Regional newspapers pick up story on criticism of LEPs – our LEP fights back

Unfortunately, no mention of our LEP members conflicts of interest and their decision to spend much of our money on Hinkley C nuclear power plan (several board members are involved in nuclear power-related work, one (Midas) is a major player in a contract for Plymouth Docks regeneration).

“A lack of transparency and insufficient resourcing are just some of the criticisms levelled at the Government’s flagship scheme to deliver £400 million of investment in Devon and Cornwall. But at least the media is waking up.

The findings from the new report on Local Enterprise Partnerships also highlight “confusion” about their role in local devolution deals, and difficulties assessing value for money.

The critical report from spending watchdog the National Audit Office, suggests that five years on from their creation, there is still some way to go to ensure LEPs are delivering the economic growth they promised.

But organisation’s operating in South West have welcomed the report – arguing they have made strong progress in the creation of new jobs, homes and investment opportunities in the region.

“The role of LEPs has expanded rapidly.”

The Coalition Government launched the Local Enterprise Partnership programme in 2010 to replace the UK’s nine Regional Development Agencies. Since then, 39 LEPs have been established, including fone or Cornwall and Isles of Scilly (CIOS) and for Devon and South West Somerset (the Heart of the South West, or HotSW).

The aim of these bodies is to boost economic development at a local level, using funding from Local Growth deals to support business and infrastructure improvements. But over time, the NAO notes, they have taken on a “significant” number of responsibilities, including positions on local transport boards and leading roles in devolution deals.

HotSW board member, Tim Jones suggests LEPs have faced a “whirlwind” of changes in recent years. He says this has contributed to a sense of “doing business on the hoof”, as the Government devolves more and more powers.

“The NAO report marks a good time to pause, reflect and make sure we are doing it right,” he said. “Now that the questions are being asked, it’s an opportunity to make sure LEPs are fit for purpose.”

“LEPs do not possess the resources necessary.”

The Government has pledged to make a total of £12 billion available to LEPs between 2014/15 and 2019/20. So far, Cornwall has received £60 million from this fund, with a further £150 million put forward by private investors, HoTSW has been awarded £195.5 million.

LEPs also have an influential say in the allocation of European funding, in the area. This amounts to roughly £470 million for the CIOS area and £92 million for HoTSW.

However, according to the NAO report, only 5% of LEPs surveyed felt they had sufficient resources to deliver the services and projects expected of them. And as they rely heavily on partnerships with local authorities to achieve their aims, the study warns many will struggle as cuts to council budgets take their toll.

Mr Jones said challenges around resources affect all LEPs. But he is not in favour of increasing staff numbers and returning to “the bad old days of big bureaucracy”.

“As an example, the demands around devolution have been huge, around half of the LEP team has been diverted to writing the devolution agenda,” he said. “But the expectations of government need to be managed against the resources that are available, rather than the other way round.”

CIOS chief executive Sandra Rothwell stressed her LEP is keen to make sure as much funding as possible goes to economic growth “not organisation”. “We are a partnership and we work with councils, chambers of commerce and businesses in developing and implementing strategies,” she explained. “Could we use more [resources]? Yes of course. But it should be proportionate to the scale of the programmes we deliver.”

“LEPs… are not as transparent to the public as we would expect.”

Management of LEPs currently consist of a mixture of private sector representatives and local councillors. The NAO report found that the proportion of private sector membership ranged from 45% to 80% across the 39 bodies.

It says the Department for Communities and Local Government has taken steps to improve LEP governance and transparency. But it suggests the department should do more “to ensure that the required standards of governance and transparency are being met”.

At the Cornwall LEP, four of the 16 board members are elected councillors, with remaining members coming from local businesses and other professions. Ms Rothwell believes that this is a fair representation of public, private and voluntary sectors.

She also stresses that the LEP reports back to local authorities on its decisions, and makes information about board members and their registered interests available online.

“Most of our resources are focussed on running an accountable process, because at the end of the day this is public money,” she added. “We were one of just seven LEPs in England interviewed in depth for this report and we received excellent feedback on our own systems and processes.”

At HotSW, six of the 20 board members are councillors – a ratio Mr Jones describes as a “healthy balance”. He also states that prospective board members face a “very rigorous” selection process.

“I think [the mix] has created an understanding about the needs of the business community, and improved their understanding of the needs of the local authority,” he said. HotSW also published information on board members and meetings on its website.

“It is not clear how LEPs fit into devolution.”

The NAO notes that ministers see LEPs as “central” to their plans for English devolution. But it claims LEPs are often “uncertain of their role within a more devolved landscape”, particularly in areas where their boundaries do not match those of the combined authority.

Ms Rothwell said CIOS, which leads on the employment and skills and business supports aspects of Cornwall’s devolution deal, is “very clear” on its involvement. “This one of the strengths that Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly has in terms of focus and geography,” she said. “So we are in a slightly different place than other LEPs].”

The Heart of the South West devolution submission is still in the bid stage. As the name suggests, it corresponds with the area covered by the LEP, but Mr Jones said their role is as “an observer and a consultee” in the process. “There is some degree of confusion around the fact that it is not a complete deal… but it is being led quite rightly by the local authorities,” he said.

“LEPs are at the heart of driving local growth”

Both the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP and the HotSW LEP maintain that they are well on their way to hitting their targets for growth, but it is “too early” to accurately measure their success. They also stress that the NAO report is a “general” comment on the LEP model, and not an assessment of individual bodies.

The DCLG argues the study “misses the point”. A spokesman said: “LEPs are pivotal to driving local economic growth and have an important leadership role in devolution. That is why we have announced this week a further £1.8 billion through a new round of Growth Deals, maintaining our commitment to a £12 billion Local Growth Fund over the course of the Parliament.”

LEP targets for 2020/21

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly LEP aims to:
Create 20,000 new jobs
See superfast broadband rolled out to 100% of homes and businesses
Build 13,000 homes
Support the creation of at least 336 new businesses
Upgrade the Night Riviera sleeper service

Heart of the South West LEP aims to:
Create 22,000 new jobs
Build 10,000 new homes a year
Reduce rail journeys between Plymouth and London to 2 hours 45 mins
See 95% superfast broadband roll out
Achieve partial dualling of A303/A30 corridor

Further analysis

Torbay MP and Public Accounts Committee member Kevin Foster: “The NAO report highlights the role our local LEPs play in economic development policy, but with this responsibility must come better accountability. It is right that LEPs can decide what reflects local priorities, rather than have them set by government or quangos across artificial regions that do not reflect our actual economic areas. Yet with the amount of money spent via them there needs to be clear measures to ensure the taxpayer gets value for money.”

Devon councillor and HotSW board member Andrew Leadbetter: “The Heart of the South West LEP has successfully enabled the private and public sectors to work together more efficiently to improve the lives of residents by creating jobs, attracting investment and in increasing the diversity of the regional economy. Together we will continue to improve productivity and growth in the region and I look forward to continuing to work with government and our regional partners Plymouth, Somerset and Torbay in the future.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/know-LEPs-New-report-raises-transparency-fears/story-28993422-detail/story.html

Exeter (and by extension its environs) in top ten least affordable cities

“Truro tops the South West list as the seventh least affordable – though many non-city areas could lay claim to worse affordability – with a ratio of 9.11.

It is followed in tenth place by Exeter where average house prices now stand at 8.36 times average earnings.

Devon and Cornwall’s only other city, Plymouth, was not featured in the top fifteen least or most affordable cities.

Affordability in UK cities is, on average, now at its worst level since the average house price to earnings ratio rose to 7.2 at the height of the last housing market boom in 2008.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Truro-Exeter-affordable-cities-buy-home/story-28998321-detail/story.html

Five-week consultation announced on local plan reforms sneaked out with the budget

The government has announced it will consult on the recommendations in the report of the Local Plans Expert Group until 27 April.

The report was published at the same time as the Budget last week. The Group reported an almost unanimous consensus about the problems facing local plan preparation.

These centre on agreeing housing need; difficulties with the duty to cooperate (including the distribution of unmet housing needs); a lack of political will and commitment; a lack of clarity on key issues, particularly SHMAs, strategic planning, green belt and environmental constraints; too many changes of policy, advice and factual changes in forecasts; and a lack of guidance, support and resources.

Developers and professional planners have given a broad welcome to the group’s proposals for shorter and faster plans which are more effective on growth and ensure proper community engagement.

President of the Royal Town Planning Institute Phil Williams said: “We want to see shorter, more proportionate and responsive, local plans and a greater focus on planning collaboratively across boundaries.

“Overall, the conclusions of the report will provide planners with greater certainty, for example, by allowing for judgments to be made on simpler evidence bases, and being subject to more flexible tests of soundness by the Inspectorate.

“We are also very pleased that the group has acknowledged the role that central government can play by taking steps to incentivise the development of growth points to ensure that housing needs are met”.

Ministers have made it clear that they want to see the planning system move towards a more zonal and ‘red lining’ approach where local authorities use their local plans to signal their development strategy from the outset and make maximum use of permissions in principle to give early certainty and reduce the number of stage developers must go through to get planning permission.”

Five-week consultation announced on local plan reforms

THE REPORT CAN BE FOUND HERE:

Click to access Local-plans-report-to-governement.pdf

Test of new Local Plan: Clinton Devon Estates planning application for unallocated building on green field outside built-up boundary on AONB in Beer

And the original application mentions protected species on the la nd!

Owl commented on the original planning application from Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) for “up to 30” houses at Short Furlong in Beer, querying (amongst other things) why it needed 70 parking spaces. It was described in the planning documents as:

“Planning Application 14/2621/MOUT – Clinton Devon Estates – land at Short Furlong, Beer for development of “up to” 30 houses with “up to” 40% affordable homes. The current application seeks to get planning permission for access only.”

It can be accessed online at:
eastdevon.gov.uk/planning and searching on the planning application number.

CDE asked for an extension before a Development Management Committee meeting in December 2015 and in February 2016 asked for a further extension until April 2016. This has since been extended – again – to the end of May 2016. New documents have been added, particularly a report on drainage of the site:

The latest email is:

“Iestyn
Thanks for confirmation, I shall instruct the DV [District Valuer?] accordingly. Given the earliest committee date is 10th May and that were members to approve the application that there would inevitably be a further period of time involved in the negotiation of a s.106 agreement would it be sensible at this stage to agree a further Extension of Time for the determination of the application until say 31st May 2016 in the first instance?
Regards
Charlie McCullough
Senior Planning Officer”

As above, this suggestion by the Senior Planning Officer was taken up by Iestyn … it’s good to see our developers being helped by our planners. Letters between CDE and EDDC are very cheerful and informal – Charlie this and Amy that, Iestyn the other ….

It seems that attenuation tanks may be needed as there are properties downhill of the site that have to be accommodated with the run off situation (shades of Feniton here?) and this has required detailed information about run off and general drainage though, of course, the report is optimistic about solutions.

Also, it appears that, following advice from EDDC, it has been revised down to 18 homes so that it comes beneath the threshold for strategy 35 of the new Local Plan so that, by building only 18 houses (at this current time) they can be constructed outside the built-up area boundary, if there is need. Mention is made of “affordable houses” but, in the correspondence there is also mention of sorting out exactly what “affordable” will mean in terms of these houses at some later stage (24 February from Nigel Barratt, though for some reason the email starts off about Frogmore Road, Budleigh, rather than Beer, though it has the Beer planning application reference number).

As stated above, and confirmed by EDDC’s Landscape Architect’s consultee report, this is currently a green field site totally within the AONB and not allocated for housing (Consultee, March 2016 document 2215165 online).

She notes that some roads are not shown in plans, and asks why this is. She has concerns that visual relationships of the site are not adequately clear and that the visual “influence” of the site from other significant vantage points in Beer has been underestimated. She is worried about sustainable urban drainage and notes that many of the AONBs requirements are unfulfilled. She believes that EDDC’s own Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and D4 (Landscape requirements) have not been met nor D5 (Trees on site).

It is obvious from the drawings that there could be extensions to this site in coming years, should ways be found in future for such an extension.

Roll on the Development Management Committee meeting.

There appears to be little interest in the application from Beer residents on the EDDC planning application site, with, so far, not one letter of support or objection on file.

has been reactivated

Lewisham GP warns against devolution and health care

NHS reform: Devolution is not the only path to integrated healthcare

Plans to devolve control of health services to local areas are moving ahead quickly in parts of England. But handing powers to local authorities [or in our case the Local Enterprise Partnership] is not the only way to achieve health and social care integration, argues Socialist Health Association vice president Dr Brian Fisher – and devolution carries significant risks for the NHS.

In my area of Lewisham, the CCG and local authority have agreed to be a devo pilot. It will result in better services, possibly new powers, more integration. What’s not to like?

Devolution has real risks and I’d like to explore them here. And I am not convinced it’s needed at all.

Integration, on the other hand, is definitely needed. We know that patients fall through boundary cracks, and communication and culture is often a problem between sectors and organisations. Integration means many things. Including spanning the NHS and social care; primary and secondary care; community care and primary care; third sector and the NHS. Patients would benefit from better integration and communication across all those fences.

NHS integration

But integration and devolution are not the same thing. We have moved a great deal on integration without the need for devolution, and we could do a lot more. It seems a convenient elision to automatically link integration and devolution.

Devolution is the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional administration. There are two kinds of devolution: the Sporadic kind, such as Devo-Manc and the Lewisham form – and the Systematic variety coming down the road in the shape of a parliamentary bill. This has big implications.

As I understand it, Devo-Manc has not attracted any new powers to either the NHS nor the LA. So, it may stimulate new conversations, but it doesn’t actually change anything fundamental.

It also brings no new money. Quite the opposite – the costs in money, time and resources of another local redisorganisation may be quite high.

There is little democracy or accountability in the NHS in any case, but devolution does not seem to help. The Devo-Manc changes have gone through with no consultation whatsoever, with even a local MP being unaware of them. Similarly in Lewisham. In addition, much decision-making then appears to take place on a much larger scale, with committees-in-common merging CCGs and localities – it takes planning even further from the citizen.

NHS privatisation

People on the ground in Manchester say they see no privatisation now or in the future. Indeed, they say that the Manchester arrangements militate against privatisation. Nonetheless, in principle, devolution is likely to lead to more shifts in contracts, new organisations – and all that, with the mechanisms in place through the HASCA, will lead to more tenders and more privatisation.

I understand that in Manchester, they are using devolution to carry through cuts to as much as a third of their hospital beds and estate. This, led by the leader of the council. In the current climate this kind of group think is very dangerous.

Meanwhile, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act will enable local authorities to run NHS organisations.

The Act enables a transfer of local functions of the NHS to a local authority or ‘combined authority’, with a local authority’s permission. The ‘core duties’ of the health secretary – including roles set out in NHS England’s mandate, cannot be transferred. The local authority could take on a current NHS role, or carry it out alongside or jointly with the NHS. The NHS may or may not continue to provide that service itself. There is provision to abolish the public authority where it will no longer have any functions. It allows for a joint committee of the devolved bodies, including at least one CCG, to establish a pooled fund to manage NHS cash.

In principle, it makes sense for NHS services to be run by a local authority: they are structurally democratic; they understand commissioning; much of our health is determined by areas under the control of local authorities; there could be a rapid integrative process; everyone knows their local authority, but is often ignorant of their CCG.

Deregulation of NHS services

But, do you really want your local NHS run by a politician – and particularly a Tory – in the current climate of austerity? Do you want an organisation, your local authority, which has privatised virtually every public service to do the same to the NHS? Do you want an organisation whose life blood is means-testing, trying to do the same to your health services?

The Devolution Act could lead to the deregulation of NHS services, too. The Act mentions ‘standards and duties to be placed on that authority having regard to the national service standards and the national information and accountability obligations’. The phrase ‘having regard to’ is weak in legal terms. It becomes possible for the nationalised standards of care and practice to be slowly abandoned. Surely highly dangerous. And we have seen this in so many other areas of work, for instance banking and food.

The kind of integration we should seek includes the following:

Integrated national standards with nationally recommended treatments.

Integrated methods of allocating resources to areas of greatest need.

Integrated funding through national taxation.

National accountability, democratic control over commissioning, effective PPI, shared power with communities.

An integrated national system of pay, terms and conditions for NHS and social care staff.

Meanwhile, making social care free at the point of need is an essential prerequisite for integration. It would transform the whole scope, scale and landscape of care. The King’s Fund think tank has calculated that it is possible – and we need this to be the direction of travel. It may take some time, but it is absolutely necessary.

So, in short – integration definitely yes. Let’s do more. Devolution, however, seems to have far more risks than benefits, so, in the current climate – beware.

Dr Brian Fisher, GP News, 15 March 2016