taking to Twitter to warn beach-goers not set up camp directly beneath the cliffs, Mr Parkinson shared the photo of the cliff face fall which appears to have happened moments before.

In a tweet, he said: “With the incredible weather this week the cliffs are going to be drying out and the risk of cliff falls significantly increases.

“This was this morning at Sidmouth by @JurassicPaddles Please don’t set up for the day underneath the cliffs – stay safe and enjoy the #BankHoliday.”

Other cliff falls in Sidmouth

Dust cloud from Sidmouth cliff fall (Image: Sue Little)

DevonLive has reported on numerous cliff falls in the past. In May 2020, the area saw five separate cliff falls of note, with three taking place within 24-hours.

And in August last year, giant plumes of red dust were once again seen billowing around the base of the infamous Sidmouth cliffs.

The landslide was photographed by two separate eyewitnesses, one near the beach and another further afield at the Sidmouth Hotel & Spa.

Vicki Lomas reported the August 2020 landslip to DevonLive when she was out with her husband.

Vicki, who regularly visits the seafront for her early morning walks, explained that she managed to get pictures because this cliff fall was in fact the second of three that happened in a very short space of time.

“Ten minutes previous to this fall myself and my husband witnessed a smaller one.

“Then we saw this and 15 minutes later we saw another.

“All three happened whilst we were watching the lifeboat being launched out on the sea.”

The number of new coronavirus cases confirmed across Devon and Cornwall in the last week was the second lowest since the start of September – with the majority of cases in age groups yet to be vaccinated.

Daniel Clark http://www.devonlive.com

A total of 132 new cases were confirmed across the two counties in the last week – with the total since the start of the pandemic at 48,419 – but slightly up on the total from the previous week which only covered six days due to a day when a net negative was recorded due to false positives being removed.

The 132 though is still the second lowest weekly total since 154 were recorded in the week of September 6-12. The week of August 30-September 5 was the last time the total was lower, when 96 cases were recorded.

Only one case in anyone aged 80 or over was recorded, with more than half of the areas of the two counties not seeing any cases in the over 60s either.

Infection rates in Cornwall and Torbay are in the bottom ten in England, with Plymouth and Devon also well below the national average.

Government stats show that 132 new cases have been confirmed across the region in the past seven days in both pillar 1 data from tests carried out by the NHS and pillar 2 data from commercial partners, compared to 108 new cases confirmed last week, albeit only covering six days.

Of the 132 new cases confirmed since May 21, 16 were in Cornwall, 7 in East Devon, 18 in Exeter, 9 in Mid Devon, 7 in North Devon, 24 in Plymouth, 18 in South Hams, 11 in Teignbridge, 13 in Torbay, 8 in Torridge and 1 in West Devon.

This compares to the 108 new cases confirmed between May 15-21, of which 26 were in Cornwall, 5 in East Devon, 11 in Exeter, 4 in Mid Devon, 6 in North Devon, 14 in Plymouth, 19 in South Hams, 13 in Teignbridge, 4 in Torbay, 2 in Torridge, and 4 in West Devon.

Despite the total for this week carry seven not six days’ worth of data, the number of new cases in Cornwall, the South Hams, Teignbridge and West Devon are down week on week.

Infection rates are highest in the 0-19s across Devon and Cornwall – although lower than they were a month ago – while only one person – someone in their 90s in North Devon – of those aged 80+ tested positive in the most recent week.

Six of the 11 areas over the two counties also saw no positive cases in those aged 60-79 either, while in East Devon, no-one over the age of 29 tested positive in the last week.

At a district level, infection rates in East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon, South Hams and West Devon are highest in the 0-19s, with Torbay, Plymouth, Exeter and Teignbridge in the 20-39s – the groups least likely to have been vaccinated and most likely to be mixing.

In Torridge, the 40-59s had the highest infection rate, but this consists of one person aged 40-44 and one aged 50-54, the only two cases from the relevant seven day period for specimens.

No cases in the 0-19s in Torridge, in 20-39s in Torridge and West Devon, 40-59s in East Devon and West Devon, 60-79s in Torbay, East Devon, Mid Devon, the South Hams, Torridge and Teignbridge, and over 80s in everywhere across Devon and Cornwall but North Devon with its one case were recorded from specimens from May 16-22.

Steve Brown, Director of Public Health Devon said: “We have a low coronavirus case rate across Devon, and that is thanks to the effort everyone continues to put in to complying with the restrictions and following the guidance around regular asymptomatic testing, social distancing, hand washing and wearing a face covering when required.

“We need to be cautious though, because outbreaks can and do still happen and when numbers are low, even a small rise can cause a big jump the case rate.

“There’s a spike in cases in the South Hams at the moment because of a small outbreak in a school. It’s being well managed by the school and our public health team.

“Although the number of cases in the rest of the South Hams is still comparatively low and all other cases in the area are single positive cases, it highlights the importance of continuing to take care as restrictions ease to reduce the risk of catching or transmitting the virus as much as possible.”

He added: “Make testing part of your regular week. Build it into a routine, and use the lateral flow device tests as well when you know you’re likely to be meeting up with friends or family. These tests are so fast now that you will have your result and peace of mind in half an hour. If it comes back positive, then you’ll prevent others from catching it by staying home and arranging a confirmatory test.”

Cllr Jonathan Hawkins, South Hams District Council’s Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing, said: “The pandemic is not over yet and we can’t be complacent. We need to work together and continue to support our communities by being cautious and following the rules. It’s the only way we’ll continue to make progress and keep restrictions lifting.”

It comes as there are now just three patients in hospitals in Devon and Cornwall following a positive Covid-19 test, figures giving the position as of Tuesday show.

There have been no patients in hospital in North Devon since April 3, while Torbay Hospital has been free of patients since April 13 – the only day since March 30 it housed a patient.

Derriford Hospital is also once again free of Covid-19 patients after the patient who was admitted on May 14 left the hospital on May 20, while the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital also has one patient, the lowest for the Trust since October 8, with September 11 the last time it was free of Covid.

There are two patients in hospital in Cornwall, the same as the previous week, with one of them in a mechanical ventilation bed.

In terms of hospital deaths, there have been none in any of Devon and Cornwall’s hospitals in the last seven days, although there was a death at the Royal Cornwall Trust on May 19 – the first in any hospital since April 29.

In terms of the latest MSOA cluster maps, that cover the period of specimen dates between May 17-23, there are 219 areas of Devon and Cornwall with between 0-2 cases, with only 11 areas reporting three or more cases.

The MSOA areas with clusters of three or more cases are Chillington, Torcross & Stoke Fleming (9) South Molton and Keyham (both 4), and Helston, Tamerton Foliot, St Budeaux, Cullompton, Heavitree West & Polsloe, Ogwell, Mile End & Teigngrace, Marldon, Stoke Gabriel & Kingswear, Loddiswell & Dartington (all 3)

No area of East Devon, Torridge, West Devon or the Isles of Scilly reported more than 3 cases.

It comes as nearly three quarters of adults in Devon and Cornwall have had their first Covid-19 vaccine, with nearly half having had both doses.

The statistics, which provide the position as of May 26, show that there have been 1,169,431 vaccines delivered in Devon, with 755,614 being a first dose, and 521,861 being a second dose.

In Cornwall, 357,562 people have had a first dose, with a further 252,361 having had a second dose. Across Devon and Cornwall, around 73 per cent of adults have had their first dose, with around 50 per cent having had a second dose.

The latest figures on the coronavirus dashboard, which calculate the total percentage of people aged 18 and over who have received a Covid-19 vaccination, are based on those who have an NHS number and currently are alive. The denominator used is the number of people on the National Immunisation Management Service (NIMS) database.

Of this adult population, 72.8 per cent in Cornwall, 77.9 per cent in East Devon, 58.5 per cent in Exeter, 74.8 per cent in Mid Devon, 75 per cent in North Devon, 66.6 per cent in Plymouth, 75.6 per cent in South Hams, 76.9 per cent in Teignbridge, 74.5 per cent in Torbay, 77.2 per cent in Torridge, and 79.1 per cent in West Devon, have had one dose.

And of this adult population, 51.4 per cent in Cornwall, 54.9 per cent in East Devon, 37.4 per cent in Exeter, 49.1 per cent in Mid Devon, 53 per cent in North Devon, 43.2 per cent in Plymouth, 52.3 per cent in South Hams, 51.7 per in Teignbridge, 57.7 per cent in Torbay, 55.2 per cent in Torridge and 59.4 per cent in West Devon, have had a second dose.

West Devon’s 59.4 per cent for a second dose is the second highest of any region in England, with only Wyre having a higher figure, with Torbay having the fourth highest percentage

The impact of England moving out of step 3 of lockdown on Monday would have begun to be seen in the new positive cases figures from the start of this week due to the lag between infection, symptoms, testing and positive results.

A large group from the Traveller community has arrived at a rugby pitch in Sidford this afternoon, and police are in attendance.

Alex Green www.devonlive.com (also features in the print edition of The Times)

Photos show a large number of vehicles, including cars and caravans, with a police car in attendance as people look on at the pitch from the edge.

Peter O’Brien, Honorary Secretary at Sidmouth Rugby Club – which uses the Sidford pitch – said that the club is aware of the situation, and informed us that the authorities had been informed.

He said that the most worrying part was the potential that the pitch, which has seen money invested in it to get it into top-quality condition, could be damaged.

Peter said: “The club is aware of it, and has informed the authorities. It’s not our pitch, it belongs to the East Devon Council.

“Obviously it’s not good for us because of the amount of money we’ve spent. Hopefully they won’t be damaging it, but I heard about some damage caused at Topsham recently, so it may well be.

“We would have the council repair them if they were damaged, but we’ve spent a lot of money to get the pitches to the quality they’re at. As I said, we’ve informed the authorities, but there’s not much we can do.”

We have approached Devon and Cornwall Police for more information on this matter.

We’ll keep you updated on this with all the latest developments and photos from the scene via the live news blog below.

Key Events

16:43Alex Green

Sidmouth Rugby Club is ‘aware’ and has informed the authorities

Peter O’Brien, Honorary Secretary at Sidmouth Rugby Club – which uses the Sidford pitch – said that the club is aware of the situation, and informed us that the authorities had been informed.

He said that the most worrying part was the potential that the pitch, which has seen money invested in it to get it into top-quality condition, could be damaged.

Peter said: “The club is aware of it, and has informed the authorities. It’s not our pitch, it belongs to the East Devon Council.

“Obviously it’s not good for us because of the amount of money we’ve spent. Hopefully they won’t be damaging it, but I heard about some damage caused at Topsham recently, so it may well be.

“We would have the council repair them if they were damaged, but we’ve spent a lot of money to get the pitches to the quality they’re at. As I said, we’ve informed the authorities, but there’s not much we can do.”

15:58KEY EVENT

More photos of the Travellers pitched up in Sidford

Travellers arriving at a rugby pitch in Sidford (Image: Submitted)