Those relocation numbers STILL don’t add up (bigly) EDDC!

25 March 2015 extraordinary Meeting regarding Relocation:

Councillor Moulding emphasised the cost savings that would be achieved and highlighted key figures:

• The Knowle Site offer price agreed is £7-8m • Exmouth Town Hall modernisation will cost in the region of £1m • New Offices at Honiton will cost in the region of £7m • The Council will secure relocation in total for under £10m’

So it’s a £669,000 increase, not £408,000.

A 69% increase in costs in less than two years, without a brick being laid!

EDDC progress: move from an old building – to an old building!

EDDC moves from Knowle because it is an old building (although most of it is modern and big enough to meet all their accommodation needs) and moves to Exmouth Town Hall – an old building – all of it old.

And the reason given why the costs are rising?

Exmouth Town Hall is … an old building.

Which begs questions:

A. Did EDDC expect costs to be higher than they estimated when making their calculations to move?

or

B. Did EDDC expect costs not to rise when they made their calculations to move?

and

which of these two scenarios is the worst one!

What goes around comes around …. in EDDC la-la land

One of the reasons given for increased costs at Exmouth Town Hall – finding asbestos in the building.

One reason given for moving from Knowle – you guessed it – asbestos in the building.

Yes, Minister!

Who counts the pennies at EDDC?

£1.6 million (minimum) overspend on Queen’s Drive, Exmouth
£400,000 (minimum) underestimate on Exmouth Town Hall refurbishment
£300,000 (minimum) not collected in Section 106 payments

£2 million … and still a quarter of the financial year to go.

Hello, KPMG, hello …..

Extra £408,000 needed for Exmouth Town Hall refurbishment – estimate did not include things like rewiring and new boiler!

This report asks members to approve the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall before Gateway 7 is reached in relation to planning permission on the Knowle site. The request is for a budget of £1.669m, this is an increase of £0.408m for this part of the project but overall net costs are expected to still be within the overall relocation budget.

It is a members’ decision whether to decide to proceed and approve the expenditure of £1.669m on Exmouth Town Hall refurbishment for the operational reasons outlined in this report. This decision needs to be under the clear understanding of the financial risk involved; a worst case position of no capital receipt from the Knowle to offset capital costs and no certainty of the associated savings obtained from operating from a new building in Honiton.

The borrowing impact on the Council should no receipt be forthcoming at all would be a £1.669m loan requiring an annual payment of £69,000 over 40 years to fully cover off both the loan sum and interest.

Mitigation against this financial risk is that the Knowle site has been allocated in the Local Plan for housing thereby giving some certainty of a capital receipt, if not now but in the future. Refusal of planning permission for the Pegasus Life proposal will add delay to the project but the Knowle retains a continued Local Plan allocation and capital value as a brownfield site for residential development. On this basis a more reasonable assumption at this point would be the requirement of short-term financing until a receipt is forthcoming. On that basis assuming a 3 year period of short-term financing this would incur an annual cost of £18,000 a year being interest only, if alternatively internal funds were used this would result in a loss of interest equating to £14,000 a year. …

AND THESE ARE COSTS EDDC DID NOT FACTOR IN TO EXMOUTH REFURBISHMENT COSTS:

…  The previous figure was an estimated cost without full survey and confirmed contractor figures. The refined cost reflects the detailed building investigations, requirements of the planning authority and the actual price negotiated with the contractor.

The Town Hall is an old building combining different extensions over time. Costing the works on an existing building is less predictable than new build.

Expectations that some existing services could be retained have not been met and detailed surveys and investigations of the building have shown it to be in need of full services replacement alongside repair, redecoration and structural improvements.

Key additional cost elements are:

o Full rewiring
o Replacement of central heating and boiler system.
o Improved hot water provision
o Additional kitchen facilities on first floor
o Provision of mechanical ventilation
o Improvement of natural ventilation,
o Removal of asbestos and dealing with lead paint.
o Improved security provision.
o Better access within the building.
o Improved signage
o ETH will be refurbished to a high standard. It will be decorated and equipped in the same way as the new HQ. The reception areas in particular will have a similar look and range of facilities for our customers.

Click to access item-14-relocation-report.pdf

£3 billion to go to Saudi Arabia to build up UK defence presence

No doubt Swire, in his capacity as Chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council, is there with BoJo.

And that’s £3 billion which the NHS will never see.

Devolution for Dummies

Owl THINKS these are the current choices:

Heart of the South West LEP – except Exeter, East Devon and Exeter are refusing to play. Does not include an elected mayor at present.

Greater South West – proposed by Communities Minister Sajid David – which seems to stretch from Dorset in the east, Somerset to the north and Cornwall in the south – and any other bits left out of other Devolution deals around that area. Does include an elected mayor.

Greater Exeter Travel to Work Area – East Devon, Exeter, Mid-Devon and Teignbridge – as proposed at the secretive Greater Exeter Visioning Board. Silent about whether it includes an elected mayor.

All permutations include adding unelected business people and a single focus – economic growth.

No-one seems to have put a simple unitary Devon in the melting pot, or a unitary combination chosen from a Devon/Cornwall/Dorset pick-and-mix. Nor has anyone spelled out the constitutional basis for these changes.

But it’s probably only a matter of time!

Could it be more complicated? Hardly.
Will it get sorted so that it benefits anyone but big businesses? Answers on a postcard to Paul Diviani, Leader, East Devon District Council!

Torbay wants in to the “Golden Triangle” ( let’s hope it isn’t a Bermuda Triangle!)

“A ‘GOLDEN Triangle’ of local authorities could lead South Devon to a new and prosperous future with government investment running into hundreds of millions of pounds.

That’s the belief of Torbay Council ruling Conservative Group leader David Thomas who has confirmed that very preliminary talks have been held to change the way councils are run in South Devon and the county.

Under the new structure Torbay and Plymouth would unite and then invite Exeter to join the devolution party as a ‘real Trinity’ for the future.

But one politician reportedly against a new ‘super’ South Devon council is Torbay mayor Gordon Oliver who has decided to snub the talks. He is believed to be still firmly behind working with Devon County Council who, with other partners, have already submitted a devolution bid of their own.

Cllr Thomas revealed: “I had a phone call to ask if I would attend an informal meeting of the chief executives and leaders of Torbay, Plymouth and Exeter councils.

“The leader in Torbay is Mayor Oliver. I was asked as leader of the majority group because anything that moves forward will be a council decision.

“Once I was invited the mayor made it clear that that he did not wish to attend the meeting. He sent out an email saying he was not attending and that he did not want to deal with Exeter and Plymouth. He was only interested in a Devon unitary authority.”

“The deal that we would look at bidding for would be £1billion for the local economy and it would bring decision making into the South West.

“”This could be the opportunity for a Golden Triangle, a real trinity. I can only speak for Torbay. The only way this can work is if the two unitariies, Torbay and Plymouth, work together. Exeter can be asked to join shortly afterwards. Any other districts may be part and parcel of this.”

He said under the new potential deal, the councils will not change. The new authority would sit above. But he said part of the devolution deal is that they would have to have an elected leader, commissionaire or mayor.

Cllr Thomas said: “These are very early days, but the rules of the game as set out by the government minister is that if you want devolution powers you have to an elected leader. You have to have to have that if you want the Full Monty.”

He claimed some of the local authorities in the Devon/Somerset devolution deal do not want to have an elected mayor at the helm and he added: “My view is why would you not want to investigate the opportunities here?

“I cannot understand why the elected leader or any councillor would not want to investigate this potential route on the table. We all know the problems we have in Torbay including deprivation and declining budgets. This is an opportunity to resolve some of those issues.”

He said he had spoken to his group and they are ‘on board.’ He said he had also talked to opposition group leaders and, although they have yet to take it to their members, they have said personally the options should be explored.

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/golden-triangle-could-lead-south-devon-to-new-future-worth-hundreds-of-millions-of-pounds/story-29971579-detail/story.html

So, “a route on the table” and he’s on board! Imagine if only the 3 councils ganged up – where would they have their HQ!

Devolution: more information on the Guy Fawkes-style plotting …

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/plans-for-super-mayor-for-plymouth-and-exeter-discussed-at-meeting/story-29971551-detail/story.html

“Hinkley Point designers face fraud inquiry”

The company that designed Britain’s proposed £18 billion nuclear plant is facing a criminal investigation on suspicion of aggravated fraud, forgery and endangering life.

Prosecutors in Paris have opened an inquiry into allegations that a factory owned by Areva, the French nuclear group, has been falsifying safety tests for decades.

The factory has already made one key component for the reactors planned at Hinkley Point in Somerset but this was scrapped amid safety fears and a replacement was ordered from Japan. The Hinkley Point reactors were designed by Areva and are being built by Électricité de France (EDF), the state-owned company.

EDF is poised to take over the factory at the centre of the inquiry, which may be asked to make further components for the Somerset reactors, a Paris source claimed. The Hinkley Point project, in which EDF has a two-thirds stake and China General Nuclear Power Group the remaining third, is designed to produce seven per cent of Britain’s electricity.

Critics say that the criminal investigation raises searching questions about the trustworthiness of the French engineers behind the scheme.

“From a British background, it is inconceivable that nuclear safety documents should be falsified,” said Paul Dorfman, honorary senior research fellow at University College London’s Energy Institute.

“How can one be assured of the quality of key nuclear materials given the fact that the French have been falsifying documents and installing faulty equipment that is key to nuclear safety?”

The investigation comes after the discovery of a flaw in a 116-tonne reactor pressure vessel installed in a project at Flamanville in Normandy.

The French Nuclear Safety Authority has ordered tests to determine whether the component could crack and cause a nuclear accident. The watchdog says that it will decide next year whether to allow the plant to open. Prosecutors were told of the flaw, which involves an unexpectedly high level of carbon in the steel.

Prosecutors in Paris said that a criminal investigation had been launched into claims that the Areva factory at Le Creusot in Burgundy, which made the component, deliberately faked the safety tests.

The factory made a reactor vessel head of the same kind for Hinkley Point. This has had to be cut up and subjected to checks to determine the extent of the risks caused by the excess carbon.

EDF said it was confident that its Normandy plant would get the green light. After discovering the problem at Flamanville, an inquiry was launched at Le Creusot factory, which revealed evidence that safety tests had been falsified over the past 60 years. The investigation initially concerned 400 files but was subsequently extended to 9,000.

France’s nuclear watchdog said that 87 “irregularities” had been detected so far, either in nuclear components or in the casing used for their transportation.

Inspectors said that documents stating that the components were safe were based on the wrong figures.

Prosecutors believe that the irregularities might have resulted from a deliberate attempt to cover up a safety risk. About 20 of the irregularities involved components intended to be used in the new reactor in Flamanville. The rest were proposed for reactors already operating in France. A further inspection by the nuclear watchdog found that components made in Japan had the same problem of excess carbon.

Pierre-Franck Chevet, chairman of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, said: “We are facing a serious anomaly.”

EDF was ordered to undertake emergency tests on 18 of its 58 French reactors to determine whether they were safe. All but four have now been given permission to re-start.

A spokeswoman for Areva said that the company would co-operate fully with the investigation.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hinkley-point-designers-face-fraud-inquiry-p5fs686wm

And now ANOTHER potential devolution deal to add to the mix! This one with government approval?


Sajid Javid Speaking on the Exeter University campus in October, said:

“Some in Cornwall see their county as distinct from the rest of the region, a special case that should be handled separately from everywhere east of the Tamar.

Some in Poole and Bournemouth associate themselves more closely with Southampton, Portsmouth and the M3 corridor than with rural Dorset.
And then there the traditional, often historic, rivalries and tensions that you find in any region.

One county looking down on another.

A smaller one mistrusting a larger neighbour.

Urban areas versus rural ones.

And so on.

If we’re going to make a success of the South West, that whole attitude has to change.

And that’s why today’s conference is so important.

It’s about recognising that this region can achieve MORE TOGETHER THAN APART.

About long-term strategic thinking and planning that benefits everyone – NOT PROMOTING ONE AREA AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER.”

He was speaking at the creation of the “South West Growth charter Group” (spearheaded by leadership of the Pennon Group, owners of the utility company South West Water). Encouraged, this group pulled together a charter for the South West covering all the four counties in a matter of days and sent it to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Javid) ahead of the autumn statement.

This strongly suggest that neither the Exeter and Plymouth nor the Heart of the South West bids might be going anywhere (one is too parochial, the other hasn’t got a mayor). $64,000 question is who will get how much from the £191 million allocated to South West LEP in the autumn statement?

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-south-west-that-works-for-everybody

PS Can anyone explain to Owl why the head of the local monopoly water company with its captive customers and charging astronomic bills is the right choice to lead a regional growth plan?

More on those devolution shennanigans!

Robert Vint, South Hams Lib Dem, DCC:

We’re slowly piecing this together… Apparently Exeter City, Plymouth City & East Devon Council don’t want to be part of the HOTSW scheme and want to set up their own unitary authority – presumably with their own unitary Mayor. South Hams have apparently just been invited to join but West Devon have not. John Tucker says that SHDC [South Hams District Council] have not been involved in these discussions but that Torbay City and Teignbridge Council have. It seems odd that all the South Devon councils except South Hams & West Devon knew about this. There’s apparently a meeting of chairs of councils today where this will all come up. All very cloak & dagger!!”

STOP PRESS: have Exeter and Plymouth just killed off the Devon and Somerset LEP?

BBC Spotlight just now (iPlayer soon and probably at 6 pm)

Martyn Oates reported many councillors angry that they had no idea of the “southern Devon” supermayor bid.

AND, he said, there was an attempt to get unanimous approval of a bid to retain the current Devon and Somerset LEP which Plymouth and Exeter refused to support.

Spotlight: BBC Spotlight today

Exeter/Plymouth/Torbay super- mayor? Meeting in Cullompton today

“Council leaders from across south Devon are understood to be discussing plans for a “super-mayor” at a meeting today.

Leaders from Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay councils are meeting in Cullompton to discuss a bid for devolution.

It is thought that a central part of the proposal is to create a single authority stretching from Exeter to Plymouth, and including Torbay.

The authority would be run by an elected mayor.

At the South West Growth Summit in Exeter in October Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, told local politicians that they could forget any meaningful devolution unless they embraced the idea of an elected mayor for the whole region.

In private tweets yesterday Peter Doyle, head of external affairs for Devon County Council, wrote: “The very odd Southern Devon unitary plan will make tomorrow’s Heart of SW devolution meeting interesting to say the least.

“Hard to see any sense in breaking Devon into two unitary councils. Huge reorganisation costs, duplicates county council services, zero savings.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/plymouth-could-get-an-elected-super-mayor/story-29970966-detail/story.html#UJzDE8H1jAitmWS5.99

TWO unitary authorities? What’s left apart from North Devon? Does “Exeter” include East Devon or not? And where does the LEP fit in, if at all?

Of course, we, the council tax payers, will be the last to know!

And bet your bottom dollar the “same old” (vested interest) politicians and (vested interest) business people, same troughs, same snouts.

South devon wants breakaway mini-devolution – north Devon excluded

“Plans to unite south Devon under a single elected mayor follow a visit to the county by the Local Government Secretary Sajid Javid in October when he made it clear that only “ambitious” devolution bids including mayors would get new money and significant powers.

It cuts across an existing devolution bid covering the whole of Devon and Somerset which has already been submitted to the government.

All of the councils involved in the new proposals had signed up to the earlier bid – but there has been growing frustration at its slow progress and the refusal of the councillors leading it to accept a mayor.”

BBC Devon Live website

The item does not state which parts of South Devon this includes.

CORRECTION:

it does:

“Exeter City Council and the two unitary authorities in Plymouth and Torbay are leading the initiative which would see a new combined authority stretching from Exeter to Plymouth.”

It comes hot on the heels of a plan to create a much more official “Exeter Travel to Work Area” including Exeter, East Devon, Mid-Devon and Teignbridge. Including bringing on board unelected business people to make decisions for us, of course – none of that pesky democracy here, thank you!

Whither Devon and Somerset now? And whither North Devon and its hinterland?

NHS [lack of] Success Regime rubbished by unanimous Devon County Council motion passed unanimously today

NHS Motion from Cllr Greenslade unanimously supported at DCC Council meeting today:

“‘County Council believes that the NHS Success Regime project for Devon is now flawed and accordingly [calls on] the Secretary of State for Health and NHS England to County Council [and] further calls on Government and NHS England to firstly address the issue of fair funding for our area and to ensure the general election promise of an extra £8 billion of funding for the NHS is taken into account when assessing the claimed deficit for Devon NHS services.

Until funding issues are addressed it is not possible to decide whether or not there is a local NHS budget deficit to be addressed. Unnecessary cuts to local NHS budgets must be avoided! Devon MP’s be asked to support this approach to protecting Devon NHS services.

Cabinet and Full Council to overthrow DMC Knowle decision?

EDDC has updated its ‘Moving and Improving’ website after the decision by the Development Management Committee to REFUSE the PegasusLife planning application.

Owl always thought that planning decisions were taken by the DMC. It appears not. Which begs the question: why have committees at all?

It seems East Devon is turning into Trumpland.

This is what it now says:

December 2016

Development Management Committee refuse the planning application by Pegasus Life Ltd for Knowle.

Cabinet and Council (separately) will take the opportunity to review the Project. This is known as Gateway 7 which is to note satisfaction of the financial requirements and restrictions of the Final Design, confirmation of Contractors Project Costs, advice regarding Planning Application for EDDC at Heathpark and for Pegasus Life Ltd at Knowle.

December 2017
Relocation to refurbished Exmouth Town Hall.

April 2018
Relocation to Honiton complete.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/moving-and-improving/moving-and-improving-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-office-relocation/project-timeline-key-dates/

Oh, oh, trouble: a mini Local Enterprise Partnership or a maxi East Devon Business Forum on its way?

Another unelected, unaccountable, non-transparent secret society on its way?

Another shady group of “private sector representatives and business community” Tories wetting their pants with the excitement of yet another trough for their snouts?

Cabinet Agenda for 14 December, 2015
Item 19
Page 147

The “Exeter Travel to Work Area (TTWA) area recommendations:

Click to access 141216combinedcabagendafinals.pdf

“It is presently proposed that the desired formal body for the Exeter TTWA will be a ‘Greater Exeter Growth and Development Board’ (GEGDB) including the local authorities covering the Greater Exeter functional economic area.

The Board would be a Joint Committee under s101 (5), 102 Local Government Act 1972 and s9EB Local Government Act 2000 and pursuant to the Local Authorities (Arrangement for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2012.

It will comprise the 5 local authorities [Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon, Teignbridge and DCC] as voting members

and a number of non-voting co-opted private sector /other representatives drawn from the wider business community.

This approach was agreed by Exeter City Council in principle on 8 November and is now being considered by the other potential partners.”

Well done those EDDC Tory councillors! But watch your backs now

Unconfirmed reports suggest that Tory councillors Grundy (Exe Valley) and Pepper (Broadclyst) were the two sensible councillors who voted against the PegasusLife Knowle planning application.

So, no-one can accuse anyone of a “Sidmouth stitch up”.

It seems unlikely that the two councillors will be getting any gifts from under the Tory Christmas tree from Santa Phil Twiss – the official EDDC Tory Whip – who denies ever having used it but who is said to be less than chuffed at the result.

Of course, not being whipped, no-one will expect them to be removed from the DMC for not following non-whipped orders ….

The 30 [plus] questions to be answered BEFORE care at home is authorised

Owl has been passed a copy of the “30 [plus] questions” that must be asked BEFORE care at home can be implemented:

Pre-implementation

The model of care:

• Does the new model of care align with our overriding ambition to promote independence?
• Is there clinical and operational consensus by place on the functions of the model and configuration of community health and care teams incorporating primary care, personal care providers and the voluntary care sector?
• Is there a short term offer that promotes independence and community resilience?
• Is there a method for identifying people at highest risk based on risk stratification tool?
• Are the needs of people requiring palliative and terminal care identified and planned for?
• Are the needs of people with dementia identified and planned for?
• Is support to care homes and personal care providers, built into the community services specification?
• Is support for carers enhanced through community sector development support in each community?
• Has the health and care role of each part of the system been described?
• Have key performance indicators been identified, and is performance being tracked now to support post implementation evaluation, including impact on primary care and social care?

Workforce:
• Is there a clear understanding of the capacity and gaps in the locality and a baseline agreed for current levels and required levels to meet the expected outputs of the changed model of care?
• Is there a clear understanding of and plan for any changes required in ways of working:
o thinking
o behaviours
o risk tolerance
o promotion of independence, personal goal orientation

• Have the training needs of people undertaking new roles been identified, including ensuring they are able to meet the needs of patients with dementia?
• Do we have detailed knowledge with regards to investment, WTE and skill mix across the locality and a plan for achieving this?
• Are system-wide staff recruitment and retention issues adequately addressed with a comprehensive plan, and where there are known or expected difficulties have innovative staffing models been explored?

Governance, communications and engagement:
• Is there a robust operational managerial model and leadership to support the implementation?
• Has Council member engagement and appropriate scrutiny taken place?
• Is there an oversight and steering group in place and the process for readiness assessment agreed?
• Have providers, commissioners and service users and carers or their representative groups such as Healthwatch agreed a set of key outcome measures and described how these will be recorded and monitored?
• Is there a shared dashboard which describes outcomes, activity and productivity measures and provides evaluation measures?
• Is there an agreed roll out plan for implementation, which has due regard to the operational issues of managing change?
• Is there a comprehensive & joint communications and engagement plan agreed?
• Is there a need for a further Quality or Equality Impact Assessment?

Implementation
• Is there a clinical and operational consensus on the roles of each sector during the implementation phase including acute care, community health and care teams, mental health, primary care, social care, the voluntary care sector and independent sector care providers?
• Is there an implementation plan at individual patient level describing their new pathway, mapping affected patients into new services?
• Are the operational conditions necessary for safe implementation met?
• Have the risks of not implementing the change at this point been described and balanced against any residual risk of doing so?

Post Implementation
• Is there a description of the outcomes for individuals, their carers and communities?
• Are the mechanisms for engagement with staff, users of services and carers in place and any findings being addressed appropriately?
• Is there a process in place for immediate post implementation tracking of service performance including financial impact to all organisations?
• Is longer term performance and impact being tracked for comparison against pre-implementation performance?
• Have we captured user experience as part of the process, and have findings been addressed and recorded to inform the planning of future changes?
• Are there unintended consequences or impacts (e.g. on primary care or social care) which need to be addressed before any further change occurs?
• Is there a clear communication plan for providers and the Public describing the new system and retaining their involvement in community development?

Source: http://www.newdevonccg.nhs.uk/about-us/your-future-care/publications-and-evidence-sources/102085
( point 14, page 94)