Daily Archives: 21 Sep 2017

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Sep 2017

Posted under

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

“STPs ‘need more funding and to be better implemented’ “

“Sustainability and transformation partnerships need more funding and to be better implemented, the Healthcare Financial Management Association/CIPFA health and social care conference heard today.

The partnerships are the best hope for health and social care integration, Richard Humphries, a senior policy fellow from the think-tank the King’s Fund, told delegates at the conference in London.

“The ambitions of the plans are good but the delivery and implementation is fraught with problems in the current financial climate,” he said.

“I think everybody agrees that we do need to transform social care but history tells us that the only way you do that is to have transformational funding for the double running costs of building up services in the community so you can then reduce hospital activity.”

He added: “The existing system is fragmented, based on commissioners and providers. Nobody wants another top-down reorganisation to reverse those [current] reforms.

“So [greater integration] is being done through the backdoor, essentially, through these STPs.”

Humphries believed STPs were the “right direction of travel” but noted that there were issues.

He outlined the following problems:

The STPs are being driven by NHS financial control, which he said was “unrealistic”

There are “heroic assumptions” being made about how much care you can shift out of hospitals

The plans are not engaging local government and social care enough.

Humphries said: “Although it is a laudable motive, the current structures that we’ve got in both commissioning and providers, separation, funding, payment mechanisms was designed from an entirely different purpose when it was based on the idea of competition and choice being much more important than collaboration.”

The conference also heard the findings from a survey conducted by CIPFA and iMPOWER. It showed 55 of 56 respondents said they did not believe joint working will be achieved between local government and the NHS in the next five years.

Rob Whiteman, CIPFA’s chief executive, commenting on the survey of 25 local authorities and 31 NHS bodies, said: “While it is now clear what the overall ambitions are for STPs, the survey released today highlights there may be major barriers to achieving these.

“The survey shows that there are some significant concerns with regard to joint working, which is vital to the success of STPs. Therefore, serious care and attention must now be paid to building relationships and trust between partners.”

Whiteman also echoed the sentiment of Humphries when he said suitable levels of funding were needed, or the ambitious targets set by the STPs would turn out to be “financially unachievable”. “

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/09/stps-need-more-funding-and-be-implemented-better-0

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Asset sweating, EDDC, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Voting

EDDC has other ways of raising cash … but not votes

Owl says: shame they couldn’t put the same amount of effort into getting voters to register. CEO Williams said it was much too dangerous to go around the dark, rural roads in East Devon seeking them out.

Owl hopes the officers tasked with weeding out these miscreants have had good martial arts training for dealing with those elderly widows, widowers and single mums!

And just as well officer time is never costec when accounting for how such an exercise!

“Council Tax paying resis who wrongly claim they live alone and get a council tax discount are being targeted in East Devon. Checks are beginning this month to ensure that the 21,000 East Devon householders who currently claim a 25% discount for living alone are still entitled to it.

Councillor Ian Thomas, portfolio holder for finance, said “anyone genuinely claiming a reduction should not be concerned. However, if you are found to be deliberately misleading the council, you could face a penalty of £70, as well as having to repay the discount,” he added.”

[Source: BBC Devon]

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Exmouth Creative Group, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Small and Medium businesses, Spin, Tourism, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC seems to prefer income loss to seafront attractions

Owl has spotted a disclosure by EDDC in relation to a FOI on the loss of income and business rates on closed Exmouth seafront businesses:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lost_council_income_from_queens#comment-80255

EDDC effectively admit that council rental income from those properties on Queens Drive, which they closed a while back, mean a loss at a rate of over £18,300 pa. On top of the rent, they will have lost an as yet unspecified amount of council business rates and beach hut hire income. Oh, and the area now looks derelict.

Though there were claims that the Fun Park site was needed in connection with works on phases 1 and 2, there are plans in existence (see on Save Exmouth Seafront Facebook page) which show no such need for access as yet to the Fun Park.

It seems clear that EDDC have done little or nothing about arrangements for ‘temporary attractions’ on the Fun park site next year – at least as far as the public can determine.

So, we know that already part of the seafront is looking run down and desolate, and is losing money into the bargain. Further, the case for getting rid of the Fun Park seems much more to do with EDDC taking offence at a long established family business having the sheer gall to take EDDC on in pursuit of that families legitimate rights, than allowing them to continue to provide a much-loved service to the community – including thousands of tourists.

No, rather EDDC take a chance that something “might” come up by way of temporary attractions if only it hopes hard enough.

And surely EDDC is breaking its own (well-honed) rules on confidentiality when it voluntarily gives information that one owner allegedly had an outstanding unpaid bill – again.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Inequality

“Local councils blame Tory cuts for dramatic surge in homelessness”

“Government benefit cuts are to blame for soaring levels of homelessness, local councils and housing providers have said.

The number of people being declared homeless has increased by more than a third since 2010, while the number of people sleeping rough on the streets has surged by even more: up 134 per cent since the Conservatives came to power.

A string of Government welfare changes – including cuts to housing benefit and the introduction of the benefit cap – have led to the dramatic increase, according to the organisations charged with tackling the crisis. …

… According to the survey, 61 per cent of local councils and 49 per cent of housing associations also said the fact a prospective tenant is unlikely to receive enough in welfare payments to cover their rent is now the most common reason for someone being turned away for home.

It comes just days after a damning report by the National Audit Office accused government ministers of a “light-touch approach” to tackling homelessness, and concluded that benefit cuts were “likely to have contributed” to the rise in homelessness. Tackling the problem is costing the state £1bn a year, the report said.

In an attempt to get a grip on spiralling homelessness, Government ministers have placed a legal obligation on local councils to help people find homes.

Typically, this would involve helping someone into a property managed by a housing association – but cuts to benefits mean associations are increasingly having to turn tenants away. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-cuts-homelessness-link-blame-government-austerity-2010-housing-homes-welfare-benefit-cuts-a7957701.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Planning System

Home ownership – a hopeless dream for most young people

Home Affront: housing across the generations

a report by the Resolution Foundation

Key findings

“After those born in 1946-50, every cohort has experienced lower home ownership rates than its predecessor at the same age. Today’s families headed by 30 year olds are only half as likely to own their home as the baby boomer generation was at the same age, and home ownership has declined across all regions and income groups.

With falling home ownership and a shrinking social rented sector, four out of every ten 30 year olds now live in private rented accommodation – in contrast to one in ten 50 years ago.

Millennials have also been more likely to be living with their parents in their mid-20s than previous cohorts, while families are much less likely to house their elderly parents than they were in the past.

While the average family spent just 6 per cent of their income on housing costs in the early 1960s, this has trebled to 18 per cent. Housing costs have taken up a growing proportion of disposable income from each generation to the next. This is true of private and social renters, but mortgage interest costs have come down for recent generations. However, the proportion of income being spent on capital repayments has risen relentlessly from generation to generation thanks to house price growth.

The quality of housing has in many respects improved hugely. But millennial-headed households are more likely than previous generations to live in overcrowded conditions, and when we look at the distribution of square meterage we see today’s under-45s have been net losers in the space stakes compared to previous cohorts, while over-45s are net gainers.
More recent generations have also had longer commutes on average than previous cohorts, despite spending more on housing.

We conclude by modelling what the future might hold for today’s young people. Based on historic relationships between a range of factors and home ownership growth, an optimistic set of assumptions would imply that these cohorts could make up much of the lost ground on home ownership. However, if similar trends to the 2002-2012 were to return, less than half of millennials will buy a home before the age of 45 compared to over 70 per cent of baby boomers who had done so by that age.

Clearly there is scope for political determination to make a difference to the housing outlook, and future work for the Intergenerational Commission will consider what action should be taken.”

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/home-affront-housing-across-the-generations/