Head of two adult care boards in Devon quits over “relentless cuts”

“The head of two adult safeguarding organisations has resigned, saying government cuts could lead to “a serious incident or death”.

The BBC has learnt Bob Spencer had “serious concerns” about the ability of both Torbay and Devon Safeguarding Adults Boards to deliver services in the face of “relentless budget cuts”.

He became chairman of the Torbay board in 2009, and the Devon board in 2013.
The government said it had provided councils with £3.5bn for social care.
In his resignation letter, Mr Spencer said he had seen how vulnerable people were “hardest hit” by the cuts to these agencies, and “with another four years of cuts, Devon and Torbay will struggle to provide a safe service”.
“We will, I fear, be facing a situation when services are reduced so significantly that those most vulnerable are at risk of abuse on many levels.

“Ultimately neglect, poor care and criminal actions may lead to a serious incident or death,” he said.

Safeguarding boards are statutory organisations which bring together councils, the NHS, and police, to oversee protection for vulnerable people, such as those who have learning disabilities or the elderly.

Mr Spencer said his decision to run as an independent candidate in the next election for the crime commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly acknowledged the “tireless” work done by staff and volunteers in the partnership safeguarding agencies.

The Department for Communities and Local Government said councils in England would have “almost £200bn to spend on local services” during this parliament, which it said was a reduction of “just 1.7%” annually in real terms.

A spokesperson for the department said: “By the end of this parliament local councils will be financed from local revenue, such as council tax and business rates rather than central government grant, which is something local government has spent decades campaigning for.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-35513316

Interesting to have an independent stand for police commissioner and one who has been at the sharp end of austerity cuts.

One to watch.

Heart-rending pictures and experiences of flooding in Feniton – again

And tonight it is raining heavily again so the village is anticipating worse conditions. Will Wainhomes do the decent thing and sort this problem out. Don’t hold your breath.

…”Water poured off the field beside Feniton’s latest development where swales (ditches) take surface water around the site, round the attenuation tank and then direct it straight through the Parish Council-owned play area. The swings had already been removed from a previous bout of heavy rain, when the ground under the swings was silted up with slimy sand from the surface water run-off.

The flood risk assessment submitted by Wainhomes and approved by the Environment Agency and Devon County Council seems to be woefully inadequate for dealing with surface water run-off from this high point of the village. Both the plan and the scheme put in place by Wainhomes need to be carefully scrutinised to ensure that what was planned and approved has actually been put in place.

And so it continued … sandy water poured under the allotment gates down Coventry Close and several of us spent some time trying to direct the flow to different drain holes so that they were not overwhelmed.

It’s boring, tedious, cold, dispiriting work … And we seem to spend far too much of our time worrying about what the weather will inflict on us next.

It’s probably a good time to thank the many flood wardens and other residents who give so selflessly of their time.

A particular thank you has to go to the kind resident of Exeter Close who came out with tea and biscuits for Danny and Jayne who stayed on Station Road until it was safe to re-open the road. …”

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/02/07/it-never-rains-but-it-pours-yet-again/

What happens when you privatise care home inspections

The body responsible for ensuring care homes are run to an adequate standard is so short of qualified consultants to help with inspections that it has had to ask the charities it replaced with a private company to help out.

Remploy, the former government agency that has turned into a for profit firm, won a £7m contract to replace the charities in London, the North and South of England, starting a week ago. However, hundreds of “Experts by Experience” have refused to reapply for their jobs after Remploy offered half their previous £17-per-hour pay.

As a result, the Care Quality Commission has had to ask the charities to keep providing the consultants for another two weeks, despite choosing Remploy to take over the inspections programme.

The CQC offered to provide a “buffer” payment to existing experts so they would be paid £15 per hour for the next six months, after which their salary could drop to just £8.40 per hour (£9.25 in London) – which is what Remploy is paying new recruits.

… Every month more than 500 experts, with personal experience of care services, are sent on CQC inspections across adult social care, primary care and hospitals. They play a vital role in the inspection process. However, hundreds of experts have quit their roles – angered by a combination of the pay offer and the fact that a private firm, majority owned by US outsourcing giant Maximus, is profiting from the deal. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/care-quality-commission-begs-for-help-from-charities-it-has-just-replaced-a6859326.html

The “Budleigh Boys” and their take on AONB changes: fine if it “benefits the lical economy”

The councillors referred to themselves as “the Budleigh Boys” after they were re-elected after the last local elections. This was their take on an AONB development in 2012 which gives a good idea of their priorities, which over a period of three years appear to have totally changed.

Application 11/1531 (F Carter) refused for winter storage & refused by Inspectorate 15.05 2012

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 GRANT OF CONDITIONAL PLANNING PERMISSION Applicant: Pooh Cottage Holiday Park Application No: 15/2136/FUL Address: Bear Lane Budleigh Salterton Date of Registration: 14 September 2015 Agent: ARA Architecture Date of Decision: 28 January 2016 Address: 39 Rolle Street Exmouth EX8 2SN Proposal: Proposed storage area for 47no touring caravans. Location: Pooh Cottage Holiday Site Bear Lane Budleigh Salterton

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application is before Committee having been referred from Chairman’s Delegation meeting. The application seeks permission for the use of an agricultural field for the winter storage of caravans. The use would be associated with an adjacent holiday touring caravan site which is in operation for the main holiday season only. While the applicant has sought to demonstrate the benefits of the scheme through additional income for the existing site, and continuity of service for clients (those staying on the site during the summer would be able to store their caravan on the adjacent field), the site lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In such an environment, which is given the highest level of landscape protection, development should be in the National Interest or have sufficient justification while still protecting and preserving the environment. While economic benefits can help to justify a scheme, they are not considered in this instance to outweigh the concerns regarding the visual impact from the proposal and highway safety concerns from additional vehicle and caravan movements on a single-width carriageway

Recommendation: THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, RECOMMENDS THAT PERMISSION BE REFUSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS

1. The proposed development would be likely to result in an increase in the number of vehicle movements, particularly towing vehicles, using Bear Lane, a narrow road with limited passing facilities and no footways which will further prejudice highway safety and lead to additional interference and conflict with other highway users along the length of Bear Lane and its junction with B3178, including users of the national Cycle Network, contrary to Policy TO6 of the Devon County Structure Plan and Policy TA7 of the adopted East Devon District Local Plan Officer authorised to sign on behalf of the County Council 20 October 2015 DCC Flood Risk SuDS Consultation Thank you for referring the above application which was received on 23/09/2015

Budleigh – Cllr A Dent When a similar proposal came before us three years ago I supported the application on the following grounds: o The additional income from the winter storing of caravans would be of considerable benefit to the Pooh Cottage business. In addition there would be a some benefit to the local economy.

By not moving caravans seasonally in and out of the site, there would be less traffic movements in Bear Lane. The Inspector refused the application in support of the Highways comments as well as the detrimental effect there would be on the AONB. This application addresses the harm to the AONB by moving the proposed storage site further down the slope. The advantage to both traffic movements in Bear Lane as well as the benefit to the local economy remain.

On balance I feel the benefits outweigh any potential harm and I support this application. In the event that officers disagree with my position then I would like this application to be taken to committee.

Budleigh – Cllr S Hall I wish to express my support for this application. I believe that this revised location is much more acceptable in terms of visibility and impact on nearby residents. Traffic movements should be significantly reduced. Please advise of any future developments on this

Budleigh – Cllr T Wright I support this application. I was strongly opposed to the previous application as there would have been significant visual impact as the previous site was higher up the land. The new site is lower down the hillside and not so obtrusive. The reduction in the resulting movement of caravans is to be welcomed on a number of points, reduced traffic congestion, improved road safety and a lessening of carbon emissions. The business is a valuable contributor to the Budleigh and wider East Devon economy.

HMRC avoids giving real numbers when talking abouttax avoidance!

” … In [the HMRC] annual report, we see a “cash collected” figure, but this includes cash not yet received, not all of which will be collected. Confused? You’re meant to be.

We all know “lies, damned lies and statistics” We should all celebrate, as most of us in this country have the above-average number of legs: some folk have one leg, but nobody has three, so we bipeds are “above average” – see?

HMRC doesn’t report on the scale of aggressive tax avoidance. They don’t want stats to show how shoddy they are. But it does trumpet the numbers of prosecutions for evasion. HMRC chose a random figure of 1,000 a year. And then beat that number of prosecutions. Yippee. But we’re dealing with a taxpaying population of about 30 million. HMRC puts the figure of the “shadow economy” at 10% of our total tax received. So, aiming to prosecute 1,000 people really is less than useless… …”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/07/hmrc-tax-avoidance-dispatches-greg-wise-channel-4

The full report will be on”Dispatches”, Challel 4, 8pm tomorrow

EDDC AONB RIP

So, that’s the AONB designation shot then … watch the developers go with “windfalls” there – orchards perhaps …

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-observer1702/20160207/281732678525904/TextView

MPs investigated by police for criminal offences but not named and allowed to stand in last general election

In any other area of life these people would have been suspended whilst investigations were completed.

“The expenses watchdog has been accused of eroding public trust after it emerged that five MPs have been secretly referred to the police for investigation over the past year.

Ipsa, the expenses watchdog, has refused to name any of the MPs despite admitting that there is “reason to suspect a criminal offence has been committed”.

The watchdog has only named two of the 55 MPs it has investigated since April 2014 after concluding the cases were either unfounded or reaching secret agreements.

The secrecy of arrangements means that several of the MPs were re-elected in May despite the investigations. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/12143508/Five-MPs-referred-to-police-over-expenses.html

Party politics: where black is white and white is black …

What an interesting political world we live in!

Tory MPs are told by David Cameron to take no notice of their constituency parties about Europe:

“Forty-four local party chiefs write to the Telegraph warning the Prime Minister he has no ‘divine right’ after EU referendum ‘snub'”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12144564/EU-referendum-show-us-respect-local-Tory-party-chiefs-tell-David-Cameron.html

while Jeremy Corbyn does the exact opposite over Syria:

“When I was elected I said I wanted Labour to become a more inclusive and democratic party,” he adds. “So I am writing to consult you on what you think Britain should do. Should Parliament vote to authorise the bombing of Syria?”

http://labourlist.org/2015/11/corbyn-turns-to-labour-party-members-in-syria-dispute/

So, Tory constituency members are marginalised in favour of MPs personal views whereas Labour MPs are marginalised in favour of members’ views.

Don’t let anyone now tell you that a vote for a party MP is a vote for the party!

Lobbying: OK if you are a mega/non-taxpaying multinational or Tory donor but not if you are a charity

Charities have said new rules on how they spend government grants amount to making them take a vow of silence.

From May, charities and organisations will no longer be allowed to spend taxpayers’ money on lobbying ministers.

The Cabinet Office said the new clause in grants would mean funds go to good causes, not political campaigns.

Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said it was an “insane policy” that would not work in reality.

“Take a service charity funded to run a helpline. They may well be dealing with ex-servicemen, there will be policy issues that emerge from that. They’re not allowed to tell the government?” he told the BBC.

“The other reason is, if you’ve got mixed funding, how are you going to know which is the government’s and somebody else’s?”

The “draconian” move was “tantamount to making charities take a vow of silence”, he added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35509117

SO, AS LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPS GET GRANTS FROM GOVERNMENT WILL THEY ALSO BE BANNED FROM LOBBYING – WHAT DO YOU THINK, OF COURSE NOT!

Clyst St Mary: Neighbourhood Plan meetings

Neighbourhood Plan
The Neighbour Plan which will protect the village itself is now in its final pre-submission Consultation phase (16 Jan – 1 March 2016). A copy of the draft Plan can be found on the Bishops Clyst Planning website at: http://www.planning.bishopsclyst.co.uk or you can go along to one of the open sessions as listed below:

– Clyst St Mary Village Hall Saturday 6th February 1pm-6pm
– Sowton Village Hall Saturday 13th February 1pm-6pm
– Cat and Fiddle Inn Wednesday 10th February 10am – 1pm

Flooding and sandstorm – Exmouth seafront road video

And take a look at the video of a drive on Exmouth seafront road this morning on the Facebook Exmouth Splash (in every sense of the word!) public discussion site.

And if anyone says the development doesn’t need an environmental impact assessment – show this to them!

Flooding: an observation from Cranbrook

From a correspondent:

I attempted to go to Countrywide today (which used to be described as ‘Countrywide at Broadclyst’, but I guess it is now very much at Cranbrook).

The lane that used to lead there was closed a few months ago when the Cranbrook Educational Campus opened. Today I took the rerouted road and came across a torrent of water flowing across the road, several centimetres in depth.

This never to my knowledge happened on the old lane, and I don’t doubt that the run off from a newly built school will have contributed to this.

I imagine Countrywide are not too happy about the loss of custom, I am sure I am not the only one to have to turn back.

Exemplar of bad planning really! I also noticed the so-called ‘Country Park’ was completely flooded. I do feel sorry for those who live there, they are not responsible for bad planning decisions, but have to live with the consequences now.

Beer to take over beach management, tourist area. open spaces and car park announces Councillor Pook

“Councillor Geoff Pook (pictured) unveiled proposals to take over the management of the beach, Charlie’s Yard, Jubilee Gardens, the cliff-top car park and a number of open spaces around the village at a parish council meeting on Tuesday.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/if_we_own_it_we_can_shape_our_future_1_4406343

No doubt the news that Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Branscombe and Seaton will be taking over beach management, tourist spots, car parks and open spaces will soon follow, as Beer seems to have no unique or special qualifications to take over such lucrative assets.

“Independent” Councillor Pook is Chairman of EDDC’s Asset Management Forum – a currently secretive EDDC group which has only recently been forced to publish its agendas and minutes but does not allow public scrutiny by open meeting.

It was responsible for the initial idea to sell short-term leases on beach huts (which got thrown out after massive public outcry) and for the recommendation on new huge price increases that followed.

In his capacity as a member of Beer Parish Council, Councillor Pook stated that Beer was uniquely placed to take over management of EDDC-owned sites.

Watch this space.

Electoral Registration: a report on reform

A long but accessible and easily readable report by the Law Commission which our own Electoral Registration Officer will no doubt be reading closely in order to avoid the problems our district has encountered in the recent past.

Click to access electoral_law_interim_report.pdf

What you say you said can be very different from what you did say!

“Sid Valley representatives raised concerns that further evidence to support the removal of the site had not been submitted by EDDC to the inspector.

Councillor Marianne Rixson, a ward member for Sidmouth/Sidford, said: “I would like to describe the whole shambolic process of the inclusion of the Sidford employment land as the hokey-cokey. First it was in, then it was out, then it was in because it was never really out at all.”

Mark Williams, chief executive of EDDC, said: “The inspector had already heard all the arguments for and against the inclusion or deletion of Sidford. My advice was it wasn’t actually legally permissible to take the site out at that time.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/anger_over_hokey_cokey_employment_land_saga_1_4406347

What he actually said at that meeting according to the audio report was:

The inspector has already heard everything we have said and is yet to tell us what his view is on that part of the application. He may recommend that this site is not suitable and should be removed. It’s his decision now, not yours.

“It’s your funeral if you want to take it out.”

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/04/11/sidford-business-park/

No mention of illegality, no obvious advice that it was already too late – indeed “if you want to take it out” sounds like there is a choice, so the DMC decided to attempt to get it removed.

Advice? Hmmm.

Tax rebels! Today Councillor Claire Wright – yesterday Councillor Stuart Hughes!

Oh, how times change! Doubt as current Chair he will be toppling the party whip any time soon or dumping scrap metal in the council chamber in protest at taxes!

” … … Hughes and others formed the Raving Loony Green Giant Party. The party was much more organised and the inclusion of “Green” in the title also pointed to a party with at least some priorities. The Green Giants focused much more on local priorities and “serious” politics and were more democratic than the party they had left behind.

Hughes was a fierce local campaigner and in 1991 he did the unthinkable by taking on the local Tories who had a total monopoly in local government in Devon. He took a safe Tory seat on East Devon District Council and a seat on Sidmouth Town Council. Hughes refused to pay the Poll Tax and was hounded by local Tories for it.

Although technically he sat on the District Council and not the County Council (who actually collected the tax) they consistently goaded the unrepentant councillor. When legal action was threatened, Hughes responded by marching in to the council chambers and dumping scrap metal to the value of the unpaid tax. The voters clearly approved as Hughes was elected to the County Council himself toppling the Tory Whip in the process.

Loonies, Splitters & Monster Ravers

Thank goodness we have the calm and measured opposition of East Devon Alliance these days!

Could Councillor Stuart Hughes have done more for Sidford Fields?

A correspondent writes (views expressed are their own):

STUART HUGHES AND THE SIDFORD BUSINESS PARK

Councillor Stuart Hughes rightly describes the inclusion of a 12-acre business park in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at Sidford in East Devon’s Local Plan as “a kick in the teeth” to the people of the Sid Valley. But he seems indignant at suggestions that he could have done more to prevent this disaster. (See his comment on this site, 1st February).

It’s true that Councillor Hughes has consistently criticised the business park proposal but some major questions remain about his record in this whole sorry scandal.

1. Why does he insist that the Sidford site was deleted from the Local Plan when it wasn’t?

In March 2015 he helped to persuade Conservative colleagues on EDDC to vote to remove the business park from the Local Plan, after they had strongly supported its inclusion in 2014. But then, incredibly, he didn’t seem to realise that this change of mind needed to be justified to the Inspector. Indeed, Mr Thickett, himself, in his 2016 Report expressed surprise that “no new evidence was submitted (to him) by the council to explain its volte face”.

Without such evidence there was no chance of its being removed, making the vote appear a mere pre-election ploy to save local Tory District councillors, whose seats were threatened by Independents. If the vote WAS genuine, it suggests a massive case of naivety and incompetence by councillors who thought they could obtain the Inspector’s approval for their change of mind without giving any reasons!

2. Should he have revealed what he knew about the background to the Sidford Business Park proposal?

This appears to have originated in a confidential understanding between council officers, a Sidford landowner, and a prominent local businessman. In 2012 a national supermarket, was in negotiations with the businessman to purchase this site which would enable a move to the greenfield site at Sidford.

The businessman in question was a member of the East Devon Business Forum, (EDBF) a lobby group of landowners and developers which had rubbished the findings of independent consultants, and proposed inflated employment land targets. These were later accepted by the Council leadership and used to justify the Sidford proposal – indeed EDBF later boasted about its influence in this decision.

As chair of the Scrutiny Committee Councillor Hughes supported the setting up in 2012 of a sub-committee, under Councillor Graham Troman, to investigate the influence of the EDBF, but he remained publicly silent when this investigation was blocked and then later suspended by the Chief Executive who ordered an officer not to attend, with minutes on these meetings being scant on detail and open to interpretation.

3. Could he have done more do to clarify the role of the Council Leader?

In the summer of 2012 Councillor Hughes attended a site meeting at Alexandria Road with Council Leader Paul Diviani and an others. A County official apparently advised that it was quite practical to create a new access to the site from the B3176 and it is said there was up to £40000 available for a feasibility study.

But the day after this meeting the funding was apparently “pulled” because, Councillor Hughes was told, EDDC were in negotiation with a major supermarket chain.

In October 2012 the Leader told the Sidmouth Herald that constructing a new access to Alexandria Road was “too problematic.” Councillor Hughes was apparently “flabbergasted” by this statement and challenged Cllr Diviani at a Scrutiny meeting, but never followed up what seemed to be the Leader’s ambiguity towards the improvement and modernisation of the Sidmouth site.

4. Why didn’t he argue against the proposal at the Public Examination of the Local Plan in February 2014?

Neither Councillor Hughes nor any other Sidmouth District councillors spoke at the Public Examination before the Inspector. It was left to the Town Council, members of the public, and a Honiton councillor to put the case against building an unnecessary business park on a flood plain in an AONB. Councillor Hughes, as County councillor responsible for Highways, might have effectively challenged the “experts” who testified that narrow local roads were capable of absorbing the heavy traffic that would be created. Indeed he has since said that this may form one of the objections to any future planning application.

5. Why has he now thrown in his lot with the leadership he called “spineless and arrogant” for the Sidford business park project?

After the elections of May 2014 Stuart was summarily sacked from his committee positions by the Council leadership which claimed he was “too busy”, though other councillors who had dual roles and busy lives were not similarly sacked. This excuse was widely derided, and Councillor Hughes clearly felt he had been punished for not completely toeing the party line. He furiously publicly condemned the Council leadership as “spineless and arrogant”.

Astonishingly, in 2015 he agreed to serve as Chair of the Council, working in close collaboration with the very people he had so recently railed against.

This may be the way our local politics works, and but to many of his electors it might well smack of opportunism and lack of principle.

Not that this would be a first: his transition from Monster Raving Loony Party in the 1990s to EDDC Conservative Party Chair has been one that many fail to comprehend:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hughes_(politician)

Straitgate Quarry: DCC votes to allow it progress despite major drawbacks

” … Disappointment was expressed this week after Devon County Council’s (DCC) development management committee (DMC) voted to keep the site in its minerals plan – which earmarks land suitable for future aggregate supplies.

Speaking at the DMC meeting on Wednesday, Councillor Claire Wright argued the inclusion of Straitgate in the plan makes it undeliverable. She implored members to consider deferring the matter.

Cllr Wright said that opposition from one land owner who controls access makes the site undeliverable, as does the lack of a viable processing place. AI’s proposals rely on it processing material at Blackhill Quarry in Woodbury – land that has not been approved for inclusion in the plan. Cllr Wright also argued AI’s estimated 1.2million tonnes of material could only be achieved by quarrying down to the water table – which would have a detrimental impact on the important environmental area, affect water supplies and also pose a flood risk. She added: “I also want to point out the level of opposition in Ottery. Over the last four years, there have been hundreds of objections.”

DCC officer Andy Hill said: “It is correct that the planning application has thrown up certain constraints. We feel there is an expectation that the site is deliverable in some form.”

On the amount of material, he said: “A definitive figure is not available but, if it’s less than expected, it is not fatal to the plan.”

Cllr Robert Vint suggested it is premature to go ahead with the plan in light of the points raised.

However, members agreed that a planning inspector will consider all of the points raised during the examination process and voted for the plan to be submitted to the next stage.

Monica Mortimer, of the Straitgate Action campaign group, said: “We will keep fighting. We are grateful to Claire for sticking up for the people of Ottery. The officers are only hearing one side of the story and they refuse to consider other points.”

Applications for the quarry at Straitgate Farm and a processing site at Blackhill are both yet to be decided by DCC.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/vow_to_keep_fighting_100_acre_quarry_proposals_on_ottery_s_outskirts_1_4406014

Devolution: Trust Diviani says Moulding

“Deputy leader Cllr Andrew Moulding added: “I think we have to trust our leader, supported by the chief executive, to work in our interest to get the best possible negotiated deal we can for devolution and localism in our area.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/devolution_deal_moves_closer_despite_concern_1_4406297

Well, that’s us sorted then …

And which councillor has most power and influence to gain from the devolution deal? Councillor Diviani, who is currently slated to be responsible for housing expenditure in the whole of Devon and Somerset – along with his old pal Exeter CEO Karim Hassan (ex-EDDC).

Happy days.

Greenwich insists that all developers publish their (non) affordable housing data

All planning applications in Greenwich must now include full details and cost calculations of calculations relating to affordable housing (or lack of it) in their initial planning applications.

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/council-bans-developers-from-keeping-their-affordable-housing-viability-studies-confidential?utm_source=Public%20Sector%20Executive&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6740360_PSE%20Bulletin%20Feb%2016%20wk%201&dm_i=IJU,40GW8,KSFJZ3,EI3XE,1