“Fat cat bosses were paid more than £1million from ‘taxpayers cash and student debt’ to run luxury £559 per week student halls complete with posh kitchens, gyms and cinemas”

“Three fatcat bosses were paid more than £1million each by a firm last year to run student halls of residence, figures show.

Unite Students, the country’s largest student accommodation provider, paid £3.9million in total to the trio in salary, benefits and bonuses.

The highest paid was chief executive Richard Smith, who received £1.4million – more than 50 times the average UK salary. This included £437,167 in wages, an annual bonus of £401,407, pension benefit of £84,506 and £476,619 via a long-term incentive plan. …

The priciest of these halls were in London, where private firm CRM Students was charging £559 per week for 51 weeks at its Canto Court site – a total of £28,500 a year – for King’s College students.

Accommodation in Cardiff was offered for £9,639 over 51 weeks which had a shared cinema, gym, and music practice room – again courtesy of CRM Students.

And those at Bristol can pay £14,280 for a studio in Brunel House via Unite Students.

While most private halls are not officially affiliated to universities, they target students who have missed out on traditional campus ‘digs’ – often because they went through clearing.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6148961/Fat-cat-bosses-paid-1million-taxpayers-cash-student-debt.html

Could we lose World Heritage Site status in the East Devon section of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site through EDDC lack of concern over retrospective planning application at Ladram Bay?

Retrospective planning application EDDC 18/1517

UK National Commission for UNESCO already alerted by members of the general public

Jurassic Coast Trust (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 04 Sep 2018

Firstly, we would like to point out that the Jurassic Coast Trust, as the organisation responsible for the protection of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site, should have been formally consulted on this application.
You should also be aware that this application has been raised by the general public with the UK National Commission for UNESCO, with whom we are now liaising.

Response: Object

The core issue for us is the extension of the viewing deck or ‘ice cream deck’ into the World Heritage Site (WHS). The boundary for the WHS is described for this part of the coast in appendix 2 of the Site management plan. Both the full plan and its appendices are available to download freely from http://www.jurassiccoast.org. At Ladram Bay the WHS sits between the break in slope at the top of the cliff and the mean low water mark. The extension of the decking therefore has a direct impact within the Site’s boundaries.

These potential impacts should be considered under the following policies from the WHS management plan:

1.1 Protect the OUV (Outstanding Universal Value) of the site through prevention of developments that might impede natural processes, or obscure the exposed geology, as set out in the GCR / SSSI details, now and in the future.

1.2 Where developments affecting the Site or setting do take place, avoid or at least mitigate negative impact on the natural processes and exposed geology.

1.3 Oppose developments in the Site’s setting that may warrant a future need for coastal defences, particularly in light of potential sea-level rise and extreme weather events.

1.4 Protect the landscape character, natural beauty and cultural heritage of the Site and setting from inappropriate development.

Retrospective planning permission is wholly inadequate to deliver these policies for three key reasons:

1 There is not enough information provided about the nature of the structure and how it is anchored and supported. A proper assessment of its impacts on the WHS is impossible based on this application.

2 Retrospective permission does not allow for the mitigation of impacts within the design process.

3 There is no evidence that alternative approaches that provide similar benefits to the holiday park’s users whilst protecting the natural environment have been considered.

National Planning Policy provides World Heritage Sites with the highest level of protection (see NPPF paragraphs 184 and 194). The long operation and high rating of the holiday park does not excuse the applicant from following proper planning procedures.

If the applicant had followed normal planning procedure, we would have had the chance to comment early on the design, suggest alternatives if necessary or, if deemed to be appropriate development, recommended suitable consent conditions.

Protection of the World Heritage Site relies on the planning system to deliver these opportunities.

We strongly recommend that East Devon District Council refuse this application.”

“Rip up planning laws to save the high street”

“Coalition of retailers and landlords: rip up planning laws to save the high street:

A coalition of retailers, landlords, councils and pubs has called for planning laws to be reformed so that abandoned shops can be turned into cafes, galleries, gyms and other businesses more easily which could help rejuvenate Britain’s high streets.

It said empty units are often hard to let ­because it can be difficult and expensive to get permission to change their use and is calling for more flexibility in planning legislation to help compete with online businesses. The LGA said it is time to recognise “a contraction in retail floor space” may be needed to help high streets survive.”

Sunday Telegraph (Business & Money p1)

Meeting in Parliament on the failure of scrutiny of NHS changes

DCC Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee- and particularly its chair Sarah Randall Johnson – take note:

“NHS campaigners meeting with MPs to call for better scrutiny and review to stop damaging cuts

Defend the NHS campaign groups from across England are to lobby MPs at a meeting in the House of Commons on Monday 10th September.

They will share their experiences of the need to improve the process of scrutiny and review of substantial changes to NHS services, in order to stop damaging cuts and changes.

The meeting is hosted by Paula Sherriff, MP for Dewsbury – where the District General Hospital has lost many of its key services.

Local campaign group, North Kirklees Support the NHS, will explain the risks this has created for the Dewsbury public.

Along with six other campaigns from Lincolnshire, West Yorkshire, Devon, Northumbria, Dorset and Oxfordshire, the Dewsbury group will tell MPs that there is an urgent need to address serious flaws in the process whereby Councils’ scrutiny committees refer proposals for damaging NHS cuts and changes to the Secretary of State for Health and the Independent Reconfiguration Panel.

Christine Hyde, from North Kirklees Support the NHS, said,

“The process of referral to the Secretary of State was opaque. The Independent Reconfiguration Panel is the key body with the power to advise the Secretary of State for Health to stop and/or require changes to major NHS cuts and “reconfigurations” – but there was next to no information about how it worked.

Once we had figured that out, we naively thought public opinion would have some weight. Together with the other five local NHS protector groups, we encouraged Independent Reconfiguration Panel members to visit Dewsbury.

We were ignored.

The Independent Reconfiguration Panel’s decision that local commissioners could sort out the failings in the hospital cuts proposals has not, for the most part, been borne out.

As the hospitals reconfiguration has been implemented, it has created huge problems for the most vulnerable groups – housebound patients, infants, children with disabilities and patients with life threatening illnesses like cancer.

The hospital changes were sold as being ‘better for patients’ but it really was all about the money and even so, the savings are recorded in a response to a Freedom of Information request as ‘nominal’.”

Campaigners will also demand political impartiality in the scrutiny and referral process.

The need for this is shown by Save Our Hospitals Devon’s observation of a discussion and decision by Devon County Council’s health and adult social care scrutiny committee, that reversed an earlier vote to refer the closure of community hospital beds in Eastern Devon to the Secretary of State.

Members of Save Our Hospitals Devon Netti Pearson and Sue Matthews said,

“The feeling among observers was certainly that the decision was a political one rather than one borne of effective and satisfactory scrutiny.”

Steven Carne from 999 Call for the NHS, the national campaign group which has convened the meeting, said,

“We are very excited about the campaign groups coming together from across the country to share their experiences of wrestling with the scrutiny and referral process.

This is key to stopping damaging NHS cuts, closures and inappropriate importation of insurance-based ‘care models’ from USA’s Medicare/Medicaid system. This provides a limited range of state-funded healthcare, on the basis of financial considerations – not clinical need, to people who can’t afford private health insurance. It is not what the NHS is about.

For the first time, campaign groups across England are pooling our knowledge and experience to lobby MPs to make this scrutiny and referrals process work better, because it definitely needs to.

And also to encourage other campaigns to get more actively involved with the process, in defence of NHS and social care services in their area.

The Department of Health guidance on health scrutiny says its primary aim is to strengthen the voice of local people in the commissioning and delivery of health services.

So it needs to make sure this happens.

This meeting is just a start. We are going to pursue this goal through thick and thin.”

http://999callfornhs.org.uk/scrutiny-failing-us/4594418128