Regulator accused of ‘massaging figures’ by telling staff to pause inspections at poorly performing waste sites until January.

www.theguardian.com 

The Environment Agency told staff in September to stop inspecting the most poorly performing waste sites until January in order to meet corporate compliance targets, it can be revealed.

The regulator has been accused of “massaging the figures”, with an insider telling the Ends Report and the Guardian that a lack of resources means the body is “failing to do its statutory duty in a timely manner”.

Under the Environment Agency’s corporate targets, the regulator aims to ensure that 97% of all regulated sites, such as landfills, are complying with their permits.

In an email sent on 20 September last year, and seen by the Ends Report and the Guardian, a senior installations manager for waste sites in Nottingham emailed staff to warn that the region was at risk of missing this corporate target.

“The KPI [key performance indicator, a way companies measure performance] says that we have to have 97% of our sites in compliance band A B C, which effectively means we are ‘allowed’ no more than 3% in D E F. 3% of our sites equals 23.2 sites. Therefore we are aiming for 23 – NO MORE,” they wrote.

The agency identifies any non-compliances in the course of a calendar year and uses this information to work out a compliance rating based on a points system. Based on the cumulative score over a calendar year, each site is placed into one of six compliance bands from A to F.

Sites in bands A and B have demonstrated an expected level of permit compliance, sites in bands C and D must improve in order to achieve compliance and sites in bands E and F must significantly improve in order to achieve compliance. The score determines the level of annual subsistence fees regulated firms must pay to the Environment Agency.

In the email, the manager asked officers to “PAUSE UNTIL JAN work which is not absolutely necessary to do now”.

Responding to the email, a technical lead officer raised concerns with this plan and warned that there are already environmental problems with waste sites in the east Midlands region that could be exacerbated if they paused inspection work.

On 28 September, the junior member of staff was told by a separate team leader: “If you still feel uncomfortable with our direction when we’ve seen the reviews and reflected on our best course of action, we’d like to offer you the opportunity to work on other projects instead that have a higher priority to us to remove any conflicts that may exist for you.”

Speaking on the condition of strict anonymity, one Environment Agency insider said that this statement “upset a lot of colleagues in that office and those who work in that part of the business because the managers were basically saying: ‘We don’t care about your professional judgment, we are just chasing this number.’”

This team leader emphasised again that it was important to “maintain our D E F KPI as far as we can as it’s an externally reported KPI that is coming under heavy scrutiny at the moment”.

The direction was given to “pause any work that may foreseeably result in a site moving into D E F”.

The team leader asked the officer to “produce a forward plan” to explain what they would do to ensure the risk with the specific waste site of concern was mitigated, but said “we’d prefer this to start from January”.

“In the meantime, we can decide the best way to service the band U without setting hares off that we can’t control or haven’t the resources to deal with,” they wrote.

Band U are sites that have not been classified because they have not been inspected.

An Environment Agency insider said the fact the instruction related to the most poorly performing sites was “evil”.

“It’s saying: stop looking at the sites that we know are the worst,” they said. “This is indicative of the fact that we are failing to do our statutory duty in a timely manner. It’s a method of massaging the figures to make it appear that the situation is better than it is.

“As soon as you know that a site is causing problems then you need to deal with it. But the easy way to make that problem go away is to not see the site as a problem. The external problem hasn’t gone away, but what they’re doing here is trying not to create an internal problem by pretending they haven’t noticed the issue,” they said.

The insider said the problem was down to resourcing, and that ultimately the Environment Agency’s budget had been cut to such an extent that it was unable to regulate properly.

“By not exceeding that traffic light target in our KPIs it’s a very simplistic indicator that we as a business are not doing all the proper stuff that underpins that,” they said. “It shouldn’t just be an absolute bloody traffic light target. But the reality is that everything is broken to the extent that we are playing silly buggers with the numbers just to reach the targets we have set ourselves.”

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “These claims are incorrect – our work to regulate these sites did not stop. We are responsible for over 600 waste and installation sites in the east Midlands, and it is not unusual to prioritise work on those which pose the greatest risk to the environment, for example, those with hazardous waste.

“Last year, all these sites received their necessary inspections by our officers – and we already have compliance plans in place for the forthcoming year, to ensure they meet our high standards.”

However, the insider said that to claim all sites received their necessary inspections was “disingenuous” because the staff decided what “necessary” was.

“The subtext of that statement is that we define what necessary looks like, and what these individuals said [was] that for those poorly performing sites, we are not going to look. It’s like putting a telescope up to your blind eye and saying: ‘What signal, I see no signal,’” they said.

Commenting on the emails, Helen Venn, the chief regulatory officer at the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), the government’s post-Brexit green regulator, said: “It is crucial for all government departments and public bodies to keep accurate records. Monitoring compliance with environmental law is a critical component of effective environmental regulation. We are undertaking work to consider the implementation and effectiveness of legislative frameworks and associated arrangements in relation to compliance monitoring.”

Posted on X, a clip of the former Environment Minister admonishing Yvette Cooper that “she can’t even get the name of the country right” when she referred to the “Kigali Government” in the Rwanda debate.

No wonder our environment is so full of crap. – Owl

View the clip on X here

Cllr Chris Lockyear, Chairman, Sidmouth Town Council

Sidmouth Town Council held it January meeting on 8th January. We were delighted to welcome 4 visitors including PC Driver of Devon and Cornwall Police. Most meetings of Sidmouth Town Council are open to the public, unless confidential issues are being discussed, and we would be delighted to see more members of the public. And there is space on the agenda if you want to ask a question.

A lot of our work is done in Committees and Working Groups and we had reports from each at the meeting. The main groups are Tourism and Economy, Environment, Planning and Youth Provision. Each covers different aspects of the work of Sidmouth Town Council and in this week’s article I want to discuss some of the things related to the Environment.

The Town Council is active on various topics in relation to the Environment including climate change, natural environment, built environment and pollution.

On Climate Change we are seeking to both reduce the Council’s own carbon footprint as well as encourage residents and businesses to reduce theirs. One such initiative is the offer to residents and businesses of the Sid Valley of a free infrared (thermal imaging) camera survey of their houses or premises in order to identify possible areas of heat loss. Heat can be lost through walls, windows, doors or roofs as a result of poor insulation, poor design or poor maintenance. Not only does this involve wasted energy but also of course wasted money. We have a team of volunteers who will come to your property to take the photos and the images are then sent to you with some comments. They say a picture speaks a thousand words and these images can certainly help you understand where heat is being lost. See Council website for details.

One mitigation for climate change is the planting of trees that will absorb some of the carbon that has been emitted. Working with the Arboretum and others we plan to plant 14,000 trees in the Sid Valley, one for each resident, which will change the natural environment in the Sid Valley. We will also be doing a survey this year with the support of Sidmouth Arboretum to understand how many trees we have in the Sid Valley and what type. The Arboretum did a similar survey 10 years ago and so it will be interesting to see what has changed. In 2014 about 10 per cent of the trees were Ash but since then a lot have been felled as a result of Ash dieback.

With regard to the built environment, Sidmouth Town Council has been working with East Devon District Council on the Beach Management Plan to protect Sidmouth from the sea. Before Christmas we were delighted that the Environment Agency agreed to support the project with £15 million. This has allowed detailed design to start with a view to building additional breakwater(s), a groyne on East Beach, and a re-enforced splash wall along the Promenade, raised somewhat at the eastern end. Once installed, this should reduce the risk of flooding significantly for decades to come.

Along with many residents Sidmouth Town Council has been concerned about the discharge of untreated sewage to our river and into the sea via the Combined Sewage Overflows (CSOs). We have been working with South West Water and others to highlight the problems and to find solutions. South West Water has committed to spend around £10 million over the next couple of years to address the issue. We are one of only two towns in the South West to get this accelerated spend.

The key issue is that clean water is getting into the sewers which cannot cope with the extra load. The excess diluted sewage then has to be discharged untreated into the river or sea. South West Water has been undertaking CCTV surveys of the sewers to identify leaks and have identified areas that need lining. This work will start shortly. They are also seeking to reroute surface water, for example from the Ham car parks, away from the sewer. Both these interventions will reduce the load on the system and therefore the number of times the CSOs are used.

The Environment Committee has some involvement with all these activities undertaken by voluntary groups and other organisations, for the benefit of all the people and things that live in the Sid Valley.

Later this month the Council will agree its budget for 2024/25 and so I will tell you more about that next month.

Reminding the House that the pension triple-lock was originally a LibDem proposal, not a Tory one

Wendy Chamberlain Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Work and Pensions)  

There are 2 million older people living in poverty—that is one in six—and another million are sitting just above the poverty line silently struggling to make ends meet. Together, a quarter of older people are in or at risk of being in poverty. In recent years, the phrase “heating or eating” has become shorthand for the cost of living crisis. It rhymes, and it is easy to say, but it is the reality facing too many of our pensioners. Age UK research found that 4.2 million people cut back on food or groceries last year, while a survey by this House’s Petitions Committee of those engaging in petitions on pension levels found that three quarters were worried about affording food.

Health statistics always worsen in the cold winter months, with mortality rising in all parts of the UK last year compared with previously. As we face an even colder winter —in my constituency we often reach minus temperatures overnight—there are real consequences when older people cannot afford to properly heat their homes. The reality is that heating or eating is not a catchphrase, but a decision about survival. It is our duty as policy makers in this place to ask why that is a reality for so many of our older people and to find solutions.

I welcomed the Government’s eventual decision to keep the triple lock this year, but the lack of clarity and uncertainty about that decision appeared to be electorally motivated, and I argue it caused a great deal of anxiety for many older constituents.

Richard Foord Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Defence)

My hon. Friend is talking about the triple lock on pensions. I have heard it said in this House in recent months that the triple lock on pensions was a Conservative proposal, so I went to the Library to find out whether that was true. The 2010 Conservative manifesto talks about

“restoring the link between the basic state pension and average earnings”, while the 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto states:

“We will uprate the state pension annually by whichever is the higher of growth in earnings, growth in prices or 2.5 per cent.”

Does she agree with me that the triple lock was a Lib Dem proposal?

Wendy Chamberlain Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Work and Pensions)

I regularly meet Steve Webb, the former Lib Dem Pensions Minister from the coalition, and I know how hard he worked when in government on this policy, so I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his intervention…..

“There are so many possibilities for this wing. A new care hub would offer greater levels of tailored care for elderly residents. I will continue to demand that the future of both Seaton Hospital, and all our Community Hospitals, are protected.”

Philippa Davies www.midweekherald.co.uk

Seaton’s Liberal Democrat MP Richard Foord has presented a petition in Parliament opposing plans to strip out a whole wing from Seaton community hospital.

The wing was funded by the community, and the petition forms part of a wider campaign that has received the support of more than 9,000 people from across the Axe Valley. It calls for the affected wing to be transferred from the NHS to the local community, so it can be used to benefit local people.

Since the announcement that NHS Devon was looking to turn a wing of the facility over to NHS Property Services, which could see it demolished or sold off, Mr Foord has been leading a grassroots campaign opposing the plans.

He was the first to raise the issue in Parliament, quizzing both the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister over the plans, and has convened meetings with NHS Devon, local community groups and charities, and NHS Property Services.

By presenting the petition in Parliament on Tuesday (January 16), Mr Foord has formally placed the concerns of local people on the record with MPs and called on the Government to act.

Speaking after presenting his petition, Richard Foord MP said: “Plans to allow a wrecking ball to be driven through a wing of Seaton hospital would be hugely damaging – not just for Seaton, but for everyone living in the Axe Valley who relies on this facility for treatment.

“With this petition, the local community has spoken. In just a few weeks, over 9,000 people got behind my grassroots campaign and demonstrated their support for our hospital. It’s now time for Ministers to wake up, listen, and take action.

“Seaton Hospital is owned by NHS Property Services, a government-owned company with a single shareholder – the Health Secretary. With a single stroke of his pen, he could turn this building over to the local community and ensure it is protected for local people’s health.

“The fact they have so far been unwilling to do this shows the disregard with which they hold our corner of East Devon. People here won’t stand for it. We need more than warm words; we need action.

“There are so many possibilities for this wing. A new care hub would offer greater levels of tailored care for elderly residents. I will continue to demand that the future of both Seaton Hospital, and all our Community Hospitals, are protected.”

Within the last five days, local media have printed articles, by different authors, describing the campaign launch, aims and record of Richard Foord MP and Simon Jupp MP who will be going head to head in the new Honiton and Sidmouth constituency.

The article on Richard Foord’s launch contained a final paragraph quoting Simon Jupp describing his local connections and Honiton office. This appeared to give Simon Jupp “the last word” on Richard Foord’s launch.

The article on Simon Jupp, urging voters to look at his record, a couple of days earlier contained quotes from him and him alone.

Owl understands that this caused some to question the apparent bias between the two articles published within days of each other.

In any event, the article on Richard Foord’s campaign launch has since been revised since Owl reported it.

Owl understands that the journalists at the Herald have a good relationship with Richard Foord.

The original final paragraph read:

Simon Jupp, MP for East Devon, said: “I am proud to be standing where I live, something my Liberal Democrat opponent simply can’t say. My campaign was launched on May 3rd last year in Honiton and I have been knocking on doors across the new Honiton & Sidmouth constituency since March. I have opened a campaign office on Honiton’s high street, not far from the former Liberal Democrat office they closed days after winning the by-election. I’m fighting for every vote, because I care about where I live.”

This is now followed by:

Richard Foord lives in Uffculme in the centre of the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, where he has lived with his wife and three children since he left the Army in 2010.  He offered the following in response:

“My brilliant team and I hold surgeries in towns and villages across the constituency that I represent.  I am listening to and representing people in Devon – not party bosses in London. 

“I am delighted that the Conservative Government’s delegate to East Devon has opened a shopfront in Honiton.  As the MP for Exmouth, he will know that our hollowed-out high streets need all the tenants they can get. That said, I walk past the Conservative Party’s office regularly and have often wondered why there is no-one inside.

“For me, it’s not about where you can be seen, but who you can help.  When I go to Parliament, it is to represent the views of people back home.”

Anyone wishing to find out more about Richard Foord or support his campaign can do so by visiting https://www.tivandhonlibdems.org.uk/foord

I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Axe valley, and the towns of Seaton, Beer, Colyford and the surrounding area, who are objecting in the strongest possible terms to the disposal of an entire wing of Seaton Community Hospital. The petition has been signed by over 9,000 of my constituents, because they object to the fact that the hospital, which was funded by generous local donations, is being ripped away from them, and in part potentially sold off by NHS Property Services, and disposed of for potential sale for housing.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of Axe Valley in the Tiverton and Honiton constituency,

Declares that community hospitals play a vital role supporting health and wellbeing in rural communities;
further that the hospital in Seaton was built with active support and fundraising efforts by residents across the Axe Valley;
and further that plans to turn the wing of the hospital building over to NHS Property Services puts the future viability of the hospital at risk.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take action to return the facility to the local community, so it can be repurposed to provide better care for those living in the area.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

www.theyworkforyou.com /debates/

• T1, T2 and T3, Oaks : remove hazardous deadwood. G4, Beech (group of 3) : reduce by 1-2 metres, maximum diameter of cuts (MC) 50mm. T5, Beech : crown raise to comply with Highways Act 1980, reduce south eastern limb over road by 3m back to previous pruning points, reduce top of tree by 2-3m, MDC 75mm. White House West Hill Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1UZRef. No: 24/0040/TRE | Validated: Fri 05 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition 10 for 19/2710/MFUL : Condition 10 (Lighting) Site Of Redgate & Land At Tesco Salterton Road ExmouthRef. No: 24/0038/DOC | Validated: Fri 05 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of existing lawful use for a C3 dwelling in breach of the agricultural occupacy condition. Knowles Wood Farm Kentisbeare Devon EX15 2EURef. No: 24/0023/CPE | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use from Guest House with Owners Accommodation to residential dwelling Willow Bridge 1 Millford Road Sidmouth Devon EX10 8DRRef. No: 24/0029/FUL | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• General purpose agricultural building Land North Of Tape Lane HonitonRef. No: 24/0024/FUL | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 20/0782/LBC (Conversion of barn to holiday accommodation) to change the proposed roof covering from clay roman tiles to natural slate Rapshayes Farm Gittisham Honiton EX14 3ABRef. No: 24/0019/VAR | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 23/1522/FUL : Condition 5 (foul drainage) Long Range Park Whimple Devon EX5 2QTRef. No: 24/0025/DOC | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective application for retention of marquee to be used as ancillary accommodation to the Maltster’s Public House The Maltsters Arms Greenway Woodbury Exeter EX5 1LNRef. No: 24/0017/FUL | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Hornbeam x 6: Crown reduction by 2m. Pegasus Court 88 Salterton Road Exmouth EX8 2NNRef. No: 24/0027/TCA | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed single storey side and rear and part two storey side extension. 53 Moormead Budleigh Salterton EX9 6PXRef. No: 24/0021/FUL | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of conditions for 23/1834/FUL : Condition 3 (trees); Condition 4 (rainwater goods), 5(rooflights) , 6 (windows and doors), 7 (roof/ridge tiles), 8 (dormer windows external finishes) Burnthouse Cottages Strete Ralegh Whimple Devon EX5 2PPRef. No: 24/0030/DOC | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 Beech – r educe crown by up-to 3m to leave a finished height of 9m, reshape and consolidate the crown to leave a balanced appearance. Hollybank 1A Sherbrook Hill Budleigh Salterton Devon EX9 6DARef. No: 24/0012/TRE | Validated: Wed 03 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• G1 – Mixed Species Hedgerow – To be reduced by approximately 3 to 4 metres leaving approximately a 3m high hedge. 7B Cyprus Road Exmouth Devon EX8 2DZRef. No: 24/0013/TCA | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Roofing over livestock yard area Cooksmoor Farm Stockland Devon EX14 9NHRef. No: 24/0003/FUL | Validated: Tue 02 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of Condition for 22/0972/FUL: Condition 13 (Landscaping) Eldin House Fairfield Road ExmouthRef. No: 23/2768/DOC | Validated: Tue 02 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of condition for 23/1614/FUL: Condition 3 (windows). 11 Rolle Street Exmouth EX8 1HHRef. No: 24/0006/DOC | Validated: Tue 02 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed change of use of care home to dwelling with single storey ground floor extension Cranford Nursing Home 15 Cranford Avenue Exmouth Devon EX8 2HSRef. No: 23/2767/FUL | Validated: Fri 05 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erect raised balcony to the rear of the house Fingle Pound Lane Uplyme Devon DT7 3TTRef. No: 24/0007/FUL | Validated: Tue 02 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of proposed lawful development for conversion of dwelling to garden studio & construction of new dwelling in accordance with planning permission reference 11/1274/FUL.Bulford Lyme Road Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3XARef. No: 23/2766/CPL | Validated: Tue 02 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Discharge of conditions for 23/2133/FUL : Condition 5 (landscaping), Condition 6 (biodiversity net gain) Primrose Farm Upottery Devon EX14 9QERef. No: 23/2762/DOC | Validated: Wed 03 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• New Cabin to provide guest accommodation Glebe House Southleigh Colyton EX24 6SDRef. No: 23/2754/FUL | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of a 12 panel Solar Array on a sloping section of garden at Brook Cottage, Mill Lane, Uplyme DT7 3TZ. Brook Cottage Mill Lane Uplyme Lyme Regis DT7 3TZRef. No: 23/2744/FUL | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Agricultural building extension to provide undercover storage for straw and machinery. Ashdale Farm Dalwood Axminster EX13 7HSRef. No: 23/2745/FUL | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement of 18 balcony safety barriers and reinforcement works to same balconies. Moor Park Douglas Avenue Exmouth EX8 2HHRef. No: 23/2751/FUL | Validated: Fri 05 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of ground mounted solar PV Array. Awliscombe House Awliscombe Honiton EX14 3NPRef. No: 23/2726/FUL | Validated: Fri 05 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Prior approval for the installation of solar PV equipment on the pitched roof Westexe Greendale Business Park Woodbury Salterton Exeter EX5 1EWRef. No: 23/2707/PVJ | Validated: Fri 05 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Oak tree : reduce crown by a maximum of 20%, removing branch lengths up to 5m, making cuts no bigger 80mm. 60 Evergreen Close Exmouth Devon EX8 4RRRef. No: 23/2696/TRE | Validated: Wed 03 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Oak: Northern canopy – reduce 2 lower limbs arising at 2m above ground level (AGL) via thinning of regrowth by up to 40% and tip prune remaining by 1m. Maximum Diameter of Cut (MDC) 40mm; upper limbs trifurcate at 5m AGL: Thin by up to 40%, MDC 25mm. Eastern canopy – reduce via thinning of regrowth by up to 30% to reduce by approximately 1m, MDC 50mm. Southern canopy – reduce 2 decayed low limbs by 2m, 2 cuts @ 75mm MDC, 1 cut @ 50mm, remaining 25mm MDC; tip prune upper southern canopy by 1m, MDC 25mm. Western canopy – tip prune to reduce by 1m, MDC 25mm. Crown lift to comply with the Highways Act 1980 and to 3m above ground level across garden, MDC 25mm. All internal, upright stems to remain untouched, therefore height unpruned All inward growing limbs and branches to be retained and unpruned Rationale: These works are suggested as part of the reasonable maintenance of this large, braced tree. The tree has been historically reduced and the regrowth is now quite substantial, adding weight to compromised heavy limbs. The works are considered appropriate arboricultural management and will have a limited detrimental affect on the tree’s physiological processes. 46 Canterbury Way Exmouth Devon EX8 5QQRef. No: 23/2684/TRE | Validated: Wed 03 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of former toilet block for use as a single self-contained holiday let unit including external alterations Former Toilets Causeway BeerRef. No: 23/2671/FUL | Validated: Tue 02 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective change of use of agricultural land to residential garden Weaver House Plymtree EX15 2JWRef. No: 23/2666/COU | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Retrospective change of use of agricultural land to residential garden Weaver Barn Plymtree EX15 2JWRef. No: 23/2667/COU | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Change of use of land from agricultural to holiday/tourism accommodation including the retention of a shepherds hut, shed (housing a kitchen/store and shower) and toilet (retrospective) Lower Sweetcombe Farm Sidbury EX10 0QRRef. No: 23/2604/FUL | Validated: Tue 02 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing bungalow, erection of a replacement bungalow with associated works. Brake View Rockbeare Hill Rockbeare EX5 2EZRef. No: 23/2617/FUL | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of conservatory, construction of single storey extension, conversion of outbuilding to form ancillary accommodation, and associated landscaping works Holly Bush Holy City Axminster EX13 7JZRef. No: 23/2589/FUL | Validated: Tue 02 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 20/0781/FUL (Conversion of barn to holiday accommodation) to change the proposed roof covering from clay roman tiles to natural slate Rapshayes Farm Gittisham Devon EX14 3ABRef. No: 23/2583/VAR | Validated: Thu 04 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Fitting of 7 solar panels on the front/south elevation of the roof Artillery Cottage Broadway Woodbury Devon EX5 1NRRef. No: 23/2549/FUL | Validated: Tue 02 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side extension Romany Cottage Churchill Devon EX13 7LZRef. No: 23/2486/FUL | Validated: Tue 02 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposal for 1no. additional mobile home, and stable with concrete floor for chickens and ducks. Great Houndbeare Farm Caravan 1 Sunnyfield Aylesbeare Devon EX5 2DBRef. No: 23/2382/FUL | Validated: Fri 05 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of two storey school building; improvements to an existing access off Lyme Road; car parking; all weather play and sports area; associated play/landscaped areas and infrastructure Land Adjacent To Lyme Road (Adjoining Uplyme Village Hall) UplymeRef. No: 23/2239/MFUL | Validated: Fri 05 Jan 2024 | Status: Awaiting decision

Kevin Foster (Torbay) rebelled once and  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) twice.

Katy Clifton www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak’s authority has been dealt a fresh blow as two Tory deputy chairmen resigned to join a major Conservative rebellion over his Bill aimed at reviving the stalled Rwanda deportation plan.

Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith stepped down in order to vote for two amendments that right-wing MPs claim will help to protect the government’s flagship asylum policy from legal challenge. Jane Stevenson also quit her role as a parliamentary private secretary in the Department for Business and Trade to back the amendments.

Mr Anderson and Mr Clarke-Smith backed the changes tabled by former immigration minister Robert Jenrick and veteran Tory Sir Bill Cash “not because we are against the legislation, but because like everybody else we want it to work”, they said.

Around 60 Tories voted in favour of changes to the Safety of Rwanda Bill put forward by Conservative backbencher Sir Bill, which seek to ensure UK and international law cannot be used to block a person being removed to Rwanda.

The amendment was rejected by a majority of 461, but the rebellion gives an indication of the scale of unease within the Conservative Party during an election year.

The scope of the rebellion would be more than enough to sink the Bill and overturn the government’s working majority of 54 if it were repeated at its final Commons hurdle – third reading – which is expected on Wednesday.

Former prime minister Liz Truss, former ministers Suella Braverman and Sir Simon Clarke and former leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith were also among those to back the amendments.

Mr Jenrick had aimed to change the Bill to severely limit individual asylum seekers’ ability to appeal against being put on a flight to Kigali. The Commons later rejected his amendment 525 to 58, majority 467.

Here we take a look at all the Tory MPs to back the amendments:

Sir Bill Cash’s amendment:

MPs voted 529 to 68, majority 461, to reject Conservative MP Sir Bill Cash’s amendment, which aimed to ensure UK and international law cannot be used to prevent or delay a person being removed to Rwanda.

Here is a look at the 58 Conservatives who backed the amendment:

• Lee Anderson (Ashfield),
• Sarah Atherton (Wrexham),
• Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen),
• Bob Blackman (Harrow East),
• Ben Bradley (Mansfield),
• Suella Braverman (Fareham),
• Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South),
• Paul Bristow (Peterborough),
• William Cash (Stone),
• Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham),
• Christopher Chope (Christchurch),
• Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland),
• Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw),
• Philip Davies (Shipley),
• Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales),
• Richard Drax (South Dorset),
• James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Proxy vote cast by Marcus Jones),
• Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green),
• Michael Fabricant (Lichfield),
• Nick Fletcher (Don Valley),
• Kevin Foster (Torbay),
• Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford),
• Chris Green (Bolton West),
• James Grundy (Leigh),
• Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North),
• John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings),
• Darren Henry (Broxtowe),
• Philip Hollobone (Kettering),
• Adam Holloway (Gravesham),
• Eddie Hughes (Walsall North),
• Tom Hunt (Ipswich),
• Robert Jenrick (Newark),
• Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham),
• David Jones (Clwyd West),
• Danny Kruger (Devizes),
• Andrew Lewer (Northampton South),
• Marco Longhi (Dudley North),
• Jonathan Lord (Woking),
• Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Proxy vote cast by John Redwood),
• Karl McCartney (Lincoln),
• Robin Millar (Aberconwy),
• Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot),
• Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool),
• Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills),
• Lia Nici (Great Grimsby),
• Neil O’Brien (Harborough),
• Matthew Offord (Hendon),
• Tom Randall (Gedling),
• John Redwood (Wokingham),
• Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury),
• Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield),
• Greg Smith (Buckingham),
• Henry Smith (Crawley),
• Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East),
• Desmond Swayne (New Forest West),
• Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk),
• Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire).

Tellers for the ayes were Conservative MPs Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) and Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge).

Robert Jenrick’s amendment:

MPs voted 525 to 58, majority 467, to reject an amendment from Conservative former minister Robert Jenrick that aimed to severely limit individual asylum seekers’ ability to appeal against being put on a flight to Rwanda.

The division list released after the Commons vote contained 59 names for the ayes and 523 for the noes, but updates to the list can occur. Conservative Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) was listed on both the ayes and noes. He voted with the Government on the earlier amendment tabled by Sir Bill Cash

Here are the 57 Tory MPs who backed Mr Jenrick’s amendment:

• Adam Afriyie (Windsor),
• Lee Anderson (Ashfield),
• Sarah Atherton (Wrexham),
• Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen),
• Bob Blackman (Harrow East),
• Ben Bradley (Mansfield),
• Suella Braverman (Fareham),
• Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South),
• Paul Bristow (Peterborough),
• William Cash (Stone),
• Christopher Chope (Christchurch),
• Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland),
• Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw),
• Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds),
• Philip Davies (Shipley),
• Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales),
• Richard Drax (South Dorset),
• James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Proxy vote cast by Marcus Jones),
• Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green),
• Michael Fabricant (Lichfield),
• Nick Fletcher (Don Valley),
• Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford),
• Chris Green (Bolton West),
• James Grundy (Leigh),
• Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North),
• John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings),
• Darren Henry (Broxtowe),
• Philip Hollobone (Kettering),
• Adam Holloway (Gravesham),
• Eddie Hughes (Walsall North),
• Tom Hunt (Ipswich),
• Robert Jenrick (Newark),
• Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham),
• David Jones (Clwyd West),
• Danny Kruger (Devizes),
• Edward Leigh (Gainsborough),
• Andrew Lewer (Northampton South),
• Marco Longhi (Dudley North),
• Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Proxy vote cast by John Redwood),
• Karl McCartney (Lincoln),
• Robin Millar (Aberconwy),
• Nigel Mills (Amber Valley),
• Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot),
• Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool),
• Lia Nici (Great Grimsby),
• Neil O’Brien (Harborough),
• Matthew Offord (Hendon),
• Tom Randall (Gedling),
• John Redwood (Wokingham),
• Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury),
• Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield),
• Greg Smith (Buckingham),
• Henry Smith (Crawley),
• Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East),
• Desmond Swayne (New Forest West),
• Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk),
• Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire).

Tellers for the ayes were Conservative MPs Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) and Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge).

Cornwall at the end of the line and abandoned by Whitehall. – Owl

Cornwall Council will be on a financial “cliff edge” within two years if nothing changes. That was the stark message at a meeting of the authority’s economic growth and development meeting today (Tuesday, January 9).

Lee Trewhela www.falmouthpacket.co.uk

The meeting heard that while the council was not in danger of going bust – “at this stage” – like local authorities in Birmingham, Slough, Croydon, Thurrock, Woking and Nottingham, the financial forecast wasn’t good and there is a very real need for improved funding from Westminster.

As has previously been reported, by month seven of the current financial year Cornwall Council’s overspend had increased to £16m, with £20.5m of reserves needed to balance the 2024/25 budget.

The council’s net budget for the year is £763m, which is £55m greater than in 2023/24. This includes £18m increased demand in adult social care, £10m increased demand in children’s social care services, £10m relating to emergency and temporary housing, £8m for ongoing demand pressures for school transport and a £0.6m investment in Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service’s critical control centre.

There are an additional almost 300 special educational needs students year on year adding to the financial pressures on the council.

‘Imense challenges’

Phil Mason, strategic director for sustainable growth and development, said at this stage Cornwall Council is not in danger of issuing a Section 114 notice (which bans a council from all new expenditure and fundamentally demonstrates the authority has gone bankrupt).

However, he added the financial challenges facing the council in 2024/25 and beyond are “immense” based on current forecasts.

Children and family services are forecasting an overspend of £5.1m this year but that figure is increasing as is a £5m overspend in school transport services. Housing, particularly temporary and emergency provision, is expected to go over budget by up to £11m by the end of the financial year.

Mr Mason told councillors: “We’re starting to see some light in that dark tunnel in that the supply of accommodation in Cornwall and the need for that accommodation has seen some softening in terms of demand versus supply. One of the things we’re currently doing is renegotiating the price of buying nightly accommodation from those people who have contracts with us.”

However, he added: “The cost pressures despite all we are doing are not showing any signs of reducing to any significant degree. We think we are going to have to think about building those cost pressures into the base budget position, which will mean additional savings will have to be made elsewhere.”

He said the council’s ability to counter financial pressures by using reserves and “one-offs” is starting to become untenable, adding that the financial pressures on the council are now proving to be “more difficult and more stubborn to get down than we would have hoped”.

Cllr John Conway said: “We cannot afford to get ourselves in the position that Birmingham is in, that Somerset is likely to be getting in. We must make sure we balance the books. Talking about taking money from reserves – you can only do that once. We must make sure that year on year we keep ourselves more or less in the black.”

Pressure on government 

The council’s deputy leader and portfolio holder for resources Cllr David Harris stressed how much pressure had been put on central government for more financial support: “Our local government settlement was right at the bottom end of what anybody expected.

“There was nothing additional in there at all despite officers, the Local Government Association and me writing to Uncle Tom Cobley and all, and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer.”

Cllr Peter La Broy said the use of reserves made his “blood run cold because all we’re simply doing is creating a cliff edge and it makes the situation worse”. He added: “I wonder where that cliff edge is eventually going to be, because sooner or later if the funding settlement doesn’t change from government we will have to face that.”

He added that the funding Cornwall gets from the Government doesn’t recognise the areas where the council is facing financial crisis such as adult social care, school transport, children’s care, etc. “This is just not sustainable.”

Phil Mason responded that the “cliff edge” would hove into view in 2025/26.

Extra revenue on horizon

Cllr Harris attempted to inject some positivity into proceedings by saying there could be additional revenue of £20m, if and when the council tax premium of up to 100% on second homes is introduced, which was announced by the Government in May and is progressing through Parliament.

He said work was continuing to show the Government how Cornwall is different from other counties with the population spread over a huge area, which increases costs, surrounded by water and “literally the end of the line”. “All of these things count against us but we get no credit for it.”

He responded to Cllr Mike Thomas, who asked if council tax payments will have to increase for residents of Cornwall to pay for the financial burden: “Would I think that we would be in a position of having to make our council tax increases seven, eight, nine or ten per cent in two or three years time?

“I absolutely, sincerely hope not, so my answer is no, because I believe that between officers’ work on finding savings, additional income and a better way of spending our money and increased pressure on government we will come good.”

The committee approved the council’s business and financial plans for 2024-28 and the 2024/25 budget proposals, noting that final details are being presented to Cabinet in February.

“This Conservative government has wilfully turned a blind eye to corruption at the heart of the water industry and broken yet another promise.

“The result is stinking, toxic sewage destroying our countryside, and consumers facing higher bills while water bosses pocket millions in bonuses” Steve Reed MP,Labour’s environment secretary.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com 

Plans from the UK water industry to “urgently” tackle the sewage pollution crisis have been delayed by four months, with no publication date in sight, the Guardian can reveal.

Government ministers last year demanded water executives send them a “plan for urgent change” to tackle outflows which spill untreated human waste into rivers and seas.

Last May the water industry representatives, Water UK, issued a mea culpa on behalf of private water companies for their industrial-scale sewage dumping through storm overflows. It then promised to swiftly release a £10bn national overflows plan.

The government and Water UK planned to publish the plans by late summer after requesting them in April.

Newly released documents, revealed after Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the Good Law Project, show the environment minister Rebecca Pow wrote to water companies asking for action plans which “strike the right balance between speed and affordability and deliverability” and asked them to submit them by 18 August for publication. She added that some water companies had still not provided data for their plans, and had first asked for these plans in April. By August she was still requesting information from water companies.

Dr Lucinda Gilfoyle, the head of environmental strategy at Water UK, also promised last May that there would be a national overflow plan published in the late summer which focuses on how investments will be used to deal with overflows and excess rain water. The plan was projected to cut the number of spills.

It is understood the plans to deal with sewage are unlikely to be published by March, which is when the overflow statistics for the year will be published.

Labour’s environment secretary, Steve Reed MP, said: “This Conservative government has wilfully turned a blind eye to corruption at the heart of the water industry and broken yet another promise.

“The result is stinking, toxic sewage destroying our countryside, and consumers facing higher bills while water bosses pocket millions in bonuses.”

The government also refused to reveal the details of plans which have been submitted by some water companies, stating this was because “there is a stronger public interest in withholding the information because the water companies intend on publishing the information you have requested in the near future. Releasing the information at this stage on an adhoc basis would divert resources away from ongoing work. The water companies need to ensure that it is finalised, quality assured and signed off before publication takes place.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said: “Last year we demanded a clear action plan on every storm overflow from water companies, prioritising those that are spilling at a high level and into bathing waters or high priority nature sites. These have now been received and are being evaluated ahead of publication.”

A Water UK spokesperson said: “Water and sewerage companies have submitted their action plans to Defra. Those plans include proposals to invest £11bn between 2025 and 2030, more than triple the current rate, to cut spills from overflows as quickly as possible.”

No, nothing to do with ethics, righting wrongs or moral obligation. 

It’s all to do with “value for money”

According to Paul Skully MP (Post Office minister Feb 2020 for just over 2 years) the Treasury says it will need to pass a “Value for Money” test.

As the Mirror reports: Rishi Sunak is facing tricky questions about whether the Treasury dragged their feet when he was Chancellor over paying proper compensation to the sub-postmasters who exposed the scandal.

Sixty eight year old Alan Bates told the Business and Trade Select Committee inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal yesterday (16 Jan 2024):

“There is no reason at all why full financial redress shouldn’t have been delivered by now. It’s gone on for far too long. People are suffering, they’re dying … And it just seems to be tied up in bureaucracy. And that seems to be the big problem.”

[Alan Bates himself has yet to receive a compensation offer].

Not being a beancounter, can anyone explain to Owl what “Value for Money” means in this context?

Is it something like: the more spent on compensation; the less there is for tax giveaways?

The chief executive of the Post Office has been criticised following his “arrogant and evasive” performance in front of a cross party panel of MPs looking into the Horizon scandal.

He still doesn’t get it – what planet is he on? – Owl

Richard Vaughan inews.co.uk

Nick Read, who took over as head of the Post Office in 2019, came under fire after he failed to provide the Business and Trade Committee with answers over the tragedy that shattered the lives of thousands of subpostmasters.

Labour MP Kevan Jones, who was among the first MPs to campaign on behalf of the postmasters, told i: “It was an arrogant and evasive performance. Serious questions need to be asked as to whether he should remain in his role.

“The victims of this scandal will be watching his response and think the Post Office has an uncaring attitude and they don’t care – it has form on this.”

Mr Read drew frustration from MPs as he repeatedly refused to give his opinion on how the scandal was handled by his predecessors at the Post Office.

The businessman insisted that he had not “seen any evidence” that Post Office executives had misled ministers, the courts or Parliament at any stage.

Asked whether he believed the Post Office prosecuted the innocent knowing the case to be flawed, he said: “I sincerely hope not. But I have not had evidence to that effect.”

He also refused to say whether he thought Paula Vennells, the former Post Office CEO, who was forced to hand back her CBE last week, had misled Parliament in 2015 when she appeared before the same committee.

Asked if he would have said in 2015 that prosecutions against subpostmasters were sound, given he now was able to go back and read board minutes and documents from the period, he replied: “I don’t think I can give you a straight answer on that … I don’t think it’s my place to judge that.”

Instead, he repeatedly said it was for the public inquiry to look back at the scandal and how it was handled by former executives.

“My job is to make sure that redress is speedily delivered to our victims and most importantly that I run the Post Office of today. That is my job,” he insisted. “My job is not the investigative role that is being played by Sir Wyn, that is clearly his job. He initiated an independent inquiry. It’s now a statutory inquiry.”

His comments came after wrongfully convicted subpostmaster Jo Hamilton told the committee she felt as if she had been “gaslit” by the Post Office, which made her believe she had committed offences.

“They convinced me that it was all my fault and I wasn’t tech savvy at all,” she said.

Mr Byrne responded to Mr Read, telling him: “You have left us, I think, fairly shocked actually.

“You’ve not been able to supply the committee with key events in the timeline, such as when the Post Office first knew that remote access was possible.

“You’ve told us that you haven’t kept evidence safe about what money was paid to you inappropriately and therefore is owed back.

“And you can’t estimate the scale of compensation.

Scotland’s head of prosecutions, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, apologised to those prosecuted in the Horizon scandal who were “failed” by the justice system – as she said 54 people may have been affected north of the border.

He asks a very reasonable question but gets an evasive reply.

Richard Foord Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Defence)

There are times when a Government need to take military action without the approval of Parliament, including for operational security or the element of surprise. However, last week’s strikes were signalled very plainly in the media. The strikes could have been debated, voted on and supported by this House in advance of action. Tomorrow, I will table a Bill that would require parliamentary approval for the engagement of UK armed forces in armed conflict, even if it is retrospective. Will the Prime Minister support it?

Rishi Sunak The Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party

As I said, it was necessary to act with speed to allow our armed forces to maintain the vital security of their operations and to ensure their effectiveness. I believe that that is in accordance with the convention on the deployment of military force. As I said previously, we must maintain the prerogative powers that allow the Executive to act in such emergencies, but I am here in Parliament to explain the action in full and take responsibility for it.

This is what a real constituency MP looks like – Owl

The Liberal Democrat MP Richard Foord launched his bid to be the next MP for Honiton & Sidmouth on Saturday (January 13) with a promise to fight for rural NHS services and be a voice for residents across East Devon. 

Philippa Davies www.midweekherald.co.uk 

He will be standing against Simon Jupp, the current MP for East Devon, who is now campaigning for election to the new Honiton & Sidmouth constituency. Mr Foord is the sitting MP for the Tiverton & Honiton constituency, which will no longer exist under the constituency boundary changes.

At his campaign launch in Ottery St Mary on Saturday, attended by more than 50 people, Mr Foord laid into the Conservatives for ‘letting down’ rural communities and criticised his Conservative opponent for ‘sitting back and toeing the party line’, while highlighting his own commitment to always speak out on local issues. 

At the rally Mr Foord was joined by Claire Wright, the former independent candidate for East Devon who received the support of more than 24,000 people at the last General Election, and former Devon County Councillor Martin Shaw – both of whom are supporting his election campaign. 

Mr Foord spoke about his focus on supporting rural health and social care services, cracking down on water companies to end the sewage scandal, and supporting the environment through protecting the countryside and biodiversity. 

When the launch event finished many supporters headed straight out to start knocking on doors and delivering leaflets for his campaign. 

Speaking after the launch, Richard Foord said: “At the next election, the choice facing people in our corner of Devon is plain. They either get a hardworking local champion fighting their corner, or yet another Conservative MP who is content to defer to the party whips and toe the party line. 

“Our country is in dire need of change. We have an NHS crumbling before our very eyes, our rivers and beaches are awash with sewage, and our rural market towns are at risk of becoming hollow shells of their former selves, as businesses and services wilt away. 

“The Conservatives have shown time and again that they simply do not care about areas like ours. They continue to take us for granted, preferring to funnel funding into the Midlands and North in a desperate attempt to shore up their ‘red wall’ seats. 

“My campaign is focused on showing people the real difference a hardworking local MP committed to fighting their corner can have. This is something we’ve seen since my election last summer – with new announcements secured in relation to Tiverton High School, and a pledge of the opening of a railway station at Cullompton.  

“I am humbled to have the support of people like Claire Wright and Martin Shaw, who have been real champions for our towns and villages. The message is plain: the only way to change things for the better is to vote Liberal Democrat and kick out this out-of-touch Conservative Government.” 

Simon Jupp, MP for East Devon, said: “I am proud to be standing where I live, something my Liberal Democrat opponent simply can’t say. My campaign was launched on May 3rd last year in Honiton and I have been knocking on doors across the new Honiton & Sidmouth constituency since March. I have opened a campaign office on Honiton’s high street, not far from the former Liberal Democrat office they closed days after winning the by-election. I’m fighting for every vote, because I care about where I live.”

Anyone wishing to find out more about Richard Foord or support his campaign can do so by visiting http://www.RichardFoord.org.uk 

Not to mention the “little beasts”; the “small fry” and “the minnows”. – Owl

[The poll referred to plays down the impact of tactical voting which Owl thinks could be large in the South West.]

The Conservative Party is on track to lose 196 seats at the next election, with multiple Cabinet ministers and senior MPs set to be unseated, new polling suggests

Eleanor Langford inews.co.uk

A survey by YouGov calculates that, if a general election were held today, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer would win 385 seats – a 120-seat majority over the Conservatives.

The poll of 14,000 people, revealed by The Telegraph and commissioned by the Conservative Britain Alliance, also indicates that the party is on track to lose almost all the “Red Wall” seats it gained in 2019.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps are among the 14 Cabinet ministers and senior Tory MPs who could lose their seats.

YouGov, who conducted the poll, has questioned some of The Telegraph’s analysis of their data, especially regarding the assumption that Reform UK voters would return to Conservatives if the party did not stand.

Polling from the group in October found that only 31 per cent of Reform UK voters would be willing to vote Conservative if Reform UK were not standing in their constituency.

Jeremy Hunt

Losing to: Lib Dems
Constituency: Godalming and Ash

The Chancellor’s current seat of South West Surrey has been largely abolished under new boundaries, but Jeremy Hunt has announced he will stand in the newly formed constituency of Godalming and Ash.

Mr Hunt has faced close competition from the Liberal Democrats in his current seat, where the party won 38.7 per cent of the vote to his 53.3 per cent in 2019.

Under the latest YouGov poll, Mr Hunt is now predicted to narrowly lose to the Lib Dems in his new constituency also, taking 32 per cent to his opponent’s 35 per cent.

If the Lib Dems are victorious, Mr Hunt would become the first Chancellor to lose their seat while in the post.

Penny Mordaunt

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Portsmouth North

Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt, who garnered international attention for her sword-carrying role at the coronation, has held her seat since 2010.

Considered a swing seat, it was held by Labour from 1997 to 2010 but now looks likely to return to the party.

Despite winning with a 15,780-vote majority at the last election, Ms Mordaunt is predicted to see her vote share to fall from 61.4 per cent to 33 per cent, giving victory to Labour, who are set to win 36 per cent of voters.

Grant Shapps

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Welwyn Hatfield

Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, took his current seat from Labour in 2005, and most recently held it in 2019 with a majority of 10,955.

But Labour looks set to regain the seat, taking 40 per cent of the vote to Mr Shapps’s 31 per cent – a swing of 21.2 for Labour.

Responding to the YouGov poll on Monday, Mr Shapps said he was “absolutely” confident the Conservative Party could turn things around despite the dire projection.

“The reason I think we can turn it around is because at least people know we have got a plan and we are working to it. There isn’t a plan under Labour,” he told Times Radio.

Gillian Keegan

Losing to: Lib Dems
Constituency: Chichester

Despite having a solid majority of 21,490 – the largest of any Cabinet minister on this list – Education Secretary Gillian Keegan is still considered at risk.

The Liberal Democrats came second in seat in 2019, and are predicted to narrowly win at the next election with 33 per cent of the vote compared to Ms Keegan’s 31 per cent.

Chichester has been considered a safe seat for the Conservatives, having been held by the party since 1924.

Alex Chalk

Losing to: Lib Dems
Constituency: Cheltenham

Cheltenham was held by the Liberal Democrats between 1992 and 2015, when it was won by Alex Chalk, who is currently Justice Secretary.

With a razor-thin majority of 981, Mr Chalk was always going to be considered at risk, and he looks set to lose to the Lib Dems at the next election.

The poll predicts they would win 42.6 per cent of the votes, with just 30 per cent going to Mr Chalk.

Victoria Prentis

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Banbury

Attorney General Victoria Prentis, who has been MP for Banbury since 2015, is set to narrowly lose to Labour. Ther poll shows Sir Keir Starmer’s party would overturn her 16,813 majority, winning 34.2 per cent to the Tories’ 33.7 per cent.

Reform UK is set to take 7 per cent of the vote, meaning Ms Prentis could keep the seat if the Tories can take some of their supporters.

Johnny Mercer

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Plymouth Moor View

Johnny Mercer attends Cabinet in his capacity as the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and has been the MP for Plymouth Moor View since 2015.

His seat was previously held by Labour from its creation in 2010, and the party looks set to unseat the incumbent.

He is predicted to win 33 per cent of the vote to Labour’s 40 per cent, but the constituency will also see a significant Reform UK presence, with the party winning 11 per cent of voters.

Simon Hart

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Caerfyrddin

Simon Hart, the Chief Whip and a close ally of Mr Sunak, will see his current Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire seat abolished under the boundary review, and he has been selected to stand in the new seat of Caerfyrddin.

Based on current polling, Labour is on track for a major victory, winning 40 per cent of the vote to his 27 per cent.

Lucy Frazer

Losing to: Lib Dems
Constituency: Ely and East Cambridgeshir

Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer will see her South East Cambridgeshire seat abolished at the next election, and will instead stand in the new constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire.

She is set to lose that battle to the Liberal Democrats, who came second to her in 2019, with the party winning 33.6 per cent of the vote compared to the Conservatives’ 31 per cent. Reform UK is predicted to take 8 per cent of the vote.

David TC Davies

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Monmouthshire

David TC Davies, the Welsh Secretary, will stand in the new seat of Monmouthshire after his current Monmouth constituency is abolished.

He is facing the prospect of a significant loss to Labour, with YouGov polling suggesting the party is on track to take 41 per cent of the vote to his 33 per cent.

Alister Jack/John Cooper

Losing to: SNP
Constituency: Dumfries and Galloway

Scotland Secretary Alister Jack has announced he is standing down from his Dumfries and Galloway seat at the next election, but his successor John Cooper looks set to lose the seat to the SNP.

The seat has been a three-way battleground since its creation in 2005, having been held by Labour for 10 years, the SNP for two years and, Mr Jack since 2017.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Chingford and Woodford Green

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a senior Conservative MP and former leader of the party, has been MP for the seat in north-east London since 1992.

But his time in Parliament could be brought to an end after three decades, with Labour set for a landslide victory. Sir Iain last held the seat with a majority of just 1,262 and he is set to win 31 per cent of the vote at the next election to Labour’s 50 per cent, according to the poll.

Lee Anderson

Losing to: Labour
Constituency: Ashfield

Lee Anderson, the plain-spoken Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party first won his seat from Labour in 2019 when he unseated Gloria de Piero.

Prior to his victory, Ashfield, in Nottinghamshire, had been consistently held by Labour since 1979, and the party is predicted to win it back. Mr Anderson’s vote share is set to fall from 40 per cent to 23 per cent, with Labour taking the seat with 38 per cent of the vote.

Sir John Redwood

Losing to: Lib Dems
Constituency: Wokingham

Sir John Redwood, a veteran MP and former minister, has represented the “Blue Wall” seat since 1987, and it has only ever been won by Conservative MPs.

But that could be all about to change, with the seat in Berkshire a key target for the Liberal Democrats. The party is predicted to win with 37 per cent of the vote to Sir John’s 31 per cent.

“The UK landscape is littered with similar hybrid bodies which are fundamentally unaccountable. Universities that pay top management like businesses, but don’t run like businesses. Privatised water monopolies that have spent years illegally dumping sewage into our water, killing fish and making people sick. Their executives are part of the apparatchik class and so is the regulator, Ofwat.”

Camilla Cavendish www.ft.com

The Post Office scandal was uncovered not by officialdom but by dogged, independent-minded heroes. These included journalists at the BBC, Computer Weekly and Private Eye; an engineer who blew the whistle at Fujitsu; several MPs; and Alan Bates, the sub-postmaster whose determination to get justice is now legendary. These people, now celebrated in an ITV drama that has pushed the issue to the top of the nation’s agenda, were up against a self-serving apparatchik class which despises the little people, is adept at covering its tracks and is an increasing feature of modern Britain.

The number of postmasters affected, and the vindictive way in which the Post Office pursued them, makes it especially shocking. But we have seen the same pattern in other tragedies where public or quasi-public bodies either fail to join the dots or actively conspire in cover-ups. The deaths of babies at Morecambe Bay hospital were uncovered by a father, James Titcombe, who was repeatedly fobbed off in getting answers about why his baby died. The sexual abuse of girls in Rotherham was revealed by The Times, despite extensive obfuscation by Rotherham council. Failings in the care of Baby Peter Connelly, who died under the noses of social workers, were brought to light by Kim Holt, a paediatrician who was suspended for her pains by Great Ormond Street. 

One of the reasons the Post Office saga took so long is that it was a state-owned entity which was also independent. It wasn’t accountable to anyone, and even part-funded the postmasters’ representative body, effectively muzzling it. The management culture assumed that many sub-postmasters, who were self-employed, were on the take — a view executives felt was confirmed when the Horizon software appeared to show high levels of fraud. It was protected by Whitehall, whose officials encouraged a succession of ministers not to meet Bates.

The UK landscape is littered with similar hybrid bodies which are fundamentally unaccountable. Universities that pay top management like businesses, but don’t run like businesses. Privatised water monopolies that have spent years illegally dumping sewage into our water, killing fish and making people sick. Their executives are part of the apparatchik class and so is the regulator, Ofwat.

A striking feature of this cadre is how they move from job to job around the system despite, in some cases, egregious failings. The NHS is littered with overpromoted managers who get recycled from one hospital trust to another. Paula Vennells, Post Office chief executive between 2012 and 2019, was in post when failings in the Horizon software became unavoidably evident, yet she continued to preside over prosecutions until 2015. The MP James Arbuthnot, who forced Vennells to agree to the external review of Horizon that helped to break the scandal open, has described an appalling level of management groupthink — and malice. Yet in 2019 Vennells went on to another job on the circuit, chairing a large NHS trust. And Fujitsu, the technology company behind Horizon, which has so far been untouchable, has won £5bn more in government contracts since its software was found not to be robust by the High Court in 2019.

This is how the system operates. Individuals may occasionally be caught out, but the machine just rolls on. Indeed, any government that is minded to abolish arms-length bodies discovers that it can’t — they are often statutory. The level of effort and political capital you would need to expend trying to get rid of any of them is too much for the average minister. 

This serves no one, including the brilliant young people who are recruited into the civil service. They arrive with great hopes of serving the nation, and are then trapped in meetings where no one knows much about the people they are supposed to serve. I have met health department officials who have never been inside a hospital or care home. I’ve met quango heads who hire management consultants rather than talk to customers. It’s not surprising we are so bad at procurement: the Fujitsu contract being an example.

What can we learn from the Post Office heroes? First, that momentum depends on spotting patterns. Bates’s determination to find others in similar trouble was a stroke of genius. Second, the importance of meticulous record-keeping. Arbuthnot, who became involved 15 years ago because one of his constituents was a sub-postmaster, has an office overflowing with paper relating to this fight. Third, that investigative journalists like Nick Wallis can crystallise a complex story, hard to understand. Fourth, that tenacity is essential because the system aims to wear you down and tire you out.

For all those on the other “side”, all the good officials, this saga shows the importance of keeping an open mind. Not everyone who claims to be a victim is genuine: I learnt this in years of campaigning on the family courts. But many real victims can also be initially hard to believe. They can be crazed with anxiety, or have a frustratingly vague handle on the chronology of events. Listening to them and extracting their stories takes time — something MPs are rather good at. True whistleblowers are also marked out by the fact that they rarely want fame or honours: what they want is justice. The contrast could not be greater with the senior executives who will spend any amount of taxpayers’ money, and condemn any number of ordinary people to misery, to avoid admitting mistakes.

The postmasters will be exonerated. But Fujitsu should be paying the compensation. And future ministers should consider meeting a few “troublemakers”: they might learn something.

Shortly before Christmas, on 19 December 2023, the Government published its long-awaited revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), following a year-long process of consultation. The revised NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies and how these will be applied.

The biggest change is that the revised NPPF introduces various reforms to housing delivery. The revised NPPF also includes new drafting on protection from “out of character” residential development, Green Belt alterations, energy efficient building improvements and allocation of agricultural land for development.

www.burges-salmon.com 

The key changes are set out below:

1. Reforms to housing delivery

The Government’s intention with these changes is to increase the delivery of new housing, by giving local planning authorities a strong incentive to update their Local Plans, amidst a supply shortage in many areas of the country.

Changes to the five-year housing land supply and delivery requirements

• Under the previous version of the NPPF, all local planning authorities in England were required to continually demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing land supply.

The updated NPPF states that local planning authorities will not need to meet this requirement as long as their adopted plan is less than five years old, and that it identified “at least a five year supply of specific, deliverable sites at the time that its examination concluded”.

• There is also a reduced requirement for some local authorities with an ‘in-progress’ Local Plan, i.e. where a Local Plan has been consulted on (under Regulation 18 or 19) or submitted for examination.

If the draft Local Plan includes a policies map and proposed housing allocations towards meeting housing need, those authorities will only have to demonstrate a four-year housing land supply. This particular change only applies for two years from the publication date, until 19 December 2025.

As a result of these changes, it is estimated that 40% of local planning authorities will no longer be required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

The reason that this is important is because if a local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, then in the process of decision-making, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.

That presumption means that planning permission should be granted for sustainable development (unless the application of NPPF policies to protect assets or areas of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusal, or the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits). This presumption (also known in shorthand as the “tilted balance”) changes the exercise of assessment that the decision-maker must carry out, and in general terms increases the prospect of planning permission being granted.

This means that those authorities who are no longer required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply will be better protected against unplanned or speculative development, because the “tilted balance” will not apply.

Practically, the changes provide an incentive to local planning authorities to keep their Local Plans up to date so that they do not continually need to demonstrate a five year land supply.

Changes to the assessment of housing supply

Under the previous version of the NPPF, all local planning authorities were required to build a buffer of 5% (by default), 10% or 20% into their calculations on five-year housing land supply. In the updated NPPF, the 5% and 10% buffers have been removed but the 20% buffer has been retained, where delivery falls below 85% of the requirement over the previous three years.

In addition, historic oversupply can be accounted for in the five-year housing land supply calculation and further guidance on this will follow. The expectation is that the removal of 5% and 10% will simplify the five-year land supply calculations for local authorities. There is a concern, however, that their removal will reduce a key incentive for local authorities to keep delivering housing supply and maintain accountability where delivery exceeds the 85% threshold.

Greater flexibility for local authorities in assessing local housing need

New text has been added to the NPPF at paragraph 60, clarifying that the overall aim of local authorities, in the context of delivering homes, should be to “meet as much of an area’s identified housing need as possible”.

Under paragraph 61, the revised NPPF also states that the standard method for calculating housing need, to establish the number of homes required, is now considered as an “an advisory starting point”. Under the previous NPPF, the standard method was not classified in this way and there was no similar explanatory text.

As a result of these changes, local authorities have greater flexibility to plan for fewer or higher number of homes than the standard method indicates, and where there are specific local circumstances that justify an alternative approach to assessing housing need, that is now explicitly supported.

Alteration of Green Belt boundaries

New paragraph 145 of the revised NPPF provides that local authorities may choose to (but are not required to) review and alter Green Belt boundaries (in the event that they consider that they cannot meet housing need) during the plan-making process, where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.

The changes do not explicitly describe how Green Belt boundaries are expected to interface with housing supply and do not represent a substantive change to the policy position.

Support for specific categories of housing

• Retirement housing need assessment – new paragraph 63 has been added into the revised NPPF which requires local authorities to assess a local need for retirement and care housing provision. Local authorities are then required to reflect this need in their policies. These changes reflect a specific concern identified by the Government; the consultation paper makes clear that they are prioritising sufficient housing supply for an ageing population, and in this context drafting has been included to explicitly and specifically support the provision of that housing.
• Support for small sites – at paragraph 70(b), the revised NPPF requires local authorities to support (through policies and in their decision making) small sites to come forward for community-led development for housing and self-build and custom-build housing. This reflects an objective of the Government to give greater confidence and certainty to small and medium sized builders, with a view to diversifying the housing market.
• Support for community-led development – the revised NPPF provides that local authorities should support the development of exception sites for “community-led development” on sites that would not otherwise be suitable as rural exception sites. This reflects the Government’s ambition to emphasise the role of community-led development, with a view to supporting locally-led housing.

The inclusion of express support for these categories of development should, in time, filter down into increased support for each category in Local Plan policies and local planning authority decision-making.

Protection against out of character residential developments

New paragraph 130 of the revised NPPF provides that a significant increase in the average density of residential development in an existing urban area may be inappropriate if it will result in developments which are “wholly out of character with the existing area.”

The effect of this change is to enable authorities to describe “out of character” circumstances in the process of preparing design codes and plan-making.

Support for mansard extensions

The NPPF provides that authorities should “allow mansard roof extensions on suitable properties” where their external appearance “harmonises with the original building”. This reform will offer the ability to enable new housing by extending upwards as long as these extensions are in keeping with the local character and context, particularly in conservation areas.

2. Energy efficiency of buildings

New paragraph 164 in the NPPF requires local authorities, in determining planning applications, to give “significant weight” to the need to support “energy efficiency and low carbon heating improvements” through adaptation of buildings. This represents strong in-principle policy support for energy efficiency.

When assessing applications for energy efficiency improvements, it is important that heritage protection is considered. Paragraph 164 in the revised NPPF provides for this by stating that where the proposals would affect conservation areas, listed buildings or other relevant designated heritage assets, local planning authorities should also apply the relevant policies, set out in detail in Chapter 16 of the NPPF.

3. Allocation of agricultural land for development

At paragraph 181, the revised NPPF requires local authorities to consider the availability of agricultural land used for food production when allocating sites for development. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.

It is important that developers take an evidence-based approach towards determining the condition of agricultural land, before a development scheme is proposed. This amendment means that the availability of land used for food production is now explicitly a part of that exercise.

4. Other general changes

• Planning conditions on design and materials – new paragraph 140 of the NPPF encourages planning authorities to use planning conditions to require clear and accurate drawings/details of a scheme’s design and materials. This is intended to provide greater certainty for those implementing a planning permission on how to comply with the permission.
• Integration of “beauty” – the latest NPPF revisions mean that “beauty” now features heavily as a consideration across policy. However the NPPF itself does not include substantial detail on how to assess beauty; this exercise will primarily be the role of design codes.

Concluding thoughts

The primary effect of the changes to the NPPF will be to disapply the presumption in favour of sustainable development (or “tilted balance”) for a variety of local authorities, by not requiring them to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The absence of the “tilted balance” will reduce the number of planning permissions which would otherwise be granted due to the lack of housing land supply.

The authorities excluded from the requirement include those with up-to-date Local Plans (within the last five years) and those who are partway through the Local Plan process, with significantly advanced plans. The latter category of authorities are only excluded temporarily, for a two-year period, enabling those authorities time to finalise and adopt updated Local Plans.

Excluding a large number of authorities from this requirement may reduce the amount of unplanned development in those authority areas, and authorities are incentivised to retain those benefits by updating their Local Plans. However the NPPF in itself does not address the hurdles which authorities face in undertaking the process of updating their development plans.

This update was co-written by Matthew Tucker and Sofiya Yerokhina. Should you have any queries about the changes to the NPPF or planning generally, please do not hesitate to contact either Matthew or Gary Soloman.

South West Water has been accused of not being honest with the government about its drought preparations after parts of the country almost ran out of water in 2022, it has emerged.

Helena Horton www.theguardian.com

The Environment Agency (EA) told the water industry regulator Ofwat that SWW was “not honest” with regulators about the risk a drought posed to the company’s water supplies and was inadequately prepared for the heatwave.

People in Devon and Cornwall were affected by months of hosepipe bans as reservoirs ran dangerously low during the dry spell in 2022. Three of SWW’s reservoirs fell to record lows during the drought.

The agency said the company showed complacency before the drought and “a lack of understanding of their own supply system”.

Documents obtained by Greenpeace’s investigations website Unearthed under freedom of information laws revealed the environmental watchdog’s scathing assessment of the water company’s drought preparedness. “SWW were not honest, open and transparent with regulators about their drought projections and potential risks to security of supply,” the EA wrote in a July email to Ofwat. The email said “SWW acted too late” in response to the drought, and that this “presented a genuine risk of loss of supply in west Cornwall”.

The EA said the company had a misunderstanding of its own supplies and thought it had so much water that it could pipe it to other regions. The agency told Ofwat SWW that showed “a lack of understanding of their own supply system, considering themselves as a potential water donor in the future, only to find the reverse is true”. The company’s latest plan states that it needs to close a gap of more than 200m litres of water a day by 2050 to meet demand.

Water was so scarce in 2022 that drastic saving measures banning all non-critical use were almost put in place. This would have meant a ban on ponds and swimming pools being refilled, people washing their cars and non-residential buildings being cleaned.

No new reservoirs have been built in the UK since the water industry was privatised in 1989, and some water companies have added to their profits by selling off existing facilities. Water companies have paid out £72bn in dividends since privatisation, borrowing £56bn and increasing bills by 40%.

The EA told Ofwat that new water sources need to “be considered, applied for and permitted during the drought instead of planned in advance”.

Megan Corton Scott, a political campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: “South West Water have failed in tackling the sewage crisis, failed to prepare for drought, failed to even understand their own supply system and failed to be honest with the regulator, but they did succeed in raising shareholder dividends at the end of last year.

“Rishi Sunak promised tough enforcement and a more resilient water infrastructure. Given this platform of incompetence and blatant money grabbing, how long can the government stand idly by and let this company continue to control such a critical part of the nation’s resources?”

A spokesperson for SWW said: “We strongly reject any suggestion that we were not adequately prepared for the risk of drought or that we did not operate in good faith with the regulators.

“Despite facing a once-in-a-generation drought in the south-west, no customer went without water supply and we successfully maintained a robust supply of water to over 3.5 million customers and 10million visitors to the region.”

The company was fined over illegal dumping of sewage last year after investigations by the EA.

Last week, the owner of SWW, Pennon Group, bought Sutton and East Surrey Water in a deal worth £380m.

More on the state of rural Britain today – Owl

Somerset Council declared a financial emergency in November 2023, meaning major cuts to services are expected

Somerset Council has said it needs to find £100m to avoid going effectively bankrupt.

The council has found £35.2m of proposed savings.

They include shutting five of the county’s 16 recycling centres, ending council funding for public toilets and CCTV, cutting highway maintenance and closing two tourism visitor centres.

Subsidies for bus services will be reviewed and so will support for the county’s theatres, including Taunton’s Brewhouse Theatre’s £119,000 a year grant.

The council could save £165,000 by pulling funding for Yeovil Recreation Centre sports facilities including the county’s only public athletics track and hockey pitches which are home to Yeovil and Sherborne Hockey Club.

By Ruth Bradley www.bbc.co.uk

Cuts to services totalling £35m have been proposed, as well as a possible 10% increase in people’s council tax bills.

On 20 February, the authority will vote on its budget for 2024/25.

Here we answer some key questions on what we know so far.

Why is the council in financial trouble?

Somerset Council declared a financial emergency in November 2023.

It had been expecting an estimated budget gap for 2024/25 of £42m but said in November that the forecast had increased to £100m.

The council said the costs of delivering services, particularly adult social care, were rising significantly faster than income.

It has also blamed national factors such as inflation and higher interest rates.

It is trying to avoid effectively going bust and being served a Section 114 notice, as has happened to other authorities like Birmingham City Council.

The council would lose the ability to commit to new spending and take decisions if it was issued with the notice.

Somerset Council is in its first year of operation, having been formed in April 2023 from a merger of four district councils and Somerset County Council.

It says this has also caused problems as it has come to light that all the previous councils managed their budgets in different ways.

Which services could be cut?

The council has found £35.2m of proposed savings.

They include shutting five of the county’s 16 recycling centres, ending council funding for public toilets and CCTV, cutting highway maintenance and closing two tourism visitor centres.

Subsidies for bus services will be reviewed and so will support for the county’s theatres, including Taunton’s Brewhouse Theatre’s £119,000 a year grant.

The council could save £165,000 by pulling funding for Yeovil Recreation Centre sports facilities including the county’s only public athletics track and hockey pitches which are home to Yeovil and Sherborne Hockey Club.

A petition against this has gathered thousands of signatures.

A contract with the RNLI to provide beach lifeguards at Burnham-on-Sea and Brean could be stopped saving £35,000 a year.

Also, three parks could be left open overnight to save money on contractor costs to lock them, prompting concerns over vandalism and safety.

Will I have to pay more council tax?

As well as cutting services to save money, Somerset Council is looking to increase its income.

It is proposing a 9.99% rise in its share of council tax bills, although the council needs the government’s permission to increase council tax by more than 4.99%.

On an average Band D property, council tax would rise by £163.80 a year under the plans.

This excludes projected rises for fire, police and any imposed by town or parish councils on their portions of the bill.

Somerset Council is hoping parish and town councils will step in to pay to keep some services running but that would likely lead to those smaller authorities needing to increase their share of council tax, meaning higher bills for residents.

There would also be increases in fees and charges, including for parking, and the council is planning to take £36.8m from its reserves.

Is the council asking the government for help?

Somerset Council said it had been in talks with Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) for some months.

It is asking for permission to increase council tax by 9.99%, which the council said would bring Somerset’s charges more in line with other unitary councils and bring in an extra £17m a year.

The council is also asking for something called a capitalisation direction, which is when the government gives permission for capital money to be spent on day-to-day costs.

Capital can be from selling buildings and other assets, and would normally need to be spent on other capital projects.

The council is asking the government for a capitalisation direction of £20.8m.

Or, if the request to increase council tax is not granted, then for a capitalisation direction of £37.9m.

What if the government does not help?

If the DLUHC does not grant either dispensation, the council said it will not be able to balance the 2024/25 budget.

It said it would then be unable to avoid issuing a Section 114 notice, effectively making it bankrupt.

If that happened then the government would appoint commissioners to run the authority.

How can local residents have their say?

A spokesperson for Somerset Council said: “We understand there will be concerns. To be clear, no decisions have been made and will not be until the budget is set at full council on 20 February.

“Somerset Council, and councils up and down the country, are in an unprecedented position due to the rising costs faced by local authorities across the country, largely driven by costs of social care.

“If we cannot set a balanced budget, government commissioners will do it for us, without the local knowledge or concern about the longer-term.

“These are not things that we would ever want to be considering.

“We want hear people’s views. Please take part in the council’s budget consultation which runs until 22 January.”