A decision by Devon County Council to prevent a town centre café in Sidmouth using a section of pavement opposite the premises for outdoor seating has been strongly disputed.

Hannah Corfield sidmouth.nub.news 

The Dairy Shops’s alfresco set up, which was given permission with a special ‘street café’ license back in July, was a crucial factor in enabling the business to remain viable during the coronavirus crisis – which continues to blight the hospitality sector.

Read the original story here.

Many have queried the risk involved with having tables and chairs positioned in Church Street, due to the area being predominantly pedestrianised.

Owner John Hammond responded: “As part of our complaint against the actions of Devon County Council removing permission for our three tables and six chairs (six covers) we are now looking at loss of business caused by the decision from the Highway Authority.

“We ask that you pass any objective evidence for the reasons that the tables have been removed onto your legal team as our estimated loss of business up until the end of December will be in the region of 6k.

“While this might not seem a lot of money to DCC, as a small business operating at 60% of last year’s turnover due to Covid-19 restrictions, this is a significant amount.

“We are trying to survive the current pandemic and decisions which are detrimental to our business will be followed through to the highest level.

“In light of ‘loss of business’ we will be looking at a compensation claim should our tables not be reinstated in line with the original agreement.”

The position of the Highways Management Team at Devon County Council, who are responsible for granting outdoor seating permits, is that the arrangement was initially allowed to support the business coming out of lockdown.

Now that the temporary license has expired it no longer meets certain requirements and, following complaints made, it has been deemed to ‘impact on adjacent businesses, whilst putting pedestrians at risk’.

A Devon County Council spokesman said: “The footway in this location is restricted and it’s unusual to grant a licence on the opposite side of the road from a premises.

“But, because it was within social distancing measures being promoted by the Town Council and had the support of the local member Councillor Stuart Hughes we made an exception in this case and a provisional licence was granted until the end of September.

“Unfortunately, the applicant then placed additional seating outside the agreed area. We advised him that further breaches would lead to the licence being revoked and asked that the extra seating be removed.

“Then, outside of what was agreed, the removed seating was put back and additional parasols were added to the tables.

“This resulted in several complaints being received by the Authority, which impacted on adjacent businesses and effectively reduced the width of the highway.

“It is not a ‘right’ to occupy the highway, but a concession granted by the Highway Authority for community benefit.”

Peter Geoghegan www.theguardian.com 

Journalists love election spending returns – and with good reason. How else would we know that the Lib Dems paid out £2,795 to Disney to cancel a Caribbean cruise in 2017 after Theresa May called a snap general election, or that last year the Tories racked up more than £22,000 on Uber Eats deliveries to their Millbank Tower campaign headquarters. (Sushi was particularly popular, apparently.)

But electoral returns are not just easy fodder for diary columns and disposable news stories. The spending data for December’s general election – partly released by the Electoral Commission earlier this week – gives a rare glimpse into how deeply money and power are entwined in British politics, and the inadequacy of transparency rules that are supposed to protect our democracy.

In general, the latest figures add texture to what we already know. The Conservatives ran a highly effective campaign in 2019, spending more than £16m to deliver a “stonking” 80-seat majority in December. (The publication of Labour’s spending has been delayed due to the coronavirus outbreak.)

The Tories’ spending last year was slightly down on 2017. Unlike the United States, British elections run on quite meagre amounts of cash – but drill down into this week’s figures and you’ll find a small world of political consultants, profiting from their access to power, that would rival anything in Washington DC.

After the cost of mailing unsolicited electoral bumf, the Tories’ biggest outlay was the more than £1.6m paid to Australian election guru Lynton Crobsy’s polling firm CTF. Not a bad return for the firm that had earlier given an interest-free loan worth over £20,000 to Boris Johnson’s successful leadership campaign.

It is striking, too, how many of those on the Conservatives’ general election payroll in December were subsequently brought in to spearhead the coronavirus response. Crosby’s protege Isaac Levido – the main credited with coining the phrase “get Brexit done” – was hired by Tory HQ at the start of the pandemic to work on government messaging.

Others were paid directly out of the public purse. During the election, Conservatives spent £458,688 with Topham Guerin. A few months later the New Zealand-based PR firm was given a £3m government contract, without any competition, for coronavirus work.

They are not the only ones. Electoral Commission data shows the Conservatives paid £700,000 to Hanbury Strategy, which is run by the former Vote Leave executive Paul Stephenson. The strategic advisory firm was subsequently handed a contract to research public opinion during the pandemic, again without any tendering process.

The latest spending figures attest to how political campaigning is changing. Back in 2017, the Conservatives spent more than £2m on Facebook and barely half a million on Google. This time around the Tories spent almost the same amount on advertising on both platforms. (The £879,091.32 outlay on Google includes the cost of promoting a fake website targeted at voters searching for Labour’s election manifesto.)

The Electoral Commission data also reveals the growing reach of so-called “third party campaigners” in general elections. Between them, Labour’s Momentum initative, pro-EU campaigners, Brexit-backing hedge fund tycoon Jeremy Hosking, and a plethora of almost anonymous Conservative-aligned websites with names such as Capitalist Worker and the Campaign Against Corbynism spent millions of pounds, often with very little transparency about where the money came from.

That’s because Britain’s electoral laws are outdated and ineffective. We have tight restrictions on political finance. Each candidate for parliament has a spending ceiling of around £15,000 (the exact limit varies by constituency size). The impetus behind these strict limits is to provide a level playing field and prevent the kind of spending wars that can characterise even minor contests in the US.

So, if a candidate can only spend £15,000, how come the average Tory seat cost the party more than 10 times that? That’s because “national” and “constituency” spending is supposedly separate. But it seldom is. Digital campaigning is almost always recorded as national spending, but is often highly targeted.

You have to go back to the 1920s to find the last time a general election candidate was actually convicted of breaking spending limits, but only the most optimistic would believe that constituency overspending has died out. Instead candidates are incentivised to work around the artificially low local spending limits.

It is remarkable how many MPs report spending almost all of their allocated allowance, without breaching the limits. (Jeremy Hunt reported spending 99.88% of his limit in the last general election.)

There is another, even bigger, problem. Spending returns are based on the idea that the political campaigns only take place over a few weeks in the runup to general elections. But with a Vote Leave government in continuous election mode, campaigning is now a constant feature of the British politics. Surely then spending outside of brief windows should all be recorded, too?

There are no shortage of demands to reform Britain’s electoral law. In June, the committee on standards in public life launched a review of electoral regulation. The public administration and constitutional affairs committee recently called for evidence for an investigation into the work of the Electoral Commission.

But the chances of meaningful change are negligible. Rather than giving new powers to the Electoral Commission, the Conservatives’ co-chair Amanda Milling has said that the regulator should become “more targeted” – or be abolished entirely.

If the government gets its way, election spending returns will continue to tell us how much parties spent on pizza and beer, but remain silent on some of the most important ways that British politics is really paid for.

• Peter Geogheghan is investigations editor at openDemocracy and the author of Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics

Owl is reminded of Margaret Thatcher’s quote: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Chris York www.huffingtonpost.co.uk /

The government has failed to account for £3 billion spent on private contracts since the start of lockdown, new figures have shown.

It comes as three cross-party MPs and the Good Law Project, a non-profit-making organisation, have launched legal action against the government over its failure to disclose details of its spending on contracts related to the coronavirus pandemic.

Green MP Caroline Lucas, Labour’s Debbie Abrahams and Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran have filed a judicial review against the government for breaching the law and its own guidance and argue that there are mounting concerns over the government’s coronavirus procurement processes.

They say that, despite the Department of Health and Social Care disclosing in September that at least £11 billion worth of contracts have been awarded by the department since April, related predominantly to coronavirus, new analysis by Tussell shows that over £3 billion worth of these contracts have not been made public.

The Department of Health and Social Care has said due diligence was carried out on all government contracts which have been awarded.

The government has 21 days to respond to the judicial review proceedings.

Jolyon Maugham QC, director of Good Law Project said: “What we know about the government’s procurement practices during this pandemic gives real cause for concern. Huge sums of public money have been awarded to companies with no discernible expertise.

“Sometimes the main qualification seems to be a political connection with key government figures. And I have seen evidence that government is sometimes paying more to buy the same product from those with political connections.

“We don’t know what else there is to discover because the government is deliberately keeping the public in the dark. We are left with no option but to push for transparency through the courts.”

Lucas added: “When billions of pounds of public money is handed out to private companies, some of them with political connections but no experience in delivering medical supplies, ministers should be explaining why those companies were awarded the contracts.

“It’s completely unacceptable that, as an MP, I’m prevented from being able to scrutinise those decisions.”

Abrahams said: “Transparency is crucial for effective scrutiny and will only improve our response to this crisis.

“The persistent failure to publish the details of Covid contracts leads you to wonder what this government has got to hide.”

Moran added: “It is totally unacceptable for the government to avoid scrutiny during a public health crisis. 

“As we enter a predicted second wave we need to be able to take stock of what has worked and what hasn’t to protect as many lives as possible.

“Government must let Parliament do its job and properly scrutinise their decisions.”

The legal challenge is being crowdfunded with the support of 38 Degrees and Good Law Project and the three MPs have instructed Deighton Pierce Glynn and Jason Coppel QC and Christopher Knight of 11KBW to act in the judicial review proceedings

Campaigns director of 38 Degrees, Ellie Gellard said: “The public needs to know where taxpayers’ money has been spent in our ongoing battle against coronavirus so that we can be sure those who have been paid, deliver what they promised.

“That’s why thousands of members of the public have chipped in to help get the answers we deserve, transparency is needed to restore public trust in the government’s approach.”

9 October 2020 – Progress update on storm event protection discussed at Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan meeting – East Devon

eastdevon.gov.uk 

For the first time since March, East Devon District Council hosted a Sidmouth Beach Management Plan (BMP) steering group of local organisations, interested parties and councillors to discuss the progress being made to protect the town and East Beach from flooding.

The meeting was a held ‘virtually’ due to Covid-19 restrictions and progress updates came from district council officers working on a proposed scheme.

Cllr Geoff Jung, the council’s portfolio holder for Coast, Country & the Environment, chaired the steering group meeting and explained that following policy changes of the council’s new administration that in future all meetings will be held in public and the minutes be published.

He also proposed that all the main project documents relating to the BMP will be published and the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) will be reviewed on the council’s website to demonstrate the new administration’s policy of openness and transparency.

The BMP’s terms of reference will be reviewed to reflect these changes and brought before the next meeting of the group for discussion in December. Councillor Jung also proposed that because of Covid -19 restrictions, the next few meetings will be held virtually via Zoom and future public meetings will be broadcast through the council’s YouTube channel when they are held every other month.

East Devon District Council’s Engineer Tom Buxton-Smith provided the steering group with an update and progress of the proposed scheme which includes a splash defence and recharged beach along the main town frontage along with a super groyne on East Beach. The steering group discussed options for carrying out a public exhibition on the scheme and splash defence options so that residents and businesses can give their views. With Covid-19 restrictions, the group will discuss this further at its next meeting.

The scheme is now fully funded and is estimated to cost £8.7m. The funding is dependent on the Environment Agency approving the submission of the council’s Outline Business Case. Following approval, consultants and contractors will be appointed to develop the final design during 2021. A planning application will be submitted with a proposed start to the long-awaited scheme in the Autumn 2022.

Following a number of cliff-falls at Pennington Point in early Spring a review had been undertaken to consider emergency measures to protect properties in the town from the perceived sea overtopping of the Sid river wall. However, the Environment Agency advised that the works did not meet the definition of emergency works. It was concluded that the emergency works could not proceed at this time and it would be kept under review. Engineers will provide a definition of ‘trigger’ points when it may be considered that emergency works were appropriate.

Following a proposal by Devon County Councillor Stuart Hughes to consider a “recurve” to be fitted to the esplanade sea wall, it was agreed that further evidence was required to understand if this would be providing extra protection for the town. It was concluded that an additional recurve would increase the impact load on the seawall and would probably not remove the need for a splash barrier, but further assessments will be undertaken.

Mr Buxton-Smith then discussed the need for the most controversial element to the whole scheme which was referred to in earlier reports as a ‘Splash Wall’. It had always been recognised that a 1-metre high wall would not be appropriate along such an important and historic esplanade of Sidmouth, so alternative solutions are under investigation. Glass panels, removable sections, benches with raising seats to act as barriers, together with flood gates are all being considered which will be part of the public exhibition and consultations prior to the planning application being submitted.

Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce has recently proposed that Offshore Rock Islands should again be considered. Mr Buxton-Smith reported that he was in discussions with their representative and awaiting on the pricing and engineering specifications to their proposal.

In the meantime, Mr Buxton-Smith has had costings produced for the large offshore breakwater based on engineering drawings costing £13.1m – more than the total funding available for the project making this proposal unviable. Mr Buxton-Smith said he would discuss the variance of the costings with the Chamber.

• Over the last few days, a fresh report made public by Plymouth University, is estimating future rates of coastal erosion over the next 100 years in the eastern half of the district.

– The report indicates that some parts of the coastline in East Devon will erode more quickly than had previously been estimated, while some will erode less than previously thought.

– However, the university research does not take into account the mitigating protection to be provided by schemes such as Sidmouth’s BMP, discussed by the BMP steering group.

– The university’s research also shows the reasonable worse-case scenario erosion rates, whereas the erosion rates in the council’s beach management plans are the most likely scenario.

– The council’s strategic planning committee will consider a planning policy briefing paper on the university’s findings related to coastal changes at its meeting later this month. The issue will also be discussed at the next BMP steering group meeting in December.

Robert Jenrick admits approving funds for town in Jake Berry’s constituency

Rajeev Syal www.theguardian.com 

Robert Jenrick has admitted that he and a junior minister approved payments to towns in each other’s constituencies from a government fund earmarked for deprived areas.

The communities secretary confirmed that communities minister Jake Berry gave the go-ahead for Jenrick’s Newark constituency to be selected for a £25m fund award even though it was 270th on the list of the UK’s most deprived areas.

Jenrick said he signed off the decision for money to be allocated to Darwen, a town in Berry’s Rossendale and Darwen constituency.

On Sunday, Jenrick insisted there was a “robust and fair” methodology behind the government’s towns fund and dismissed as “completely baseless” allegations that he had any involvement in Newark’s selection.

Last year, Jenrick announced details of a £3.6bn towns fund to be shared between 101 left-behind areas.

Under the scheme, select towns were able to bid for up to £25m each from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Jenrick and Berry, his junior minister, were allegedly responsible for choosing 61 of the towns.

At a hustings during the election last year, Jenrick told voters: “I helped to secure a £25m town deal which I hope will improve the public realm and make the town centre a more attractive place to spend time in.”

After the election, Jenrick sat on a board convened by Newark and Sherwood district council that petitioned his own department for the maximum amount available of £25m.

Jenrick told the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show: “If the question you’re coming to is was I involved in selecting my own community, absolutely not. Ministers do not get involved in their own constituencies. That decision was made by another minister in my department.”

Asked which minister made the decision, Jenrick replied: “It was made by Jake Berry.”

When Marr pointed out that a town in Berry’s constituency also received money from the fund, Jenrick confirmed that he was the individual to have given that decision the go-ahead.

Earlier this year, Jenrick rebuffed calls for his resignation after he ensured a controversial housing development was agreed before a levy was introduced that would have cost its backer millions.

Documents showed that the former porn baron and Conservative party donor Richard Desmond urged Jenrick to approve his Westferry Printworks development in east London before a new community infrastructure levy was introduced, a move which, it is believed, would have saved Desmond £50m.

Desmond had given the Conservatives £12,000 two weeks after the scheme for 1,500 homes was approved, and the housing secretary had sat next to him at a fundraising event.

Jenrick denied any wrongdoing but expressed regrets for sitting next to Desmond and exchanging messages with him.

Labour is demanding an inquiry into the way money was allocated from the towns fund.

The shadow communities secretary, Steve Reed, has written to Simon Case, the head of the civil service, requesting a cabinet office investigation.

Minister dismisses call for constituency fund probe

BBC News www.bbc.co.uk

Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick has dismissed Labour’s call for an investigation into the award of a £25m regeneration grant to his constituency.

He told BBC One’s Andrew Marr show the decision to give the money to Newark, Nottinghamshire, had been taken by fellow minister Jake Berry.

Mr Jenrick said he had himself decided to grant funds to a town in Mr Berry’s constituency under the same scheme.

He called this “perfectly normal” and accused Labour of “distraction”.

But Labour described the allocation of the money “murky” and urged Mr Jenrick to submit himself to a “full” investigation.

The £25m was awarded to Newark under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s £3.6bn Towns Fund, set up last year to help places that had “not always benefitted from economic growth in the same way as more prosperous areas”.

Newark and Sherwood District Council submitted its town investment plan – including better transport, training and digital connectivity – in July.

Mr Jenrick, Conservative MP for Newark since 2014, supported the bid.

For Labour, shadow work and pensions secretary Jonathan Reynolds told Sky News’s Ridge on Sunday: “The whole question has always been quite a murky one as to how this money was allocated.

“The secretary of state has questions to answer and an investigation is the right way forwards.”

‘Robust system’

But Mr Jenrick said the government had a “robust” system in place for choosing which places would benefit from the Towns Fund and that the rules had been created before he became communities secretary.

He added that Mr Berry, who oversees local growth in England as a minister within Mr Jenrick’s department, had made the decision following advice from civil servants.

Darwen, a town in Mr Berry’s Rossendale and Darwen constituency, was also allocated money from the Towns Fund.

The decision, Mr Jenrick said, had been “made by myself”.

He added: “This is perfectly normal. Ministers don’t get involved in making decisions for their own constituency.

“But neither should their constituencies be victims of the fact that their MP is a minister.”

Mr Jenrick also said: “The Labour Party front bench need to get beyond the M25 and see what’s happening in our constituencies.”

Earlier, he told Sky News that Labour’s accusations were “completely baseless”.

But, following the interviews, shadow communities secretary Steve Reed insisted that, if “Robert Jenrick has nothing to hide, he should submit himself to a full investigation”.

In August, Mr Jenrick said he regretted sitting next to property developer Richard Desmond at a Conservative Party fundraising event last year.

Mr Desmond donated £12,000 to the Conservatives in January, 12 days after the minister overruled government planning inspectors to approve a development at the former Westferry print works in east London.

Labour said this had raised suggestions of “cash for favours”.

But Mr Jenrick has always insisted he had no knowledge of the donation and was motivated by a desire to see more homes built.

Labour demands probe into £25m government funding for housing secretary’s constituency

Shaun Connelly www.independent.co.uk 

Labour has demanded a top-level investigation into communities secretary Robert Jenrick, over how government funding was allocated to his Newark constituency.

Shadow communities secretary Steve Reed has written to the head of the civil service requesting a Cabinet Office investigation into Mr Jenrick, concerning how recipients of the multibillion-pound Towns Fund were decided.

The move comes in the wake of Mr Jenrick’s Newark constituency being selected for a £25m funding award.

It follows a report in The Times alleging Mr Jenrick helped select Newark for the allocation.

Mr Jenrick has insisted he was not part of the decision-making process regarding Newark as funding for the town was determined by another minister.

Labour wants an inquiry to see how Newark was chosen for inclusion in the Towns Fund, and whether officials advised against such a move.

Mr Reed also wants to know if Tory-held seats were prioritised under the initiative.

The £3.6bn Towns Fund was a high-profile government scheme in the run-up to the last general election, which ministers said was aimed at “levelling-up” so-called left behind towns.

Earlier this year Mr Jenrick rebuffed calls for his resignation after he ensured a controversial housing development was agreed before a new levy was introduced which would have cost millions for its backer.

Documents released after pressure from Labour showed multimillionaire Conservative Party donor Richard Desmond urged Mr Jenrick to approve his Westferry Printworks development in east London before a new community infrastructure levy was introduced which, it is believed, would have saved Mr Desmond £50m.

Mr Jenrick faced accusations of “cash for favours” after it emerged that Mr Desmond had given the Conservatives £12,000 two weeks after the scheme for 1,500 homes was approved, and that the housing secretary had sat next to him and viewed a video at a fundraising event.

The minister originally approved the development plan in January, overruling Tower Hamlets Council and a planning inspector.

Mr Reed said: “Hot on the heels of the Westferry scandal, Robert Jenrick yet again has serious questions to answer about allegations that he used the Towns Fund to channel public money to help Conservative Party candidates ahead of the general election.

“Mr Jenrick has made an unfortunate habit of overruling officials’s advice to get his own way, just as he did during the Westferry cash-for-favours scandal.

“Now he has done the same with this blatant example of pork-barrel politics, with public money making its way to help his own re-election campaign. Misuse of public funds is a very serious abuse of public trust.

“Robert Jenrick must come to the House urgently to make a statement on how this money was awarded and submit himself to a full Cabinet Office investigation.”

Mr Reed has called for the communities secretary to appear before the Commons on Monday to make a statement on the issue.

A spokesman for Mr Jenrick said: “This reporting is incorrect as the secretary of state did not select his constituency for Towns Fund money.

“To suggest otherwise is misleading, and another minister in the department is responsible for decisions around Newark’s Towns Fund bid, as is normal practice.

“As made clear in the National Audit Office report, the process was comprehensive, robust and fair – and the Towns Fund will help level up the country.

“Delivering the Towns Fund was a manifesto commitment that the Labour Party opposed and offered no alternative to, so it was not surprising that Conservative candidates mentioned it during their campaigns.

“Conservatives in government are investing in our towns to improve the life chances of local people, Labour are resorting to baseless political point-scoring.”

One of the most interesting and environmentally significant planning applications for decades appeared in the applications posted by Owl yesterday:

Proposed breach of the River Otter embankment, Little Bank and Big Bank to restore the historic floodplain creating intertidal saltmarsh, mudflats and freshwater habitat at Big Marsh, and new freshwater habitat at Little Marsh. Associated works including development of a new footbridge, realignment of South Farm Road, and creation of a new car park. (The Lower Otter Restoration Project) 151 Hectares Of Land Within The Parishes Of East Budleigh, Budleigh Salterton And Otterton From Lime Kiln Car Park (SY072819) To South Of Frogmore House (SY074850) (The Lower Otter Valley)Ref. No: 20/2089/MFUL | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

The application comprises 128 documents, though “The Design and Access Statement” is the document to read to give the overall picture. The extract below gives a good summary of what is proposed. Other documents are likely to provide interesting supporting ecological and historical studies.

Before that, Owl copies a paragraph from the Planning Statement which discusses the motivation driving the project. This talks about the need to provide compensating habitat for losses in the Exe Estuary. Owl suggests these habitat losses haven’t occurred because of climate change, that’s for the future, but because of overdevelopment and increasing use of the estuary for leisure activities.

“The original motivation for the LORP arose from a desire by the landowner, Clinton Devon Estates (the Estate), to manage the lower Otter valley as sustainably as possible in the face of a rapidly changing climate. The Environment Agency’s involvement in the project arose from a statutory need to provide compensatory habitat for habitat losses in the Exe Estuary. The desire of these project partners is to improve the natural functioning, ecological health and environmental status of the river, demonstrate climate change adaptation and reduce risk to wildlife and public infrastructure under future climate change.”

Planning application 20/2089 MFUL Design and Access Statement

Submitted by the Environment Agency

The Lower Otter Restoration Project (LORP) will restore the historic floodplain of the River Otter to a condition similar to that found prior to the construction of the 19th century embankments alongside the river and within the floodplain. It will retain most of the embankments and create breaches in Little Bank, Big Bank and the River Otter embankment to allow water from the River Otter and Otter Estuary to inundate the site, creating intertidal saltmarsh and mudflats. South Farm Road will be raised, and the existing Budleigh Salterton Cricket Club moved off site to another location. Development of the new Budleigh Salterton Cricket Club has been approved by successful determination of a separate planning application (reference 19/1521/MFUL) due to a need to progress the cricket pitch sooner than the rest of the LORP. The Scheme includes the elements shown in Figure 1.1

From a participating correspondent:

“A number of residents dialled in to listen and spoke at the open session. Prior to the Open Session Peter Cain read a pre prepared statement to clarify his position. The Parish Council listened to what we had to say, both Mike Howe and Peter Cain declared an interest, correctly, and took part in the discussion. The Parish Council then unanimously agreed to submit the objection that Charlie Hopkins had written with two very minor amendments.” 

[EDDC will make the final decision.]

Councils are jostling to be moved up and down the government’s three-tier lockdown system as they fret over the conflicting demands of local jobs and public health.

Will the Government put Exeter into Tier 3 lockdown?

Andrew Gregory and David Collins www.thetimes.co.uk

With the number of virus infections surging, Boris Johnson plans to introduce the new measures this week to simplify the restrictions.

Millions of people have been subjected to local restrictions for weeks, but there are concerns that mixed messages and confusion over changes to the rules have limited their effectiveness.

Areas with relatively low infection levels will be placed in what is being described as tier 1. Only national restrictions such as the rule of six, the 10pm curfew on restaurants and pubs and existing rules on masks and social distancing will apply.

The next tier is likely to include bans on home visits and indoor socialising with other households in bars or restaurants.

Areas with the worst coronavirus outbreaks will be put in tier 3. Options being considered this weekend include the closure of all hospitality venues, a ban on overnight stays outside your own home and shutting leisure venues such as cinemas.

Tier 3 could see people ordered not to have social contact with anyone outside their household.

The move could see 7,171 pubs in the north of England temporarily shut, accounting for one in five of England’s 37,616 pubs. The region accounts for 18 of the 20 worst Covid hotspots. Liverpool, Manchester and parts of the northeast are all set to be put in tier 3.

But yesterday, an extraordinary lobbying race erupted with several councils scrambling to be placed in higher tiers than the levels they expect.

It is understood that some London boroughs want to be in tier 2 rather than the less strict tier 1, despite relatively low infection rates.

Officials said this was because councils fear they are only weeks behind the north of England.

At the same time, some councils are lobbying the government to be in tier 3 to win economic support.

Conversely, some councils in the Midlands and the north with higher infection rates want to be in a lower tier amid concerns that the tier-3 restrictions would “finish off” their economies.

The jostling is complicated by the fact that the prime minister had yesterday not decided on the final measures for each tier.

It is understood that while pubs and bars will be forced to shut in tier-3 areas, restaurants may be allowed to stay open until 10pm. There is debate over whether to shut hairdressers, leisure centres and gyms.

One option is an 11pm curfew in tier 1. It comes amid opposition to the national 10pm curfew, which will be voted on in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

Another idea is to extend the severe measures in tier-3 cities to their suburbs, even if virus infection levels there are lower.

The rules are expected to be reviewed after a month, a government official said. But questions remained about when and how local areas would move up or down tiers. Triggers could include the level of infection, the number of cases or the R figure.

“A key concern is getting trapped in one tier or another,” said a council official. “If you are in an area deemed low-risk, in tier 1, how quickly will you be allowed to move up a tier if infections suddenly take off?”

@AndrewGregory

Tier 1

Areas with the fewest coronavirus cases. Only national restrictions such as the rule of six and the 10pm curfew on restaurants and pubs will apply. Rules on mask-wearing and guidance on social distancing will still apply. One possibility is that varied curfew times could apply to different tiers. The curfew could be 11pm in tier 1 rather than 10pm

Tier 2

The same restrictions and rules as tier 1 apply but may also include bans on home visits and indoor socialising with other households in bars and restaurants

Tier 3

The parts of the country with the highest infection rates. These areas will have to observe all the restrictions in tier 1 and tier 2 but could also see the closure of all hospitality venues, a ban on overnight stays and the shutting of leisure venues. Tier 3 residents might be banned from any social contact with anyone outside their household. Hairdressers, cinemas, and gyms may also face closure

When it comes to tracking Covid-19, the Lake District proves it is best to go local.

Tom Calver, Gabriel Pogrund and Hannah Al-Othman www.thetimes.co.uk

In May, 10 days before the launch of the national test-and-trace scheme, Cumbria set up England’s first fully functioning local version.

Members of Cumbria county council’s sexual health team — more used to tracking cases of chlamydia — were drafted in for their contact-tracing skills. They work with housing officers, who often know where vulnerable people are.

“Often, we identify someone who tested positive, and someone on the local environmental health team will say, ‘Yes, we know that person’,” said Colin Cox, Cumbria’s director of public health. “The skill of the local district council teams in knowing the complexities of their patch is just phenomenal.”

The experiment appears to have paid off. At the time of its launch, Barrow-in-Furness — Cumbria’s second-biggest town — had the highest coronavirus infection rate in the country. Although cases have soared again in the northwest, Cumbria’s rate of 87 per 100,000 is the lowest in the region.

Before the pandemic, Emma Bundock, 43, was an environmental housing manager. Since May, she has led a three-person team tracing contacts for Allerdale, a district that includes Grasmoor and Workington.

“The officers who work on this live in the communities they’re trying to support,” Bundock said. “We’re passionate about the people we’re trying to help because ultimately, it could be one of your own.”

Most cases come from the national test-and-trace programme, 24 hours after call centre operatives have had a go at making contact.

Sometimes, said Bundock, “the national tracers have not asked the questions that make the person properly think about who they’ve been in touch with, what they’ve done, or who they’ve seen”.

Cumbria’s scheme was the first and there are now 93 local contact-tracing teams. “Complex” cases involving outbreaks in hospitals, care homes and prisons are automatically passed to local teams. In the week to September 30 they reached 97.1% of contacts, compared with just 62.4% by the national teams.

In many Covid-19 hotspots, the national system is faring even worse. Blackburn with Darwen, Bury and Manchester have some of the highest infection rates, but little more than half of all non-complex contacts are being identified. In Slough, the figure is 42%.

In August, the Department of Health said NHS Test and Trace would become “local by default”. “We’re still trying to figure out what that means,” said Cox.

The department said: “NHS Test and Trace is breaking chains of transmission thanks to local and national teams working hand in glove. Almost 700,000 people have been contacted and told to isolate.”

When he addressed the nation on 23 March to announce a national lockdown, Boris Johnson knew he had most of the British people with him. “Each and every one of us is now obliged to join together to halt the spread of this disease,” the prime minister said in his TV broadcast. “We will beat the coronavirus and we will beat it together.”

Toby Helm, Political Editor www.theguardian.com 

Six and a half months on, as he prepares to announce the introduction of more restrictions and a new three-tier system across the country – at what ministers say is a “critical” moment – hospitals are filling up and death rates are rising once more.

Unlike March, however, calls for the British people to unite behind a response directed from No 10 no longer command the attention or respect they did then. The many changes in rules and regulations have left people confused and choosing to rely on their own instincts as much as on what politicians tell them.

Trust in the government to handle the pandemic, say local leaders who monitor the crisis daily, has been shot to pieces. “I would say that trust in authority has completely gone,” said one senior official at the heart of the fight against Covid-19 in the north of England on Saturday.

That crisis of confidence in central government is borne out in the latest Opinium poll for the Observer on Sunday. It shows that just 31% approve of the way the government has handled Covid-19. At the end of March the approval rate was above 60%.

National targets on testing have not been met. False expectations have been set. Rules have changed at dizzying speed. “One day people are told one thing, the next another to the point where they have stopped even trying to follow,” said one public health director.

This weekend, when unity is needed, the cabinet is split. Tory MPs are split. The media is split. Public opinion is split. And council and public health leaders in some of the biggest cities of the north and Midlands are in revolt. So what can be done?

On Friday the prime minister’s close adviser Edward Lister and senior civil servants were locked in long, tense virtual meetings with local health chiefs and council leaders, trying to get them to agree to the new three-tier approach.

After two hours of talks, one of those who took part said he and many other leaders in the north of England were so furious at what took place that they were thinking of issuing a statement refusing to comply with government orders.

“They say they are listening to us but they are not. What they seem to want to do is punish the north. The extra financial support announced by the chancellor is welcome but it is two-thirds of people’s wages, not 80% which it was before. This is not enough for people and the businesses which will have to close.” Another official involved in talks with the government over the weekend said: “It is toxic and everyone is fighting.”

The reason for the anger, on display at a press conference of northern mayors on Saturday, is twofold. First the mayors demand to know why the government will only pay two-thirds of the wages of people in businesses in their areas that have to close as a result of the latest decisions by No 10, whereas they paid for 80% under the national lockdown. This, they say, is “grossly unfair” and discriminatory. It will leave many in the hospitality sector earning way below the minimum wage and unable therefore to pay their rent through no fault of their own. Many will therefore face eviction in the run-up to Christmas. Second, they do not see why central government should have the power to shut their pubs and hospitality venues, when local politicians and health leaders could do so themselves if granted so-called “summary closure powers”. In essence they want the power to make those decisions themselves.

For months council leaders and mayors have been asking ministers to allow them to fight the pandemic locally, with their own test and trace systems, rather than having decisions dictated from the centre. Mayors such as Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester have also called for greater financial help for people on low incomes required to self-isolate, arguing that without it many would not do so as they would feel they could not afford to. Leaders in the regions wanted more central government help – but it had to be help to allow them to manage their own responses, tailored to local needs.

This is not what they were hearing from No 10 this weekend, however. “There are lots of warm words,” said one senior figure. “But they are not listening. They are telling us to agree what they want. There is no consultation. We have different factors in different areas. In some university cities like Newcastle and Nottingham the virus is mainly being spread among students and has yet to spread to older people. In other areas like Merseyside we hear it has spread to older people. We need the ability to respond locally.”

In some cases local leaders believe restrictions do not go far enough. Liverpool’s Labour mayor Joe Anderson saidon Saturday that he expected his city – where there are currently 600 cases per 100,000 people – to be placed in tier three, under the highest set of restrictions. This would mean closing all the city’s pubs from Wednesday, though not its restaurants. Anderson said, however, that government would be wrong to allow Liverpool’s bars and pubs to stay open until Wednesday because the infection was spreading so fast in the city. In Merseyside things are so serious there are suggestions that local hospitals are already resigned to cancelling all elective surgery in the coming days because Covid admissions are rising so fast. Anderson said his other worry was that the public no longer listened to diktats from London. “I’m not convinced people trust the government’s decisions.”

On Monday the prime minister hopes to be able to announce the new three-tier system to parliament and to have it voted on within days. Many of his own MPs are dubious that stricter lockdowns are necessary. To add to the confused picture Labour has said it will abstain in a vote expected early next week on extending the 10pm curfew for pubs across England.

It is not just the north and Midlands where tighter restrictions appear imminent. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, warned people to expect new measures to be announced in the capital this coming week. “My prediction is, there will be additional restrictions being brought in because we’ve got to make sure we don’t have a situation with the NHS being overwhelmed and lives being lost.”

Another local health director told the Observer that to make any of these restrictions stick, faith had to be restored in those announcing the changes: “The only way is to do that is locally with local decisions. It is too late to rebuild trust at national level.”

A community movement established in response to certain issues surrounding Honiton Town Council has publicly requested, for a second time, that all remaining councillors resign.

Hannah Corfield honiton.nub.news

According to a statement: “This is the last time Honiton Forward will respectfully ask you all to make your own decisions and do the right thing.”

Over a thousand electorates have now signed a petition calling for the current incumbents of Honiton Town Council to step down and allow for a re-election.

“If you continue to treat the people of Honiton with contempt then you will give us no option but to exercise the will of the community and seek to have you removed though the Community Governance Review.

“We write now to urge you one last time to please stop putting your personal interests before the interests of your community and stand down to allow a new election to be held and a fresh start to be made.”

The letter also mentions specific high-profile incidents which have blighted the council recently. Included in this are the yet to be resolved negotiations with The Beehive, legal costs racked up in the apparently failed litigation against Bailey Partnership, the recent announcement from Honiton Chamber of Commerce and allegations made by the former Town Clerk who is threatening legal action.

Individual councillors, of which seven – six active – remain, are addressed with a personal message to each.

Click here for the Honiton Forward Facebook page where the letter can be accessed in full.

Honiton Nub News has contacted Chair of Honiton Town Council for comment and is awaiting response.

• Construction of two storey side extension over and to rear of existing garage. 3 Hatcher Close Honiton EX14 2YGRef. No: 20/2129/FUL | Validated: Sun 04 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, English oak : Prune the southern and eastern aspect by 2m. T2, English oak : Prune the southern lateral aspect by 2m; crown lift lowest sub lateral branches on the tree to 4m above existing ground level; final pruning cuts are to be limited to 100mm in diameter 25 Drakes Avenue Exmouth EX8 4ADRef. No: 20/2116/TRE | Validated: Thu 01 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of porch to front door. 3 Warren Park West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TNRef. No: 20/2113/FUL | Validated: Thu 01 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of orangery to the rear. 15 Arthurs Close Exmouth EX8 4JZRef. No: 20/2117/FUL | Validated: Thu 01 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Application to modify S.106 agreement in regards to 1-6 (inclusive) Searle Mews, Hawkchurch 1 – 6 Searle Mews (inclusive) Hawkchurch EX13 5XJRef. No: 20/2144/V106 | Validated: Thu 01 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of new entrance to existing driveway The Hawthorns Rhode Lane Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3TXRef. No: 20/2114/FUL | Validated: Thu 01 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side extension to form new double garage and annex. 9 High Bank West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1XXRef. No: 20/2115/FUL | Validated: Thu 01 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey side extension, two storey front extension and rear gable dormer window including balcony. Insertion of first floor side window and provision of cladding. 31 Poplar Tree Drive Seaton EX12 2TWRef. No: 20/2104/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Rear extension on modified garage to provide additional facilities, garden room and garden store 31 Copp Hill Lane Budleigh Salterton EX9 6DXRef. No: 20/2106/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Revision to 19/2607/FUL to provide extended raised patio 10 Hayne Close Tipton St John Sidmouth EX10 0BARef. No: 20/2102/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Installation of one additional roller shutter door to the front elevation of an existing purpose built industrial unit Unit 41 Finnimore Industrial Estate Ottery St Mary EX11 1NRRef. No: 20/2091/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 Oak: Crown raise to give 1.75m (5ft) clearance above ground level. Reason: Causing excessive shading and low branches are causing an obstruction when accessing the garden. 24 Moorlands West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1ULRef. No: 20/2098/TRE | Validated: Wed 30 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Goat Willow ( T1) – fell, because it is overhanging street light, obstructing it and likely to cause damage in the near future. Surrounding area has several mature trees and no room to replant without causing congestion. Conifer – Thuya (T2) – fell. This tree has overgrown and is interfering with both a mature Birch tree and a Scots Pine of higher amenity value. This area has several mature trees and replacement is not required as will cause further overcrowding. Beech (T3) – remove single branch. This branch is rubbing against the trunk of a semi mature Oak tree, causing damage both to the Oak tree, and to the branch, with the likelihood that this will break at some point, potentially causing damage or injury. Removing this branch will also improve the future health of the Oak tree. Malmvall 1 Birch Grove West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1XPRef. No: 20/2096/TRE | Validated: Tue 29 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Bay : remove large stem over neighbours drive and low horizontal branch at 3m over garden Salcombe Close House Sid Lane Sidmouth EX10 9AWRef. No: 20/2093/TCA | Validated: Wed 30 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed two storey side extension for improved medical facilities Beacon Medical Centre Sedemuda Road Sidmouth EX10 9YARef. No: 20/2090/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T3 – Oak Crown reduce by 2-3m, crown raise all round to 2.5m above ground level and remove branch overhanging driveway 42 Fulford Way Woodbury Exeter EX5 1PDRef. No: 20/2094/TRE | Validated: Tue 29 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey extension and dormer window to rear 108 Exeter Road Exmouth EX8 1QHRef. No: 20/2083/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• R1 – Western red cedar – fell to as near ground level as possible T1 – horse chestnut – lift over drive to clear 3m and shorten back by 2 – 4m on southeast side over drive. T2 – yew – reduce by 2m and re-shape to leave a height of approximately 8m and a spread of approximately 4m Heronsbridge Little Knowle Budleigh Salterton EX9 6QSRef. No: 20/2086/TCA | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of lawfulness for the construction of replacement extension 17 North Street Ottery St Mary EX11 1DRRef. No: 20/2084/CPL | Validated: Wed 30 Sep 2020 | Status: Refused
• Construction of single storey rear extension, patio, raised terrace with steps and ramp; replace first floor window on east elevation with French doors and Juliet balcony on east elevation and provision of render to existing extension Keymer House Bendarroch Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1UWRef. No: 20/2079/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Construction of detached garage with office accommodation and storage over, new retaining wall and steps 194 Withycombe Village Road Exmouth EX8 3BDRef. No: 20/2088/FUL | Validated: Thu 01 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed breach of the River Otter embankment, Little Bank and Big Bank to restore the historic floodplain creating intertidal saltmarsh, mudflats and freshwater habitat at Big Marsh, and new freshwater habitat at Little Marsh. Associated works including development of a new footbridge, realignment of South Farm Road, and creation of a new car park. (The Lower Otter Restoration Project) 151 Hectares Of Land Within The Parishes Of East Budleigh, Budleigh Salterton And Otterton From Lime Kiln Car Park (SY072819) To South Of Frogmore House (SY074850) (The Lower Otter Valley)Ref. No: 20/2089/MFUL | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed demolition of existing conservatory and construction of two storey rear extension including installation of solar panels, part glazed veranda and insertion of 1 no. first floor window to north elevation Old School House Cotleigh Honiton EX14 9HJRef. No: 20/2073/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed demolition of existing conservatory and construction of two storey rear extension including installation of solar panels, part glazed veranda, insertion of 1 no. first floor window to north elevation and internal alterations to the existing house including creation of new door opening to kitchen and removal of existing door on south elevation Old School House Cotleigh Honiton EX14 9HJRef. No: 20/2074/LBC | Validated: Tue 29 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two single storey extensions and associated landscaping with single roof terrace to proposed garage. Sea Views Common Hill Beer Seaton EX12 3AQRef. No: 20/2069/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed first floor rear balcony 25 Phear Avenue Exmouth EX8 2JSRef. No: 20/2070/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey rear/side extension and first floor extension above the existing kitchen The Finches Harcombe Road Axminster EX13 5TBRef. No: 20/2056/FUL | Validated: Thu 01 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single storey rear extension. 10 Avondale Road Exmouth EX8 2NQRef. No: 20/2051/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Block up door into kitchen and remove wall into kitchen Flat 1 Sidbury House Buckley Road Sidbury Sidmouth EX10 0SLRef. No: 20/2050/LBC | Validated: Wed 30 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a timber single storey granny annexe for ancillary use to the main dwelling Broadway View Farringdon Exeter EX5 2HURef. No: 20/2033/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Construction of porch. 16 Clyst Valley Road Clyst St Mary Exeter EX5 1DDRef. No: 20/2023/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of replacement window to kitchen. 30 Sanditon Station Road Sidmouth EX10 8LLRef. No: 20/2005/FUL | Validated: Fri 02 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of condition 2 of application no. 19/2803/FUL (Demolition of existing cottage and construction of a new bungalow style dwelling and associated car port, garage workshop/storage out building) to allow amended workshop/storage building design and position North Cottage Aylesbeare Exeter EX5 2DBRef. No: 20/1999/VAR | Validated: Wed 30 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed replacement balcony structure 6 Marine Parade Budleigh Salterton EX9 6NSRef. No: 20/1980/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of single and two storey extensions to rear and first floor side/rear extension 9 Carlton Hill Exmouth EX8 2AJRef. No: 20/1978/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed new two-bedroom dwelling with off-road parking and garden Sundown Littlemead Lane Exmouth EX8 3BURef. No: 20/1963/FUL | Validated: Wed 30 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of ground floor from a mixed use comprising retail (class A1) and hot food takeaway (class A5) to use as a hot food takeaway (class A5) and installation of external extraction flue. 19 New Street Honiton EX14 1HARef. No: 20/1959/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of workshop/sunroom and decking 2 Wood Cottages Exmouth Road Exton Exeter EX3 0PQRef. No: 20/1951/FUL | Validated: Tue 29 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Agricultural building.Land At Pamos Farm Upottery Honiton EX14 9PBRef. No: 20/1950/AGR | Validated: Wed 30 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of condition 3 of application 7/41/ 87/P0468/00039 to allow the unrestricted residential occupation of 1 Stoneleigh as staff accommodation. 1 Stoneleigh Country Holidays Weston Sidmouth EX10 0PJRef. No: 20/1945/VAR | Validated: Thu 01 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Replace landing ceiling and patch repair to ceilings in bedrooms 1 & 2 Minsons Hill Farm Upottery Honiton EX14 9QYRef. No: 20/1915/LBC | Validated: Thu 01 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of land, for the siting of two units of tourism accommodation (Shepherd Huts), together with associated infrastructure and facilities. (Land At Wind Whistle Cross) James Barn Kerswell Cullompton EX15 2ESRef. No: 20/1885/FUL | Validated: Thu 01 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective application for the retention of marquee to be used as a wedding venue and storage associated with the running of the existing golf club Thorn Park Family Golf Centre Salcombe Regis Sidmouth EX10 0JHRef. No: 20/1789/FUL | Validated: Fri 02 Oct 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of dwelling (amended scheme to 19/2256/FUL). Land Adjacent 17 Glebelands Glebelands UplymeRef. No: 20/1783/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of former 9 hole golf course to area associated with the drying and storing of bell tents and the erection of storage and workshop building Thorn Park Family Golf Centre Salcombe Regis Sidmouth EX10 0JHRef. No: 20/1631/FUL | Validated: Mon 28 Sep 2020 | Status: Awaiting decision

Eileen Wragg, East Devon district councillor, writes for the Exmouth Journal.

EILEEN WRAGG www.exmouthjournal.co.uk 

It is sometimes surprising how people and groups from different sectors can, with commitment, join forces and work together, and achieve results which work for the benefit of others.

I recall becoming aware of the unfair charges levied on water customers following the privatisation of the water industry in 1989, when companies replaced the water authorities, issuing shares which ensured investment in the world of water supply and sewage treatment for good financial returns.

This was not good for the six per cent domestic customer base who were supplied with meters in the early 1990s, of which I was one, and I quickly realised that my water bill was almost double that of unmetered customers who could use limitless amounts of water for a fixed price, while I had to ration my family’s use.

I eventually began a campaign against South West Water’s (SWW) charges, which grew into a national movement, attracting huge press, radio and television coverage.

The results were surprising, SWW was receiving hostile publicity which was feared to be affecting its investors and share dividends, so it decided to set up a Devon and Cornwall Customer Consultative Group, of which I became chair, and then a Special Assistance Fund which helped customers in water debt – that later became WaterSure, now outsourced to Citizens Advice.

Along with other customers, we worked well together with the company, for the mutual benefit of both sides.

Now, customers are being offered the choice of shares in SWW, or a £20 discount on their bills.

What a long way we’ve come!

The outcome personally was that I was asked to stand for local elections in 1996, and the rest is history, albeit still in the making.

I am still a Liberal Democrat district councillor, and in the spring this year, the Democratic Alliance was formed with the East Devon Alliance, Greens, Lib Dems and an Independent joining together, breaking over 45 years of Tory rule at East Devon District Council.

I am delighted to report that we now have a healthy administration and work extremely well together in a truly harmonious way.

As the late MP Jo Cox said in her maiden speech: “There is far more that unites us, and we have more in common than things that divide.”

“… the Health Secretary, ‘in trademark pantomime dame-style, cracked a gag about how he’d stand everybody a drink but as PHE was keeping a count, he’d never have to pay up. It did get quite a laugh’.”

By Brendan Carlin Glen Owen for The Mail on Sunday www.dailymail.co.uk 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock was last night accused of breaking his own Covid curfew by drinking in a Commons bar beyond 10pm – where he made a crass joke about the Government’s test and trace failings. 

Mr Hancock arrived at the bar just before a 9.40pm vote, ordered a glass of white wine and announced: ‘The drinks are on me – but Public Health England are in charge of the payment methodology so I will not be paying anything.’ 

His ill-conceived joke came after he had tried to explain to the Commons why the quango had lost nearly 16,000 positive coronavirus tests – a fiasco which Labour claimed had put ‘lives at risk’. 

A senior Tory MP told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock remained in the Smoking Room bar until at least 10.25pm, despite Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle insisting that Commons venues must abide by the same 10pm drink-up-and-leave curfew as all English pubs. 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock was last night accused of breaking his own Covid curfew by drinking in a Commons bar beyond 10pm – where he made a crass joke about the Government’s test and trace failings

In a carefully worded statement last night, a spokesman for the Health Secretary said: ‘No rules have been broken. 

‘The Secretary of State was in the Smoking Room prior to the vote that evening. 

‘The Secretary of State left the Smoking Room to vote. The vote took place at 9:42pm. ‘The Secretary of State then departed the Parliamentary estate to go home.’ 

Asked whether Mr Hancock had returned to the bar after voting and before he went home, the spokesman failed to respond. 

The Health Secretary is seen as the leading pro-lockdown ‘dove’ in the Cabinet, enthusiastically backing the curfew measures. 

Mr Hancock arrived at the bar just before a 9.40pm vote and ordered a glass of white wine

This is increasingly angering ‘hawks’ such as Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who fear the lasting economic damage being caused by stringent Covid rules. 

Other Tory MPs present in the Smoking Room on Monday have privately admitted still being in the room with drinks on their table after 10pm. 

Last night, Charles Walker, the Tory MP overseeing Commons bars, promised an investigation into claims that the curfew was not being observed. 

Mr Walker, chairman of the Commons’ Administration Committee, told The Mail on Sunday that he would now be ‘talking to senior management within the catering department’. 

He insisted it was up to fellow MPs to obey the rules, not rely on staff to tell them. 

But he added that if alcoholic drinks ‘are being consumed in our bars after 10pm, then those instances need to stop’. 

Last night the Health Secretary was under pressure to apologise over his ‘tasteless’ joke about Public Health England (PHE). 

Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ Health spokesman, said: ‘If these tasteless remarks are accurate, he must apologise. Matt Hancock has no shame. 

‘Thanks to his incompetence, we have a failing test-and-trace system which has left thousands mourning loved ones and millions worrying about their livelihoods as they face yet further lockdown measures. 

‘Instead of taking responsibility, he’s making jokes at their expense and blaming everyone for his incompetence. The British public will not forget.’ 

Mr Hancock’s spokesman declined to comment on the remark, which came just a few hours after the Minister faced a barrage of questions in the Commons over PHE’s failure to report 15,841 positive coronavirus tests in England, and fears that it meant 50,000 potentially infectious people had failed to be reached by contract tracers. 

Mr Hancock admitted the blunder ‘should never have happened.’ 

The extraordinary allegations that he broke the curfew come as Boris Johnson faces a mounting Tory rebellion over the rules, which critics claim are ineffective and killing jobs and businesses without stopping the spread of the virus. 

Sources say Mr Hancock joined about 20 other MPs in the Smoking Room on Monday evening, where he ordered a glass of French sauvignon blanc and made his joke. 

One person present described how the Health Secretary, ‘in trademark pantomime dame-style, cracked a gag about how he’d stand everybody a drink but as PHE was keeping a count, he’d never have to pay up. It did get quite a laugh.’ 

Mr Hancock left the room for a 9.42pm vote, but one person present claimed that Mr Hancock had later returned and stayed beyond 10pm. 

Another, more junior, Minister ordered a bottle of wine at 9.59pm and stayed drinking it with colleagues, the source said. 

Mr Hancock is also said to have ordered a large glass of white wine not long before the bar shut at 10pm and then stayed on to drink it. 

‘He wasn’t the only one – some people were still ordering bottles of wine right up to the deadline,’ said one MP. 

‘However, it was extraordinary that at 10.25pm our Health Secretary – the man who maybe more than Boris himself has lectured the nation about respecting the Covid rules – was knocking back a glass of vino when out in the real world, drinkers and diners had been kicked out of pubs and restaurants across England. 

‘Everyone is panicking and trying to cover for Matt, but I know what I saw and I can tell the time.’

Britain is set to be left without an environment watchdog to replace the EU’s at the end of the Brexit transition period, because of government “dither and delay” over legislation.

www.independent.co.uk

Ministers’ flagship Environment Bill was supposed to establish a new enforcement structure for environmental regulations in time for the end of December, when EU rules stop applying.

But repeated delays to the legislation mean there is no longer enough parliamentary time for the bill to pass into law before 1 January – leaving a gaping chasm in environmental enforcement.

Environmental groups said the bill was “the most important piece of environmental law of the last decade” and that the delays would likely lead to extra environmental harm.  

“Boris Johnson’s government seems to be treating the Environment Bill like an essay crisis,” said Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK.

“Delaying this vital piece of legislation until the last minute could lead to less scrutiny, fewer chances to improve it and a cliff edge in the environmental safeguards and their enforcement once EU rules no longer apply.”

She called for a “powerful, independent watchdog that can hold ministers’ feet to the fire when it comes to protecting the living world”.      

After the resumption of parliamentary business in the summer, bills on immigration, trade, pensions, and the Commonwealth Games were all brought back before MPs – but the environment bill has yet to be so.

The government has extended the bill’s timetable three times, and Labour says the latest schedule means MPs will not be able to give it detailed scrutiny until 1 December – the start of a process that takes months.

Luke Pollard, Labour’s shadow environment secretary, said: “The government’s dither and delay highlights a worrying lack of focus on the urgent need to protect our environment. We cannot afford any more government incompetence. Ministers need to act now.”

The government says it is committed to resuming passage of the bill. A Defra spokesperson said: “We are committed to a greener future, which is why we are setting ambitious goals for nature and biodiversity in our landmark Environment Bill, as well as introducing new ways to reward farmers for protecting the environment and investing £640m in the Nature for Climate Fund.

“We remain the first major economy to legislate for net zero, and as we build back greener from the coronavirus pandemic we are committed to shaping a cleaner and more resilient society.”

The UK left the EU earlier this year, but the Brexit transition period under which all EU rules continue to apply to Britain is set to end on 31 December. The EU and UK are trying to negotiate a free trade agreement before this date to facilitate trade. 

Meddling with Brexit, mulling a new leader – the Tories will do literally anything except reflect on their Covid response

Marina Hyde www.theguardian.com 

Another week, another opportunity to wonder if the country has slipped through a tear in the government-Covid continuum. It was back in March, you might recall, that Boris Johnson explained we would turn the tide on the coronavirus in 12 weeks, despite the fact that people as clinically clueless as even me could see that would not be the case. This was partly why so many Britons went into a deep psychiatric decline a fortnight ago, when Johnson suddenly dropped the “six months of restrictions” bomb. Given his history of hopelessly optimistic margins of error, that could mean we’ll be out of the woods as early as 2036.

Apologies for jumping around the timeline. Having forecast the tide-turning, Johnson then explained of the virus that he was “absolutely confident” that we could “send it packing in this country”. Strangely, it still appears to be with us. Then again, perhaps we and Johnson understand different things by the phrase “sent packing”. For many years, Johnson’s experience of being “sent packing” meant he was readmitted to the family home in fairly short order, allowing him to make some more promises to break when he next felt like it. If it helps, think of the virus as the sexually incontinent husband in the nation’s spare room. “You have to believe me, love – I’ve CHANGED.”

Anyhow, the prime minister’s next unforced decision to make himself a hostage to fortune came in July, when he announced we could be moving away from social-distancing measures by November, with “a more significant return to normality” possible in time for Christmas. And yet, as we approach the midpoint of October, and with apologies for sliding into epidemiological technicalese … are we bollocks.

On Thursday, Nadine Dorries – an absolute primo candidate for being against all restrictions were she not greasy-poleing it as junior health minster – warned that ICUs risk being overwhelmed in 10 days time, while some Sage members cast our current situation as equivalent to the crucial (and squandered) mid-March moment.

Nevertheless, the government dithers. Restrictions are coming, yet the restrictions have not quite come. We learn about the future from newspaper leaks, which is also where local mayors and authorities glean information as to what central government has decided for them. A totally self-defeating time-lag seems to be the government’s comfort zone. The decisive action that many believe is required is once again deferred, in order to manage aspects of the politics. Because of that, much more draconian measures than would otherwise have been necessary become unavoidable further down the line. Once again, we are behind the curve, falling between every stool.

Why does this keep happening? Unfortunately, we won’t know, because despite the entreaties from political friends as well as those on the other side of the divide, Johnson’s administration resisted absolutely all suggestions that it should hold a brisk inquiry into how we handled the first wave of coronavirus, in order that we might be better prepared going into the second.

This does seem a puzzle, given that it is supposed to be a highly sophisticated, data-driven government, at least according to that chief incel to the prime minister, Dominic Cummings. Indeed, without wishing to put the cat among the skunkworks, it’s almost as if the government can’t face any form of self-awareness. Analysis-wise, we’re on the level of the armchair football pundit whose verdict is that England just didn’t play with enough “passion” during the first wave. At the end of the day, the virus just wanted it more.

The period we might have used to interrogate the first-wave response was instead lavished on such things as relitigating even the bits of Brexit they had agreed to, and deciding to reorganise the civil service.

Perhaps displacement activities are cheaper by the dozen. Because the other topic of conversation in Westminster is the Tory succession – born of the fact that Johnson isn’t working out as some in his party had hoped. Remember: there is literally NO time the Conservative party would regard as “not really the moment, babe” for a discussion about who’s best placed to lead it next. There is honestly no horseman of the apocalypse who could be charging us down in a manner so ferocious it would preclude the discussion. A nuclear ash cloud could be falling and people would be going “in the tearoom, there is concern about whether Gove has that quality to reach beyond the nutter base”, or “Rishi gets it: he always returns calls and really seems to listen”.

Or to put it another way, you could be staring down the barrel of a deadly pandemic winter and people would still be volunteering opinions like, “I actually think it’ll play well for her that Priti always looks like a firstborn toddler unable to conceal her delight at having finally done it in the potty.”

At some level, you have to marvel at this Conservative unit’s regenerative capacity. No matter how badly it implodes, it somehow gets back up again and rebuilds itself while it’s walking back towards you, twice as pissed off as it was before. If only it applied the same urgency to protecting those it was elected to serve – but of course, one can’t have everything.

• Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist

Hannah Corfield sidmouth.nub.news 

A community-focussed café in Sidmouth’s town centre is disputing a decision to prohibit the continued use of a stretch of pavement for outdoor seating.

A temporary pavement licence was issued to The Dairy Shop on Church Street back in July, as a special measure to help the local hospitality sector reopen after lockdown.

Devon County Council Highways Management who hold responsibility for pavement licensing have rejected an application for the permit to be renewed.

Having relied on the extra seating for the past three months, the decision came as a shock to business owner, John Hammond, who told us: “Having tables and chairs outside of our small café space, in this current climate of fear around coronavirus, is crucial for us.

“The arrangement has worked perfectly well up to now – enabling us to stay afloat as a business – providing jobs and serving the local community throughout the pandemic.

“Sidmouth Town Council has also actively supported our cause and spoken out about the ‘unfair’ refusal.”

In response, a Devon County Council spokesperson said: “The footway in this location is restricted and it’s unusual to grant a licence on the opposite side of the road from a premises.

“But, because it was within social distancing measures being promoted by the Town Council, and had the support of the local member Councillor Stuart Hughes, we made an exception in this case and a provisional licence was granted until the end of September.

“Unfortunately, the applicant then placed additional seating outside the agreed area.

“We advised him that further breaches would lead to the licence being revoked and asked that the extra seating be removed.

“Then, outside of what was agreed, the removed seating was put back and additional parasols were added to the tables.

“This resulted in several complaints being received by the Authority, which impacted on adjacent businesses and effectively reduced the width of the highway.

“It is not a ‘right’ to occupy the highway, but a concession granted by the Highway Authority for community benefit.”

TOP STORY in Today’s Western Morning News:  The Westcountry stands to lose hundreds of acres of countryside under concrete if proposed Government changes to the way housing need is calculated go ahead, a rural pressure group warns today, reports Philip Bowern.

Countryside groups in Devon and Cornwall are demanding changes to the Government’s proposed shake-up of planning laws, warning it will lead to the concreting over of large parts of the region’s rural acres.

The CPRE countryside charity branches in both counties are joining forces to protest at the shake-up, which is part of the Prime Minister’s plan to re-build Britain after coronavirus and solve the housing crisis.

Cornwall CPRE chair Richard Stubbs has already warned a one-size-fits all policy leaves the county open to a developers’ free-for-all.

Now research from neighbouring Devon CPRE shows that the algorithm devised by ministers to replace local input into setting levels of housing need will see a 60% increase in the number of properties built in the Devon countryside.

Some of the most beautiful landscapes, in the South Hams, Teignbridge, North Devon, Mid-Devon and East Devon would be hardest it, the CPRE’s director in Devon Penny Mills warns.

She said: “To deliver the type of homes we need at the pace we need them, the government should abandon centralised housing targets and ensure planning remains locally led, with local authorities and communities empowered to have a say in what gets built where.”

Conservative MPs, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and her former deputy, Damian Green – both now on the back benches – have also warned against the policy change.

Mrs May told a House of Commons debate it would fail to deliver the homes needed.