Now even The Times is questioning (rail) privatisation …

… but blaming underinvestment – not the privatisation process which was supposed to lead to MORE investment:

“When Grant Shapps was appointed secretary of state for transport last month, he used social media to express his view of the railway network that had become his responsibility. “As a very frustrated 6 trains per day commuter for the past few years, I’m delighted to be appointed transport secretary,” he wrote. He used a screaming-face emoji to convey his horror of travelling by train from his constituency of Welwyn, which was hit by the Thameslink timetable chaos last year.

Mr Shapps’ dread of British trains will be shared by many who rely on the network. Trains in Britain are often extortionately priced, delayed and overcrowded. Compensation forms are too complex. By proportion of salary, British commuters pay five times as much for tickets as the rest of Europe. Little wonder then that passengers (including those who are old enough to remember a pitiful state-run railway industry) are coming out in favour of renationalisation. A poll last year showed that 64 per cent of the public favoured taking the network back into public hands.

Yesterday, the future of Britain’s rail system was cast into further doubt when the government scrapped a competition to run Southeastern, one of the country’s busiest commuter lines. Mr Shapps cancelled the process amid concerns over escalating costs and uncertainty that the operator would achieve benefits for passengers. His decision calls into question other contracts, including the forthcoming competition to run trains on HS2 and the west coast mainline.

Passengers frustrated with Britain’s second-rate railways crave a dramatic solution. In contrast to its constructive ambiguity over Brexit, Labour’s position on the railway network appears clear. If elected the party would bring rail franchises back into public ownership when they expired, if not before.

Yet nationalisation would not release the railways from the morass they find themselves in. The network was beset with problems when it was privatised under John Major’s government after years of underinvestment. To nationalise now would cost a fortune. Taxpayers already bear a large burden of the costs, given that Network Rail, which runs the country’s tracks and biggest stations, is publicly owned. To expect taxpayers to foot the whole bill would be unfair.

Instead, improvements must be made urgently to the system we already have. A review of the railways led by Keith Williams, the former chief executive of British Airways, is expected to be published this year. Mr Williams has previously proposed that a “Fat Controller-type” figure should oversee the day-to-day running of services. That is worth exploring, but he must offer ways to tackle two significant problems facing the rail industry right now.

First, the unsatisfactory relationship between tracks and trains. At present trains run on tracks that operators have no responsibility for. It is the passenger, ultimately, who pays for the lack of joined-up thinking. Second, the problem of dwindling competition. When companies were first allowed to bid for rail franchises they did so in their droves. Now, as few as two companies typically bid to run a franchise, leading to slipping standards. The Department for Transport issues detailed demands for operators, setting out the number of trains they must run per hour. Operators are being micromanaged. Yet overcrowding, disruption and high prices mean that growth in passenger numbers has slowed. The time has come to give them more freedom to innovate.

Mr Shapps should focus now not on cancelling other contests to run rail services, but on making the current system fit for purpose. The public’s faith in the country’s privatised rail network is waning. It is up to the government to remind passengers of why nationalisation is not the solution.”

Source:Times (pay wall)

Yet another electoral roll mess up

From a correspondent:

As both my kids will be at university this autumn, they decided to apply for postal votes. I downloaded the application form but the return address on it is still The Knowle at Sidmouth. Whilst it may be an oversight on EDDC’s part, the cynic in me wonders if this is perhaps a cunning ploy to disenfranchise those in my daughters’ positions who are studying out of area, but still want a say in what happens.

As it is, I have saved the reply paid envelope from the application which has the Honition address on it and will use that instead. East Devon will pay for it, rather than me, and hopefully the form will arrive safely.

EDDC moved its HQ in February 2019. It seems our Electoral Officer (CEO Mark Williams, for an extra fee, of course) didn’t update the registration website – perhaps too busy having unminuted meetings with developers …

We must hope that mail is still being redirected and that ALL of it arrives at its new address …

“Have your say on the Jurassic Coast’s future” [suggestion: new National Park]

Now Mr Diviani is no longer leader of EDDC perhaps the idea of a Jurassic National Park can be resuscitated – he and his council were against this as they didn’t want to lose their control over planning (over-developing) the site:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/10/09/new-national-park-for-east-devon-not-while-people-like-diviani-are-councillors/

And surely we are not in the situation of caring what our CEO then and now thinks?

“The public is being asked to help draw up a new blueprint for the future management of the Jurassic Coast.

https://jurassiccoast.org/what-is-the-jurassic-coast/world-heritage/looking-after-the-jurassic-coast/partnership-plan-consultation/

The survey is here:

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/QLGGNSD

The trust which manages the site, stretching from Exmouth, in East Devon, to Studland, in Dorset, is creating a new partnership plan document in collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders.

It will be published towards the end of this year and will guide management of the World Heritage Site over the next five years.

The plan will take in conservation and preservation of the site, how the site impacts on the local economy and how it can play an active role in the lives of local communities.

As part of the creation of the new partnership plan, a consultation process is being untaken from now until the end of September.

A spokesman for the Jurassic Coast Trust said: “The new partnership plan is an important document, representing a tangible expression of the partnership that looks after the Jurassic Coast.

“It explains the reasons for the Jurassic Coast’s World Heritage designation, and how it is protected and managed.

“It also outlines the aims, policies, actions and aspirations for managing the site over the coming years.”

The partnership plan is a formal requirement and will replace the current site management plan, which, along with a copy of the new draft plan, can be seen by clicking on the Trust’s website here Alternatively a copy can be requested by telephoning the Trust’s office on 01308 807000.

People going online can contribute their views directly or they can download a printed version of the survey to fill in later.

The completed surveys should be sent directly to the

Jurassic Coast Trust,
email at:
info@jurassiccoast.org

or by post to:

Partnership Plan Consultation,
Jurassic Coast Trust,
Mountfield,
Bridport,
Dorset DT6 3JP

The Jurassic Coast Trust will also be running drop-in consultation sessions across the World Heritage Site area in September. Dates and venues will be announced towards the end of this month.

The deadline for responses to the survey is Friday, October 4. All comments received as part of the consultation will be collated. A report will be produced by the Jurassic Coast Partnership detailing the responses and indicating how the plan will be subsequently amended.

The report will be made available online and to anyone who has asked to be sent updates on the progress of the plan.

Once an amended version of the plan is agreed by the Jurassic Coast Partnership and approved by Historic England, it will be adopted by Dorset Council and Devon County Council before being formally submitted to DCMS and UNESCO.”

https://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/consultation-on-management-of-the-jurassic-coast-1-6203990

Clinton Devon Estates: “‘Deceit and lies’ – Councillors speak out Newton Poppleford GP campaign looks to be over”

Wonder if EDDC’s CEO had any private advice for CDE?

This has gone into the most spectacular orbit of deceit and betrayal in the planning system.”

Those are the words of one councillor as the district authority agreed at a meeting on Tuesday (August 6) not to fight a developer’s appeal over a Newton Poppleford site.

Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) lodged an appeal after East Devon District Council (EDDC) delayed a decision on an application to build two homes on land originally earmarked for a GP surgery.

A wider plan for a 40-home development at King Alfred Way, including a doctors’ surgery, was approved in 2013. CDE was unable to find a tenant, so instead applied to build two more homes.

At that stage the parish council expressed an interest in running the surgery.

EDDC twice delayed a decision – the second to allow the parish council to meet with the developer to find a solution.

The developer lodged an appeal with the planning inspector, who will now also decide whether the council should pay costs.

Planning officers recommended the authority should not fight the appeal arguing the surgery was not ‘legally justifiable’. Councillors voted by seven votes to five not to fight it.

Councillor Mike Howe, chairman of the development management committee, told the meeting CDE had acted ‘atrociously’ and could not be considered an ‘ethical or nice developer’.

Cllr Olly Davey said, unless ‘legally enforceable’, ‘any promise that a developer makes is not worth the paper it is written on’.

Councillor Paul Arnott put forward a motion to reject the application, on the grounds the developer had failed in its ‘commitment’ to deliver the surgery – but it was thrown out by seven votes to four.

Councillor Paul Arnott said the application was the most ‘spectacular orbit of deceit and betrayal’ and the council should mount a challenge despite the costs. He said: “It’s so mired in lies and deceit going back years, betrayal, treachery, accusations of wording.

“We cannot afford, as a rule, to be spending council taxpayers’ money on appeals we may not win, but on this occasion we have to. It is a notorious case and we have to draw a line.”

Cllr Eileen Wragg said the committee needed a ‘damn good reason’ not to agree with the officers’ report.

Council officer Henry Gordon-Lennox, strategic lead, said nothing in planning law could stop the developer applying for a different use of them land, despite the original plan for a surgery.

He said: “I do absolutely understand the frustration and the annoyance and the disappointment, but from our point of view as officers there is nothing to defend precluding them from doing this, unpalatable as that may be.”

CDE was represented at the meeting Amy Roberts, who said there has never been a planning justification for the surgery, within the original plan. She said CDE did not want to appeal, but that the developer’s ‘hands were somewhat forced’ by the non-determination, despite planners’ recommendations.”

https://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/clinton-devon-estates-slammed-for-newton-poppleford-homes-plan-1-6203178

Survey on local health services

Please do fill in this survey – it has a lot of open-ended questions about what you think – but remember this survey is about cuts so it needs to be emphasised that cuts are not the answer – increased funding IS.

From the blog of Claire Wright, Independent Parliamentary candidate for East Devon:

“The local NHS says there’s a funding shortfall so is asking people their views…

The local NHS – Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (NEW Devon CCG) – is asking Devon residents their views on health services, after outlining in a presentation sent to councillors, information about a funding shortfall, workforce shortages, a population increase and lengthening waiting times.

They say:

One in 10 nurse jobs and 1 in 12 social worker posts in Devon remain vacant as demand for services increase.
There have been increases in NHS funding, but peoples’ needs for services are growing faster
Devon is struggling to provide timely access to services. In addition, a rise of conditions like cancer, heart disease and dementia will put the health and social care system under more pressure unless more flexible, joined up approaches are taken
The county’s population will rise by about 33,000 people equivalent to the population of Exmouth over the next five years
The number of people aged over 85 in Devon will double in the next 20 years. W e need to be able to offer all the services they need as an even greater priority
The CCG says it does not have all the funding it needs to deliver the ‘current models of service provision.’

Here’s the link to the questionnaire. It closes on 5 September.

I urge you to complete the survey.

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/BetterDevon

For a full copy of the briefing contact Ross.Jago@nhs.net”

The local NHS says there’s a funding shortfall so is asking people their views…

Register to vote NOW

With rumours of a general election getting stronger, now is the time to register to vote if you have not already done so.

It takes less than five minutes of your time to do it online at:

https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

“Johnson’s NHS cash ‘money trusts already have’ “

“Much of the £1.8bn for NHS infrastructure announced by Boris Johnson is money providers already have, health experts have said.

On Sunday the government announced the cash injection, which consists of £1bn in capital spending for infrastructure projects and around £850m to upgrade existing outdated facilities and equipment.

The £850m will be available for 20 hospitals in England over a five-year period while the £1bn will be used to tackle a backlog of maintenance issues this year.

Although the government has repeatedly claimed this was ‘new’ money, health experts have said it was mainly giving trusts permission to spend cash they already have.

Dr Eleanor Roy, health and social care policy manager at CIPFA, said: “It should be noted that more than half of this ‘boost’ to the NHS represents cash that many NHS providers already have.”

The prime minister’s announcement “merely raises the capital Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) threshold for the health services overall”, she said. …”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/08/johnsons-nhs-cash-money-trusts-already-have

No “new” hospital money for Devon

The “new” money for hospitals, announced by Boris Johnson, is actually money for projects already agreed but where funding had not been released. Suddenly the “magic money tree” has sprouted new leaves and plans for 20 projects are being given the go-ahead.

None are in Devon.

Most are in leave constituencies.

“Boris Johnson will upgrade hospitals in Leave-voting seats as he attempts to see off the electoral threat from the Brexit Party.

The Prime Minister has announced a £850million funding boost to add hundreds of new hospital beds and improve facilities in 20 hospitals across the country.

The money, which will be spent predominantly in Leave-voting constituencies, is part of a £1.8billion funding boost for the NHS, in addition to the £20bn a year Theresa May pledged for the NHS.

The new money will be funded by dipping into Philip Hammond’s £26.6billion “fiscal headroom”, a Downing Street spokesman said. …”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/04/boris-johnson-pledges-hospital-upgrades-leave-voting-seats-attempts/

The East Devon electoral roll – is it up-to-date and fit for purpose this time round?

Householders are currently receiving a form from EDDC about checking that the household occupants are registered to vote.

It comes with a prepaid envelope and an alternative option to complete online. If you choose the latter, one can end up being told the information has already been supplied. The wording implies the visit to the website may have been unnecessary.

If it WAS unnecessary then itis a waste of time and money – or perhaps the wording could be more appropriate if it WAS necessary?

One wonders about the scale of this and whether it really is necessary to ensure inclusion on the electoral roll? Perhaps CEO Mark Williams’ (Election Officer, for an extra fee and staff budget) ought perhaps to be better targeting – making extra sure he doesn’t “lose” another 6,000 or more voters like he did in the next-to-last general election.

Home visits to addresses in ever-spreading Cranbrook might be a good idea along with some of the other large new estates that have sprung up all over East Devon since the last election (there must be hundreds of new households). How many of those, in the current political climate, might prefer a candidate other than incumbent Tory Swire and where a few hundred votes mught be crucial?

And he doesn’t have the excuse of it being too dark at night for his canvassers to go out … like he said when he tried to explain to Parliament why telephone contact (sometimes to people newly arrived in the area where their telephone numbers would not usually be known, or these days where they are likely to have only mobile phones) was more preferablethan canvassing

Which you can read about here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/10/13/highlights-of-mr-williams-audio-transcript-of-evidence-to-the-parliamentary-select-committee-on-voter-engagement/

Scrutiny definitely needed this time around … where the stakes are so very high.

Brexit: Threat to exams and school meals (THAT wasn’t on the bus!)

“Schools may have to close, exams could be disrupted and fresh food for pupils’ meals could run short because of panic buying with prices soaring by up to 20%, according to a secret Department for Education analysis of the risks of a no-deal Brexit obtained by the Observer.

The five-page document – marked “Official Sensitive” and with the instruction “Do Not Circulate” – also raises the possibility of teacher absences caused by travel disruption, citing schools in Kent as particularly at risk.

On the dangers of food shortages to schools, it suggests that informing the public of the risks could make matters even worse.

In a section entitled School Food, it talks of the “risk that communications in this area could spark undue alarm or panic food buying among the general public”.

And it adds: “Warehousing and stockpiling capacity will be more limited in the pre-Xmas period. The department has limited levers to address these risks. We are heavily dependent on the actions of major suppliers and other government departments to ensure continued provision.”

Listing the actions the department would take in the event of food shortages affecting schools, the document says: “In light of any food shortages or price increases we will communicate how schools can interpret the food menu standards flexibly. DfE may make exceptional payments – or submit a prepared bid to HM Treasury for additional funding. Worst case scenario estimate of the increased costs – £40 to £85m a year for schools in relation to free school meal provision based on price increases of 10-20%,p. ….”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/03/secret-education-report-no-deal-brexit-school-chaos?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Johnson countrywide broadband fibre promise totally unachievable

Owl says: What planet is this man living on? Planet Trump?

“The UK’s telecoms industry has issued the prime minister a challenge of its own after Boris Johnson said he wanted full-fibre broadband “for all” by 2025.

An open letter says the target is possible, but only if the government tackles four problems causing delays.

It adds that all of the issues must be resolved “within the next 12 months” to achieve the high-speed internet goal.

But one expert said at least one of the measures was unachievable in that time frame.

Mr Johnson originally declared his desire to deliver the 100% rollout of fibre-optic broadband to properties across the UK “in five years at the outside” in an article for the Telegraph published before he won the leadership vote.

In it, he described the government’s former target of 2033 as being “laughably unambitious”.

The letter sent to 10 Downing Street lists four policies that the industry says require urgent attention:

Planning reform – at present telecom providers need to get a type of permission known as a “wayleave agreement” to get access to land and buildings to install cables. But in many cases property owners are unresponsive. The industry wants ministers to force landlords to provide access if a tenant has requested a full-fibre or other connection be installed

Fibre tax – the so-called tax refers to the fact that fibre infrastructure currently has business rates applied to it, just like other commercial property. The industry claims this discourages investment and should be rethought

New builds – the government has carried out a consultation into whether new-build home developments must incorporate gigabit-capable internet connections, but has yet to publish its response. In the meantime, the industry says too many new homes are still being developed without provision for fibre broadband

Skills – a large number of engineers will be required to carry out all the work involved. BT and Virgin Media have previously warned that Brexit could result in labour shortages. The industry says more money must be committed to training, and it must also be allowed to continue to “compete for global talent”

“Nationwide full fibre coverage is not a can that can be kicked down the road,” the letter concludes.

“Work needs to start now, and 100% fibre coverage requires a 100% commitment from government.”

The letter has been signed by the chair of the Internet Services Providers Association, the interim chief executive of the Federation of Communication Services and the chief executive of the Independent Networks Co-operative Association.

Their members include BT, Openreach, Sky, Gigaclear, CityFibre, Hyperoptic, Virgin Media, Google and Vodafone among many others.

Openreach, which maintains the UK’s digital network infrastructure, said it welcomed the government’s ambition but warned: “Upgrading the entire UK network is a major civil engineering challenge.”

It urged the government to “boost the build” by “creating an environment that encourages greater investment”.

Number 10 referred the BBC to the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for comment. …”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49209013

“All English councils told to appoint ‘Brexit lead’ ” [funding = £57,000 per council*]

* If all councils given an equal share – except ports of entry will probably get more so other councils will get less.

“English councils have been told to designate a “Brexit lead” to work with central government to prepare for the possibility that the UK will leave the European Union with no deal at the end of October.

But a £20m funding pledge to help authorities step up preparations was immediately described as an “insult”, as the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) was forced to concede that the full amount had already been pledged in previous announcements.

In the new policy announced on Saturday, Robert Jenrick, the recently appointed communities secretary, instructed authorities to appoint staff in every community to plan intensively for Brexit with local stakeholders.

The funding was being made available for communications as well as for recruiting and training new staff, Jenrick said.

Officials were considering how best to allocate the cash to ensure that those areas facing more acute potential stresses, such as ports of entry, get the funding they need. Shared equally, it would amount to about £57,000 for each of England’s 353 councils and combined authorities, according to the Guardian’s calculation.

The Labour MP Jess Phillips said: “The idea that £20m across the 353 main councils of England is enough to prepare is an insult to our intelligence and to the hard work of public servants struggling with the consequences of the government’s decision to force a vicious Brexit on us.”

Criticism intensified after a MHCLG spokeswoman admitted half the pledged funding comes from the chancellor Sajid Javid’s £2.1bn announcement on Thursday. The other half comes from funding announced by the department in January, she added.

“This offers no new money and no new ideas for how to address the cliff-edge councils are facing,” Andrew Gwynne, the shadow communities secretary, said.

The Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine added: “This extra money is a drop in the ocean for cash-strapped councils desperately concerned about what no-deal Brexit will mean for crucial public services in their areas.”

Councils across the country welcomed the funding but highlighted the shortfall they are already facing.

Kevin Bentley, the chairman of the Brexit taskforce at the Local Government Association, said: “With councils already facing a funding gap of more than £3bn in 2019/20, it is more important now than ever that councils receive the resources they need for their ongoing Brexit preparations.

“There remains information and advice gaps that councils are facing while helping their communities prepare, which need to be met by the government.

“Councils also need certainty to plan for their communities over the longer term, such as on the domestic replacement for EU funding.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/03/all-english-councils-told-to-appoint-brexit-lead?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Local elections: How voters in England were cheated by a broken voting system”

“Local democracy in England and Wales has long been under strain – with contests often seeing dismally low turnout, or indeed no contest taking place at all. But new research from the ERS adds fresh cause for concern.

There’s a ‘crisis of legitimacy’ for local elections in England, with the most detailed analysis of May’s elections in England yet revealing widespread disproportionality and absurd ‘wrong winner’ results.

In analysis published to mark this week’s 15 year anniversary of the introduction of proportional representation for Scottish local elections, we’ve highlighted a stark gap between the fairness of representation in Scotland and England.

In 115 English councils this May, a single party won over half the council seats up for election, despite getting fewer than half the votes in the area. This represents nearly half of all councils (46%) where local elections took place in England this year. In the most extreme case the Conservative Party took all of the seats up for election on Havant Council with just 43.9% of the vote.

Yet in the Scottish local elections in 2017 – conducted using the fairer Single Transferable Vote system – no council saw a party get more than half the seats with fewer than half the first preference votes. In other words, you only get a majority if you have majority support.

There are many other benefits to proportional representation. In many cases under First Past the Post, single-seat wards become ‘no go’ areas for other parties: the same person gets in every time, even in other parties have significant levels of support. That creates an incentive for parties to ignore areas all together and focus on ‘winnable’ seats. Voters lose out, denied a real choice.

In 2003, at the last Scottish local elections held under First Past the Post, 61 wards (5% of the total) were totally uncontested: there was only one candidate running.

In 2017 – having switched to proportional representation – there were just three uncontested wards in the whole of Scotland. Compare that with the broken winner-takes-all system in Wales where in 2017, 10.4% of Welsh council wards were uncontested.

In addition, in 17 English councils this May, the party with the largest number of votes did not secure the most seats creating ‘wrong winner’ results – a damning indictment of England’s woefully out-dated voting system.

As ERS Director of Research Dr Jess Garland noted, our analysis shows how our broken electoral system is distorting local election results. First Past the Post is delivering skewed results in over a hundred councils across the country meaning many voters’ voices are unheard.

England continues to rely on this undemocratic system for local elections, where only the votes for the top candidate to ‘get over the line’ secure representation – all others are ignored. Spread out over thousands of individual contests, this can lead to some parties being drastically over- or under-represented.

In Scotland and Northern Ireland, voters can rank candidates by preference, and ‘surplus’ votes (which would be ignored under FPTP) are redistributed according to voters’ other choices. Most advanced democracies use proportional systems where seats more closely reflect parties’ share of the vote.

It’s time we ended the broken First Past the Post system in England – a system that continues to warp our politics. A more proportional system would help open local democracy and make sure all voters’ voices are heard.

Local elections: How voters in England were cheated by a broken voting system

Lib Dems at Mid-Devon challenge developers on zero-carbon development, Tories whinge

“A motion was passed at Mid Devon District Council’s full council meeting on Wednesday, July 24, following on from the declaration of a climate emergency in June.

Developers will face a zero-carbon requirement on all future development taking place in Mid Devon.

A motion was passed at Mid Devon District Council’s full council meeting on Wednesday, July 24, following on from the declaration of a climate emergency in June.

Councillor John Downes (Boniface, Liberal Democrats) who put forward the following motion: “That this council instructs the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration to take the earliest available opportunity in planning policy terms to embed a zero-carbon requirement on all future development taking place in Mid Devon to respond to the climate emergency.”

Cllr Downes said he had wanted to word the motion so that planning which wasn’t zero-carbon would be refused as policy, and that it would be down to the planning inspector to agree to development or refuse. He added that the Chief Executive, Stephen Walford, had offered advice to defer to the head of planning to allow policy to change.

He said: “This is to make the point that we declared a zero-carbon target and any development we allow that is not zero-carbon is effectively carbon debt which is making the problem more difficult for us in the future.

“One developer, with the profit they made this year, could have made all their houses zero-carbon with the profit that they returned. The point is, if we do make the point and champion zero-carbon, technologies will need to change because that’s the way people are going to start making money and doing developments.

“It’s just about keeping it alive and making it current. I understand that policy will take time, but I think having declared a crisis, we need to show that we’re trying to do something, and planning and licensing are areas in which we can.”

However, Councillor Andrew Moore (Clare & Shuttern, Conservative) questioned whether the motion could be acted upon.

“Do we have any idea as to whether this can be done?” he said.

“An eco-home can operate carbon neutrally, and I’m advised that the likely uplifting cost to build is about 30 per cent, which of course is going to have a significant impact. That will come down in time naturally, but this is not necessarily a cheap thing to be imposing in policy.

“The thing that worries me though is what of the build cost in carbon terms? A study identified that on average, the carbon cost of simply constructing a home – forget the operational cost – is about 65 tonnes of CO2 on average. An average family car uses five tonnes per year, so that’s 13 year’s worth of car travel to build a house.

“Normally, one would amortise that over the life of the house, which is typically taken as 100 years, and how do you do that? Well a UK native tree would consume about one tonne in its whole life of 100 years, so build a house, plant 65 trees, and you know what, it equals out over time. But to be carbon neutral by 2030, that debt payoff model doesn’t work anymore because we’re saying it’s got to be neutralised at the point of the build.

“I have no idea, through my research, as to how on earth that is going to be accomplished. How at point of build, you’re going to get rid of 65 tonnes of CO2. I think it’s a great challenge and I am going to look forward to what actions and policies this motion will ultimately deliver.”

Councillor Richard Chesterton (Lower Culm, Conservative) applauded Cllr Downes for bringing the motion forward but warned that planning policy was a slow process.

He said the Council would also have to manage public expectations.

“I was at a parish council meeting recently in Uffculme where there was an assumption by members of the public that because we had made the decision we had made, that automatically a contentious planning application on the edge of the village wouldn’t happen because it wasn’t in keeping with that decision,” he said.

“I had to explain how the planning process works with policies set out at both national level and local level and that even the adopted local plan, while having some very good policies in them which will encourage the use of green technology and things like that, wouldn’t necessarily get to where you’re looking to get to, and wouldn’t necessarily be able to rely on that in their reason for why it should be turned down.

“The public expects that it will be different from the speed that we will meet, so we mustn’t get our hopes up too fast. It will also be complicated because any local plan and any planning policy that we bring forward has to be in line with national planning policies which don’t, at this moment in time, set out the same deadline and timescale that this Council has set out.

“That’s going be a stumbling block along the way. We need to be aware of that, and we need to know how the executive will push forward a planning policy that might be at odds with Government policy. It might not be of course by the time we get there.”

Cllr Chesterton quizzed the cabinet member for planning and economic generation, Councillor Graeme Barnell, (Newbrooke, Liberal Democrats) about a timescale, and whether or not the Council would have to introduce a revised Local Plan at the earliest opportunity.

He added: “Would it be through a revised local plan at the earliest available opportunity, or would it be just through maybe a revised development management policies? And what timescale do you see it being able to come forward?”

Cllr Barnell replied: “We haven’t been idle as a cabinet in responding to the green agenda. We have been very active in thinking through our policies, but as you quite rightly point out, there are a number of constraints including Government policies that are pre-existing and the plans we’ve inherited from the previous administration.

“We’re looking at a greener Devon policy which the biggest single thing we can do in making practical steps towards zero-carbon. We are looking to get people out of their cars, get people working locally, sustain the rural economy, plant trees and hedgerows. These are long term, not short term fixes. They are long term answers to a chronic problem.

“We have to take every practical step within our planning policies to be able to implement this, not just indulge in wishful thinking. We’re going ahead with careful thought about this and how it will impact on the Cullompton Garden Village, the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension and making sure we have a mixed development with local jobs that aren’t reliant on commuting, that is reliant on high-quality local jobs that people don’t have to get in their cars to go to.

“Reducing car journeys, so people don’t have to take their children to school are really important issues, and they may sound small, but they’re an important contribution to implementing the climate change agenda, and they will be filtering through as soon as possible into local planning policy.

“The last thing we want to do is tinker with the Local Plan. The Local Plan has been subjected to repeated delays; we want to see it across the line. We will be bringing forward changes to local planning policies in line with our greener Devon agenda and moving towards sustainable local Devon communities and more details soon, you will be being asked to consider those.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/zero-carbon-requirement-imposed-future-3167887

We will all make Boris Johnson much richer, whatever happens …

Well, it makes a change from blaming immigrants and asylum-seekers for pocketing our cash.

“Taxpayers face handing millionaire Boris Johnson a huge annual fund for life – even if he’s forced out by Christmas.

The Mirror has confirmed he can claim a bumper public duties fund after he leaves office, no matter how little time he spends in No10.

That means we could start handing the Prime Minister the full Public Duty Cost Allowance even if he is dumped in a no confidence vote or a general election this Autumn.

The Old Etonian also stands to trouser a £18,860 severance payment for leaving as PM – on top of the £16,876 he pocketed for quitting as Foreign Secretary last year.

But he’d miss out on a special Prime Ministerial pension worth half his salary, as the bumper packages were scrapped in 2013….

The fund is currently worth £115,000 a year and every living ex-PM, plus Nick Clegg who qualifies specially, claimed more than £110,000 each last year.

Sir John Major, 76, claimed £114,935 despite leaving No10 22 years ago.

But all those men served for more than two years each, most of them much longer, while Boris Johnson has a fragile Commons majority of one.

The PM risks being ousted within months if his bids to ram though a Brexit deal – or a No Deal – end in failure.

Meanwhile Mr Johnson made around £750,000 in earnings outside his job as an MP in the 12 months before becoming PM. …

The Cabinet Office did not clarify whether the PDCA covers any security or safety measures for ex-PMs, but pointed us to public documents that say it pays for “necessary office costs and secretarial costs”.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-set-huge-fund-18812778

EDDC “Independent” Leader firmly nails his colours (blue?) to his CEOs mast

 

Owl sees no “misunderstanding”.

Another “TiggerTory” policy?

And what does Mr Marchant, the person accused of being “misunderstood” – and Ford’s QC who perpetuated the “misunderstanding” several times at the public inquiry – think about this?

And where’s Councillor Hughes’s explanation for not sharing information about the meeting with other councillors, particularly those on the Development Management Committee – or did he share it with only a select few of his colleagues?

Remember, the Development Management Committee is a STATUTORY committee with rules and regulations … and it must NOT be subjected to party whipping or interference, nor must they “avoid undue contact with interested parties”.

Click to access planning-committee-manage-1cd.pdf

Wright v Swire – this must be a straight contest

In the light of the by-election last night, which saw the strongest pro-Remain candidate win against the incumbent Conservative, Lib Dems and Greens shoyld surely ensure that Claire Wright, who embodies all their policies, must be allowed a straight run against the risible Hugo Swire.

It would probably be too much to expect Labour to do the same, although they should, since their chances of gaining the seat are zero.

Let’s hope common sense prevails so that we can oust the barely seen multi-job London and Middle-East based Tory to the ever-present, ever fighting, ever-local Independent.

Officers advise councillors not to fight Clinton Devon Estates over withdrawal of Newton Poppleford doctors’ surgery in planning application

EDDC fight CDE – not on your life say officers …unless, of course, councillors instruct them to do so …

https://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/newton-poppleford-home-appeal-meeting-1-6194658