Devon council to pay £250k to stop maintaining beach toilet
A small team of cleaners were struggling to keep the popular location's toilets maintained, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.The toilets needed a complete refurbishment after 23 years of heavy use which was estimated at a further £250,000, a report for councillors said.The authority had looked at installing a payment system at the toilets to mitigate some costs, but this was refused by the beach owners.Other lavatories owned and managed by beach owners are kept in much higher standard than those at Saunton beach car park, according to the council.Committee members were told that closing the toilets was not an option.
The council's director of resources Jon Triggs said when the lease was signed in 2002 it was "a different time" when the district council ran many more public conveniences than it did now.In the last couple of years it had made the decision to pass public loos to town and parish councils."This gives us an opportunity to escape from the lease," he said. "It's a financial consideration but will make significant savings moving forward." The council's lease will be surrendered in November.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
MPs urge ministers to introduce long-awaited rules on supply chain deforestation
MPs have called on ministers to introduce long-awaited rules aimed at removing products from UK shelves that have been farmed on land where trees were cut down. The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) wrote to Environment Secretary Steve Reed calling for urgent action to tackle the issue in supply chains. Under the previous Government's proposals, businesses will be prohibited from using or selling goods containing palm oil, cocoa, beef, leather and soy linked to deforestation. This due diligence system was part of the 2021 Environment Act but ministers are yet to bring forward the necessary secondary legislation or set a timetable for when they will do so. EAC chairman Toby Perkins asked Mr Reed to set out a specific date for introducing the legislation 'ideally before the New Year' so that the rules can be in place for the new financial year in April. The letter said: 'Delays in bringing forward this legislation makes the Cop15 agreement to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, and the UK's commitment to ending deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, harder to achieve. 'However, it also leaves businesses with uncertainty and will leave them with less time to prepare and comply with the regime. 'On 2 June, in your response to the Committee, you recognised the urgency of taking action to ensure forest risk commodities are not driving deforestation and stated you would set out the Government approach in due course.' Several British supermarkets recently warned that they are in 'limbo' waiting for the Government to introduce the new rules. In an open letter earlier this month, retailers such as Tesco, Sainsbury's and Lidl said deforestation presents an increasing risk to supply chain stability as well as food security. But they also said the UK could suffer millions in export losses to the European Union if Government inaction leaves businesses unprepared to comply with the bloc's own deforestation rules, which are due to come into force at the end of this year. Asked recently whether the Government has a timetable for introducing the legislation, the Environment Secretary told the PA news agency: 'Currently no, but we are working at pace so we can do this as quickly as possible.' On the supermarkets' letter and whether the Government is looking to speed up progress on introducing the rules, Mr Reed said: 'Absolutely.' 'I agree with the supermarkets,' he said. 'The previous Government was just dragging their heels without ever coming to a conclusion about what we do about protecting forests in other countries as well as in our own country. 'And of course forests, trees, woodlands were very important for capturing carbon and cleaning the atmosphere so we don't want to be importing food that has been grown where the forests have been destroyed. 'The Government is working with supermarkets, with food producers and internationally to make sure we get the outcome and we can do that as soon as possible to give everybody certainty about how we move forward on this.'
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Tesco to start selling potatoes grown in low-carbon technology trials
Tesco plans to start selling potatoes and other crops grown on a farm hosting trials for emerging innovations that have potential to decarbonise food production. The supermarket recently unveiled its arable 'low-carbon concept farm' in Lincolnshire, a multi-year commitment launched in January to test methods of reducing planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions caused by farming. Farmers recently started testing some of the new products and techniques on various crops in the fields of Langrick Farm, near Boston. Tesco is working in partnership with potato supplier Branston and collaborating with pea, wheat and broccoli suppliers on a seven-year crop rotation to minimise disease and boost soil health. Branston has been using some of the lower-carbon techniques across 20 acres on the farm. The company said it expects to harvest about 520 tonnes of potatoes from that section, which could supply about 260,000 two-kilogram packs of potatoes to Tesco shelves later this year. Plans also involve trialling innovations over the next few years that range from robotic tilling, low-nitrogen crop varieties and alternative fuels to biomass heating, pollinator cover crops and anaerobic digesters. R-Leaf, a product that converts nitrogen pollutants from the atmosphere into plant feed, Ccm Technologies' low-carbon fertiliser and Omnia, a system designed to map farms and gather data, are among the technologies already out in the fields. Langrick is one of two so-called 'low-carbon concept farms' that Tesco announced in January, the second of which is a collaboration with livestock producer ABP, where the trials are currently less established. It is understood Tesco is supporting the farms financially in the initiative, through its contracts with the suppliers. By exploring which innovations are economically viable and have real-world measured impacts, the supermarket hopes to de-risk green investments for its supply base. The trials will take several years although they come at a time when 2030 climate targets are fast approaching and increasingly extreme climate patterns are already affecting British farms. Asked why Tesco is spearheading the trials, Ashwin Prasad, the supermarket's UK and Ireland chief executive, said the supermarket has a 'vested interest' in a resilient food economy. 'Being the leading retailer in the UK, I do think we have a responsibility to lead for the things that create a path for food security, better environmental outcomes, better outcomes for farming families and communities,' he told the PA news agency. Some Tesco farmers have told the supermarket that scale-up innovation is inaccessible and expensive, and the risk of investing in unproven technologies too high, according to Mr Prasad. One aim of the trials is to help de-risk low carbon investments for suppliers by establishing which technologies work but are also financially viable for the farmers. The supermarket has not yet outlined a formal strategy on how it will incentivise suppliers to invest in and adopt proven technologies beyond the trials. But Mr Prasad said the supermarket will likely share the findings with its sustainable farming groups – a platform for Tesco farmers and suppliers to collaborate on best practices for sustainability and animal welfare – before exploring opportunities for scale. 'It's early days still,' Mr Prasad said. 'I think the first thing we've got to do is just make sure we don't run before we've really learnt how to walk in this space, given these are new and emerging technologies, and give ourselves enough time to feel confident about them.' On whether the cost of investing in these technologies will ultimately be pushed on to farmers or shoppers, he said: ' Consumers are really facing tough times in the UK. 'Our role is to also champion them for value and then work through those relationships … with our suppliers to say 'How can we accelerate the technologies that do the things consumers are looking for without exorbitant cost increases?'' A key tool for encouraging farmers to take on these technologies will likely be long-term contracts, he said, adding that this can provide them with certainty to make investment decisions. Another aim of the low-carbon concept farms is to get different suppliers working together to find solutions on a pre-competitive basis, Mr Prasad said. 'All of these things feel like they have broader application, so the collaboration pre-competitively versus a more restricted mindset … could be another big unlock.' Asked if Tesco will share its findings with other supermarkets, he said: 'Yes, absolutely'. 'The route to net zero isn't something you are able to achieve on your own. 'It requires everyone to work together and understand what things could be scaled so that we're all making progress against that target that we have to do as a nation.'
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
What does the overturning of a City trader's fraud conviction mean for deregulation?
Tom Hayes, the former City trader who was jailed in 2015 for his part in rigging inter-bank interest rates, the so-called Libor scandal – was a patsy. The former UBS and Citigroup trader was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison, later reduced to 11. This week, that conviction was quashed by the Supreme Court. I'm all for white collar criminals getting their just desserts, but Hayes' penalty always seemed more than a little excessive. It is more than twice what the rogue trader Nick Leeson got for bringing down Barings Bank. However, proportionality never came into this. Hayes' trial was designed to deliver a head on a plate to a public that was justifiably angry about what the City was getting up to after the bankers nearly crashed the economy. There was a widespread feeling that overpaid boys – and they were mostly boys – with massively inflated egos and little sense of morality were thumbing their noses at the rest of Britain, which was just starting to feel the impact of the then-government's austerity policies. But Hayes, who ended up serving five-and-a-half years, had nothing to do with that crisis, and contributed not a whit to austerity. Libor – the interest rate at which key banks were willing to lend unsecured loans to each other – was unregulated at the time, which also wasn't Hayes' fault, but rather an issue for the politicians and regulators who were asleep at the wheel. It did ultimately set the rate for a number of loans, including some mortgages, but the day-to-day activities of Hayes and his peers didn't have much effect on what ordinary borrowers paid. No one was able to convincingly show any, otherwise we would have seen a string of compensation claims. The chief losers were likely other trading desks, which were often playing the same game anyway. That's not to justify what went on. Cheating is still cheating, and the whole business knocked confidence in the City and its markets. But, then, the whole system was a joke. 'Tom Hayes' penalty always seemed more than a little excessive. It is more than twice what the rogue trader Nick Leeson got for bringing down Barings Bank' (PA Wire) Libor was set based on what some rube at Bank A estimated would be their cost of borrowing from other banks. These were put together, and a daily rate declared. If a hotshot trader got in touch, suggesting that the Libor guy tweak their Tuesday submission to help their trading position, they tended to comply. This is how the scandal got going. Needless to say, all this was unregulated. Yes, you read that right. Stupid is as stupid does, and this was really stupid. The Financial Services Authority, which was then the City's chief watchdog, ended up using failings in systems and controls and violations of its principles of business to justify the chunky fines it ultimately levied on the banks involved. Back to Hayes: the Supreme Court didn't completely exonerate him. It said there was 'ample evidence' during the trial that could have led to a conviction. But the judges raised issues with the trial judge's summing up, the directions given to the jury, and the impact it had on Hayes' defence. This was deemed to be unfair and the conviction unsafe as a result. It wouldn't be a surprise to see the other seven convicted traders up next. Similar cases have also been quashed in the US. The whole deck of cards is collapsing. The Serious Fraud Office said it would not seek to re-try Hayes or Carlo Palombo, another former trader, at Barclays, who received a four-year sentence for manipulating another benchmarked interest rate, Euribor, but has also won his appeal. They've done their time, and it's unlikely that the taxpayer will be coughing up any compo. Best sweep this one under the carpet because who wants all that stupid aired in public again, right? Here's the problem. The government had promised to deregulate financial services in the hope that reducing its oversight of the financial sector would light a fire under the City of London, boost the UK's stalling economy and bring in the tax revenues that the Treasury is in dire need of. This will likely involve loosening the rules governing the conduct of senior bankers that were ushered in following the 2008 credit crunch and the wave of scandals that followed in its wake, including interest-rate fixing. Can you see the problem with that? I think Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, can. Earlier this week, he advised the Treasury select committee that any big reforms to dramatically loosen City regulation – what the chancellor Rachel Reeves described in her Mansion House speech as a "boot on the neck" of business – and encourage more risk-taking might actually do more harm than good. He hinted that it might even trigger another financial meltdown. If traders can find an edge, an opening, they will jump on it. It was ever thus. They had good reason to think they had with Libor and that they were okay because there weren't any proper rules in place at the time. Their bosses will either turn a blind eye, just as they did then, or quietly encourage it, especially if the numbers come up good. And when this results in another scandal, there will be fines, which banks see as the cost of doing business, and an attempt to find another Tom Hayes to carry the can. The supervising bosses, who do the hiring and set the culture and who are supposed to be on top of what their banks are up to, will ride out the storm and pocket their bonuses as they always have. Justice, of a sort, has been served this time. But as for all that talk we heard about lessons being learned? They never are.
