Category Archives: Accountability

Aside

Posted by

Posted on

16 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC

“Devon County Council leaders calls for urgent Government review of council funding”

BUT THESE PEOPLE CAMPAIGNED ON A TICKET OF SUPPORTING THIS GOVERNMENT WITH CONTINUING AUSTERITY CUTS! SO WHY ARE THEY (A) SURPRISED AND (B) COMPLAINING?

“THE LEADER of Devon County Council is calling for an urgent national review of local government funding.

Council leader John Hart said the county’s budget had been cut by more than £267 million over the last seven years to meet Government austerity targets.

“This reduction has a very serious effect on the ability of this council to offer services to the people of Devon,” he said.

The future funding of services was uncertain because the Government was further reducing its grants and switching financial support to business rates but there was no clarity or certainty about how much that would generate. … “

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/devon-county-council-leaders-calls-for-urgent-government-review-of-council-funding/story-30142087-detail/story.html

AND they expect us to vote for them AGAIN in May!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Environment (local), Section 106

Comments

2 Comments

Cranbrook-another broken promise, this time allotment provision

An FAQ produced by the town council.

Summary: We were supposed to have them, developers won’t give up any land so we have no idea if we will ever get them even though we have a statutory duty to provide them.

Developers 1, Town Council 0

Take particular note of the answer to Question 2. Cynical Owl wonders if other Section 106 community benefits are triggered at this point and developers are dragging their feet about effective counting.

EDW-watchers will recall that almost £700,000 of such benefits was not triggered due to poor record-keeping on the part of EDDC and the need to rely on developers to tell EDDC when trigger points are reached. And most of that figure related to Cranbrook.

“1) When I moved in two years ago, the salesperson said there would be allotments in Phase 1?

We are afraid that was incorrect but we can see how the confusion arose. To set the record straight, although Cranbrook was always going to have allotments, the land originally set aside for them was not in Phase 1 but was part of the Sports Pitch land on Phase 2. This location was subsequently challenged as it was thought that adjacent to sports pitches was an unsuitable place for them. It was therefore decided to try to find an alternative location. This prompted a renegotiation of the original legal agreement. The revised agreement will still make provision for allotments in Cranbrook but a new location needs to be found (see also 2 below).

2) The Town Council’s website says one of its responsibilities is providing allotments, so why haven’t we got any yet and when are they coming?

Not only do they require a suitable location (see 1 above) a numerical trigger also needs to be reached before the work can begin. There are two stages to this process. Firstly, when approaching 1500 homes are occupied (i.e. not just built), the Owners (in this case the Consortium) are required to identify and gain planning permission for a location. Secondly, the Owners must, “use reasonable endeavours to complete the Allotments by the First Occupation of the 2000th Dwelling in accordance with the Allotments Specification and Delivery Programme and make them available for use as soon as practicable thereafter.” (extract from Section 106 agreement). Surprisingly, although there are many more new houses being built on Phase 2, we have been informed by East Devon District Council that Cranbrook still hasn’t quite reached the 1500 homes occupied figure.

3) So, where will the Cranbrook allotments actually go?

We regret we don’t have any information as yet about where they will be located but we are keeping a watching brief and will inform residents as soon as we have any new information.

4) I’ve heard the Town Council has a list of people who are interested in having an allotment, so can I join that?

Yes, we are keeping a list, so that when the allotments do become available they can be allocated fairly to people who have declared an interest. We currently have 13 names on the list. Please feel free to contact us on office@cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk or 01404 514552 if you would like to be added.”

Click to access FAQ-Allotments-Green-Spaces.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, EDDC, Housing (local), Land Supply, Local Enterprise Partnership, NPPF, Paul Diviani

Comments

1 Comment

“Evidence” for housing need in the post-truth era

As the country quietly celebrates annual economic growth of 2%, it is worth reminding ourselves that our housing and employment land allocations were based upon an expectation of a 3% annual economic growth rate over the entire length of the East Devon Local Plan. This is because Plans must be “evidence-based”.

The problem with East Devon’s various plans is that the evidence was hopelessly optimistic and pre-dated the recession, based on consistent “high growth”. When the recession came along, the powers that be just ignored its implications and carried on with their highly optimistic projections.

So today, Britain’s economy has shown only 8% growth since 2007, when the numbers for our Plan were first formulated. But according to our Plan we should be 34.5% ahead of where we were then.

No wonder that Skypark and the Science Park are windswept desolate areas festooned with tumbleweed, and Sidford is looking like complete economic nonsense.

Even if the incredibly unlikely happens, and we see 3% growth until the end of the plan period, we will never fulfil the assumptions that gave us these huge allocations. And when – not if – we fail to reach those optimistic figures, no doubt the government will fine us by telling us our plans must be MORE optimistic next time – and probably will say we have no five-year land supply, so it will be a developer free-for-all again.

So much for evidenced-based Plans: stick your finger in the air, check which way the wind is blowing, make a complete guess (that favours developers) and stick with it, regardless.

Diviani has “withdrawn” his plan to continue as a DCC councillor to “concentrate on being Leader of EDDC” – and a board member of the Local Enterprise Partnership. Owl wonders where the Leader is leading us – by the nose.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans, Rural communications, Sustainability, Villages BUAB

Villages – check if your built-up boundaries have been changed

From Strategic Planning Committee agenda (meeting on 20 February at 2pm – when most people will be at work:

“That it is recommended to Council:

1. That approval is given for the attached East Devon Villages Plan (and documentation that underpins the Plan) to be ‘published’ for a period of six weeks to allow formal comments to be made,

2. Following the six week period the East Devon Villages Plan be submitted for examination together with any comments received during that period,

3. That the Built-up Area Boundaries defined in the Publication Villages Plan, from the 23 February 2017, be used as primary policy for development management purposes instead of the boundaries on the inset plans included in the previously adopted Local Plan.”

Click to access combined-agenda-spc-200217-compressed.pdf

page 9 plus appendix maps

“4.6 Main Changes from Consultation Draft Plan August 2016

The draft plan of August 2016 included justification for the approach of using BUAB’s and discussion of alternative approaches and details of how BUAB’s had been defined that is not necessary in the final plan. In terms of individual settlements the main differences between the two plans are highlighted below and full details of how individual sites were assessed against the criteria set and the refinement of this approach for Newton Poppleford and West Hill are included in the ‘Site by Site’ assessments for individual settlements.

Beer – the majority of the western part of the village and the new
housing at Little Hemphay and Bluff Terrace are now included in the BUAB. The wording of policy Beer 01 – Village Centre Vitality now reflects that of Policy E9 of the adopted Local Plan.

Broadclyst – the community orchard and car park in front of the primary school are now excluded and the new buildings at the secondary school included.

Clyst St. Mary – no change to the preferred approach boundary.

Colyton – part of the former Ceramtec site is now included together with
part of a former garage site. Policy 01 has been changed to reflect the
wording of Policy E9 of the adopted Local Plan.

East Budleigh – minor change to exclude parts of three gardens.

Feniton – the ‘Ackland Park’ site and is included but the land adjoining
the railway on the ‘nursery’ site is excluded.

Kilmington – additional land to south west of village is now included.

Musbury – both the ‘Mountfield’ land and ‘Baxter’s Farm’ site (including
village hall) are now included.

Newton Poppleford – minor change to reflect size of King Alfred Way
planning permission and preferred approach boundary followed, which excludes western part of village that was included in previously adopted local plan.

Sidbury – no changes to preferred approach boundary.

Uplyme – boundary now follows that proposed in the Uplyme Neighbourhood Plan.

West Hill – preferred approach boundary largely followed, but with some
limited expansion.

Whimple – no change to preferred approach boundary.

Woodbury – no change to preferred approach boundary.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

“East Devon District Council’s scrutiny committee blasts NHS Property Services”

From the blog of Claire Wright- good to see one committee at EDDC doing a proper job:

“East Devon District Council’s scrutiny committee has delivered a stinging rebuke against the secretary of state for health’s private company, NHS Property Services after the managers declined once again to attend a meeting.

A similar thing has happened at Devon County Council’s health and wellbeing scrutiny committee. The company claims to be part of the “NHS family” but it appears, only when it suits them.

The resolution below, speaks for itself. Congratulations to chairman, Roger Giles and all those councillors who spoke and voted for the resolution.

1. The Scrutiny Committee records its deep regret that the NHS Property Services has declined its invitation to a meeting of the East Devon District Council Scrutiny Committee;

2. The Scrutiny Committee to write to the three local MPs representing East Devon, expressing its concern at the failure of NHS Property Services to agree to attend a meeting of the East Devon District Council Scrutiny Committee, and asks the MPs to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Health, with a view to his ensuring proper openness and transparency in the work of NHS Property Services, and ensuring proper public scrutiny of the work of the NHS Property Services, by requiring attendance at meetings of local councils when requested to do so;

3. The Scrutiny Committee to write to the Devon County Council Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, expressing its concerns;

4. The Scrutiny Committee to write to NHS Property Services requesting details of the actual market rent for Axminster Hospital, Budleigh Salterton Hospital, Exmouth Hospital, Honiton Hospital, Seaton Hospital and Sidmouth Hospital, with details of how those figures were arrived at.”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/east_devon_district_councils_scrutiny_committee_blasts_nhs_property_service

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Limited number of meetings in East Devon on latest NHS cuts

From “Save our Hospital Services East Devon” Facebook page, posted by Di Fuller:

“Devon’s Acute Services Review is taking place under the five-year Wider-Devon Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP). The detailed case for change is set out on the websites of NHS NEW Devon CCG and South Devon and Torbay CCG.

The high priority acute services being reviewed are:

• Stroke services, including hyper-acute and stroke rehabilitation (clinician workshops taking place between December 2016 and March 2017)
• Maternity and paediatrics (clinician workshops taking place between January 2017 and March 2017)
• Urgent and emergency care. (clinician workshops taking place between January 2017 and March 2017)

Work is also underway to discuss a range of vulnerable services. “Each of these services has particular challenges and we cannot resolve them with the current model of service delivery. This work is ongoing and will follow a similar process to that of the high priority acute services.”

During March 2017 the Devon STP teams are offering the public limited opportunities to discuss what is important to them about acute services.

This feedback will be collated into themes and called decision-making criteria. There are only 3 sessions in East Devon:

Monday 6th March 10.30-12.30 New Hall, Barrington Street, Tiverton
Monday 13th March 18.00-20.00 Kings School, Ottery St Mary.
Monday 20th March 18.30-20.30 Exeter Corn Exchange

Register 01392 267642 or email d-ccg.CorporateServices@nhs.net”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

NHS cuts “are more than about bed numbers”

“Call to keep fighting for East Devon’s hospital services

‘Cuts are about more than bed numbers’ – campaigners urge people to form united front

Share article from on facebook Tweet article from Share article from on Google Pluspost article from on reddit email article from send article from on WhatsappSend article from as text message
Campaigners are appealing for people to keep fighting for community hospitals in East Devon as they warn further changes are imminent.

Proposals to cut inpatient bed numbers by 54 per cent across the region – a move that could see Sidmouth Victoria Hospital lose its entire unit – triggered a huge public backlash as thousands turned out and signed petitions to voice their opposition.

The consultation came to a close on January 6, and the fate of community hospital beds is now in the hands of the NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group’s (CCG) governing body, which is expected to make a decision next month.

Campaigners are urging the public to mobilise on behalf of East Devon’s hospitals and challenge any further shake-ups as health bosses strive to plug a predicted £384million deficit by 2020/21.

Di Fuller, chair of the Sid Valley’s Patient Participation Group, said: “There is an apparent hiatus in the consultation and proposed changes to hospital services, but the planning and processes required for the Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs) continue under the radar.”

She added that many felt they had done what they could, but said with further consultations due, it was vital for people to keep informed and in a position to fight for their health services.

Chris East, a Sidmouth campaigner who set up an East Devon-wide petition and Facebook group, said: “We want to keep people involved and make them aware that there are things they can do.”

CCG bosses say their raft of proposed changes will benefit patients as they aim to move away from a hospital-reliant system of care to a more efficient, home-based model.

Sidmouth councillor and leader of the East Devon Alliance (EDA) Cathy Gardner argues a bigger campaign is needed to oppose Government-imposed cuts – that, she says, are about more than just bed numbers.

She is urging people to join a national mass protest against the ‘rapid dismantling of the NHS’ to be held in London on Saturday, March 4, and said EDA was organising a coach from the region with spaces available at modest cost.

To keep up-to-date with developments regarding the future of community hospitals, visit http://www.facebook.com/groups/1796549897279442/ or to book a coach space, email coach@eastdevonalliance.org.uk”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/call_to_keep_fighting_for_east_devon_s_hospital_services_1_4883590

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Exmouth, Moirai Exmouth project, Philip Skinner, Regeneration

Moirai Capital sacked in Swindon

“Ambitious plans to build a ski slope, an arena and hotel on the North Star site have been given a last minute reprieve with the involvement of Seven Capital Investments. In December [2016], development firm Moirai Capital was served with notice that Swindon Borough Council intended to call time on the project after repeated delays and unfulfilled commitments.

Seven Capital Investments Ltd, which is also one of the UK’s leading private capital funders, has agreed in principle to acquire control of Moirai Capital Investments in order to take forward plans to transform North Star with more than £100m of investment.

Currently managing a development portfolio of more than £800 million, Seven Capital has been responsible for major property investments across the country and has identified the North Star development as an ideal opportunity for it to invest in the leisure market.

Seven Capital’s interest in the regeneration project comes after the Council served Moirai notice of its intention to terminate the development agreement covering the former Clares site, which had been earmarked for an indoor ski slope, water park, hotel and other leisure and sports-related retail.

Moirai was given until 12 January 2017 to fulfil the terms of the notice or see the development agreement terminated. But following the proposal by Seven Capital, the Council has today (11 Jan 2017) withdrawn the notice of termination.

The plans for the North Star development include a cinema, 5,000-seat entertainment arena, ski centre, range of leisure activities, restaurants and cafes, retail space and a hotel.

A period of due diligence will now be carried out by both the Council and Seven Capital which, if successful, will see the Council’s Cabinet consider whether to approve the proposal.

Seven Capital has indicated it would also work with Moirai on the Oasis site.

If Seven Capital’s proposals are supported by Cabinet, detailed planning proposals could be submitted later this year.”

http://www.ozseeker.net/2017/01/22/seven-captial-resucues-swindons-north-star/?doing_wp_cron=1487023081.3896689414978027343750

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Transparency

Has EDDC’s new Manstone depot satellite office block been included in relocation costs?

The following Freedom of Information request implies that the cost may not have been included, but we shall see, we hope.

Owl wonders why just one set of employees has been left in Sidmouth in brand new offices and why they could not be accommodated on the Honiton site or the Exmouth site. Surely, THREE sets of offices will be MUCH more expensive to run than one HQ? But cost barely seem to concern Tory councillors, who seem to feel there is little need to scrutinise them.

“Laissez les bons temps rouler!”

“Dear Ms Symington,

I would like to make a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am also making this request under the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 which require disclosure on the part of Local Authorities.

On 22nd December, I corresponded with the Planning Department with regard to the Council’s planning application for offices for its Estates Department at the Manstone Depot in Sidmouth: https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online…

Several of my questions were answered, but not the following:

“The site is now clearly part of the District Council’s relocation project. This application represents the relocation of one of the key departments from the Knowle site – and yet there has been no mention in the Moving and Improving site pages: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/moving-and-impro…
“And I am unable to find any other information about this relocation of the Estates Department elsewhere.”

Could you provide me with any such references to this project (other than the planning application itself), either as documentation or weblinks.

And could you provide me with the full and exact costings for this planning application: the building costs of the new offices and where the finance for this project will be coming from.

On 9th January, the District Council stated the following to the press:

“The transfer of depot activities is an existing costed element of the relocation project and, as such, included within the independent and positive cost modelling of relocation.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/dis…

Could you provide me with the documentation which shows how the transfer of depot activities is an existing costed element of the relocation project.

And could you indicate exactly where this information is located within the independent and positive cost modelling of relocation.

I would be grateful if you could answer the four stipulated questions above.

Thank you.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
Jeremy Woodward
Sidmouth”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costing_the_relocating_of_the_es

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, Sustainability

Cranbrook: Facebook page created to complain about problems with district heating

The page is called:

“Cranbrook District Heat by eon is Useless”

Although it is new, it has already attracted more than 50 members and E.on is said to be arranging a meeting on the subject.

A selection of comments (and remember this is an 80 year monopoly contract where developers collect fees):

“No hot water again in Brooks Warren. Called Eon and yes, rubbish customer services yet again. ” [E.on] We do not know of any problems, someone will be in contact within 24 hrs.”

“Just had a call from Eon to say there is a site issue (AGAIN). They are hoping to get everything up and running by the end of the day.
Yet again another problem and yet again we are all suffering with the lack of services.”

“Went to have a shower this morning around 11:00, yep you guessed it no hot water. Called e.on and they said they had no reports of problems, perhaps I’m the first to report I said. Absolutely useless, notice several others having problems on the other Cranbrook facebook page.”

“We had an Eon engineer over today. He told us that we should avoid peak times to use got water e.g. between 6am and 8am, and 6pm to 8pm. Apparently they should fix it in a week… They recognise it’s a Cranbrook wide issue.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Scrutiny

Many councils expect to find themselves technically insolvent soon

Many councils fear that they will become technically insolvent. So what does ours do? Pursues a vanity project relocation from one HQ to an HQ with two satellite offices – one which needs a massive amount of money spent on it because estimates of cost were made before a full survey was done (Exmouth) and one that requires new build (Manstone) – all three when building costs are rising 20-35% coupled with a growing shortage of skilled labour which will push wages up.

Fiddling while Rome burns? Play that fiddle! 🎻

“Some local authorities may be forced to declare technical insolvency in the next two years, experts have said, as councils struggle to weather the financial pressures caused by budget cuts and growing demand for social care.

A survey of councils in England and Wales by the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) thinktank found that three-quarters had little or no confidence in the sustainability of local government finances and more than one in 10 believed they were in danger of failing to meet legal requirements to deliver core services. …

… “Councils have no faith in the system. They are patching together their finances by putting up council tax, drawing down reserves and increasing charges. Increasingly they worry that they will not be able to provide the vital services that people rely on.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/10/councils-budget-cuts-social-care-bills

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

Banana councils, the NHS and social care

“If Surrey’s ‘secret deal’ is to be a harbinger of a new health and care service then the whole murky world of local government funding needs rethinking.

The algebra is simple. The NHS is having another terrible winter. It does not collapse, but “spills demand” on to the next line of defence, local government welfare. But while the NHS gets more money annually from the Treasury, local government gets less, some 30% less since 2011. It cannot cope with the new pressure.

The equation resolves itself into rationing, by quantity and quality: fewer care places, fewer home visits and fewer district nurses leads to more bed-blocking, fewer operations, longer trolley waits.

Tory Surrey is a responsible supplier of post-hospital care. Like all councils, it is allowed by the Treasury to increase its council tax by 5%, specifically to boost its care budget and thus ease pressure on the NHS – which the Treasury is responsible for funding. Surrey county council regarded this as nothing like enough. It therefore activated its statutory right to hold a referendum on a 15% increase.

Far from showing delight at a wealthy council accepting this burden, the Tory government was appalled. Tories do not increase taxes. The chancellor (and Surrey MP) Philip Hammond duly did what Jeremy Corbyn called a secret deal. If Surrey abandoned its referendum and the 15% hike, it could retain revenue from a different tax – the local business rate, which normally went to the Treasury. That is, the Treasury would in effect spend more on health and care in Surrey, but secretly and, so far, just for Surrey.

This is the stuff of a banana republic. If Britain wants to spend more on health and elderly care, it should raise it and spend it honestly. Instead, the Treasury is running around its fiscal A&E department, staunching the flow of political blood by slamming on plasters wherever a patient screams or twists an arm.

Leaked Surrey council tax texts allow Corbyn to ambush May at PMQs
Some might argue that an NHS free at the point of delivery has had its day. New disciplines and incentives, through fees or insurance or more prevention, must constrain marginal demand. But for the time being, it makes no sense to squeeze the NHS at the top – where politicians are exposed – and dump its problems on to local government and different funding streams at the bottom. It wastes money and distorts priorities. It is illiterate public finance.

If Surrey is harbinger of a new health and care service, and business taxes are to relieve an ever-burgeoning NHS, so be it. But few places are as rich as Surrey. Revenue will have to be redistributed from rich to poor areas. In other words, it is not just the NHS that needs rethinking, but the whole murky world of local government finance.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/10/surrey-local-council-funding-health-care-nhs

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

Put a red line round your local hospital on 1 April

“COMMUNITIES across Devon will be putting a red line around each hospital in protest of their own red line to ‘no cuts to any health services anywhere in Devon.

The Success Regime is proposing large cuts to health services in Devon as part of its Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP).

The STP proposes to cut 590 acute and community beds across Devon, cut nurses’ jobs and access to continuing care, cut acute services in North Devon and cut most of the remaining community hospitals.

Dave Clinch, North Devon media liaison for Save Our Hospitals Services, said: “They really believe when it comes to cuts, “there are no red lines”. They claim to be able to deliver a better health service at the same time as making cuts to the tune of £550 million in Devon alone.

“On April 1 communities across Devon will put a human red line around each and every hospital. This will be a visible statement of our own red line “No cuts to any health services anywhere in Devon.”

The demonstration at North Devon District Hospital will begin at midday on Saturday, April 1.

This comes after proposals of NHS cuts were leaked, which sought to tackle a projected £430 million funding shortfall in the region’s healthcare system by 2019.

In August 2016, more than 200 Barnstaple residents marched from Pilton Park to the district hospital, calling for the safeguarding of services at the hospital.

Those who took part called upon the Success Regime to ensure that acute services, such as A&E, maternity and stroke units, were protected from the cuts.

Speaking at the time, Angela Pedder, chief executive of the Success Regime, said: “We know local people care deeply about the services that Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust provides and we thank them for their continued support.

“However, we’ve been very clear that the NHS in Devon is facing both clinical and financial sustainability challenges.

“The challenges faced are set out in our Case for Change document and all health organisations in Northern, Eastern and Western Devon are working together to improve care, provide more integrated and locally tailored services, and tackle the projected £100 million a year overspend.

“The team has been working closely, as part of the Success regime programme, with NHS leaders and GPs, as well as local public and patient representatives, to develop proposals on future options for local health and care services.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/this-is-no-april-fool-communities-across-devon-to-put-red-line-around-local-hospitals/story-30126325-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

“Care in the Community not working”

… “Dr Bruce Hughes, chairman of the Devon Local Medical Committee (DLMC) which represents GPs, was speaking following a National Audit Office report today (Wednesday).

It says the Government’s £5.3billion Better Care Fund had ‘fallen far short’ of its goal of integrating health and social care.

Dr Hughes, a partner at Fremington Medical Centre, said it reaffirmed GPs’ serious concerns locally about transferring some hospital services and care into the community.

They are worried the national picture could be reflected in the sustainability and transformation plan (STP) review currently going on in Devon, which includes proposals to care for more patients in their own homes.

He said: “The report’s findings indicate that this approach doesn’t tangibly improve patient outcomes and experience, reduce emergency hospital admissions or save money – something we fear could be replicated locally as the same principle of community-based care underpins much STP.

“We urge our STP leaders to pause the transformation process in the local healthcare system and closely examine the report to ensure that the STP and its aspirations aren’t flawed.”

The DLMC wants to know how moving hospital services or treatment into the community will be paid for, as GPs and other services are already greatly stretched.

Dr Hughes added: “We look forward to working closely with STP leaders in the coming months, as general practice is the gateway to the wider healthcare system and has a crucial role to play in the successful delivery of local transformation, to ensure high quality patient care.”

The Health and Social Care Integration report claims the Better Care Fund ‘has not achieved the expected value for money, in terms of savings, outcomes for patients or hospital activity’.

It says the national initiative did not achieve the planned savings of £511 million, with an 87,000 increase in emergency admissions to hospitals between 2014-15 and 2015-16, against a planned reduction of 106,000.”

http://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/news/care_in_the_community_is_not_working_claim_devon_gps_1_4881988

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Police (local), Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Devon and Cornwall Police under- reporting crimes – by up to 17,400 per year

Isn’t this just the sort of thing Ms Hernandez, our Police and Crime Commissioner, is supposed to be making sure doesn’t happen?

Does she have a plan?

East Devon District Council has a former copper (Councillor Tom Wright) on the committee she reports to – perhaps he could ask her.

However, as this committee met recently only to set the police precept and its next meeting, scheduled for 7 April 2017* has already been cancelled:

http://web.plymouth.gov.uk/modgov?modgovlink=http%3A%2F%2Fdemocracy.plymouth.gov.uk%2FieListMeetings.aspx%3FCommitteeId%3D1051

that might prove to be a bit difficult.

* surely this meeting has not been cancelled to avoid bad news for the Tories just before DCC elections?

The Plymouth Herald covers the story here:

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/rape-and-child-abuse-not-being-recorded-by-police/story-30121826-detail/story.html

and says:

“Inspectors said the force had “no excuse” for the failings and had failed to act on many of the recommendations it had made three years ago.”

The story on the BBC Live website:

“Devon and Cornwall police are failing victims of crime by not recording thousands of offences, including rape and serious assaults, an official report has found.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary estimates the force is failing to record more than 17,400 reported crimes each year.

The policing regulator rated the force as “inadequate” on the issue.

HM Inspector of Constabulary Wendy Williams said: “I was most concerned to find that the force had failed to record reports of rape, serious sexual assault and offences of serious assault and human trafficking.”

The force said they put victims at the heart of their work, and most of the criticisms concerned updating records and administration.”

Source: BBC Devon Live website

Here is the PCC’s catch-all spin response which shows that her former job in PR is one to which she could readily return:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/police-commissioner-alison-hernandez-says-police-must-improve-in-row-over-crime-reporting/story-30123712-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Economy, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local)

How to run a health service (or a country): put Aldi and Lidl in charge

Why?

Owl’s recent trip to Aldi revealed that, as well as paying staff more than the minimum wage without using zero-hours contracts:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/aldi-supermarket-highest-paying-uk-pay-rise-3000-workers-above-national-living-wage-lidl-a7510751.html

they had thought carefully about how to maximise productivity.

For example, packaging has barcodes on all sides to make till throughput massively quicker AND – when Owl was (with some difficulty – talons are not as useful as hands in these situations) just about to attempt heave a six-bottle pack of sparkling water on to the belt – the assistant said no need and to leave it in the trolley. How come? There was a number on the plastic handle of the wrapping that applied to bulk buys and all she had to do was press two codes on her screen – one for “bulk items'” and then the code number 6 which identified a six-pack of sparkling water!

EVERYONE at an Aldi store has to be prepared to do any job in the store – if tills are quiet you stack shelves or sort the warehouse, etc. Employees say they have to work very hard but it is worth it for the benefits.

Now, THAT’S how you increase productivity and efficiency! Practical, sensible things that help both sides and a workforce that knows it isn’t being totally exploited.

Aldi management to replace the House of Commons, Lidl to replace the House of Lords? Though, if that’s not popular – combine them both in the House of Commons and have Waitrose for the House of Lords!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

National Audit Office slams health and care integration implementation

HOW CAN CUTS TO COMMUNITY HOSPITALS GO AHEAD AFTER THIS STINGING REPORT?

The National Audit Office report issued today
Summary

“Health and social care integration

The Better Care Fund has not achieved the expected value for money, in terms of savings, outcomes for patients or hospital activity.

National Audit Office

“Integrating the health and social care sectors is a significant challenge in normal times, let alone times when both sectors are under such severe pressure. So far, benefits have fallen far short of plans, despite much effort.

It will be important to learn from the over-optimism of such plans when implementing the much larger NHS sustainability and transformation plans.The Departments do not yet have the evidence to show that they can deliver their commitment to integrated services by 2020, at the same time as meeting existing pressures on the health and social care systems.”

The National Audit Office warns that progress with integration of health and social care has, to date, been slower and less successful than envisaged and has not delivered all of the expected benefits for patients, the NHS or local authorities. As a result, the government’s plan for integrated health and social care services across England by 2020 is at significant risk.

In the face of increased demand for care and constrained finances, while the Better Care Fund, the principal integration initiative, has improved joint working, it has not yet achieved its potential. The Fund has not achieved the expected value for money, in terms of savings, outcomes for patients or reduced hospital activity, from the £5.3 billion spent through the Fund in 2015-16.

Nationally, the Fund did not achieve its principal financial and service targets over 2015-16, its first year. Planned reductions in rates of emergency admissions were not achieved, nor did the Fund achieve the planned savings of £511 million. Compared with 2014-15, emergency admissions increased by 87,000 against a planned reduction of 106,000, costing £311 million more than planned. Furthermore, days lost to delayed transfers of care increased by 185,000, against a planned reduction of 293,000, costing £146 million more than planned.

The Fund has, however, been successful in incentivising local areas to work together; more than 90% of local areas agreed or strongly agreed that delivery of their plan had improved joint working. Local areas also achieved improvements at the national level in reducing permanent admissions of people aged 65 and over to residential and nursing care homes, and in increasing the proportion of older people still at home 91 days after discharge from hospital into reablement or rehabilitation services.

There is general agreement across the health and social care sectors that place-based planning is the right way to manage scarce resources at a system-wide level. However, local government was not involved in the design and development of the NHS-led sustainability and transformation planning programme. Local authorities’ engagement in the planning and decision making phase has been variable, although four sustainability and transformation planning areas are led by local authority officials.

The Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government have identified barriers to integration, such as misaligned financial incentives, workforce challenges and the reticence over information sharing, but are not systematically addressing them.

Research commissioned by the government in 2016 concluded that local areas are not on track to achieve the target of integrated health and social care by 2020.

Today’s report also found that NHS England’s ambition to save £900 million through introducing seven new care models may be optimistic. The new care models are as yet unproven and their impact is still being evaluated. According to the NAO, while the Departments and their partners have set up an array of initiatives examining different ways to transform care and create a financially sustainable care system, their governance and oversight of the initiatives is poor. The Integration Partnership Board only receives updates on progress of the Better Care Fund with no reporting from other integration programmes.

In addition, the NAO found no compelling evidence to show that integration in England leads to sustainable financial savings or reduced acute hospital activity. While there are some good examples of integration at a local level, evaluations have been inhibited by a lack of comparable cost data across different care settings, and difficulty tracking patients through different care settings. The NAO today reiterates its emphasis from its 2014 report on the Better Care Fund that there is a need for robust evidence on how best to improve care and save money through integration and for a co-ordinated approach.”

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/health-and-social-care-integration/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

“BBC commits £8m for 150 local democracy reporters to cover council meetings”

Well, the need for a BBC-paid journalist to work for a newspaper that already has “a previous track record of public service journalism” should knock out the odd newspaper group in our area! Perhaps there should be a further qualification that the newspapers should receive less than 50% of that area’s council advertising budget too! And a shame that they won’t be allowed to attend Local Enterprise Partnership board meetings which are held in secret.

“The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is to fund 150 news reporters to cover council and public meetings across the UK to enable better scrutiny of council proceedings and decisions.

The journalists will work for “qualifying” regional publishers rather than the BBC, with the remit of covering full council and committee meetings, and will share the information gained with the BBC. To qualify, local news organisations will need to demonstrate that they have a “previous track record” of public service journalism, as well as the ability to employ staff.

James Harding, director of BBC News and Current Affairs, said: “As more power is devolved across the UK, it’s more important than ever that we cover, understand and hold to account local politicians and public services,” he said.

The initiative forms part of the BBC’s new charter which commences this year and is aimed at filling the growing gaps in local news reporting as local newspapers have suffered from declining revenues.

So far, the BBC has allocated 20 reporters in Scotland, three in Northern Ireland, 11 in Wales and 104 in England, with plans to place the full 150 journalists by 2018.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29922%3Abbc-commits-p8m-for-150-local-democracy-reporters-to-cover-council-meetings&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

“EDF ‘too poor to clean up its own mess’ “

And still we put our millions into preparing the site and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the NHS dies.

Will we be the “public” that bails out EDF and not the NHS?

The French state group building Britain’s new nuclear plant does not have enough cash to dismantle its domestic reactors, according to an official study. A French parliamentary committee said that EDF would need a public bailout to meet the cost of closing ageing power stations.

The warning was issued after unions expressed fury about an announcement that EDF plans to cut 3,900 jobs in France over the next three years.

Jean-Marc Sylvestre, an economics commentator, said that the group was on the “edge of a precipice” and faced a choice between privatisation and bankruptcy. He described EDF’s situation as a “catastrophe foretold”.
Theresa May has picked the French company to take a two-thirds share of the £18 billion plan to build two reactors at Hinkley Point, Somerset. China Nuclear General is shouldering the rest of the investment.

EDF’s critics say that the company, which has debts of more than €37 billion, lacks the financial resources to meet its commitments in France, let alone embark upon the Hinkley Point scheme. Their concerns were fuelled with the publication of a report by the Committee for Sustainable Development, which accused EDF of failing to plan for the dismantling of its plants. EDF has set aside has €36 billion to pay to clean up reactors at the end of their working lives.”

Source: Times Newspapers (paywall)