Seaton Hole: Major cliff protection work brought forward
A massive cliff protection scheme is likely to go ahead this year after a council agreed to bring forward investment.Seaton Hole on the south coast has suffered repeated major landslips that have left beach users and coastal homes in danger.East Devon District Council said 7,000 tonnes of rock must be delivered by sea to Seaton by September to be able to press ahead with the project before prices go up.The council's cabinet recommended an upfront investment of £673,500 this year to enable the £2.2m scheme to go ahead with a final decision due to be made by full council on 18 June.
The council said the decision was "critical to help reduce delays and cost increases".Geoff Jung, cabinet member for environment at East Devon District Council, said: "Approval from council will allow us to push ahead and order the new rock to ensure best value for money now, as delays may result in higher costs being incurred next year."The project included increasing the volume of existing rock armour at the base of the cliffs, upgrading the steel baskets used to hold rocks in place and maintaining the current seawall.The total cost is expected to be £2.2m and has already been approved by the Environment Agency.The council said it was confident planning permission would be granted, as no major issues were raised during the pre-application process.The report said there was a "small risk" of not getting planning permission but "in the worst-case scenario" that would result in the council having rock armour for future schemes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Charity donors' anger over 'tip traps' on fundraising websites
Three in four adults are 'frustrated' with the 'tip trap' set by some fundraising websites, fresh research reveals. Some 76 per cent of those polled by advisory firm Strand Partners are annoyed at the way tips are collected on online fundraising platforms and are calling for the Government to tackle the practice. Fundraising websites act as a middleman between charities or fundraisers and donors, making donations to good causes simple. But many now automatically add a 'tip' on to the donation amount, which goes straight to the platform – and not the charitable cause. It's catching out many generous donors, who end up frustrated after unintentionally paying the automatic charges. When a donor reaches the checkout stage of the fundraising platform, the tip is shown on a sliding scale, which is automatically set at 17 per cent on popular website JustGiving. This means on a £50 donation, an £8.50 fee is automatically added. Donors can change or opt out of these tips, which go directly to the platforms, but only if they spot them – and work out how to reduce them to £0. There are two higher options – at 19 and 20 per cent – and two lower options – 12.5 and 15 per cent. However, the sliding scale doesn't allow donors to reduce the tip to £0, as they must instead manually enter this by clicking an 'enter custom amount' button. Almost two thirds of Britons want it to be easier to remove tip options when donating online, Strand Partners found. Scores of annoyed users have vented their frustration on social media and review websites. One user says 'any tip should be opt in, not opt out', while another says they were 'disgusted' to find a donation had been automatically added. One review of JustGiving says: 'What an insult. I did not want to leave them a tip.' If you leave an unintended tip, you can ask the fundraising platform you used if you can get a refund. It's not just donors who are feeling frustrated. The research comes as MPs are piling pressure on the Government about the sliding tipping scales. Cross-party MPs including Annaliese Dodds, MP for Oxford , and Saqib Bhatti, MP for Meriden and Solihull East, have recently pushed the Government on its plans to take any action on the sliding tipping scales. One of these MPs, Jo Platt, MP for Leigh and Atherton – and a member of the Culture Media and Sport Committee – says: 'Fundraising platforms play an important role in facilitating giving. But concealed tipping options and hidden charges are unnecessarily diverting money away from charities and misleading donors.' The tip system means websites don't levy a platform fee on donations to charities or personal fundraisers anymore in order to run their service. Instead, it is these tips which now pay for the running of the platforms. The UK Fundraising Regulator has long maintained the importance of transparency in online donations. In April, it updated its Code Of Fundraising Practice to specify that all voluntary tips must be clearly presented and on equal footing to free donation options. This is due to take effect in November. A JustGiving spokesman says: 'In order for us to continue to support fundraisers, it is essential that we operate as a for-profit organisation. In recent years we have seen growth in the volume of donations which in turn has naturally increased our profitability. 'Following consultation with some of the UK's leading charities, in 2019 we moved to a voluntary contribution model, so that as much money as possible could go directly to charities and good causes. This is now standard practice across the industry. 'Today, anyone using our platform has the option to leave a tip on top of their donation to support the running of JustGiving and this is not compulsory. 'When people do choose to add a tip, this goes towards investing in and maintaining the technology that helps our site continue to securely raise funds on a global scale, 24/7.'
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
TONY HETHERINGTON: All 12 cheques I deposited at the Post Office have disappeared
Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday's ace investigator, fighting readers corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below. M.H. writes: I am a director of a small agricultural supply business, contacting you in desperation. My firm deposited 12 cheques for Barclays bank – totalling £6,212 – at the local Post Office. They were never credited to our account. I have spoken to the bank every week for the past month and had no support. Tony Hetherington replies: The Barclays branch in your town closed its doors three years ago. Account holders were told to use branches in two nearby towns. Alternatively, Barclays advised: 'Cheques can be deposited at the Post Office. Please allow an extra two days for cheques deposited using a pre-printed paying-in slip to reach your Barclays accounts.' I asked the bank what had gone wrong, and staff told me: 'We're really sorry that a number of cheques paid in by Mr H's company were lost in transit by Royal Mail.' It offered you £200 after acknowledging that you would have to contact the dozen people and firms whose cheques were lost and ask them for replacements. However, a bad situation became worse. You deposited a further 11 cheques at the same Post Office, with a total value of £6,593, and they also failed to reach your Barclays account. I began making inquiries again, and a day later ten of the cheques turned up, leaving just £27 missing. Barclays raised its offer to you to £300, and the bank will also meet any expenses faced by your customers who have to ask their own banks to cancel the missing cheques. I do hope procedures at that Post Office branch are tightened up as well. Vinted and Mangopay keeping my cash Ms T.J. writes: Vinted and Mangopay are refusing to release £27 – the proceeds from items I have sold using their services. I have been asked to complete a Politically Exposed Person questionnaire, which I already did months ago. I am now being asked to supply photographic evidence such as a copy of my passport or driving licence. I refuse to do this, as I don't know why they need such personal information. It seems they are thinking of any way not to release my money. Tony Hetherington replies: For those who do not know it, Vinted is an online business based in Lithuania which acts as a middleman for anyone wanting to sell or buy secondhand clothes and similar items. And Mangopay is a money transfer company based in Luxembourg. I contacted both companies but Mangopay, which is allowed by the Financial Conduct Authority to operate in the UK, failed to offer any comment or explanation at all. Vinted, though, replied quoting a 2004 Luxembourg law dealing with money laundering and terrorist financing! It referred to this as a 'Know Your Customer' procedure that Mangopay must apply. But hang on a moment – surely Mangopay's customer is Vinted, not you? Well, apparently you are really a Mangopay customer. Before putting anything up for sale on Vinted, it seems you should have studied the Lithuanian company's 20 pages of terms and conditions. These reveal that it uses four money transmission firms, all based in different countries. And when you use Vinted, you are automatically enlisted as a customer of one of these firms. This, in turn, means you have to abide by Mangopay's own 21 pages of terms and conditions, which give it every right to cling on to your £27 until you jump through a series of hoops. One of these hoops is that if Mangopay suspects you are a crook, an arms dealer, an international diplomat or a high-flying politician, it can investigate you as a potentially corrupt Politically Exposed Person, rather like a Russian oligarch whose assets might be frozen. The pages of questions issued by Mangopay include asking you whether in the past 12 months you have been a head of state, a supreme court judge, or a general in charge of an army. And even if you answer no to every question, Mangopay warns that simply by returning its questionnaire you are accepting that it can demand further information and documents from you. So, are you as corrupt as a villain from a James Bond movie? And just what did you sell on Vinted to spark Mangopay's suspicions? You told me: 'I'm retired and trying to downsize, selling a few things.' You sold a pair of men's loafers for £8, a dress for £4 and a vintage-style trench coat for £15. As for being a Mangopay customer, you protested: 'I never signed up to be one. If I had been given that option, I would never have signed up to Vinted in the first place.' The Trustpilot review site is full of protests from people in your position. And, just a few weeks ago, my Mail colleague Sarah Vine publicly ditched Vinted after struggling unsuccessfully to get money owed to her. She wrote: 'Well done, Vinted: you've wasted several hours of my few remaining years – and swindled me out of £62.50.' Surprisingly, the online barrier to your account suddenly vanished after I started questioning it. You grabbed your £27 while you could. But it was 'a really quite appalling way to operate a business', you told me. I can hardly disagree.
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour prepared to approve BP takeover by Shell
The Government would be prepared to approve a takeover of BP by its larger rival Shell rather than allow it to fall into overseas hands. The informal guidance in Whitehall was provided before last week's reports that Shell was in early-stage talks about a possible takeover of its weaker competitor. Shell issued a statement to the stock exchange saying that no such talks were taking place. Under Britain's strict takeover rules, it is not permitted to make an offer for six months. It would require BP to invite Shell into the process should there be a bid from other sources. City investment bankers have been floating the idea of a Shell-BP deal to create a London-based European oil champion on the scale of the American behemoths for some months. Such a transaction would inevitably require scrutiny by anti-trust authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. Shell chief executive Wael Sawan publicly has made it clear that his target is to keep returning funds to shareholders through dividends and buybacks, which have been running at £3 billion a quarter. A takeover of BP is seen at Anglo-Dutch Shell headquarters as a distraction from its core mission. Nevertheless, the company felt it necessary to take informal soundings with Ministers and officials, should the opportunity to become involved with BP arise. Shell's last major UK takeover came when it bought BG Group, once the exploration arm of British Gas, for £46 billion a decade ago. Shell, with a stock market value of £150 billion, has accelerated away from BP in recent years. With a valuation of less than half that, BP would be easy pickings for most of the big oil firms. Investor interest in big oil has increased since Donald Trump returned to the White House with his 'drill, baby, drill' mantra. The open hostility of Keir Starmer's Government to fossil fuels has also softened in recent weeks. The 12-day war between Israel and Iran has been a sharp reminder of how important oil and gas is to the UK's energy and national security. BP's low valuation of £58.8 billion makes it an attractive takeover proposition for its rivals. It has been beset by problems in the boardroom, in Russia and in the newly named Gulf of America. It carries net debt of £20 billion on its balance sheet. BP is seeking to refocus on oil and gas exploration and production after flirting with becoming a carbon-zero energy group under Bernard Looney, who left under a cloud in 2023. Current chief executive Murray Auchincloss has set a challenging target to reduce net debt to £14 billion by 2027. It is also under pressure from activist investor Elliott Capital Management to improve early returns even if it means cutting back on capital investment. However, it is not clear that the big American oil companies would be interested in buying BP. Exxon Mobil is very focused on the Americas, having struck black gold in the Guyana basin. It is also deeply involved in drilling, fracking and extraction of natural gas in the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico with its $64 billion (£47 billion) takeover of Pioneer Natural Resources. Rival Chevron also has been doubling down on domestic development and is pursuing a $50 billion takeover of Hess Corporation, although this has been bogged down in an arbitration process. As the former Anglo-Persian oil company founded in 1909, BP has a long history of global exploration and good relations with the British Government. It has lost none of its adventurous nature and has been developing new production and markets in Azerbaijan, India and Indonesia and is a big investor in Iraqi production. The Government will fear for the fate of such a vital flag-flier for Britain at home and abroad, and for the risk to jobs, exports and oil trading should it fall into overseas hands. A loss of its London stock exchange quotation would be a devastating blow to the UK. Some City advisers have been alerted that their services will be needed should, for any reason, the current six-month cooling-off period on a Shell-BP transaction be interrupted.
