When “Care at home” goes bad – often


“Complaints about care provided in people’s homes rose by a quarter over the last year, while those about care homes increased by a fifth, a report has found.

The local government ombudsman (LGO) received 2,969 complaints and inquiries about adult social care in 2015-16, up 6% on the previous year.

Of those, there was a 21% rise in complaints about residential care homes, while complaints about home care rose by 25%.

The report comes after the King’s Fund warned earlier this week that councils could face legal challenges from families for failing to provide good quality and appropriate care to the disabled and elderly.

The LGO found themes across the complaints it received on home care, including staff failing to turn up, being late, not staying long enough or cancelling visits.

Some people received visits from too many different carers, while there was also poor record-keeping.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/10/complaints-about-home-care-up-by-a-quarter-report-finds

Diviani votes against Claire Wright DCC motion to re-examine Honiton hospital closure

Reblogged from the site of Claire Wright, indefatiguable independent councillor fighting non-stop on health service cuts.

NOTE: EDDC Tory Leader Paul Diviani sabotaged her effort to “stop the clock” on cuts to re-examine the effects of closing Honiton and Okehampton hospitals.

REPORT FROM CLAIRE WRIGHT, DCC HEALTH SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

“• CCG does not know how many more staff it needs

• No answer (yet) to public health stated assumption that care at home costs the same as care in big hospitals

My proposal at yesterday’s health and wellbeing scrutiny committee meeting to suspend the consultation which proposes to halve the remaining community hospital beds in Eastern Devon, fell by two votes.

There was a packed public gallery. Several members of the public, including Di Fuller, chair of Sidmouth’s patient and public involvement group and Cathy Gardner, EDDC Independent councillor for Sidmouth spoke powerfully, expressing deep concerns about the bed losses.

Di Fuller said the consultation should be rejected as “invalid.”

Cathy Gardner called on the committee to demand more funding from central government.

Councillors, Kevin Ball and James McInnes from Okehampton made strong representations on behalf of the town relating to the hospital being excluded from the consultation.

(I am part of a sub-committee of health scrutiny that meets tomorrow to scope an investigation into the funding formula for Devon’s health services, which many people, including me believe is unfair, despite the government’s claims that Devon receives more funding than its fair share).

Staff from the NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group presented to the committee. They were Rob Sainsbury, Jenny McNeill and GPs – Joe Andrews and Simon Kerr.

We were shown a video of patients happy with the hospital at home scheme which operates in Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton only, as evidence that care in people’s homes work.

This to me didn’t seem to be adequate evidence given that hospital at home is limited to Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton, is consultant led and mirrors the kind of care one might expect in a hospital. It is a good service but expensive to run.

This is not what is being proposed for the remainder of Eastern Devon.

The four presenters tried their best to sell us their new model of care. Some of us weren’t convinced.

Cllr Andy Boyd was critical of the plans and other members asked questions about housing and various NHS procedures.

I asked how many more staff they would need to operate their new system. We heard they needed more “therapy staff” and other disciplines, but not how many more of each. We were told that a staff analysis was currently being carried out.

I said I was surprised that this information was not known, halfway through the consultation, with an expected figure of savings at around £5-£6m. How can the CCG be confident that the new system will save money when basic information is not known, such as how many staff are required?

Under the previous agenda item I had turned to page three of the October 2015 public health acuity audit – a document used by the CCG to back up its case for shutting beds, where it states as an assumption: “Caring for a patient in an acute care setting is either more expensive than, or at least as expensive as, caring for a patient in alternative setting, including at home.”

I asked for a reaction to this statement. Angela Pedder, Success Regime chief, said she would get back to me about it.

It is surprising that in a document the CCG is using to back up its case, where they say caring for people at home will save money, it states that this care costs the same as acute care (such as the care provided at the RD&E for example).

I raised the issue of Devon County Council’s adult social care budget being £5m overspent and how this overspend will need to be brought back to zero by April 2017. This will surely have a potentially significant impact on any NHS care that is provided in people’s homes.

But Rob Sainsbury said that social care packages could be organised in a different way to support care in people’s homes.

I said that earlier NHS (incorrect) statements about a third of community hospital beds not being used has now morphed into third of bed space not being used. If this is the case surely it is due to previous community hospital bed cuts over the years!

And the other CCG claim relating to Eastern Devon having far more beds than other parts of the county is surely because they have been cut in other parts of the county!

According to a public health audit from last year, there are 94 per cent bed occupancy levels in Eastern Devon. They are far from being half empty.

Finally, I raised the issue of a government watchdog – the Independent Reconfiguration Panel – that examined the Torrington Hospital case for bed losses. It stated in its response that communities must feel they have a genuine opportunity to influence the outcome of a consultation.

I proposed that the consultation be suspended while the CCG included both Honiton and Okehampton in the options to retain beds.

The proposal was seconded by Brian Greenslade but unfortunately was lost 5-7.

Instead, chair, Richard Westlake asked for urgent talks between the CCG and Honiton and Okehampton communities.

In other news, two motions calling for more funding to Devon’s NHS and for the Success Regime to be paused, were agreed by the committee and will go before full council in December.

To view the webcast see – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/244717

To comment on the consultation email: d-ccg.yourfuturecare@nhs.net
The deadline is 6 January.

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/proposal_to_suspend_plans_to_cut_71_east_devon_community_hospital_beds_fail

NHS: How to profit when excrement hitting the air conditioning

The NHS’ new “Success Regime” aims to put a firm brake on health spending, but it’s proving to be a bonanza for consultants on lucrative contracts who oversee the process. And some of these consultants are former senior NHS managers who received generous payoffs when their jobs disappeared as a result of the Tories’ top-down reorganisation of the health service in 2012.

There were a few wry smiles, therefore, at Monday evening’s public “consultation” in Sidmouth to discuss closing the town’s community hospital beds, when Dame Ruth Carnall, chair of the “Success Regime” which is monitoring these cuts, bemoaned the disastrous “fragmentary” effects of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act.

She may not like it, but as chief executive of NHS London which was abolished by the Act, she received a payoff in 2013 which included a £2.2 million pension pot.

Then with another former NHS executive she created consultants Carnall Farrar Ltd who were chosen by NEW Devon CCG to advise them on how to save money before she was appointed “Independent Chair” of the “Success Regime”. Rumours suggest this will net her several hundred thousands of pounds in fees!

See
https://nhsreality.wordpress.com/…/nhs-executives-rehired-as-consultants-after-payoff

Javid reiterates: no super-Mayor, no devolution

So that’s that – either Devon will be ruled by a Somerset super-mayor, or Somerset will be ruled by a Devon super-mayor or BOTH will be ruled by a super-dodgy-business-person with vested interests in one or both counties!

Speaking to the County Councils Network on Monday, the local government secretary said:

“… he was open to reorganisation proposals, such as that put forward by Buckinghamshire County Council to abolish its districts and form a county unitary.

This proposal was “exactly the kind of proactive, locally driven thinking I want to see”, he said.

While not committing commit himself on Buckinghamshire’s plan, he said: “Unitary status can be a great model…but I’m not for one moment saying it’s for everyone. This is not compulsory. It’s not going to be imposed.

However, he dashed hopes that he would allow devolution in county areas without the creation of elected mayoralties.

Former chancellor George Osborne had insisted on mayors as a condition of devolution deals but after his departure some county leaders hoped to change this policy.

Javid told the CCN: “I get that directly elected mayors aren’t universally popular within local government. And I know that’s especially true of the counties.”

He recognised arguments that counties were too large for one person to control but said: “I’m not going to devolve significant new powers and more taxpayers’ money without a corresponding increase in local accountability.”

Mayoralties would be “a real red line for me when it comes to negotiating devolution deals”, he added.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/11/nearly-all-councils-submit-plan-four-year-funding-deal-says-javid

Seaton public meeting on bed cuts: East Devon Alliance asks MP troublesome questions!

“MP Neil Parish came under pressure to oppose the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement unless more money is allocated to the NHS to prevent community hospital bed closures when he attended a public meeting in Seaton on Friday.

The MP would not commit to a “Yes” or “No” answer, and said he is “hopeful” of not having to make that choice.

Having spoken passionately against a proposed reduction of beds in East Devon’s community hospitals at a packed Gateway last Friday, the MP was challenged by Colyton resident and former East Devon Alliance chairman Paul Arnott.

Mr Arnott said: “If in the Autumn Statement later this month more money is not provided [for the NHS], will you vote against that Autumn Statement?”

Mr Parish said he liked the question’s sting in the tail and went on to say: “The answer is that I will very much put pressure on both the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health to provide more money for Devon, and I will endeavour to get some more money.”

He stressed he had voted against the government before, and added: “I’m hopeful that we can get them to give some ground, so therefore it won’t put me in the position to have to vote against the government – but if they don’t budge at all, then you might find me in the other lobby.”

The public meeting had been called by Seaton doctors, town councillors and hospital league of friends members concerned about the possible closure of beds at Seaton Hospital.

The meeting was chaired by town councillor Martin Pigott and the panel included, among others, NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Chief Officer Rebecca Harriott and Seaton Hospital League of Friends chairman Dr Mark Welland.

Councillor Pigott explained that the purpose of the meeting was “to raise questions and perhaps get answers”.

Currently there are a total of 143 beds spread across eight community hospitals in the area covered by NEW Devon CCG.

But health bosses announced drastic proposals that would see only 72 beds concentrated to three sites, with a shortlist of four options, and launched an ongoing public consultation.

It is this announcement that sparked campaigns around Devon to save the beds.

Mr Parish, for example, was heading to a similar meeting in Honiton straight after the Seaton one.

The CCG needs to save money and also says that many patients lose their independence, and could deteriorate physically if in a hospital bed, so would benefit from being cared for in their homes instead.

Campaigners and the CCG do agree that community hospital beds are needed, but are poles apart when it comes to numbers.

Ms Harriott told the meeting: “We rely on beds far more than other places in the country do.”

The concept of caring for patients at home as opposed to in hospital is being questioned by campaigners, but the CCG says it has evidence from around the UK that it works.

The CCG will have its own consultation sessions in Seaton on Thursday, November 24th. These will also be held in The Gateway, from 2pm-4.30pm and from 5.30pm to 8pm.

The four options presented by the CCG are:

Option A Beds at Tiverton (32), Seaton (24) and Exmouth (16)
Option B Beds at Tiverton (32), Sidmouth (24) and Exmouth (16)
Option C Beds at Tiverton (32), Seaton (24) and Exeter (16)
Option D Beds at Tiverton (32), Sidmouth (24) and Exeter (16).
A petition organised by the meeting organisers, supporting Option A, had amassed 800 signatures by last Friday.”

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/in-the-press/20161108/pulmans-seaton-colyton-neil-parish-pressure-beds-protest-meeting/

Feedback from bed cuts meetings: Sidmouth and Exmouth

SIDMOUTH (Robert Crick):

The evening session in Sidmouth saw a chastened CCG and a more confident community pushing back relentlessly.

“CCG abandoned their Powerpoint sequence halfway through and never even put their Options forward for discussion or vote; but acknowledged that the NHS is in chaos and that the Health and Social Care Act had fragmented the system but added that the community care provision had been outdated and broken for a good 20 years. All agreed this needs urgent attention.

“Much scepticism about the way forward and anger about NHS Property Company stripping community assets entrusted to the Secretary of State in 1948, whose successor in 2012 kept the property but dropped the responsibility for delivering the care.

“Sterling work by James and Momentum Barnstaple with some support – in words – from Conservative Councillors, although the lead was taken by the Independent East Devon Alliance in the meeting. Many efforts made by the ‘facilitators’ to rule any ‘political’ questions out of order. Claims about the success of the ‘Sick Regime’ in North Devon were dropped and instead we were told that Plymouth has a good integrated health and social care package. Any evidence available?

“How do you provide care at home for those who are homeless or visiting or living in poverty? And many other trenchant questions. Much food for thought for the unfortunate CCG. Local GP challenged the 80 wise clinicians who had reached the absurd conclusions in the proposal. Much embarrassment.

“Please let Exmouth and other towns know that it was not a victory for Sidmouth Hospital but a successful push by Sidmouth community to rejectall proposed cuts until and unless the alternative is in place and tried and tested, which will require investment in staff recruitment, training and retention, morale restoration with full review of pay differential between managers and clinicians.

“Analogy: we are burning too much fossil fuel – so we will close down all the power stations next year while we consider how to invest in massive insulation and renewable energy programmes.”

EXMOUTH (Louise McAlister)

Had to leave early but lots of critical questioning from participants.

Much anger (from me anyway) when we were told we have a rep from the CCG at our table to ‘help us frame our questions’. I immediately told her that we don’t require that. Instead we bombarded her with our own questions and then helped her consolidate them.

The CCG would be hard pressed to make claims for any support from the event.

Dr Mezjner (who I have met before as he is responsible for the non-existent Budleigh health hub) did a long speech basically demonising hospitals. Lots of claims, no evidence.”

How many tiers can “Local” Government take before it collapses?

Owl has lost count of the number of tiers and organisations and partnerships currently interfering in so-called “local” government, see:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/11/03/unitary-councils-save-money-yet-a-few-years-ago-they-didnt/

Which leads to the question: just how many tiers of government do we NEED and how many can we AFFORD? And how many is too many?

For example, the savings by eliminating district councils, regional super-authorities and makeshift arrangements such as Greater Exeter would almost certainly be huge. You could still have flexible cooperative arrangements such as Strata, without having all the paraphernalia and bureaucracy.

Anyone campaigning for the County Council who includes on their platform local government reorganisation, with County and Parish Councils as the only tiers of local government might well be very popular. It would be possible to combine such a package with maximum localism/subsidiarity. For example, if the District Council was dissolved, all its responsibilities, where practicable, could be transferred to the lower tier councils for truly local management.

Removing two or three tiers of government would almost certainly produce enough savings to eliminate local NHS cuts and debts at a stroke. “Save the NHS by cutting local government bureaucracy” would be a heck of a slogan!

And the elimination of all that bureaucracy and repetitive form-filling and buck-passing could bring enormous efficiency savings and productivity.

In East Devon we would probably be immediately £15-20 million better off just with the cancellation of the new HQ at Honiton.

Whilst many staff would be transferred to town councils to continue to do the jobs that they presently perform, there would probably be a loss over time through natural wastage of perhaps 100 to 200 jobs, representing a cost saving of £3-5 million per annum. Plus reduced operational running costs of around £2 million.

This means a cash windfall of about £300-400 per household to everyone in the District, and average council tax bills would be about £130 lower.

But the big benefit would be in greater efficiency and local connectivity. A huge democratic boost.

Discuss!

Webcast link for this afternoon’s Devon County Council Health Scrutiny Committee

https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/home

Devolution: centrally-driven, centrally led, locally worthless

A report of a meeting of local Green Party and Devon United groups in south Devon:

“DEMOCRACY – LOCAL:

The meeting in Kingsbridge last week demonstrated, through the participation of a small, engaged and knowledgeable group, that the topic of Devolution has yet to excite a broader segment of the local population.

The group present, largely drawn from Totnes and Dartington with a majority representing the Open Democracy group, Devon United, engaged in a serious and considered debate of the merits and limitations of the present Devon County Council devolution prospectus.

The discussion was greatly facilitated by a thoughtful and grounding presentation from Professor Chris Balch who was able to set the present proposals in a broader historical and geographic context as well as highlighting some of the conclusions from his research on the role of the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

The group, which included County and District Councillors from Green, LibDem and Tory parties, worked towards a conclusion which suggested action on two fronts:

1. The Constitutional Question – at some stage, if the present proposals are supported by Government in the Autumn statement, Devon and Somerset County Councils are bound to consult their resident populations more directly on their intention to create a Combined Authority for Devon and Somerset to incorporate the interests of County and District Councils and Unitary Authorities.

This consultation exercise is unlikely to lead to a local referendum, but there will be an opportunity, probably in the Spring 2017, for a concerted campaign by progressive parties and independent groups to express concerns about the formation of another tier of local Government and one which seeks to combine two Counties for the convenience of an unelected LEP.

As Julian Brazil so clearly stated in his opposition to this proposal, the Combined Authority would be directly in support of the highly problematic nuclear power station, Hinkley Point C as well a significant defence industries unidentified within an Aerospace label, both located in Somerset.
SDGP members are encouraged to join with Devon United and other progressive groups to mount an effective campaign of education and mobilisation once the consultation is announced.

The Economic Prospectus

– it is clear that DCC has no intention of consulting on the content of the Devolution Prospectus.

As Chris Balch pointed out, this is essentially aimed at meeting central Government’s requirements for economic growth through ‘high value added’ industrial sectors. The whole basis of the highly optimistic outcomes of the prospectus in terms of jobs and wages is assumed through growth of large scale enterprise in Exeter and Plymouth, in Data Analytics and Marine Industries respectively, and significant growth in housing.

The group agreed that an ‘alternative prospectus’, based on a broader understanding of the economy of the County and on progressive values and concerns could provide the basis for an election campaign by Green parties across Devon along with Independents and other progressive candidates.
At present a small group of Green party members from across Devon is working on such a prospectus and Robert Vint, for the LibDems, proposed that a broader alliance might engage with this work recognising established topics with democratic legitimacy.

Subsequent to the meeting Alan White and Georgina Allen, initiator of Devon United, have published a set of ideas on the South Devon Watch facebook page.

Common themes to emerge so far include:
Affordable Housing
Renewable Energy
Farming, fishing and food
Support for Micro- small and medium sized enterprises
Health and social services to recognise the population and geography of the County.

As one would expect from the Green Party’s core values, each of these topics combines economic with social and environmental implications, and that has to be emphasised in the alternative prospectus.

While there were a number of points of view expressed in the meeting towards differing geographical areas that might constitute an effective location for devolution of fiscal responsibilities and services, it was unanimously recognised that England is, by far the European country with the most centralised form of government. As the present proposals for devolution really do not address this issue, with primary negotiations clearly being with Government on their terms, the alternative prospectus also need to consider how we would intend to engage the relevant population in a discussion that could affect their lives far into the future.

The group at the meeting responded to a number of questions suggested by the notion of ‘Resilient Community’ fundamentally based on the recognition of identity with Place and People as the foundation for local politics. It was clear from the attendance at the meeting and many of the comments made that a politics based on Place and People needs to be rebalanced with the present politics based on party positions and power.

Members are encouraged to engage in the development of campaign strategy and support through attending relevant meetings and engaging in the growing discussion on social media.”

The “successful reconfiguration” of North Devon health services exposed

Report sent to the Secretary of State by STITCH (Save The Irreplaceable Torrington Community hospital) refuting the claims that there has been a “successful reconfiguration” of hospital services in North Devon, exposing the flaws (? and worse) of the claims made by the CCG and other interest groups.

This report (and others on the site) is more than 10,000 words long and deserves to be read in its entirety with its shocking evidence and conclusions:

http://stitch.org.uk/News.html

Health Select Committee: winter pressures unsustainable

Is our CCG crazy when it tries to cut community hospital beds? It would seem so from the report quoted below. So why is it happening? Because the NHS is underfunded and not overspent but our CCG is too lily-livered to say so. Or too well-recompensed for the cuts.

Please don’t go down the “immigrants taking our beds” route! Immigrants in the NHS are fighting this battle with us and for us as front-line staff, and no-one is saying that Hinkley C is being built to keep immigrant lights on!

Our NHS is being destroyed under our noses.

“… The increase in attendances in the last 5 years is equivalent to the workload of 10 medium sized departments in England alone–none of which have been built. Moreover, during the last 5 years the number of beds available for admission of acutely ill and injured patients has continued to fall and we now have the lowest number of beds per capita in Europe and England has the lowest number within the UK.” …

“… This is the figure recorded at midnight—daytime occupancy rates frequently exceed 100% in many hospitals. Such occupancy levels mean there is no surge capacity, rendering hospitals hostage to fortune.” …

… “Whilst increasing bed capacity is not regarded as a viable option by the Nuffield Trust, their evidence identified further utilisation of capacity within the community as being a mechanism for easing pressure in acute trusts. They said that “investment in new rehabilitative ‘step-down’ beds, where patients can recover outside hospital, could deliver substantial gains”. It was therefore encouraging that the Minister said in evidence that as part of the process of developing sustainability and transformation plans:

“we will see the whole healthcare economy players look to develop a more integrated pathway and rehabilitation beds. Intermediate care beds, I am sure, will form part of that”.

During the seminar we held with national policy experts the point was made that there is often an emphasis on community rehabilitation beds to enable discharge from acute hospital. There is, however, less attention paid to the ‘step-up’ element of community provision which can prevent emergency attendance and admission. …”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhealth/277/27706.htm#_idTextAnchor027

Government reject former Cabinet MP’s FoI request for report he commissioned!

“As Energy Secretary, he was a target for journalists wielding the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, after being ousted from Parliament in the May 2015 general election, Sir Ed Davey has been forced to resort to using the transparency legislation himself – in an attempt to read a report he commissioned.

But, in a dark twist, civil servants, who just 18 months ago worked with him, have rejected his FOI request asking them to publish a study on the true costs of different electricity sources.

The former Lib Dem cabinet member has accused the Government of “an abuse of power” after it rejected his FOI request to publish the Frontier Economics study into the true costs of different electricity sources, which was submitted to ministers by the consultancy at the start of this year.

Responding to Sir Ed’s requests, the Government acknowledged a public interest in publishing the report but said it would do so “in due course” when it could provide “sufficient context”.

“The excuse for this delay is clearly self-serving nonsense,” Sir Ed said. “It’s an independent report that can stand alone without any spin from Conservative ministers.”…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/05/access-denied-government-rejects-sir-ed-daveys-request-for-energ/

Sidford employment land victim of “electioneering”

District council chiefs who voted to remove Sidford’s controversial 12-acre employment site from a strategic plan were in fact powerless to enforce the decision, a campaigner has been told.

Councillor Marianne Rixson last week questioned why – after the decision was made unanimously in March 2015 – officers were never instructed to submit a ‘flood of new evidence’ to put it into action. Despite the last-ditch vote to have it removed, a Government planning inspector later ruled the allocation must remain in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.

The answer to Cllr Rixson’s question, given at last Wednesday’s full EDDC meeting, confirmed the instruction was never given to remove the allocation from the plan – because a public inquiry was already under way.

Members heard that officer advice would have been to allow the planning inspector, who led the inquiry, to ‘reach his own conclusions’.

Last week’s meeting heard: “Members’ resolution to remove the allocation from the plan was, and could only ever have been, a suggestion to the inspector as, following its submission for examination, the council no longer had the power to make changes to it.

“There was, therefore, no opportunity to submit evidence to support this change, however, even if there had been, the evidence produced up to that point had supported its allocation and it is likely that any future evidence would have reached the same conclusion.”

Cllr Rixson, a long-time campaigner against the allocation who was elected last May, said the Conservative-majority council only took the vote because it felt threatened by her and her East Devon Alliance colleagues.

She said: “The final comment [above] confirms our suspicions that EDDC never changed its mind about the Sidford site being in the Local Plan.

“Voting to ‘remove it’ was purely an electioneering stunt just before the district council elections in 2015.”

An application to develop the employment site into a 9.3-acre business park was refused in September, although EDDC bosses said they remain committed to its development.

Cllr Rixson added: “The recent refusal of the application to develop the site exposed significant planning policies that should have been considered when the Local Plan was being drawn up.

“The outstanding question is why they did not come to the fore when they could have made an impact on the Local Plan?”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/vote_to_remove_sidford_employment_site_electioneering_1_4761216

Report on health cuts public meeting in Seaton

“On the heels of yesterday’s successful meeting with nearly 300 people in Seaton Town Hall (I was too busy speaking and listening to take a picture!), Independent County Councillor Claire Wright has now linked to the CCG’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan from September which sets out the need for cuts, including, she says:

100s of more bed cuts to acute hospitals such as the RD&E

cuts to stroke, A&E, paediatrics, maternity, breast services, ENT, radiology, heart surgery and vascular surgery

Claire says, ‘It is more important than ever that our MPs back Sarah Wollaston and ask for more funding in the chancellor’s Autumn Statement.’ This is the point that Seaton Town Council also identified and which I put to Neil Parish MP yesterday. Parish accepted the point and said he will work for ‘more resources’, collaborating with Wollaston.

In response to a question from Paul Arnott of Colyton, former Chair of East Devon Alliance, Parish indicated that he would be prepared to vote against the Government on the Autumn Statement (23 Nov.) if there was no more funding for the NHS in Devon. Watch this space!

A troubling thing from yesterday’s meeting – Parish specifically asked Rebecca Harriott, CCG Chief Officer, if more funding would mean the community beds cuts would be reviewed: she refused to give that assurance.”

https://seatonmatters.org/

Black holes and green fields

Comment reproduced from post below:

The leaderships approach to finances over the last decade or more has been driven by a single-minded dogma to avoid any rise in council tax, even to match inflation. They have achieved this by relying not only on the government’s normal grant, but also on the government’s New Homes Bribe (ooops, Bonus – which gives payments for 6 years for each house built) which in turn has driven the mind-boggling growth numbers in the East Devon Local Plan which could easily see overall growth of more than 35% – YES THAT IS NOT A TYPO, I DO MEAN GROWTH OF HOMES OF MORE THAN A THIRD – over the period of the current Local Plan.

(Imagine all the buildings in East Devon – in Exmouth, Budleigh, Sidmouth, Seaton, Axminster, Honiton, etc. etc. – all lumped together – that’s a lot of land built on. Now take a third of that huge area, and imagine all the green fields in East Devon that will need to be built upon to make that happen, a lot of which will be in our AONBs. That is the EDDC Conservative vision for East Devon.)

Anyway, back to the finances. So EDDC’s future financial plans were predicated on large income from the New Homes Bonus. But George Osborne introduced an austerity regime which decided to abolish not only the normal grant but also the New Homes Bonus, so now the EDDC’s finances have a huge hole in them (made worse of course by the vanity projects they are undertaking like the no-longer-cost-neutral move from the Knowle).

And that is why we have seen a 4% increase in Council tax this year, and likely to see further increases in council tax way above inflation in the next few years.

Fortunately (????!!!!!), the government has thrown EDDC a lifeline by deciding to allow councils to keep all the local business rates as revenue – so we are now seeing EDDC allowing dubious business developments approved (like the recent Greendale application – submitted by a generous donor to the local Conservatives) and we should expect this to ramp up as the cash flow from the New Homes Bonus runs down.

Now back to the mental picture of 1/3 growth in homes – take the amount of land you have pictured for new homes, and add to it a significant growth in industrial buildings (like Sidford and Greendale). Terrifying isn’t it.

Of course, if you take have been watching EDDC’s actions, you will know that they have already rationalised this by joining (without any consultation with the public or indeed councillors) with Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council to form so called Greater Exeter. Think of Greater London and Greater Manchester and you will get the picture – huge sprawling joined up conurbations, with extensive suburbs to feed the businesses in the city centre. We are already seeing assaults on the green wedges that separate our towns and villages – so this is not as far from reality as you might think.

So there you have it. A double whammy – huge increases in Council Tax whilst rampant developments start to cover our beautiful countryside and Exeter grows exponentially in order to meet the huge Local Plan targets for new homes.

Auditors say EDDC “will continue to find it difficult to afford its spending plans against further government spending cuts” say auditors

“Going forward, the Council will continue to find it difficult to afford its spending plans against further government spending cuts, the added pressure of inflationary increases in costs and pay awards, continued low investment income, an increasing call on services, members’ ambitions to enhance and improve services and the wish to keep to moderate increases in Council Tax and other fees and charges.”

Click to access 220916-agenda-item-8-combined-reports.pdf

And no word yet if they have signed off last year’s accounts “after a formal objection was received from a local elector. We are in the process of considering this objection, which relates to the Council’s approach to recording and obtaining receipt of monies due to it from developers through agreements under s106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

Messy situation for the next meeting of the Audit and Governance Committee.

EDDC isn’t like John Lewis (“Never knowingly undersold)!

Letter in today’s Sidmouth Herald:

Cllr Barlow rightly castigates the developers of the 36 Churchill homes for their measly offer towards affordable homes in the light of the profits likely to be made. How much more profit will PegasusLife make from 115 apartments at Knowle, but in this case without any payment at all towards affordable homes? What is more, EDDC have, I believe, “knowingly undersold” the site, including parts of the public park, to pay towards an unnecessary re-location, so that PegasusLife are likely, according to some estimates, to make a net profit of around £26 million. And because of the inadequate care to be provided, this development will very likely put great strain on already threatened local health services. Or does PegasusLife expect most of the apartments to become second homes for the extremely wealthy, as there is apparently nothing apart from cost to prevent this? Either way, is this what Sidmouth needs?

Readers may also like to know that, since they sent in their objections to the Knowle development, well over 50 new documents have been submitted by PegasusLife (in August and on 27 October). Some of these contradict earlier and misleading artist-impressions and show new details and changes including drainage problems upon which people may wish to comment. Comments should reach the planning department by November 11 as the application is likely to be put to the Development Management Committee on December 6.

Michael Temple Sidmouth

Ex-Chancellor breaks lobbying rules

“George Osborne has received a stern letter from the Government’s lobbying watchdog over his activities since being sacked by Theresa May.

The former chancellor initially failed to declare that he was setting up a Northern Powerhouse think-tank despite having launched the same policy as Chancellor.

The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) was only told of Mr Osborne’s plans after they appeared in the press.

Former ministers are barred from lobbying the Government for two years after they leave office and “must seek advice from Acoba about any appointments or employment they wish to take up within two years of leaving office”.

The body however has no actual powers to sanction Mr Osborne for the late declaration.

In a letter to Mr Osborne, Acoba said: “The Committee would also remind you that advice should be sought on all appointments, paid or unpaid, before they are taken up or announced.”

Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said: “The Chancellor has been rapped over the knuckles for not following due process – having been in the government for the last few years he should know these rules and abide by them.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-rapped-by-governments-lobbying-watchdog-northern-powerhouse-a7389591.html

“Ministers on course to miss target of selling enough public land for 160,000 new homes by 2020”

“The Public Accounts Committee said the Government will have to order a “significant acceleration in the last years of the programme” to sell land for the remaining 149,000 homes still to be built, over the next three and a half years.

Officials in charge of the policy at the Department for Communities and Local Government had “taken their eye off the ball” before the last election, they said.

The MPs said the Government’s plans to build 160,000 new homes between 2015 and 2020 were “back-loaded, which increases the risk that government will not meet its commitment”.

The Government told the MPs that only enough land for 8,380 new homes – five per cent of the total – had been sold.

They said the “slow start to the new programme” was either because they “took their eye off the ball at the end of the previous programme that ran up to 2015 or are struggling to find suitable sites”.

Meg Hillier MP, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “There is a desperate need for new homes and public land is an irreplaceable asset.

“Taxpayers clearly have a right to know whether they are getting a good deal from its sale and how many homes are being built as a result.

“Sluggish sales have hindered progress towards the 2020 target while questions continue to hang over the potential of many sites earmarked for sale and whether homes will be in the places people want to live.

“Ultimately the public will judge the success of this programme on the basis of the homes built and the Government must make clear who taxpayers should hold to account for this.”

Earlier this year the Government was criticised after it emerged that officials were not required to keep track of whether new homes were actually being built on public land sold for housing.

It then emerged in January this year that only 1,800 new homes had built on public land out of the 109,000 promised by former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2011.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/02/ministers-on-course-to-miss-target-of-selling-enough-public-land/