“A civil servant has revealed that HS2 was a political vanity project”

“… George Osborne wanted HS2 very much against the advice of his officials. Osborne saw a high-speed railway as a way of increasing the Tories’ appeal in the North, while his officials saw it as a vanity project which would bring far less benefit than smaller-scale improvements. Osborne pushed HS2 because he wanted to be able to boast that Britain had the fastest railway in the world (in spite of its geography not justifying that).

It is bizarre that the government has now cancelled electrification projects across the North of England, so that Trans-Pennine services will continue to be provided with dirty diesel trains (conflicting with its announcement of a ban on new diesel cars from 2040), while pushing ahead with a 225 mph railway between Manchester, Leeds and London.

It doesn’t make much economic sense, but, as Macpherson questioned, does it even make political sense? Build a fast railway from north to south while simultaneously ignoring commuter services in the North and you send a pretty powerful message to northerners: go south, young man. That’s where the big opportunities are. If it is all supposed to be about boosting the North why is so much of the budget allocated to rebuilding Euston station.

HS2 is really designed around ministers’ lifestyles: it enables them to travel to the North to make an announcement, cut a ribbon or close a factory, and still be back at Westminster in time to vote and have a subsidised dinner. Meanwhile, the public transport which Londoners take for granted continues to be denied to the North. …”

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/a-civil-servant-has-revealed-that-hs2-was-a-political-vanity-project/

Budleigh Salterton neighbourhood plan passes final hurdle

“Budleigh Neighbourhood Plan gets 95 per cent approval

Budleigh Salterton is set to become the first town in East Devon to have their neighbourhood plan implimented after 95 per cent voted in favour of adopting the blueprint document

The Budleigh Salterton community has given its backing to a plan which lays out how the town could look in the future.

Residents went to the polls on Wednesday (September 6) on Budleigh’s Neighbourhood Plan.

Voters were asked to say yes or no to the question: ‘Do you want East Devon District Council (EDDC) to use the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) for Budleigh Salterton to help decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?

Some 94.7 per cent of the 1,320 who voted said yes while 5.3 per cent voted no with two ballot papers spoiled. There was a turnout of 31 per cent.

The plan will now go back to EDDC cabinet to me ‘made’. This will make Budleigh the first town in East Devon to successfully complete the Neighbourhood Plan process.

When the document gets rubber-stamped by EDDC, it will have to be referred to alongside the East Devon Local Plan, when any planning applications are considered.

Town mayor Alan Dent said: “This will help control future development, will support businesses and will really help in securing a viable future for the town.

“The NP will also protect the character and history of Budleigh which is loved and admired by both residents and visitors. … ”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/buldiegh-nieghbourhood-plan-referendum-approval-1-5189761

“Secondary schools struggling to get enough teachers, says watchdog”

“Secondary schools are struggling to recruit enough teachers to keep up with retiring staff and rising pupil numbers despite annual expenditure of about £21bn on their teaching workforce, the government’s spending watchdog has said.

Tens of thousands of teachers left England’s schools before reaching retirement age last year, and headteachers are finding it difficult to fill posts with good quality candidates, according to the National Audit Office.

A report released on Tuesday concludes that the Department for Education cannot show that its attempts to keep teachers in the classroom are working or demonstrate value for money in keeping with the NAO’s remit.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the school leaders’ union NAHT, said the report was “pretty savage but entirely justified”.

“As the report says, the government cannot get away from the fact that it does not keep data on local supply and demand and cannot show that its interventions are improving teacher retention.

“As such, the DfE is scrambling around in the dark, wasting money and without a clear plan to tackle recruitment and retention. It’s a national problem. So it needs a national solution,” he said.

The report found that 34,910 qualified teachers left the profession for reasons other than retirement last year. There was a 4.9% fall (10,800 staff) in the numbers of secondary school teachers, it said.

A survey by the NAO found 85% of secondary school leaders did not think they had been given enough support by the government to retain high-quality teachers, while 67% said teachers’ workload was still a barrier to keeping people in the profession. Nearly all – 97% – thought cost was an obstacle to improving the quality of their workforce.

Schools filled only half their vacancies with teachers who had the right experience and expertise, the survey found, and in about one in 10 cases, the post was not filled. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/sep/12/secondary-schools-struggling-to-get-enough-teachers-says-watchdog

Learndirect – another Tory scandal

“Training company Learndirect should face an investigation after it was rated “inadequate” by Ofsted, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee says.

The firm is estimated to have received more than £600m of public funding since 2011, but Meg Hillier said the government must demonstrate there were consequences for failure.

Ofsted has told the BBC no training provider should be beyond scrutiny.
Learndirect said it had made strong progress in improving its provision.
Ofsted’s report, which the company tried to prevent being made public, rated Learndirect inadequate overall, with failings in apprenticeships and lesser problems in adult learning.

No termination of contract notice has been issued, which would normally follow a similar rating.

Officials have told the BBC that because there is a need to “protect learners and maintain other key public services run by Learndirect Ltd”, the contract will run its course until next summer with intensive monitoring.
But those officials will face questions about their handling of the contract when they next appear before the influential Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

‘Real slap’

Labour MP Ms Hillier MP said: “It’s a very big contract and we’re concerned the way Learndirect is treated is a sign the government considers it is too big to fail, which raises wider issues about how we contract these things out.”

She said she had asked the National Audit Office to consider looking into the contract. “If something is failing, the government needs to take action,” Ms Hillier continued. “It needs to show there are consequences, and it’s a real slap in the face to providers out there doing a good job, who are rated good or excellent by Ofsted, who then see a failing provider seemingly getting away with it.”

Learndirect Ltd has dozens of subcontractors, and takes a share of the contract value in return for passing the work on. But this case raise may wider questions about the scrutiny of major public contracts.

The head of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, spoke exclusively to the BBC and FE Week in a joint interview about the lessons that need to be learned.
“We have to make sure that we say what we have to say about quality, no matter what,” she said. “We have to do that as early on as possible in the life of providers so we don’t end up with more Learndirects where there are 20,000 apprentices not getting what they should be getting.” She refused to be drawn on her view of the response by the Department for Education (DfE) following the Ofsted report, saying: “It is not for us to decide what happens to Learndirect.”

But she added: “I hope that the lessons from Learndirect will really focus people’s minds on what can be done up front, especially with very large providers. “In any system there are always going to be some problems, some providers with difficulty, and making sure the system can cope with the failure of any provider is an essential part of a functioning market.”
There is a risk for Ofsted that if robust action isn’t seen to be taken following a critical report, its own authority is undermined.

‘Act swiftly’

In a BBC interview, Skills Minister Anne Milton said Learndirect Ltd was not seen by the government as too big to fail. “It is most certainly not untouchable, we have the learners’ interests at heart. “We will continue to act swiftly with Learndirect and any other provider that fails to do as their contract specifies.” She also gave an undertaking to recoup any public money for training not delivered – the first time the government has said this publicly. “We will claw back from Learndirect any bit of their contract they have failed to fulfil.” That could only happen after an audit of the contract, if it was found that some training had not been delivered.

This criticism of Learndirect comes at a time when a significant expansion of apprenticeships is about to unfold.

The prospect of the new employer-funded apprenticeship levy has led to around 2,000 potential providers joining a new government register.
Ms Spielman said: “There are very clear risks. One is about people who shouldn’t be providing training at all, making sure they don’t get onto the register, or recognising that at the earliest possible moment before lives are disrupted.

“One is about making sure that people who have the potential to do it well stay in control of their business model and don’t lose sight of apprentices through layers of subcontracts that aren’t managed well.”
The new system will be very different, because employers will commission as well as fund the training.

Learndirect said it was making improvements to its adult training. “We remain committed to working with current employers and apprentices to ensure they receive the training and skills they need to succeed,” it said.

“Our focus is on delivering the highest levels of service and outcomes, and we will continue working closely with the DfE and ESFA [Education and Skills Funding Agency] to ensure its requirements around quality measures are met.”
A separate company Learndirect Apprenticeships Limited has been set up for business under the new apprenticeship levy.

A spokesman for that company said Ofsted had recognised it had prepared well for the new system and that corporate apprenticeship customers were happy with the standard of learning.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41231483

Air pollution – citizen fights back

“An environmental campaigner is to bring a legal challenge over a city council’s adoption of its Local Plan, claiming that it is in breach of procedural requirements with regard to compliance with air pollution law.
The Canterbury District Local Plan proposes 16,000 new houses, mostly near Canterbury, on farmland outside the city boundary, with new slip roads, relief roads and further infrastructure.

The claimant, Emily Shirley, argues that this will result in additional car journeys of up to 112,000 daily, adding significantly to Canterbury’s roads.

Represented by law firm Leigh Day, she claims that the impact on air pollution was not properly considered by Canterbury City Council when adopting the plan and that the local authority failed to assess the cumulative effects of the proposed developments on the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) as required by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.

Shirley is crowd funding the case through the CrowdJustice website. She said: “Air pollution is the invisible killer. Everyone knows how congested Canterbury’s roads are but few are aware of the dangers of air pollution. For many years, individuals, amenity groups and parish councils have tried to get air pollution reduction measures implemented in Canterbury without success. Challenging the Adopted Canterbury Local Plan in the High Court will hopefully lead to a Plan that will reduce the unlawful air pollution levels as soon as possible.”

Rowan Smith, solicitor at Leigh Day, said: “With the dangers of air pollution so much of a zeitgeist issue, it is unfathomable that the City Council is prepared to risk making things worse in its area. You only have to look at the UK’s recent commitment to ban the sale of all diesel and petrol vehicles from 2040 to realise how out of step these plans are with current low carbon trends in policy-making. The legal errors we say it has made in formulating its plans only further demonstrate how imperative it is that the City Council goes back to the drawing board.”

Canterbury City Council has been approached for comment.

Judgment is meanwhile awaited in an earlier legal challenge on air pollution grounds in Canterbury this year. This challenge, also involving Shirley – Shirley & Rundell vs Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – was heard in the High Court in July 2017. This case concerned the failure of the Secretary of State to call in a large planning application of 4,000 houses on air pollution grounds.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

A test for our LEP: offshore wind power now vastly less expensive than Hinkley C

The Local Enterprise Partnership for Devon and Somerset (Heart of the South West LEP) is investing heavily in Hinkley C nuclear power station in Somerset.

This is not surprising, as many of its members are making money, now and in the future, in providing services and infrastructure for the massively expensive French/Chinese project. Making THEIR money with OUR money – whether the white elephant gets built or not.

Now we hear that the infrastructure costs of offshore wind power have plummeted – making it much more cost-effective than nuclear power, particularly Hinkley C nuclear power:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/11/huge-boost-renewable-power-offshore-windfarm-costs-fall-record-low

Now, solar energy is operating at zero subsidy and onshore costs for wind power are also falling – and energy storage batteries are also becoming nearer to cost-neutral for homeowners.

So, what is/was our LEP’s Plan B for this eventuality?

Er ….. they don’t need one or want one, because THEIR profits aren’t based on what’s best for us, or what costs least but what’s best for them.

Extra 400,000 specialist homes needed for older people

Owl says: won’t happen. Most of them would need to be affordable or social housing and, if older people want to live near services, it has to be in towns and cities. In towns, apartments are geared to youuger people, in cities, places where older people might choose to live is now hundreds and hundreds of student housing blocks (Exeter is a good example).

Rural specialist homes are mostly bungalows, which are in such short supply they sell at a premium.

“The number of specialist homes for older people will need to increase by 400,000 in less than 20 years, a Local Government Association study has suggested.

The umbrella-body has called for a ‘residential revolution’ to provide adequate housing for the country’s growing elderly population as figures show one in five of the people in England will be over 65 in a decade.

As well as increasing the number of specialists homes for older people by 75% by 2035, the LGA also calls for sufficient funding to adapt existing housing.

This is because, the study has concluded, at least 80% of the homes we will inhabit by 2050 will have already been built.

Martin Tett, the LGA’s housing spokesman, said: “Our ageing population means that older people are an increasingly crucial part of our housing market.

“They now live in a third of all homes, and this is set to increase. Delivering quality housing that meets the needs of these older people is essential.”

On Friday council leaders pointed out that only 0.6% of over 65s live in specialised accommodation, with a form of care support such as 24/7 on-site staff.

In contrast countries like the USA or Australia have 10 times more of their over 65s living in arrangements of that kind, the LGA pointed out.

Tett said councils were using innovate ways of providing housing for older people, from building purpose built ‘right-size” homes for their needs to placing housing at the heart of efforts to integrate care.

“However, councils cannot tackle this issue alone. Support from government, which incentivises housebuilding and provides councils with the funding and resources they need, is crucial to our efforts to support positive ageing,” he said.

The LGA has also demanded more planning powers so councils can ensure developers build quality homes and infrastructure that are well designed to support positive ageing.

The government said it is committed to making sure there are more suitable housing to meet the needs of older people.

A spokesman from the Department for Communities and Local Government said: “Through the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, we’re strengthening planning rules so that councils have clear plans for addressing the housing requirements of older people, and our building regulations now include a standard for homes to improve accessibility in homes.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/09/extra-400000-specialist-homes-older-people-needed-says-lga

“Health services top rural concern” but there are many other concerns too

“Rural residents are more concerned about declining healthcare services than any other issue, reveal the preliminary results of a wide-ranging survey.
Health topped the list of the topics of most concern to rural residents – ahead of public transport, rural housing and rural crime.

The survey of 1901 people was conducted on behalf of Rural England Community Interest Company by researchers from the Countryside and Community Research Institute, based at the University of Gloucestershire, and in partnership with the Rural Services Network.

The survey – believed to be the largest of its kind for many years – highlighted a range of issues with health services of most concern to respondents.

Full findings are due to be published later this autumn.

However, the preliminary ‘headline’ – summary results are being published at this year’s annual Rural Services Network Rural Conference – held at the University of Gloucestershire’s Cheltenham campus on Wednesday, 6 September.
RSN chair Cecilia Motley said: “The theme of this year’s conference is ‘The Infrastructure of Success – New Routes to Economic Growth’.

“What we mean by ‘Infrastructure’ is all those things essential to economic and community well-being.

“So we include health services and care, reliable, affordable fast speed broadband and mobile connectivity; affordable homes to meet the needs of local people; reasonable public transport; accessible training and development opportunities; good quality schools and the accessibility and affordability of all of the essential services provided by local government.
“These preliminary results are very timely to aid discussions at the conference.

“Confirmation that health – together I suspect with social care – is the main preoccupation for rural communities will surprise many people who might think other issues are more pressing, as past surveys (by others) have shown.”

“This early evidence of concern about healthcare provision comes at a time when many countryside communities face the withdrawal of vital GP services, NHS Service re-configurations and general recruitment difficulties. NHS providers are already expressing grave concerns about what they are describing as the worse winter in recent history.

“Although rural residents have other concerns – such as lack of affordable housing, poor public transport, often non-existent mobile and broadband connectivity and fears over the future of rural schools – health provision, social care and accessibility has risen sharply up the rural agenda.”

The aim of the survey was to canvass rural opinion with a view to creating, for the first time it is believed, a statistically valid representative panel of people to highlight the need for the adequate provision of rural public services and other policy issues affecting rural areas.

Largely rural shire areas score badly on some Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF) indicators, according to a recent report by the Rural England Community Interest Company.

This includes the provision of health checks, mental health services, access to health screening and late HIV diagnosis.

In terms of rural public transport, the survey findings come as little surprise with significant reductions in public transport services across rural areas as a result of government cuts in financial support for local government services.

And when it comes to rural housing, campaigners have long warned that high prices mean people are often unable to afford to buy their own home in the communities where they were born.

Meanwhile, a National Rural Crime Network report in 2015 warned that crime in the countryside was costing as much as £800m annually – putting further pressure on already stretched police forces.

Councillor Motley said: “There is a lot of concern among rural communities about the impact of public service cuts on services generally.

“Rural areas have always had thinner services than in other areas and funding cuts are hitting those services very hard – rural people, businesses and communities are still having a very difficult time.”

http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/services/health-services-are-top-concern-–-survey

Funding opportunities for coastal communities

Unfortunately, in terms of regeneration £40m doesn’t go very far.

“£40m for new coastal funding round

Ministers have confirmed that £40m will be available through the next round of a fund to support coastal communities. The government has already provided £170m for 278 projects around the country since the Coastal Communities Fund was launched in 2012. Coastal communities minister Jake Berry said: “This year is already looking like another record year for staycations and our latest round of funding will help attract even more visitors to the great British coast so that our coastal communities can thrive.”

http://www.room151.co.uk/151-news/news-roundup-pwlb-borrowing-on-the-rise-basildon-slams-javid-lga-attempts-to-kick-start-devolution/

“Charity shops: bringing in the cash, but bringing down the high street?”

The article praises the work that charities and their volunteers do, but also addresses the perception that they influence feelings of the decline of towns as they proliferate in High Streets:

“Most members of the public associate charity shops with high street decline, and 50% think a “healthy” high street should contain fewer charity shops.

These stark findings come from a report by thinktank Demos, updating its 2013 report on charity shops, both commissioned by the Charity Retail Association. Four years on, Demos says charity shops continue to be a lifeline for struggling town centres.

“Charity shops continue to perform a vital function in filling otherwise vacant properties in ailing high streets, with two-thirds of managers saying that their shop fills a space that would otherwise be left empty,” says the report.

But it notes that public opinion about the presence of charity shops on the high street is mixed, with the sector still facing an image problem in being associated with the decline of local high streets. Those surveyed overwhelmingly support charity shops receiving business rate relief, but more than half associate charity shops with high street decline. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2017/sep/11/charity-shops-vital-volunteers-sign-high-street-decline

“Britain flouting duty to protect citizens from toxic air pollution – UN”

“… “Air pollution continues to plague the UK,” he said. “I am alarmed that despite repeated judicial instruction, the UK government continues to flout its duty to ensure adequate air quality and protect the rights to life and health of its citizens. It has violated its obligations.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/10/uk-flouting-duty-to-cut-air-pollution-deaths-says-un-human-rights-report

Government cannot account for charity promises totalling nearly £1 billion

“The Conservative government “cannot yet confirm” whether nearly £1bn of money it was supposed to have given to charities has been “spent as intended”. And even worse, £200m of funding, which former prime minister David Cameron promised would go to young people, has seemingly been lost altogether.

Promises, promises

In the wake of the Libor rate rigging scandal, then chancellor George Osborne promised in 2012 that the £973m the banks were fined would “go to the benefit of the public”. And Cameron went further in 2015, saying the money from a specific £227m fine on Deutsche Bank would be used to create 50,000 apprenticeships. He said at the time:

“We’re going to take the fines from the banks who tried to rig markets – and we’re going to use it to train young people and get them off the dole and into work.”

But now, the National Audit Office (NAO), which is responsible for checking how the government spends public money, has investigated the £973m fund. And it found a catalogue of errors, mismanagement and lax behaviour by the Tories.

Dodgy dealings

The NAO found that:

The government is “is unable to demonstrate” if it actually spent £200m on 50,000 apprenticeships.
It gave £196m to groups, without any “terms and conditions” on how they should spend it.
The government “cannot yet confirm that charities spent all grants as intended”.
It has not evaluated whether the money actually benefitted the public, or not.
Some of the money went directly into an internal Ministry of Defence project.

Missing millions

The office said, specifically in relation to the apprenticeships, that:

although the money was used to fund apprenticeships in general, the government did not report any increase in its already announced 3 million target. The Department for Education, now responsible for apprenticeships, was not directed to use the £200 million to pursue a specific policy to deliver apprenticeships for unemployed 22-24 year olds and cannot demonstrate whether 50,000 new apprenticeships for this group have been provided.

But what is most revealing is just which charities the government gave £973m to.

The NAO said that:

The majority of this money has gone towards Armed Forces and Emergency Services charities. The Treasury and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) have distributed £592 million of the fund to a range of different causes.

Tories: cutting to the bone

Meanwhile, since 2010, the Tories have:

Cut defence spending to 5% of all public spending.
Left around 7,000 ex-military personnel homeless in the UK.
Presided over more service personnel taking their own lives than actually dying in battle.
And, also since 2010:
The NHS has seen a real terms cut in the amount of money given to it per patient.
The government has cut the number of people getting social care by 26%. And it has cut the equivalent of almost £50m from children’s mental health services.
20,000 police officers have lost their jobs and £2.3bn has been cut from police budgets.
10,000 firefighters have lost their jobs and budgets have been cut by a third.

As sneaky as sneaky can be

So, essentially, the government has used the £973m from the bank’s fines to paper over the cracks created by their austerity, via charities. And as The Canary reported only this week, the blowback from austerity is beginning to severely show, with the police dealing with more cases of mental health issues than ever before. We knew that Cameron couldn’t be trusted with the public purse. And now we know that the Tories will use it to try and cover their disastrous tracks, too.”

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/09/08/tories-just-lost-1bn-charity-money-back-sofa/

DCC transport supremo Stuart Hughes on the spot next week

“On Monday Devon Live launches a series of special reports into the county’s congestion problems and the impact that pollution is having on people’s lives.

Gridlocked Devon will look at some of the major challenges caused by congestion across the county and find out what is being done to encourage people to use other modes of transport. …

Investigations throughout the week will reveal the attitude of local authorities to sustainable travel and highlight some of Devon’s pollution hotspots.

Gridlocked Devon will culminate on Friday with a Facebook Live debate tackling some of the major travel problems facing the county.

To submit a question email

newsdesk@devonlive.com

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/gridlocked-devon-problems-facing-devons-454209

What Swire’s mate Heffer thinks of local authorities

Just before the last general election, Swire made one of his very rare appearances at what he called a “hustings” in Exmouth. Except no other parties were invited to participate and his one guest was Telegraph journalist Simon Heffer.

In today’s Sunday Telegraph Heffer calls for privatisation of everything that currently makes any semblance of profit, or which might make profits in future, and hiving off the loss-making tasks to unitary authorities or, in our case, the unelected, unaccountable and opaque business-run Local Enterprise Partnership.

Oh to be a fly on the wall when Swire and Heffer have their fireside chats …

He says:

“… There is too much local government. Pointy-headed theorists have banged on about localism, but all that is missing is evidence that “local” people are either capable or motivated enough to deliver “local” services. The best way to deliver “localism” is to take councils out of the equation altogether, as has been done in many cases by removing schools from their control. …

But local government will not work well until it is stripped of duties that individuals or the private sector can provide for themselves: which brings us back to social care … the government must … develop an insurance scheme that will encourage private providers to take over what threatens to become a crippling state responsibility …”

Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Comment, page 16

Unfortunately Mr Heffer neglects to explain how private providers, with shareholders mouths to feed, will be able to do it more cheaply.

BBC national news takes up story of tourist bus pulling out of Seaton and Colyton due to elderly residents objecting to it

Since when was an EDDC coach park, where EDDC receives the revenue and the land is owned by EDDC, a town council problem?

“An open-top bus service has been axed because of “hostility and tirades” from residents, its operator says.

Drivers of the Jurassic Mule service, on the Devon and Dorset coast, have been verbally abused and a bus depot entrance was “deliberately blocked”.
The Mendip Mule Motorbus service runs through Beer, Colyton and Seaton in Devon, and on to Lyme Regis and Charmouth in Dorset.

Issues over parking had arisen in Seaton and cars had been badly parked, intentionally, across Colyton bus depot’s entrance, owner Derek Gawn said.

He said the company used a bus park in Seaton, provided by East Devon District Council for use by buses and coaches on a pay-and-display basis.
“It isn’t for the bus drivers to be shouted at by residents who don’t welcome the facility,” Mr Gawn continued.

“[And it’s] not a particularly good welcome for the much-needed tourists bringing their spending to the town.”

East Devon District Council said it was a matter for Seaton Town Council, which has not responded to a BBC request for comment.

“We have also experienced people deliberately parking their cars badly on the approach to our depot at Colyton Station in an attempt to make access difficult,” Mr Gawn added.

Some people have taken to social media in support of the service.
On Facebook, Clare Dare said: “I think by moving next to a bus park there is a pretty good indication that there may possibly be a bus or 2 in there at some point!!!”

Becky Perry added: “Such a shame my little boys loved their adventure on the open top bus this summer!”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41199363

North Somerset grabs cash for care homes – London Borough of Westminster doesn’t

“F​amilies are facing a care funding lottery as new figures reveal wide variations in the lengths to which councils will go to stop people giving away assets in an attempt to make the state pay instead.

Local authorities means-test residents of care homes to check if they should pay towards their costs.

The cut off point is £23,250 – if you have assets above this figure you are expected to fund your own care. If your assets are worth less than £23,250 the council will help to meet the costs. Average nursing home costs reached £1,000 for “self-funders” earlier this year.

The spiralling cost of care has created an incentive for families to give away property, investments and savings to bring their assets below the £23,250 limit.

Councils have powers to claw back money from people it can prove to have “deliberately deprived” themselves of assets to claim state aid. Yet it has long been suspected that they find it nearly impossible to prove that someone has given assets away deliberately to dodge care costs.

Giving to children and grandchildren as a way to limit inheritance tax bills has become increasingly common. High house prices and buoyant stock markets have increased families’ wealth, while the headline amount you can pass on tax free has not been increased for nearly a decade.

A series of Freedom of Information requests submitted by Telegraph Money has uncovered how often councils use their powers and the amounts they have managed to claw back.

Of the eight local authorities approached, North Somerset council, whose jurisdiction includes Weston-super-Mare and the outskirts of Bristol, had used its powers the most. Since 2012 it recorded 64 “deprivation” cases in relation to care funding. The total value of assets involved in the cases was £1.3m.

By contrast, the London borough of Westminster had no recorded cases. This is despite the area having a similar population to North Somerset, at around 200,000, and a similar proportion of elderly residents.

Likewise Southwark, which covers a large part of south-east London, had not used its powers at all. The north London borough of Camden had the second-highest number of cases, at 14, with a total value of £158,000 over five years. Liverpool and Hertfordshire councils refused to provide figures on the grounds of cost, while Nottingham City Council said it did not keep relevant records.

Steven Cameron, a care expert at Aegon, the insurer, warned that greater scrutiny of the sector meant individuals who attempted to dodge care fees were increasingly likely to be caught by councils.

“A few years ago it was highly unlikely that a council would have paid much attention to people who gave away assets to avoid paying,” he said. “But with the care crisis getting worse daily and with more public interest in getting out of paying for care by giving away assets, the attention councils will pay is certain to increase considerably.”

Councils also take action that may not be reflected by official statistics, said Tracy Ashby a specialist legacy planner at Thursfields, the law firm.

She has seen cases in the West Midlands where instead of trying to claw back funds from families, councils simply cut off funding for care. Care homes are then left to pursue families themselves and in some cases have sought to evict patients, Ms Ashby said.

The “dementia tax” Telegraph Money has reported extensively on the anomalies of the care funding system.

Self-funding patients effectively subsidise those funded by councils, which set strict limits on the fees they are prepared to pay. This leaves homes in areas with few private customers battling to stay open.

The Conservatives’ radical plans for reforming the care system have been blamed for the party’s disastrous showing in the general election. Under the plan, councils would have started to pick up the tab for care costs once a person’s assets fell below £100,000, as opposed to the current level of £23,250 in England.

But, crucially, family homes would also have been included in the means-testing formula for “at home” care for the first time.

At the same time, the plan for a lifetime cap – which would have helped those who needed long periods of care – was dropped. The Tories quickly backtracked over the latter, which Labour called the “dementia tax”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/councils-failing-stop-people-giving-away-cash-dodge-care-home/

Doctors wake up to consequences of STP plans which have already closed most East Devon community hospitals

BUT DOCTORS – IT’S BEEN HAPPENING UNDER YOUR NOSES FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS!

“Almost two in three senior doctors fear a controversial NHS shake-up that will downgrade or close dozens of hospital units will damage the care patients receive. The hospital consultants fear the sustainability and transformation plans (STPs) will lead to staff losing their jobs, will exacerbate workforce shortages and will act as a cover for cuts to services.

Of 450 hospital clinicians surveyed by the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association (HCSA), 42% believe that STPs will have a “negative impact” on patient care. Barely one in 10 consultants who belong to the union expect a “positive impact”.

Three in four (77%) fear STPs are a way of making cuts to the NHS, while just over half (56%) fear they will lead to job losses and worse understaffing. …

“Many hospital doctors see STPs as a managerially driven process with no real clinical basis, and fear that a mix of underfunding, under-resourcing and service rationalisation can only damage patient care,” said Eddie Saville, the HCSA’s chief executive.

“This is, in effect, yet again an NHS reorganisation, but region by region, with management trying to plug the financial gaps rather than putting high-quality care of patients at the forefront. The fact that STPs are being planned against a backdrop of underfunding and cuts has led many doctors to conclude that this transformation programme is purely an attempt to mask further cutbacks.”

The Local Government Association, which represents local councils, criticised STPs as “secretive, opaque and top-down” reforms that would fail patients. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/09/nhs-hospital-reforms-closures-job-losses

DUH – where have some of these doctors been this last 2 years?

Some families – mostly working – to be £50/week worse off by 2020

“Over two million poor families will be more than £50 a week worse off by the end of the decade, according to an alarming analysis of welfare cuts, crippling rent rises and looming inflation.

In a bleak assessment of the plight of the poorest families in Britain, the study commissioned by the Local Government Association found that more than 84% of those set to lose £50 a week or more are households with children, either lone parents or couples. Almost two-thirds of them are working households, despite claims from ministers that they wish to create a welfare system that encourages work.

The analysis, by the Policy in Practice consultancy, also undermines claims from ministers that moves to cut taxes and increase the wages of the poorest are compensating them for years of austerity and the rising cost of living.

While some of the seven million low-income households in Britain will be better off by 2020, the group as a whole faces an average loss of £40.62 a week by 2020 compared with the end of last year, once benefit and tax changes, wages, housing costs and inflation are all taken into account.

The report’s publication comes as Philip Hammond, the chancellor, faces intense pressure to ease years of austerity following an election result that signalled voters had reached the end of their patience with spending cuts. Nurses took to the streets in protest last week over claims they have suffered a 14% real-terms cut in their wages over the past seven years. Hammond is also under pressure to curb rising levels of student debt in the forthcoming budget.

The study finds that the introduction of the government’s flagship policy of universal credit, which combines a series of benefits into a single payment, will lead to an average income loss of £11.18 per week. It coincides with new warnings from Citizens Advice that the rollout of the system should be halted, amid claims that some of those already receiving it have found themselves in serious debt.

With charities and councils warning of rising homelessness, increasing housing costs are identified as a main cause of falling income. More than 2 million low-paid private renters face an average real-terms loss of £38.49 a week by 2020. …

For low-income private renters with three or more children, the average income loss that they face by 2020 in real terms is £67.21 a week. This compares with £30.67 for private renters without children.

The authors also say rents are rising faster in some areas than others, with housing benefit not rising to match it. The study found rents are set to rise by 20.7% in the south-west by 2020, but by just 3.5% in the north-east. The report warns that there is now a looming “affordability crisis” because cuts to housing benefit, known as local housing allowance (LHA) for private renters, mean it is no longer linked to real rents, pushing people into poverty or even homelessness. … .”

“Staircase tax” – could mean a 5,000% backdated increase in business rates

“Conservative MP Nicky Morgan is pushing the UK’s property tax agency to detail the impact of the so-called “staircase tax”, amid fears that firms could be forced to stomach a 5,000% hike in bills.

The Treasury Select Committee chairwoman has written to Valuation Office Agency (VOA) chief executive Melissa Tatton for details on how businesses may be hit by the contentious levy.

“At first sight, it seems unfair to tax businesses different depending solely on whether the staircases between their rooms are communal or private,” Morgan said in her letter.

… “It also seems particularly harsh for the increase in rates to be backdated, and I would be interested to know the VOA’s reason for backdating it.”

The staircase tax is the result of a Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a single business space.

It means offices covering multiple floors in a building will be billed separately if their corridors or staircases are communal, rather than private to the business.

And for businesses that have expanded, the decision to take on offices in the same building as existing premises, connected by communal space, could now prove more costly than they first realised or planned for.

Morgan has asked the VOA’s Tatton to explain the decision to backdate the tax to 2015 in England and 2010 in Wales, and to provide details on how many businesses will face a higher rates bill as a result.

She has also requested information on the average bill increase that businesses will face and whether any transitional relief will be made available.

The tax has faced cross-party criticism, not only from Morgan, but from Labour’s shadow business minister Chi Onwurah and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable.

It comes amid a backlash from industry groups including the The Federation of Small Business (FSB), which has warned many small firms could be set for a substantial hike in their bills, the Press Association reported.

“This significant escalation of cross-party scrutiny of the staircase tax will be hugely welcomed by the thousands of firms set to be stung by this ridiculous levy,” FSB Chairman Mike Cherry, said.

“No small business should receive a sudden tax hike of 5,000% simply because a workspace has been separated, for years, by a communal area, stairway or lift.

“Some small business owners are discussing whether to knock holes in their walls or stick a staircase on the outside of their premises.”

It is the latest tax debacle to hit British business this year, having been left reeling after the Government’s contentious business rates review this year.

The revaluation, which came into force in March, updated rateable values to take into account property price changes over the last seven years.

Business rent and rates specialists CVS said UK companies are already facing a £4.5 billion increase in business rates over the next 5 years, even before the staircase tax is introduced.

Cherry has called on the Government to repeal the new levy.

“This is no way to run a tax system in the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Ministers have the power to provide relief, and they should do this urgently – to correct this defect in the UK tax system.”

It comes as Chancellor Philip Hammond prepares the first full Autumn Budget, expected to be presented to Parliament between late November to early December.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nicky-morgan-staircase-tax_uk_59b3dfa0e4b0b5e531067ab3