Cancer cluster close to Hinkley – but don’t worry …

“Cancer rates in a Somerset town close to a nuclear power station are up to six times higher than average.

Burnham-on-Sea will be named this week as the most significant ‘cancer cluster’ so far discovered near a British nuclear plant. The revelation will provide fuel for anti-nuclear campaigners who say the industry pollutes the environment and is potentially lethal for people living nearby.

The residents of Burnham, which lies five miles downwind of the Hinkley Point plant, have demanded an official inquiry into the figures, which were compiled by Dr Chris Busby, a government radiation adviser.

The study will be presented to locals on Thursday – the first anniversary of the death of Burnham resident Jo Corfield from breast cancer. Corfield’s mother, Geraldine Trythall, 86, who survived breast cancer five years ago, said yesterday: ‘We want to know exactly what is causing all these cancers. We have a right to know.’

Some residents are even moving away from the area. The parents of 18-year-old David Lidgey, who contracted leukaemia three years ago, strongly suspect the power station is to blame for his illness. Susan and Rob Lidgey said they are in the process of moving a mile inland from Burnham in a move to avoid further health effects.

Campaigners believe that radioactive discharge from Hinkley Point into the sea could explain the resort’s high cancer rate. Busby, also a member of the Government’s committee on depleted uranium, believes dangerous material from Hinkley Point is contaminating tidal sediment around power stations.

When the mudflats off Burnham are exposed at low water, he believes that radioactive particles are carried away on the wind and inhaled by residents. Of the 95 people diagnosed with cancer in Burnham since 1989, more than half took part in sea-based activities such as watersports or bait-digging. Only one in five cancer sufferers was a smoker.

‘We have known since the 1960s the mechanism by which radioactive particles come ashore, and we will be worrying about this problem for a few hundred years to come,’ said Dr Vyvyan Howard, senior anatomy lecturer at Liverpool University and an expert on the effects of toxins on human tissue.

The study, which investigated cancer cases in Burnham since 1998, found residents are 5.95 times more likely to get kidney cancer. The probability that this is coincidental is just one in a thousand.

It also found that cases of cervical cancer are 5.6 times higher than the national average, while leukaemia rates are more than four times above the norm. Women from Burnham have more than double the risk of breast cancer, with a one in 2,500 probability the figures are chance, according to cases over the past six years.

It is the first time both adults and children living near a nuclear plant have been examined for such a broad range of cancers and the first attempt to examine the incidence of the illness rather than deaths.

‘We see a picture confirming my fears that Hinkley discharges are responsible for severe health problems. All the epidemiology points to that conclusion,’ said Busby, who is a member of the Independent Advisory Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. Busby urged similar research to be carried out at sites across the UK.

The range of cancers examined in the report have all been linked to the effects of radiation from studies on Hiroshima survivors. However, no scientific link has yet been established between low-level radioactive discharge of the type from Hinkley Point and cancer.

Last year Busby identified a leukaemia cluster near Chepstow on the banks of the Severn near Oldbury power station, north of Burnham. Another study in Seascale, close to the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria, observed cases of leukaemia in children under 14 between 1950 and 1983.

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘No known health effects have been shown to be associated with radioactive discharges from current nuclear sites.’

BNFL, which is decommissioning one of the reactors at the Hinkley site, dismissed Busby’s findings, adding that his previous work had been ‘heavily criticised’ by health experts.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/jul/14/greenpolitics.science

“No extra money for NHS, Theresa May tells health chief”

“Theresa May has told the head of the NHS that it will get no extra money despite rapidly escalating problems that led to warnings this week that hospitals are close to breaking point.

The prime minister dashed any hopes of a cash boost in next month’s autumn statement when she met Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, senior NHS sources have told the Guardian. Instead she told him last month that the NHS should urgently focus on making efficiencies to fill the £22bn hole in its finances and not publicly seek more than the “£10bn extra” that ministers insist they have already pledged to provide during this parliament.

She told him the NHS could learn from the painful cuts to the Home Office and Ministry of Defence budgets that she and Philip Hammond, the chancellor, had overseen when they were in charge of those departments, according to senior figures in the NHS who were given an account of the discussion.

Senior Whitehall sources have confirmed that Hammond’s statement on 23 November will contain no new money for the NHS, despite increasingly vocal pleas from key NHS organisations and the public’s expectation of extra health spending if Britain voted to leave the EU.

NHS Providers, which represents 238 NHS trusts, last week accused ministers of perpetuating “a bit of a fantasy world” on how well the NHS is doing after the worst-ever performance figures for key waiting time targets for A&E care, planned hospital operations and cancer treatments led to warnings that it was starting to buckle under the strain of unprecedented demand.

Health experts warned that the NHS would have to ration treatment, shut hospital units and cut staff if it gets no extra money soon.

Nigel Edwards, chief executive of the Nuffield Trust health thinktank, said: “If the government has firmly decided not to revisit NHS funding, this underlines that the health service faces four very difficult years. In particular, balancing the books in 2018 and 2019 when funding will flatline looks all but impossible with the current level of services.

“If more money from tax or borrowing is ruled out, the only choices left may be even less attractive, including reducing access and services, closures and reductions in staff,” he said.

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, and Jim Mackey, the chief executive of the health service’s financial regulator, NHS Improvement, also attended the 8 September meeting, which was Stevens’ and Mackey’s first encounter with the prime minister.

“No 10’s message at the meeting was quite blunt and stark, that there will be no more money. Theresa May and Philip Hammond say that they presided over big efficiency programmes at the Home Office and MoD and didn’t whinge about it. Their view is that the NHS is already doing very well, but that’s head in the sand stuff,” said one NHS insider who was among those briefed on the meeting.

NHS leaders privately fear that May’s remarks indicate that she will be much tougher on the service’s pleas for more cash than David Cameron and does not appear to appreciate the extent of its deepening problems. She is said to be sympathetic to the view of many senior Treasury officials that, as one NHS source put it, “always giving the NHS more money is throwing good money after bad, like pouring water on to sand”.

May’s stance raises questions over the future of Stevens, who is preparing to give evidence on the NHS’s finances to the Commons health select committee on Tuesday. The NHS boss, who had a close relationship with Cameron and George Osborne, has recently irritated No 10 by publicly questioning the accuracy of the government’s claim – which May repeated at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday – that the NHS will receive £10bn extra by 2020.

He told the public accounts committee last month: “The government would record it as £10bn. The health committee recorded it a little differently. There is an apples and pears issue there.”

Stevens has welcomed the fact that the £8bn boost Osborne pledged during last year’s general election campaign was “frontloaded” to give the NHS £3.8bn more this year, a rise of 1.7%, as he had requested. But he highlighted that the service had not got the sums it needed for 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. On current plans, it is due to receive increases of just 0.6%, 0.2% and 0.1% respectively, even though demand for core NHS services such as A&E care is rising at 3% or 4% a year.

Chris Ham, chief executive of The King’s Fund thinktank, said that any policy of providing no more money was unwise, “simply not credible” and would threaten standards of NHS care. “If these accounts are true, then it is clear that Downing Street does not yet fully understand the impact on patients of the huge pressures facing the NHS.

“The view from the top of government appears to be that the NHS has been given the extra money it asked for and should deliver what is expected of it. But this misses the point that demand for services is rising rapidly and the NHS is managing with the lowest funding increases in its history,” he said.

A Downing Street spokesman said he could not comment on what May, Stevens and Mackey had discussed because it had been a private meeting .”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/14/no-extra-money-for-nhs-theresa-may-tells-health-chief

When is a village not a village?

When it has 10,000 houses – it’s a TOWN!

Garden villages scheme gets cash boost

An extra £1m has been put behind the garden villages programme, taking the total government funding on offer to £7m.

Housing minister Gavin Barwell urged councils to apply for the money as “we want to ensure everyone has an affordable place to live and that means we’ve got to build more homes”.

The scheme assists the development of new villages of between 1,500 and 10,000 homes planned around green spaces.

It already supports developments planned at Bicester, Didcot, Basingstoke, a site near to Braintree, Essex, and the former RAF Deensthorpe airfield near Corby, Northamptonshire.

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/10/garden-villages-scheme-gets-cash-boost

Two mid-Devon Conservative councillors removed from committees following investigation

News announced in a press release, presumably from the council, that very carefully excludes the reasons why they were removed:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/two-mid-devon-conservative-councillors-removed-from-committees-following-investigation/story-29809275-detail/story.html

Neil Parish offers to meet Honiton constituents about NHS cuts – in Tiverton!

Claire Wright meeting with Devon Senior Voice about health service cuts in Honiton:

“MP, Neil Parish, had submitted a statement saying he was opposed to the cuts. He has offered to meet residents … in Tiverton.

The meeting resolved to set up a campaign group to fight the plans. I wish them lots of luck.

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/well_over_100_people_packed_the_mackarness_hall_last_night_to_make_their_op

Hugo Swire bans Claire Wright from a meeting in her ward

“Hugo Swire bars me from a meeting about Tipton St John Primary School flooding problems

I was bizarrely barred from a meeting in my own ward this lunchtime, with East Devon’s MP and the chief executive of the Environment Agency, James Bevan, who met with Tipton St John school staff about the ongoing challenges of flooding at the school – an issue I have been active on for three years.

I have been involved in discussions on how the situation at Tipton St John may be remedied since I was elected as a Devon County councillor in 2013.

I asked to attend the meeting this morning, however, was informed by Hugo Swire’s office that I would not be welcome as he was “keeping the meeting very small and focused and had to limit numbers.”

I was very disappointed about being excluded as crucially important issues would be discussed that I have been actively involved with. Last year I provided funding from my county council locality budget for a flood survey and helped to clear up after at least two flooding events, arranging with the chief fire officer for Devon and Somerset, for the fire and rescue service to be involved in these clear ups.

I have attended meetings with residents about the future of the school and worked with the school – and the community on trying to find a solution to the flooding problems.

As the Devon County councillor for Tipton St John with a clear interest and involvement in supporting the community I would have thought it was entirely appropriate that I should have been invited to a meeting with the chief executive of the Environment Agency.

It was a poor decision”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/hugo_swire_bars_me_from_a_meeting_about_tipton_st_john_primary_school_flood

Swire on health and social care

Summary:

Home care is currently in trouble with local authorities having cut their funding.”

NO! NO! NO! YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS CUT FUNDING TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES!

“… social care is means tested and supplied by the local authority, whose grants, throughout the recent period of austerity have been cut.”

BY YOUR GOVERNMENT!

As to the blame game, it simply won’t get us anywhere.”

YES IT WILL – YOUR GOVERNMENT’S AUSTERITY POLICY GOT US HERE! YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS CHOSEN TO STARVE THE NHS TO FEED HS2 FOR EXAMPLE. IT HAS INSISTED ON TARGETS THAT CANNOT BE MET BY A DEFUNDED NHS AND THEN FINES HOSPITALS FOR NOT REACHING THEM!

(And be honest, if it was Labour in power YOU would be blaming Corbyn!)

Britain spends less as a share of its GDP on health care than most other rich countries. If taxpayers want that to change they will have to pay for it. And yes that might mean patients, diverted from expensive systems of care into cheaper ones.”

NO! IT CAN SPEND MORE ON THE NHS – IT WAS A CHOICE OF YOUR GOVERNMENT TO SPEND LESS AND UNDERFUND HEALTH CARE COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTRIEs AND TO SPEND MORE ON WASTEFUL VANITY PROJECTS. THIS IS A RICH FIRST-WORLD COUNTRY NOT A POOR THIRD WORLD ONE?

“As for surgeries, why can’t doctors deal with some patients by e-mail? it would mean they could devote more time to the seriously ill when they come in. Some people already pay for prescriptions, as they do for dental health, so is the answer for some other services to be charged for?

OWL CAN BARELY REPLY. YOU KNOW IMMEDIATELY THAT THIS MAN HAS PRIVATE HEALTH CARE! CAN YOU IMAGINE PEOPLE DESCRIBING THEIR SYMPTOMS BY EMAIL! AND HOW MUCH EMAIL DOCTORS WOULD HAVE TO PLOUGH THROUGH! AND WHAT IF THE PATIENT THINKS THE PROBLEM HAS TO GO TO EMAIL AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE AN EMERGENCY! OR WHAT IF EMAIL GOES DOWN OR YOU HAVE NO COMPUTER? WHAT ABOUT SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY?

I have an online booking system for my surgery but my doctor tells me only a quarter of people turn up”

SO DOESN’T THAT MEAN EITHER IT IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE OR EVEN THAT THERE IS MORE SPACE FOR THOSE WHO DO TURN UP ON THE DAY!

And finally:

These are only ideas, and for many they will feel like a bitter pill to swallow.”

INDEED A BITTER PILL BUT, FORTUNATELY WE DON’T HAVE TO SWALLOW IT … WE CAN FIGHT BACK.

But it’s useful to see Mr Swire’s total toeing of his party’s line. We do know where we stand with him and his party – and for the majority it is NOT shoulder to shoulder but eyeball to eyeball.

Neighbourhood planners beware – developers are out to get you

A bit legalese but VERY IMPORTANT for those currently putting together Neighbourhood Plans.

Developers have won a High Court challenge over a district council’s decision to make a neighbourhood plan.

In Stonegate Homes Ltd & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Horsham District Council [2016] EWHC 2512 Horsham took the decision to make the Henfield Neighbourhood Plan on 27 April 2016. This followed a referendum earlier in the month where the plan was passed with a vote of 94.3% of the voters.

The claimants were developers who were promoting a 72-dwelling site on the western side of Henfield. They have appealed Horsham’s refusal of their planning application for that site in November 2014; the decision is with the Communities Secretary for determination.

The claimants issued a claim under section 61N of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the 1990 Act) over Horsham’s making of the neighbourhood plan. They put forward three grounds, which were that:

The defendant council had failed to lawfully assess reasonable alternatives to the spatial strategy as established by the neighbourhood plan and, in particular, the alternative of permitting development on the western edge of Henfield;

The defendant had failed to consider any alternatives to the Built-Up Area Boundary (BUAB) as established in the neighbourhood plan and had failed to act rationally in the selection of the BUAB;

The defendant and/or the examining inspector failed to give any or adequate reasons as to why the neighbourhood plan met EU obligations.

The council as the defendant submitted in response:

(i) That the challenge was limited in scope by section 38A(4) and section 38A(6) of the 2004 Act to a consideration of whether the making of the neighbourhood development order would breach or would otherwise be incompatible with any EU obligation or any of the Convention rights;

(ii) Even if the scope of challenge was not so limited the option of developing land to the west of Henfield and that of including the “Barratt site” within the BUAB of Henfield had been adequately dealt with by the examiner and the defendant in a proportionate way and the reasons that had been advanced were adequate.

However, Mrs Justice Patterson found for the claimants across a number of grounds:

The plan was quashed on four grounds:

It is incumbent upon the makers of the plan, the Independent Examiner and the making authority when certifying in its opinion that the plan was compliant with EU law to employ reasoning that is sound in the public law (Wednesbury) sense.

The maker of the plan is obliged to undertake an objective assessment of the policies of the plan when discharging the above duty.

That alternatives need to be accurately presented in order for the SA/SEA of a plan to comply with European law.

All key policies of the plan need to be assessed against reasonable alternatives to have a EU law compliant SA/SEA.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28646%3Aboundaries-of-the-soft-touch-approach&catid=63&Itemid=31

Source: http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28643%3Adevelopers-win-high-court-battle-over-neighbourhood-plan&catid=63&Itemid=31