“Committee on Standards in Public Life to review local government standards”

Oooh – now this will spoul breakfast for some people! Wouldn’t it be interesting if the watchdog got a few teeth!

Get that evidence folder started now.

“The Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) is to undertake a review of local government standards during 2017/18.

In its Annual Report and Forward Plan 2017/18, published this week, the watchdog said it “maintains a longstanding interest in local government standards, and regularly receives correspondence from members of the public expressing their concern about this issue”.

The CSPL added that it was actively conducting research and engaging with partners on this subject throughout 2016-17.

It said the review would be based around a consultation that will be launched in early 2018. “Based on the submissions to this review and meetings with key stakeholders, we intend to publish our findings and recommendations in 2018.”

The CSPL revealed that it would be publishing in late 2017 the findings of research it had conducted as a follow-up on its 2014 report and 2015 guidance on ethical standards for providers of public services.

“We will use this opportunity to raise awareness about the importance of ethical standards issues in the delivery of public services across all providers.”

Other areas the watchdog plans to cover include how developments in social and political communication and media are shaping public life. It also plans to keep a watching brief on issues surrounding conflicts of interests and good governance in academies, and on standards issues in the NHS.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31785%3Acommittee-on-standards-in-public-life-to-review-local-government-standards&catid=59&Itemid=27

“Inspector to decide if developer should pay more Sidmouth community cash”

Recall that PegasusLife is calling it’s plans for the Knowle “assisted living accommodation”. Why? Because it doesn’t then have to contribute to affordable housing.

Does anyone recall EDDC making a fuss about that? No – they left it to local objectors to point it out!

“A government planning inspector will decide whether a developer will have to pay a share of its profits from 36 proposed sheltered apartments to the public coffers.

The matter was the subject of an inquiry this week after Churchill Retirement Living and East Devon District Council (EDDC) could not agree terms for an ‘overage’ clause.

Churchill hopes to demolish the former Green Close care home in Drakes Avenue to make way for the development. The firm launched an appeal due to non-determination of its application.

The delay in EDDC deciding the fate of the scheme was due to officers trying to apply an ‘overage’ clause that would require Churchill to pay up if its profits exceed current expectations.

EDDC documents argue plans to create the apartments for the elderly should be worth nearly £1million to the Sidmouth community – but the developer has shown it is ‘unviable’ to pay more than £41,000.

Churchill’s five-figure offer towards off-site ‘affordable’ housing was last year slammed as an ‘insult to Sidmouth’ by town councillors, who suggested the developer should pay at least £360,000.

Papers submitted to the appeal process from EDDC say there is a policy expectation that half of the site should be provided as ‘affordable’ housing and that there is a ‘substantial’ need for one- and two-bedroom units in Sidmouth.

If 18 ‘affordable’ homes cannot be provided on-site, a payment of £935,201 would be expected so the properties can be built elsewhere.

Churchill said a viability assessment showed building ‘affordable’ homes on the site was ‘impractical’ and ‘unrealistic’.

It added: “It has been demonstrated that the application development is not sufficiently viable to permit the imposition of any affordable housing or planning gain contributions above £41,208.”

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “Unfortunately, the development is not sufficiently viable to pay this [£935,201] sum and, following an independent assessment of the viability of the scheme, it was reluctantly accepted that the scheme could only afford to pay £41,208 towards affordable housing.

“Under government guidance, we are required to reduce our requirements where a development is unviable and so we have no real choice but to accept this position.”

EDDC also expected Churchill to pay £22,536 for habitat mitigation, plus an £18,400 public open space contribution. The total is nearly £1million.

At the hearing on Wednesday, a representative for the developer said a viability report showed it could not offer more than £41,208 if it wanted a competitive return of 20 per cent.

He argued such developments, both locally and nationally, did not have an ‘overage’ clause like the one proposed and added that it was not in line with national guidelines.

“We need to ensure there are competitive returns for the developer and the landowner,” said the representative.

“If the developer, through his own skill or from fortuitous circumstances, makes a larger profit than intended, then the council wants to have a proportion of it and, if they are not so fortunate and make less than 20 per cent, the entire downside is to be borne by the developer.”

Town councillor Ian Barlow argued that the £41,208 contribution was only agreed to because councillors were told it was subject to an ‘overage’ clause. He added: “If they make an obscene amount of money from our community, then they should put it back into the community. They are now saying it is not plausible.

“We only deal with common sense.

“Theoretically, if someone builds a £5million-ish place and they are only giving around £41,000 back, at the end of the day, that does not seem right.”

Cllr Barlow argued that he found it hard to believe such a successful company would make an investment which was not financially viable.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/inspector-to-decide-if-developer-should-pay-more-sidmouth-community-cash-1-5100503

Will Police and Crime Commissioner Hernandez sink or swim? Plymouth councillor conflicts muddy the water!

“The outspoken Conservative faced three separate votes which could prove key to her survival – one by councillors in Plymouth on Monday and then two on Friday at the police and crime panel which oversees her role.

She lost two and won one but the scoreline could so easilqy have been reversed if not for a series of key absences at the first of two meetings.

A motion of no-confidence pushed through by the Labour group at Plymouth City Council last Monday was lost by the slenderest of margins, creating embarrassing headlines for the the commissioner.

But councils are not supposed to lose politically motivated votes against their bitter opponents, so what went wrong?

A detailed look at the meeting shows that the vote could have been won if the ruling Tories had enough bodies in the city’s Council House meeting room.

Unfortunately, three councillors – two Tories and one from Labour – excused themselves before the debate, which centred around whether Ms Hernandez’s comments about arming citizens meant she was a danger to the public and should resign.

And then, just before the key vote, leader Ian Bowyer left his seat and exited the chamber, consigning his party colleague to an inevitable defeat.

Labour pushed through the motion by a single vote, forcing the chief executive to write to the Home Secretary asking for the removal of a Conservative police and crime commissioner.

Hardly the result the party was after at a time when they are under such immense pressure nationally.

Ms Hernandez has been embroiled in controversy ever since her appointment to the post last year.

In that time she has been the subject of an investigation by the police, admitted to smoking cannabis and has a penchant for gangsta rappers N.W.A – who sang “F*** da police” on their debut album. She was criticised last October for taking a selfie with the fire chief as emergency workers battled to save the Royal Clarence Hotel behind her.

Following the no-confidence vote, she dismissed the tactic as politicking and declared the vote unrepresentative of the “wider Plymouth community”.

But why did the Tories fail to rally enough troops to defend one of their highest-profile politicians in the county from a bruising defeat at a council it controls, albeit in coalition with UKIP?

Was there, as some have suggested, a lack of appetite among the group to come out to bat for Hernandez after comments they may have felt overstepped the mark?

Or did the vote simply represent a shrewd political move by Labour to push through a damaging motion at precisely the worst moment, four days before she faced the police and crime panel?

The full council meeting, which began at 2pm and ran for more than five hours, came to a bad-tempered ending with six highly critical motions from the Labour group, led by former leader Tudor Evans.

The Conservatives – who hold 27 seats to Labour’s 27 on the council and can count on three more from UKIP – used their superior numbers to fend off the first five votes, around education, traffic chaos, school meals, funding cuts and a “war” on small business.

But as the final motion of no-confidence was tabled around 6.45pm, Tory cabinet members Ian Darcy and Terri Beer, all excused themselves, declaring a prejudicial interest as employees of Devon and Cornwall police.

Labour’s Bill Stevens also exited the meeting as a member of police staff.

This still left at least a hung chamber until Tory leader Ian Bowyer left at 7.15pm.

Spotting the numerical advantage, Labour, moved a closure motion to go straight to the vote, which was carried almost unanimously.

The vote was carried by 26 to 25, despite a vote cast by the Consuervative Lord Mayor, who normally only votes in the event of a tie, and a letter was sent to the chairman of the police and crime panel, requesting he table a second vote of no confidence.

Ms Hernandez survived the second vote on Friday but the council motion added to mounting pressure, and her proposed deputy, Mark Kingscote, was not endorsed by the panel amid concern he was not fit for the role.

This leaves her a tough decision this week: accept the panel view and find a fresh candidate or plough on and potentially alienate the councillors appointed to oversee the role.

Labour made much of the fact that none of the Tories had spoken out specifically in defence of their colleague – instead they attacked the Opposition councillors for playing politics.

The suggestion was that she had few friends among her own party ranks so Cllr Bowyer was contacted by Devon Live to find out.

He said there had been nothing sinister or underhand in his disappearance – that he had simply had to leave to catch a train to the Local Government Association Annual Conference, which began in Birmingham the following day.

“I couldn’t be in two places at once,” he added.

The leader would not confirm whether he had been contacted by Ms Hernandez ahead of the vote or whether the support of the group had been canvassed.

“That is a private conversation if it occurred,” he added.

“I caught the last train to get me there that night – I stayed as long as I could – left at 7.15pm, the train was at 7.44pm.”

One of the Labour councilors in the meeting, Phillipa Davey, thinks there must have been a voting order in place – a so-called whip – otherwise the Lord Mayor, Wendy Foster, would not have voted.

She thinks the vote was lost simply due to poor organisation among the Tories, who could have re-scheduled the Hernandez vote to appear earlier in the meeting.

“I don’t think it was a case of them not being bothered about defending her, it was just rubbish organisation and quite embarrassing for them,” she added.

“If they had not been that bothered then the Lord Mayor would not have voted – that shows there must have been a whip.

“If it had been me and the Labour group and we had wanted to make sure we won a vote we would have made sure we were organised and ready to do that.

“It wasn’t even the first motion, it was one of the last – if they really wanted to defend it they could easily have just moved it up the order.”

http://www.devonlive.com/crime-czar-suffers-council-defeat-because-tory-leader-missed-vote/story-30433966-detail/story.html

Worries about London-Devon rail monopoly

If London Paddington via Tiverton and London Waterloo via Axminster owned by same company.

“Rail providers have been given five days to address competition concerns after a watchdog warning about higher fare prices.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) warned passengers could face higher fares and worse service following the decision to award the South West Trains (SWT) rail franchise to First Group.

The SWT franchise is currently operated by Stagecoach but will be taken over by First Group in partnership with Hong Kong-based company MTR on August 20.

CMA acting chief executive Andrea Coscelli said: “The CMA believes that without its intervention, First Group may be able to increase fares for passengers between London and Exeter, as it will be the only rail operator running all services on this route.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-40499683

and:

“Rail passengers could face higher fares and worse service following the decision to award the South West Trains rail franchise to First Group, the competition watchdog has warned.

Concerns have been raised by the Competition and Markets Authority about the London-Exeter route as First Group already operates Great Western Railway, which runs the only other train service between the cities.

The SWT franchise is currently operated by Stagecoach but will be taken over by First Group in partnership with Hong Kong-based company MTR on August 20.

CMA acting chief executive Andrea Coscelli said: “This is a crucial rail route to the South West, used by around half a million passengers a year. It’s therefore vital that passengers do not suffer as a result of reduced competition.

“The CMA believes that without its intervention, First Group may be able to increase fares for passengers between London and Exeter, as it will be the only rail operator running all services on this route.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-40499683

Torbay Mayor expelled from Tory group but won’t resign

Owl says: “Massive changes on the horizon … LEP …” – seems there are a lot of things we are not being told about … and Mayor Oliver is obviously making his own post-2019 plans … wonder if his plans coincide with other people’s plans …

“I was elected by 20,000 voters not 20 councillors” is Torbay Mayor Gordon Oliver’s response to calls from his Tory colleagues to step down.

Though he has also been expelled from the Tory group on the council on Monday night and the resign call is going to the next full council meeting, the Tory veteran says there is too important work to be done before the next election in 2019 for him to resign.

With the council facing a black hole in its budget, the increasing pressures on adults and children’s services, and uncertainty over future Government funding and the prospect of increased partnership working with neighbouring authorities – particularly on major services like adults and children’s – Mayor Oliver says he intends to stay on until the next election.

The Tory group said in a statement after its meeting: “The Conservative Group on Torbay Council voted by a majority of over two thirds to expel the mayor from the group.

“A motion bringing forward a vote of no confidence in the elected mayor (endorsed by a majority of the Conservative Group) has already been submitted and will be brought to council for debate on July 20.

“It is regrettable that the group has seen the need to take this action, however it is their strong belief that the mayor has failed to carry out fully his duties in serving the best interests of the people of Torbay.

“The motion is very detailed, running to four pages, and will be is available on the council website when the agenda for the council meeting is published.”

Mayor Oliver said he would listen to the debate on the motion at full council but said: “At the moment I am just sitting and smiling and have no additional things to say about the motion.

“I was elected by 20,000 people not 20 councillors. I will listen to the members of the group and what they have to say. But my responsibility is to the people who supported my election.”

In response to the referendum last year which said the majority wanted a cabinet and leader system in the council, Mayor Oliver said : “By statute, the mayoral system finishes in April 2019. I’m not going anywhere.

“From now on you will see gradual change which is inevitable from a unitary council working on its own to something different. The budgetary pressures will decide how local government will be run in Torbay in future.

“While the mayoral system remains, until the next council election 2019, the structure will remain the same but there will be discussions this autumn as to how the changes will take place beyond that. The council will decide its future in discussion with its immediate neighbours and the wishes of our MPs.”

The major services would be run in partnership, such as children’s, adults and waste. Some changes could be made fairly swiftly he said.

A consultant’s report on possible changes should be published in September.

“Things will not be the same as they are now,” he said. “We have to see this as a challenge, and like all challenges there are benefits which flow from it. I see a dramatic change to create long term financial and political stability beyond 2019.”

At the same time progress is being made on the devolution of power to Devon and Somerset and the 17 districts, he said.

He said essentially Torbay was too small to succeed as a unitary. “It needs long term partnerships and arrangements. There have been various small scale agreements on services already with Teignbridge and Devon we are looking at some with Plymouth at the moment which have been beneficial to us all. But they are mainly backroom functions. These are massive changes on the horizon and we need to keep stability in the next two years and it’s important Government sees us being stable because of the huge responsibilities we have for example for the care of children and adult health.”

http://www.devonlive.com/i-m-going-nowhere-says-torbay-mayor-facing-resignation-call-from-his-own-tory-colleagues/story-30434779-detail/story.html

Swire continues to pontificate in Parliament, but not about East Devon

Owl says: with this man spending so much time in Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries, often at the same time as our UK arms dealers, perhaps his pontificating could start there – with some public pronouncements on their treatment of women and immigrant workers.

“I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all the extraordinary work she has done on the issue of human trafficking and slavery, and commend her for raising that matter at the G20. However, with the world on the move, there are, unfortunately, opportunities for more, rather than less, of that. What can we do between the G20s to ensure that other countries take the issue as seriously as the UK does? We have set the bar on this and we need to raise others to it.”

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-07-10a.25.0&s=speaker%3A11265#g34.4

South Hams and West Devon district councils consider merger

Owl says: presumably this is not an option open to East Devon District Council, as no council would want to merge with one that is going to take out a big loan for its own new headquarters.

“Two Devon councils are considering a merger into one authority in a bid to save money – but the move could see your council tax increase.

South Hams and West Devon councils are considering joining forces, with a formal proposal to be put to councillors later this month, to make up for a budget shortfall of £1.9million each year after 2020.

South Hams leader John Tucker says there would be “severe consequences” if he cannot produce a balanced budget, suggesting his council could “run out of money”, reports plymouthherald.

“We know that there are some key concerns that the public will have, and in the proposal you will see how we plan to address those concerns,” he said.

“The biggest one for our residents in South Hams is likely to be the difference between our council tax rate and West Devon’s, which is approximately £63 a year on a band D property.

“If the proposal goes ahead we would need to bring the two council tax charges to the same level and this may mean that South Hams residents will see an increase over the next few years, until they are at the same level.

“In the proposal we have laid out some different options for how this could be dealt with.

“If we do not do this, there is a risk that South Hams will run out of money after 2020, due to the lack of funding, we therefore want to make sure we consider all options to continue funding those services we know are vital to our local communities.”

The merger could save up to £500,000 every year, excluding extra income from council tax.

“These savings would not be made through cuts to services, but because a single council will cost less to operate,” a spokesman said.

“Over the last few months a working group of councillors from both authorities, with representatives from across the political parties in South Hams and West Devon, have been exploring if the creation of one new council would be possible.”

http://www.devonlive.com/average-63-council-tax-hike-for-devon-residents-as-councils-plan-to-merge/story-30433679-detail/story.html

What can you do when an elected mayor upsets his (party) councillors?

Not much, it transpires.

Gordon Oliver, elected Mayor of Torbay and highly enthusiastic member of our Local Enterprise Partnership, has been upsetting most if not all of his councillors, who are finding it very difficult to do anything about it.

He got the job in 2011 and was re-elected in 2015. However, within the year, a public referendum had been organised on whether Torbay should have a Mayor was organised, and it was decided that, from 2019, the council would revert back to a Leader and Cabinet arrangement. Nothing could be done earlier than that.

Should the Local Enterprise Partnership ever be correctly constituted, as things currently stand, we would be forced to participate in an election for a Mayor of Somerset and Devon who would have a great deal of direct control over the two counties, deciding most things himself or herself and needing only votes from hand-picked colleagues to force through his or her decisions.

This is a situation similar to that where we were forced to accept a Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner, when only 22.8% of registered voters bothered to turn out and we ended up with Alison Hernandez, a former Torbay councillor. Who now wants to employ her mate as her Deputy. And who can, if she goes against the wishes of our Police and Crime Panel, do so – and again there is nothing they or we can do about it until new elections in 2020.

And where is her mate from? Torbay! And who is a Torbay councillor. Who has been chair of planning there for several years.

Quite a little power block now built up from there. Must be something in the water.

http://www.devonlive.com/tory-colleagues-call-on-torbay-mayor-to-resign/story-30432407-detail/story.html

French government orders EDF to close 17 nuclear plants – to reduce France’ s dependence on nuclear energy

“A row has broken out in Paris after the French-state-backed group building Britain’s new nuclear plant was ordered to scale down its production of atomic energy in France.

Nicolas Hulot, the minister for ecological change, said that Eléctricité de France (EDF) would have to close up to 17 reactors over the next eight years under a government plan to reduce the country’s dependence on nuclear power.

His announcement unnerved investors and EDF’s share price fell almost 2 per cent to €8.57 in afternoon trading in Paris, its lowest value since May. …”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/nuclear-reactor-closure-declaration-takes-edf-by-surprise-8mq095xcf

“What we should learn from the crisis at Government contractor Carillion”?

“Given how many have struggled, should we really be handing so many state services to these businesses?

How long can it be before a crisis at a Government contractor turns really nasty, and the National Audit Office’s warning that the big guns have become too big to fail proves prophetic?

The week in the City has kicked off with yet another finding itself in the midst of a very big mess. This time it’s Carillion.

Having trumpeted it’s “high quality order book”, reassured that performance was “in line with expectations” and repeated a pledge to reduce debt in March, things have taken a dramatic turn for the worse.

The company, that does everything from catering to construction, and employs 47,000 people worldwide, has issued a brutal profit warning and suspended its dividend in a bid to save cash. Chief executive Richard Howson is on his way out and a “comprehensive review” of the business is to be launched (KPMG is already poking around the construction operations).

Amid longstanding investor concerns about its finances, debt continues to rise, despite the actions that the company has taken to stop the rot.

They include exiting construction public private partnerships in this country, pulling out of construction in the Middle East, and being ultra careful when it comes to taking on new projects.

It looks awful, and it’s interesting to note that Mr Howson is supposed to be sticking around to help keep the show on the road with his interim replacement Keith Cochrane while the company tries to find someone to get it back on an even keel.

The thing is, we’ve seen this sort of thing before, and on repeated occasions. As the mania for outsourcing took hold on the part of Government and in the private sector, a host of companies like Carillon grew and got fat.

They used the vast revenues they earned to expand overseas, taking on more and more diverse streams of work in more and more parts of the world. Jacks of all trade, masters of… well it hardly needs saying.

Pick a contractor, any contractor, and Google will probably be able to find you a crisis like the one at Carillion.

Just last year, Capita’s shares hit a ten year low after the second profit warning in three months. Meanwhile Serco, which appointed Winston Churchill’s grandson to sort out its financial mess, has found itself smack in the middle of an operational foul up.

Having taken on a big contract at the four hospitals overseen by the Barts NHS Trust (ironically Carillion previously handled part of it), perhaps evidence of renewed official faith in its abilities, it managed to provoke a strike among cleaning staff at the Royal London Hospital after just three days.

Three months on, and 1,000 cleaners, porters, caterers and security staff, at the latter and the other hospitals, are poised to begin industrial action.

And so it goes on. And on and on.

Badly managed finances, badly managed contracts, unhappy staff, unhappy customers, unhappy workers.

You’d think, given all this, that someone would ask seriously whether it’s really such a good idea to have handed such a wide range of state services to companies that operate in this manner, and that keep falling flat on their faces.

Yet, with the notable exception of the NAO, it’s not happening.

Faced with situations like those above, the Government shrugs its shoulders, perhaps because, ultimately, the companies concerned have always just about found a way through their difficulties.

It seems we might have to wait for a truly dreadful crisis, one that really hurts people, for this to change.

It always seems to be that way in modern Britain.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/carillion-government-contract-crisis-outsourcing-profit-warning-construction-richard-howson-a7833216.html

Private companies are better than public ownership? You must be joking!

“Battersea Power Station builder Carillion has shocked the City with a devastating profit warning after an £845 million hit on a clutch of contracts and spiralling debts left it vulnerable to a takeover.

The company — whose chief executive Richard Howson has stepped down immediately — has axed its dividend this year and is desperately looking to prop up its creaking balance sheet by selling off parts of the business.

Carillion’s debt pile is likely to soar to £800 million this year and interim boss Keith Cochrane said that “no option is off the table” for the company, whose shares tumbled by 30%, or 62.5p, to 129.6p today.

RBC analyst Andrew Gibb said: “In our view, the group would need to raise a significant amount — £500 million-plus — to restore stability. And in the near term, we would expect others to be running the slide rule over the business.”

Carillion — whose roster of projects included the conversion of London’s power station into flats — called in accountants KPMG to review nearly 60 contracts earlier this year after deteriorating cashflows.

A host of major players including Sir Paul Marshall’s Marshall Wace, fund giant Blackrock and George Soros’s SFM UK had lined up big bets against Carillion, borrowing shares in the firm to sell in the market in the hope of buying them back more cheaply later and booking a profit.

Three major public-private partnership contracts — the Midland Metropolitan Hospital in Smethwick, Merseyside’s Royal Liverpool Hospital, and an Aberdeen road project — are understood to be behind the bulk of the UK’s £375 million losses. Its £470 million writedowns in overseas markets are driven by losses on a major project in Doha, Qatar.

The business slashed guidance on revenues this year to between £4.8 billion and £5 billion and is pulling out of public-private partnership construction deals altogether after the shock blow. It is also withdrawing from construction markets in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt and only pursuing jobs in future “via lower-risk procurement routes”.

“The decision to cancel this year’s dividend will save £80 million and Carillion also plans to raise £125 million through “non-core” sell-offs over the next 12 months in a bid to ease the pressure on the balance sheet. “

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/carillion-in-crisis-as-contract-bungles-deal-845-million-blow-a3584146.html

Budleigh “health hub” advertises its rooms for rent

Even the vaguest association with “health” that you can get people to pay for seems to be acceptable.

And lots of rooms for rent as the NHS appears to be using very few of them.

“Floor plans for Budleigh health hub revealed

Individuals and organisations in Budleigh Salterton are being urged to come forward to take rooms at the town’s new health and wellbeing hub.

The hub, which will be managed by Westbank, is currently under construction on the site of the former Budleigh hospital.

Floor plans have been released for the facility, which is due to open later this year.

Westbank is now looking for people and organisations to register their interest in taking rooms at the hub.

A spokesman for Westbank said: “We would like to offer a range of services which reflects the local community needs and as such are seeking expressions of interest from as many people/organisations as possible.

“Please can interested parties look at our website for more information to discuss things further.”

According to the floor plans, there will be a café in the main reception, three NHS clinical rooms, a nursery, a kitchen and a day service room.

There will also be two multi-use rooms measuring around 26sqm, as well as rooms dedicated to the hub and Westbank.

The second floor will have five more multi-use rooms, two NHS clinical rooms, as well as a smaller room earmarked for audiology.

A kitchen and a restroom are also planned for staff on the first floor, as well as a fitness and rehabilitation room and more office space for Westbank.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/floor-plans-for-budleigh-health-hub-revealed-1-5096997

Investigation into government links with developers, Channel 4, 8 pm

Dispatches, 8 pm tonight, Channel 4

How property companies have failed to deliver new, affordable homes and asks questions about the link between government and the property industry.”

Rural homelessness : government says LEPs should help (pull the other one)

“The “hidden crisis” of rural homelessness requires urgent attention from the government, a leading thinktank has said after research revealed a dramatic rise in the number of rough sleepers in countryside areas in the last five years.

The Institute for Public Policy Research warned that it is particularly hard to prevent or relieve because of the difficulties in covering larger areas and the lack of specialist resources compared to cities.

The report, Right to home? Rethinking homelessness in rural communities, finds the promotion of the countryside as a “rural idyll” where people go to escape the city and have a better life could “mask” the presence of households at risk of becoming homeless or already without a roof over their heads.

The research – which was commissioned by Hastoe, a leading rural specialist housing association – found that 6,270 households were accepted as homeless in 91 mainly or largely rural local authorities in England in 2015-16, an average of 1.3 in every 1,000 households.

A fifth of all homeless cases occurred outside of England’s most urban areas. From 2010 to 2016, “mainly rural” local authorities recorded a 32% rise in cases of homelessness. In areas that are “largely rural” there has been a leap of 52%, and an almost doubling in “urban areas with significant rural” (97%).

… Preventing and relieving homelessness can be especially difficult in rural areas, Snelling said, because of a relative absence of emergency hostels and temporary accommodation, large travel distances with limited public transport, isolated and dispersed communities, and constrained resourcing for specialist services.

Snelling said: “Rural homelessness often goes undetected but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening and unless you tackle the difficulties in delivering services in rural areas and finding affordable homes, it will continue to be a problem.”

Jacob Quagliozzi, director for Housing Justice England, a Christian housing charity, said there has been a rise in churches and community groups contacting them for advice on setting up night shelters in their buildings.

The demand for emergency accommodation provision has seen “substantial growth” outside of the big cities, Quagliozzi said.

The report also recommends that local authorities should enter into two-way negotiations with the government to develop devolution deals on housing and planning in which ambitious commitments to increasing affordable supply should be met with a transferral of power to do so.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/jul/10/rural-homelessness-hidden-crisis-needs-attention-says-thinktank

Nuclear power: “You could be doing your writing by candlelight on a typewriter’ by 2025, expert warns”

Owl says: Perhaps our LEP will underwrite the Hinkley C nuclear risks post-Brexit!

“Brexit will create “an alarming mess” for nuclear power stations in the UK, experts have warned, saying it could even cause major power cuts.

Scientists say leaving the Euratom agency that oversees nuclear safety in Europe will cause widespread confusion and have a potentially devastating impact on the industry in Britain.

Possible consequences include a reduction in foreign investment in UK nuclear power facilities, the loss of thousands of jobs and Britain losing its place as a world leader in new nuclear technologies.

UK-US trade deal won’t undo damage of Brexit, cabinet minister says
Professor Roger Cashmore, chair of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, told Buzzfeed News the current situation was “alarming” and “a mess”.

Although the treaties relating to Euratom are separate to those keeping Britain in the EU, the agency requires members to be under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which Theresa May has insisted the UK must withdraw from as part of Brexit.

It is unclear how the UK will replace the procedures and regulations currently managed by Euratom. These cover the transportation of nuclear materials around Europe. Britain is a major producer of enriched uranium, which is used in nuclear fuel, and exports much of the material to other EU countries. The UK Government also owns a third of Urenco, the European uranium-enrichment company.

Unless new treaties relating to the transportation of nuclear materials between Britain and the EU are agreed quickly, the UK could run out of nuclear fuel within two years, meaning nuclear power stations would be unable to produce energy.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-nuclear-power-euratom-hinckley-point-risks-nuclear-fusion-energy-bills-a7832136.html

Public parks – soon to be just a memory?

“… Yet Britain’s parks are now facing their greatest dangers for a generation. Their maintenance budgets are being halved or worse. Local authorities, desperate to reduce their costs, are trying to exploit them with every commercial use they can think of, or offload their care on to the private sector, or on to friends’ groups and community associations little more able than the council to look after them on minimal budgets.

The consequences are that parks become shabbier, uglier, more badly maintained and, eventually, more dangerous. Drew Bennellick, the Heritage Lottery Fund’s head of landscape and natural heritage, says that local authorities are losing the skills of ecology, arboriculture, horticulture and landscape architecture, resulting in “random tree planting, a huge increase in herbicides, fountains being shut down, graffiti not being removed, mismatched street furniture and cafes being replaced by mobile food units”. He says that some maintenance contracts only allow 30 seconds to prune each shrub, so they are hacked into small spheres. “You end up with bare soil and a few shrubs in ball shapes,” he says.

Antisocial behaviour creeps in. Cycles of decline start, in which parks get nastier, so their users stop going, so they get nastier still. City-dwellers retreat more to their homes and their electronic screens, with terrible effects on health. Intrusive and inappropriate commercial uses colonise green space and disturb the lives of residents. Fees for sporting facilities – tennis courts and football pitches – go up. In the worst cases, public green space is sold off for development and lost for ever.

Last year, the House of Commons communities committee said that parks were at a “tipping point” and that “if the value of parks and their potential contribution are not recognised, then the consequences could be severe for some of the most important policy agendas facing our communities today”.

The Heritage Lottery Fund noted a growing gap between the rising use of parks and declining funding, a gap that “does not bode well for the future condition and health of the nation’s public parks”. The Commons committee also said that central government should provide “vision, leadership and coordination”.

… To which central government only shrugs. Until June, there was a minister with responsibility for parks, one Andrew Percy MP. He didn’t seem to achieve much, but when I ask the Department for Communities and Local Government who can now speak on the subject, I am told there is no replacement and I am offered the Northern Powerhouse minister or the minister for local government. A week later, I am told that the latter, Marcus Jones MP, is in fact also the new parks minister, even though it is not among the 10 responsibilities listed on his official website.

Nor can he talk to me or respond to the committee’s call for vision, leadership and coordination. I am however told that “parks breathe life into our towns and cities and are spaces for the whole community to come together to exercise, learn and play”. Gee, thanks. The department then boasts of a £1.5m fund – a whole £1.5m! – to deliver 87 pocket parks. Finally, it says that councils have the “freedom” to spend their much-reduced funding on “meeting local priorities, including maintaining local parks”. As far as national government is concerned, in other words, it’s not their problem. They’ve outsourced it to local authorities.

This abnegation of responsibility is the reason why parks all over the country are degrading. Local authorities have had their budgets cut drastically. They have to maintain their statutory duties – to house the involuntarily homeless, for example – which means that everything else gets squeezed even harder. Looking after parks is not a statutory duty. So, even though their running costs might be less than half a per cent of a local authority’s budget, they get cut and cut again.

… Councils go to the private sector, both to run parks and exploit the commercial opportunities they offer. But the profit motive does not have the long-term wellbeing of natural assets at heart. Bennellick argues that, as well as creating those shrivelled shrubs, private contractors have no interest in the bigger picture. To maximise their environmental benefits, he says, parks need a strategic approach that considers them not in isolation but in relation to each other. There’s not much chance of this happening in a minimum-cost maintenance contract.

Strangely, given the importance of this collective national treasure, there’s not much by way of powerful national organisations to fight for their interests. There are valiant voluntary bodies such as National Federation of Parks and Green Spaces, the Parks Alliance and the 90-year-old Fields in Trust, but they don’t command public attention as they should. The Heritage Lottery Fund, whose primary concern is not green space, finds itself one of its principal champions, by virtue of the amount it has invested.

In the end, however much ingenuity is expended on new forms of management and funding, parks are public assets that require public money. The National Federation of Parks and Green Spaces believes that the current expenditure of £1.2bn per year should be more like £2-3bn. It is asking, in other words, for about as much in additional funding as is going on the notorious bung to the Democratic Unionist party.

It might also help, as a number of campaigners have argued, if care of parks became a statutory duty for local authorities. In this patriotic Brexit era, when Britain is learning to again stand strong and alone, parks are a British achievement and asset to be proud of, imitated and envied across the world. If national government had the decency even to notice that they are under threat from their policies, it would be a start.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/09/the-end-of-park-life-as-we-know-it-the-battle-for-britains-green-spaces-rowan-moore

“Powerful American gun lobby comes out in favour of Devon crime czar Alison Hernandez”

Fame or infamy?

“America’s powerful gun lobby group the National Rifle Association (NRA) has come out with all guns blazing in support of Devon and Cornwall Police Commissioner Alison Hernandez.

The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action has accussed Plymouth City Council’s recent vote of no confidence in Ms Hernandez as ‘a sad commentary on UK firearm politics’ and says the Labour-run council ‘gave their finest impression of George Orwell’s Thinkpol’.

The council has called on Ms Hernandez to resign following ‘stupid and dangerous’ comments during a local BBC radio interview on whether armed citizens should take on terrorists and a vote of no confidence was carried by 26 votes to 25 after the Labour group said they were ‘extremely alarmed’ at her stance.

But the NRA supports Ms Hernandez in a series of articles online. One said: “Every once in a great while, an independent-minded United Kingdom official is overcome with a bout of common sense on firearms..”

The NRA lobbies for gun rights and the ‘right to bear arms’ in the States. The NRA is now among the most powerful special interest lobby groups in the US, with a $250million budget to influence Congress on gun policy and funds things such as gun ranges.

The NRA has also come out in favour of Nigel Farage’s stance on UK citizens being allowed to carry handguns.

However, newly elected Plymouth Labour MP Luke Pollard says the endorsement only “makes things worse” for the commissioner.

In that time she has been the subject of an investigation by the police, admitted to smoking cannabis and has a penchant for gangsta rappers N.W.A – who sang “F*** da police” on their debut album. She was criticised last October for taking a selfie with the fire chief as emergency workers battled to save the Royal Clarence Hotel behind her.

Last month she was accused of nepotism after attempting to appoint an old pal and fellow Tory from her Torbay council days as her deputy commissioner.

But it was her comments concerning whether armed citizens could take on terrorists, made during a summer of horrific attacks, which caused her the most damage.

Senior officers at her own police force disowned the suggestion that licensed firearm users could be part of the “solution” to combatting armed attackers.

This week Plymouth City Council lost patience with the gaffe-prone politician and called for her to resign.”

http://www.devonlive.com/powerful-american-gun-lobby-comes-out-in-favour-of-devon-police-boss-alison-hernandez/story-30431044-detail/story.html

“Hammond could land £1.5m in green-belt housing deal”

“The chancellor, Philip Hammond, who helped spearhead the government’s housebuilding programme, could make more than £1.5m in a previously undisclosed deal over a possible housing development on green-belt land.

Land Registry documents reveal Hammond has agreed an option with a housebuilder on about three acres of land he owns next to his home in Surrey … ”

Sunday Times (paywall) page 10

He says it is a standard provision and doesn’t need to be declared … the former Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life disagrees.

Easy to guess who will win that one.