Posted by

Posted on

5 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Stuart Hughes, Transparency

Mark Williams refuses to answer questions – because (he says) they were not questions

As if you needed evidence of stonewalling and lack of transparency, here is an extract from minutes of Full Council meeting last week.

Although the Chairman (Stuart Hughes) could see that the speakers were questioning officers and councillors – indeed he asked the CEO to respond to questions, CEO Mark Williams neatly sidestepped the request by calling what people had said as “statements.

MORAL OF THIS STORY: MAKE SURE YOU ASK CONCRETE CLEAR QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT ANSWERS – AS OTHERWISE THE CEO WILL ACT AS IF YOU DON’T WANT ANY ANSWERS!

And would developers who give statements at Development Management Committee meetings be told they would not get answers as they had not asked a specific question in their submission?

“*46 Public speaking
The Chairman welcomed those present and invited members of the public to speak to the Council.

Sally Galsworthy spoke on the Queen’s Drive development making reference to the one remaining developer involved in the project and commenting on the risks should that developer pull out. She spoke of the anger of the residents in Exmouth towards the project expressed at meetings, the town poll and on a recent march, which had been attended by some 400 people.

Laura Freeman made reference to the outcome of the recent town poll seeking additional independent consultation on the redevelopment of Queen’s Drive. She considered that despite the restricted opening times of the poll, there had been a good turnout and that the outcome should be honoured and not ignored. She requested that the whole project be reviewed with a new outline application reflecting what the people of Exmouth wished to see for the area.

Jane Ashton spoke on the costs relating to both the Queen’s Drive development and relocation and also made reference to the collection of Section 106 and CIL contributions. She considered that the failure to foresee the additional costs involved in both projects was the result of the incompetence of those involved and that they should be removed from their positions. In respect of Queen’s Drive she commented that it would cost the Council less if it was to start the whole project from scratch.

Alec Huett advised that he had attended many meetings in the past regarding the regeneration of Exmouth and that Queen’s Drive had never been seen as a priority. He queried why the masterplan had changed so much from what had first been envisaged and commented that the plans would split the town into two leisure and retail zones. He advised that he was against any large development on the sea front when it should be the town centre that was the priority for regeneration works.

Richard Thurlow spoke on the increased costs relating to the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall – which would now cost more that refurbishing the Knowle. He advised that there was no detail or adequate rationale to explain the reasons for the increased costs and therefore did not consider that Members could make their decision based on fact.

Tony Green spoke on the Development Management Committee meeting held on 6 December and congratulated the Committee on their decision regarding the Knowle site. He stated that the Committee had to make their decision on material planning considerations only and therefore any comments relating to the relocation project or the adequacy of the existing building for its purpose should have been disregarded to avoid the appearance of bias. He asked for confirmation that this was the case and if so, asked that members of the committee be reminded of this.

The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to respond to QUESTIONS [Owl’s capitals] raised by the speakers. In response to the first five speakers, the Chief Executive advised that no questions had been asked and therefore they would be noted as statements, however he advised that some of the issues raised were covered in the Cabinet minutes.

In response to the last speaker, the Chief Executive advised that information was often submitted by the applicant giving reasons for a proposal – the key issue was that when the Committee came to vote they only did so on relevant material planning considerations and not immaterial planning considerations.”

Click to access 211216-council-mins.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

5 Jan 2017

Posted under

NHS (local)

NHS consultation ends on 6 January 2017 – have your say

“You can “have your say” here on-line:

http://www.newdevonccg.nhs.uk/about-us/your-future-care/102019

This is a simple on-line survey form which must be returned by Friday 6 January.

INFORMATION PRIOR TO FILLING IN THE SURVEY

As a member quoted yesterday, she had replied “none of the above” to the
questionaire, but it is then a question as to say why. So key points
are as follows:

This particular new health and care model is complex, particularly in a
rural area like East Devon with an elderly population well above
average. Hence it is vital to carry out a detailed risk assessment
before committing to the new model. There is a lack of information
about the quality questions that will be addressed to ensure that
community services can be delivered safely to the new model before
closing community beds.

The current situation appears to be based on the supposed fact that it
has been working in North Devon so there will be no problems, when in
fact it has NOT worked well in North Devon.

Community services are already overstretched with an acute lack of
appropriate carers for people in their own homes. There are significant
difficulties with recruitment.

This new model of care for East Devon is rejeccted by our local
politicians at all levels, including MPs. It is not at all clear how
much money could be saved using this new model, if any at all. There is
a need to cover for an expected annual 4% shortfall in the local NHS
budget; it is interesting to note that 4% equals the annual underfunding
nationally of the NHS since 2010.

There is a strong suspicion that because of the high value of NHS estate
land, hospitals without beds would eventually be sold off for house
building land. So this would be a strong motivator to cutting hospital
beds.”

http://www.newdevonccg.nhs.uk/about-us/your-future-care/102019

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

5 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Spin

Hinkley C: possible £2 billion hit on British taxpayers played down

“Taxpayers still face a possible £2billion bill for building a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point despite a minister’s claim they were ‘fully insulated’ from the cost.

The Government is underwriting loans to the builders of the plant, which is a joint project with France and China.

This is despite Business Secretary Greg Clark telling MPs in September that after Prime Minister Theresa May paused the project, taxpayers were now protected.

Despite the remarks, the £2billion guarantee – which would kick in if the companies involved in the project collapse – are still counted as a ‘contingent liability’ on the Government’s accounts.

Shadow minister Barry Gardiner told The Times he had been misled by Mr Clark’s response. …

… After work resumed, Mr Clark told MPs: ‘EDF has confirmed to me that it will not be taking up that £2 billion guarantee, so the taxpayer is fully insulated from the costs of construction.’

EDF confirmed by letter it did not ‘anticipate’ calling on the guarantee.
But in October, in a written statement to both MPs and peers, ministers said: ‘The government is confirming that it has approved the provision of a guarantee for up to £2billion to the project for the construction of its new EPR nuclear plant in Somerset, backed by commitments from the shareholders.’

They added: ‘The guarantee will be available from 2018 to 2020 if necessary conditions are met and is at government’s discretion.

‘Even if made available, and EDF have indicated to the secretary of state for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that it is not their current intention to take up the guarantee, I judge the likelihood of any call under the guarantee to be very low.’

After the memo came to light yesterday, Mr Gardiner said: ‘The assurance that Greg Clark gave me was categoric: EDF were not taking up the guarantee.
‘Whilst I took him at his word, it appears that the Treasury were aware the secretary of state was suffering from baroque speech.

‘That is why the guarantee is still marked as a liability on their books.'”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4090908/Taxpayers-left-2bn-bill-new-Hinkley-Point-nuclear-plant-despite-promises-ministers-insulated-cost.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

5 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Barratt Homes, Developers/ Development, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey

Developers on a big roll – but still far too poor to provide truly affordable housing

Owl believes that the Conservative government’s policy is to destroy affordable and social housing in favour of private renting, where housing benefit is payable direct to landlords and councils have no responsibilities for their poorest residents and their families.

Current “affordable housing” provided by developers (at 20% less than average prices on the same site) are actually much smaller houses, with basic and/or cheap fittings on the least pleasant parts of sites – e.g. near main roads, parking areas, etc and require such discounting.

“[Persimmon] reported an 8 percent revenue rise, and said that the sales rate was up 15 percent between July and December, confounding the notion that the Brexit vote could take the wind out of property-related companies.

However, the stock remains down 9.2 percent since the referendum last June.

Sector peers also rose on Thursday, with Taylor Wimpey (TW.L) and Barratt Developments (BDEV.L) both up nearly 3 percent.

“This latest positive update from a sector major adds to yesterday’s positive UK PMI Construction read and improving mortgage approvals data while the UK mortgage market remains highly competitive and government initiatives supportive,” said Mike van Dulken, head of research at Accendo Markets.

“Although house price data does remain notoriously mixed, the post-Brexit crash foreseen by many simply hasn’t materialised and prices held up remarkably well”.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks-idUKKBN14P0YK

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

5 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Democracy, Economy, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local), Post-Brexit Adjustments, Progressive Alliance, Scrutiny

“Brexit negotiations will fire the starting gun on the decade – so understanding these changes key for negotiations”

New IPPR report shows an accelerating wave of economic, social and technological change will reshape 2020s Britain

In a landmark report, leading think tank the IPPR has analysed factors shaping the UK up to 2030. It sets out the choices that must be made now if these changes are to lead to a fairer and more equal society.
The report highlights key facts that will change the way we live in the 2020s:

As the population grows, the UK is set to age sharply and become increasingly diverse. The 65+ age group will grow by 33% by 2030.

The global economy and the institutions that govern it will come under intense pressure as the Global South rises in economic and political importance.

Half of all large companies will be based in emerging markets;

Due to demographic trends, a structural deficit is likely to re-emerge by the mid-2020s, with adult social care funding gap is expected to hit £13 billion – 62% of the expected budget – in 2030/31;

Up to two-thirds of current jobs – 15 million – are at risk of automation.

These changes in technology have the potential to create an era of widespread abundance, or a second machine age that radically concentrates economic power;

The income of high-income households is forecast to rise 11 times faster than for low income households in the 2020s;

Climate change, biodiversity degradation, and resource depletion mean we will increasingly run up against the limits of the physical capacity of the Earth’s natural systems;

The UK has the richest region in Northern Europe but also 9 of the 10 poorest regions.

Mathew Lawrence, IPPR research fellow and report author said:

“By 2030, the effects of Brexit combined with a wave of economic, social and technological change will reshape the UK, in often quite radical ways.

“In the face of this, a politics of nostalgia, institutional conservatism and a rear guard defence of the institutions of 20th century social democracy will be inadequate.

For progressives, such a strategy will not be robust enough to mitigate against growing insecurity, ambitious enough to reform Britain’s economic model, nor sufficiently innovative to deliver deeper social and political transformation. They would be left defending sand castles against the tide of history.

“Britain’s progressives should be ambitious, seeking to shape the direction of technological and social change. We must build a ‘high energy’ democracy that accelerates meaningful democratic experimentation at a national, city and local level, and also in the marketplace by increasing everyone’s say over corporate governance, ownership and power.”

http://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/new-ippr-report-shows-an-accelerating-wave-of-economic-social-and-technological-change-will-reshape-2020s-britain

The full report is here:

Click to access future-proof_Dec2016.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

5 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny

Halt those bulldozers at Hinkley C?

Just how much money is our LEP throwing into this eerily-glowing black and bright green hole? Though maybe it doesn’t think it is such a bad deal when lots of people (perhaps including board members with nuclear interests) are lining their pockets with lucrative pre-construction contracts, training courses and consultancies.

Remember, Somerset County Council is the accountable body for LEP spending, not Devon County Council – and it may also see spending, any spending, in Somerset as a good thing. After all, it’s “growth” – isn’t it?

“After eight years of prevarication, French firm EDF was panicked by Brexit into finally making the “decision” to build a new nuke at Hinkley. Concrete progress? No. Construction of the reactor cannot begin until it has been re-engineered to satisfy regulators here and in France, after discovery of fundamental metallurgical flaws in several French nukes.

Following this, a major component already manufactured in France was tested to destruction (literally) and found to be unsound. Since there is only one foundry in France making these huge steel forgings, and this is unable to meet safety standards, EDF doesn’t know what to do next. We will hear a lot more on this in 2017.”

Source: Private Eye, “Keeping the lights on”, page 9, issue of 23 December 16 – 12 January 17

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

5 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local)

“NHS groups ‘paying millions to private firms that block GP referrals’ “

“NHS organisations are paying millions of pounds to private firms that stop patients being referred to hospital by their GPs, an investigation has found.

Controversial referral management centres are used by some clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to scrutinise patient referrals to hospitals by family doctors.

Supporters say they can reduce inappropriate referrals, saving the NHS money, but critics argue that adding an extra layer of scrutiny risks delaying diagnosis. There is also doubt over the effectiveness of such schemes.

GP practices ‘offered rewards’ for not referring patients to hospitals

In an investigation, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) sent freedom of information requests to all 211 CCGs in England. Of the 184 that responded, 72 (39%) said they commissioned some form of referral management scheme.

Almost a third (32%) of the schemes are provided by private companies, while a further 29% are provided in-house and 11% by local NHS trusts. Some 69% of the CCGs with schemes gave details of operating costs. These CCGs combined have spent at least £57m on schemes since April 2013.

Most CCGs were unable to provide evidence showing the scheme saved money. Only 14% could show that the scheme had saved more cash than it had cost to operate, while 12% showed that their schemes had not saved money overall.

Meanwhile, 74% of CCGs (53 groups) failed to supply figures to show whether any money had been saved, the BMJ reported.

Some CCGs did not collect data on savings, some said their referral scheme was designed not to save money but to improve the quality of referrals, and others declined to disclose details of savings on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Overall, there were 93 referral management schemes in operation across 72 CCGs, with some CCGs having more than one.

Dr Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association’s GPs committee, told the BMJ: “[CCGs] are leaping at these schemes without any clear evidence of benefit. They are just hopeful that it might reduce their costs.

“It is a very short-term approach to healthcare management. We need to see much more evaluation … and not just keep making the same mistakes year after year. As public bodies, there should be an expectation on every CCG to account for what it is doing.”

Vautrey said some schemes were helpful because they gave GPs rapid access to advice from local specialists.

Graham Jackson, co-chair of NHS Clinical Commissioners, the membership organisation representing CCGs, said referral management was only one way of managing demand for services.”

Owl bets that, if NEW Devon CCG hasn’t yet done this, it will be champing at the bit to commission a scoping study for a feasibility study for a consultants report for a pilot study at a health hub near you!

“In many cases they provide a useful and effective role which is more than a redirection service,” he said. “CCGs will balance the cost of commissioning with the benefit they provide to GPs and patients in terms of peer review, education, caseload management and choice.”

In October, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Labour MP for City of Durham, criticised a local scheme to screen referrals for conditions including cardiology, gynaecology and gastroenterology.

The North Durham CCG has awarded a contract to the private firm About Health to manage referrals.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/04/nhs-paying-millions-private-firms-block-gp-referrals-hospital

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

GP practices ‘offered rewards’ for not referring patients to hospitals

Share this: