The NHS must end its neglect of Seaton: Martin Shaw’s reply to the ICB’s report on the hospital

To all who raised 50% of the original cost of the Hospital in the 1980s and helped to fund it ever since, the dealings of the ICB must look like daylight robbery. – Owl

seatonmatters.org 

I have sent the following reply to the ICB over its report (which I reproduced in my last post). This reply has gone to our MP and I am sending it to the press.

Thank you for sharing the report, which I am making available locally. I cannot understand, however, why it was not published together with the Board’s minutes and that it has taken pressure from me and possibly others to produce it.

I appreciate that you are consulting with partner organisations but it is wholly unacceptable that you have still not outlined any plan to communicate this decision to, or consult with, the local community in Seaton, Colyton, Beer, Branscombe, Axmouth and surrounding areas which depend on this hospital, who contributed half of its original cost in the 1980s, and have helped to fund it ever since – overall donating some £5 million at current prices.

Perhaps unsurprisingly given the constant turnover of NHS organisations and leaders since 2017, the report provides a very incomplete and distorted account of the background. It states that the beds were removed ‘following full public consultation’ and notes the numbers of consultation events, responses to surveys and letters from the public. It fails however to mention that the consultation events in Seaton showed overwhelming opposition to the proposals; that the opposition to the closure of the beds in Seaton was greater than to any other closures; and that the local MP, town council and councillors of all parties were adamantly opposed.  

The report also fails to mention that the CCG originally originally proposed to keep the beds in Seaton, the furthest of all the affected towns from an acute hospital, changing its mind at the last minute in March 2017 and switching the retained beds to Sidmouth. No plausible rationale was presented for this switch, so that the decision was widely perceived as a political fix because Sidmouth, unlike Seaton, was then in a marginal constituency. The report fails to mention that because of this, the decision was the subject of especially strong criticism at the Devon Health Scrutiny Committee, which rejected by only one vote a proposal to refer the decision and the wider plans to the Secretary of State.

It is particularly outrageous that the report provides no explanation for the scandalous failure of the ICB and its predecessors, together with the RD&E, to make proper use of the former ward over the last 6 years. If poor use has been made of taxpayers’ money, that is not only because NHS Property Services is charging outrageous rentals (could you clarify for that £300,000 p.a. really refers to this wing of the building alone?). It is also because you have failed to take the opportunity to improve local health provision, which is weaker than in many comparable areas of Devon, although Seaton has the most elderly population in the county (after Budleigh Salterton) and lower life expectancy than neighbouring towns like Sidmouth. 

Not only has the NHS left Seaton with a lower level of services than any other community hospital in East Devon, but clinics have been allowed to be discontinued and proposals to introduce new services – like one to locate FORCE chemotherapy here which I myself made – were ignored. It is also very disappointing that the report claims that no viable proposals have been received for the use of the ward, ignoring the detailed, costed proposals for using the hospital made by Seaton Area Health Matters, chaired by Councillor Jack Rowland – a body which was set up with CCG and RD&E encouragement after the 2017 events, but in which you subsequently failed to maintain your interest.

I think I speak for a very large section of the local community when I say that it is essential that this decision becomes an opportunity to reverse the neglect of Seaton Hospital, rather than a confirmation of it, and that we expect the ICB itself to play a full part in putting the hospital on a better footing, not least to compensate the local community for your and your predecessors’ neglect over the last 6 years.

I trust that you will make this letter available to the Chair and other members of the Board. I have copied it to Richard Foord MP and Cllr Paul Arnott, Leader of East Devon District Council, and I shall be making it available to the press as well as locally.

2 thoughts on “The NHS must end its neglect of Seaton: Martin Shaw’s reply to the ICB’s report on the hospital

  1. When Axminster hospital wards were closed, we were told,”don’t worry because you will still have Seaton hospital” then suddenly one day the Seaton beds disappeared and wards all closed. Just like that – Gone!

    Consultation – what consultation? They made a mockery of it.

    Now is an opportunity to improve health services to Seaton and surrounding areas; open up those empty wards, give space to voluntary support groups, like the end of life care, dementia patients and their families and all other health groups where local people do so much for their communities and make an amazing difference to peoples’ lives. Also to bring extra health services from RD&E to local people.

    Like

  2. I read Martin Shaw’s account that, following a local community consultation on the closure of Seaton Hospital which unsurprisingly, given that the community had partly financed buying and refurbishment, the community wished to retain. it is now being closed.

    I think we have all been sceptical of “local consultations”.

    Do you remember that Devon County Council consulted Tipton St. John about the siting of the new school? Unsurprisingly, again, the community wished to retain the school in the village. So how did DCC put forward a planning application to build the school in Ottery St. Mary contrary to public wishes?

    Easy. If you just dot your planning application or your consultation report with these core words-SUSTAINABLE; IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST; BALANCING BENEFITS; VALUE FOR MONEY. A public consultation cannot compete against these magic words.

    (Fortunately, in this case the site was outside EDDC’s allotted local plan sites and the new independent regime at the time threw the application out)

    Planning Application, Thorne farm, Ottery St Mary. DCC tries to override Local and Neighbourhood Plans

    Like

Comments are closed.