An invitation to our two well-fed MPs

From a correspondent”

“Could you, through your esteemed publication, inform your readers of a play that will be performed in the committee rooms of the HofP based upon the experience of Food Bank users.

All MPs have been invited and I would suggest to those readers represented by Huge Swin[r]e that he may like a ‘reminder’ to attend, where he may be interested to hear the stories of those making a ‘lifestyle choice’ to use them.

Yours
[signature]
(Who shall be urging their own MP Neil Parrish, to do the same)”

“Open consultation: “Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals”

Owl says: seems the decision that we need MORE and MORE housing is taken as a given – and this is more an exercise on how and where they can be shoe-horned in:

“This consultation closes at
11:45pm on 9 November 2017

Summary
Consultation on further measures set out in the housing white paper to boost housing supply in England.

“This consultation sets out a number of proposals to reform the planning system to increase the supply of new homes and increase local authority capacity to manage growth.

Proposals include:

a standard method for calculating local authorities’ housing need

how neighbourhood planning groups can have greater certainty on the level of housing need to plan for

a statement of common ground to improve how local authorities work together to meet housing and other needs across boundaries

making the use of viability assessments simpler, quicker and more transparent

increased planning application fees in those areas where local planning authorities are delivering the homes their communities need

The attached ‘Housing need consultation data table’ (see links below) sets out the housing need for each local planning authority using our proposed method, how many homes every place in the country is currently planning for, and, where available, how many homes they believe they need.

Alongside this consultation, the attached ‘Comprehensive registration programme: priority areas for land registration’ document lists those areas where Her Majesty’s Land Registry intends to prioritise the registration of ownership of all publicly held land.”

Click to access Planning_for_Homes_consultation_document.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644783/Housing_Need_Consultation_Data_Table.xlsx

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644786/120917_Priority_areas_for_land_registration.pdf

So, you’re thinking of buying a Knowle PegasusLife flat ….

“Peggy Browning bought a new retirement flat in Devon [Exmouth] priced at £206,450 nine years ago, at the age of 89. After her death last year, the property passed to her two daughters. It is now on the market for £125,000 and is proving difficult to sell. Until a buyer is found, Lyn Field and her sister have to pay the £190 a month (£2,282 a year) management charges on the flat, even though it is empty.

Their story highlights the potential burden of retirement properties for buyers’ descendants. A significant number have lost value in recent years and come with hefty charges that fall on those who inherit the homes.

Sebastian O’Kelly of the campaign group Better Retirement Housing said: “Newly built retirement flats have an appalling reputation for value on resale. This family’s example is by no means unusual.”

Almost two-thirds of new retirement homes bought at a similar time to Browning’s were resold at a loss, research by the charity Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC) suggests. By contrast, the average price of a UK home has risen by more than 40%, Land Registry figures show.

Adam Hillier of EAC acknowledged that buyers were prepared to pay extra for new properties, but described the number of such homes that had fallen in value as “surprising”.

IN NUMBERS
£206,450 The value of Peggy Browning’s flat when she bought it in 2008
£125,000 The price her home is on the market for today
£190 Monthly charges that must be covered by her daughters

Additional costs typically include ground rent, paid to the freeholder, and exit fees, calculated as a percentage of the value when the flat is resold. Hillier said exit fees could be as high as 30% in developments offering care in the home and facilities such as shops and subsidised restaurants.

Browning bought her flat in the seaside town of Exmouth from McCarthy & Stone, Britain’s leading retirement home developer. The company said: “We are sorry to hear about the fall in value [of Mrs Browning’s property]. We recognise there are a small number of cases, particularly with our older properties and those sold in the recession, where the resale values of some apartments have not performed as well as we would have wished. This can be down to many reasons, including the performance of some local property markets. … ”

Sunday Times, pay wall

Diviani and Skinner lead EDDC for “Greater Exeter” and business-led Local Enterprise Partnership

“Pragmatic in its focus, the strategy sets out how our economic development teams are working effectively on the areas where our respective council/corporate plans overlap.
The strategy also sets out our collective growth ambitions, priorities and future approach that we will take to support economic growth and development for the greater Exeter area.

No new resource or structural changes are being put forward in this strategy – only an assurance that EHOD authorities continue to dedicate the existing economic officer resource to the four key EHOD economic initiatives where we can show collaborative working to be more effective and efficient in delivering outputs for our local authority areas beyond what we could achieve in isolation. …

… We will use the Shared Economic Strategy to communicate to partners our ambitions and plans, with a view of improving collaboration and maximising leverage.”

The strategy will address the key themes of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HoTSW LEP) Devolution Prospectus and support the delivery of the emerging Single Productivity Plan, maximising the effectiveness of the group’s work with the HoTSW LEP. …”

Signature here Cllr Paul Diviani Leader
Signature here Cllr Philip Skinner Economy PFH Exeter City Council
Signature here Cllr Pete Edwards Leader, Exeter City Council
Signature here Cllr Rosie Denham Economy and Culture PFH, Exeter City Council

Click to access S0031_EHOD%20shared%20strategy_lowres.pdf

So, no resources except officer time … a very expensive resource, the hourly cost of which is never counted by our councils and comes out of our pockets.

Diviani and Skinner … a marriage made in … ! Still, our Tory councillors do so trust each other, so that’s … er … fine?

Exmouth councillors who voted to close the Fun Park

The following spoke for closure:
Bruce de Saram, John Humphreys, Brian Bailey, Pauline Scott, Jill Elson.

Also voting for closure:
Mark Williamson, Cherry Nicholas, Darryl Nicholas, Maddy Chapman.

Bill Nash absent.
So was Philip Skinner, Chair of the Exmouth Regeneration Panel

Newspapers and their dependence on council advertising revenues

Owl says: Recent research and Freedom of Information requests revealed that around 90% of EDDC’s advertising budget goes to Archant titles (Midweek Herald, Sidmouth Herald, Exmouth Journal), up to 5% with Express and Echo and up to 5% to View from … titles.

Most major controversial or contentious news stories involving EDDC seem to emanate from the Express and Echo and View from … titles (though the Daily Telegraph revealed the explosive story of disgraced ex-Councillor Graham Brown’s conflicts of interest on its front page in March 2013).

“853 exclusive: Greenwich borough’s newest local paper scrapped its news coverage after Greenwich Council objected to “negative” stories and considered withdrawing its advertising, sources have told 853.
The free Greenwich Weekender launched in May this year after publisher Southwark Newspaper successfully bid for a contract to carry the council’s public notices – official notifications about planning applications, traffic restrictions and other council functions.

Public notices used to appear in the council’s own weekly, Greenwich Time, which closed in June 2016 after government restrictions were put on “council Pravdas”.

33,500 copies of the what’s-on paper are delivered door-to-door across Greenwich borough, with a further 8,500 available at collection points across the area.

As well as covering culture and leisure items, early editions of Weekender devoted space to straight news stories, following a template set by its sister paper in Lambeth. Ahead of its launch, reporter Kirsty Purnell made contact with local community groups to introduce herself and get stories.

An editorial introducing issue one, signed by managing directors Chris Mullany and Kevin Quinn, promised “local news, town hall events and all your community events and campaigns”. And Purnell’s efforts paid off, with Weekender featuring many stories missed by other outlets.

But this didn’t go down well with Greenwich Council.

The first edition gave space to people concerned about Greenwich Council’s plans to redevelop the old Woolwich covered market and neighbouring buildings. Later editions saw traders in Greenwich Market get space for their fears over business rates, while residents in Woolwich grumbled about council staff taking their parking spaces. …

In short, Greenwich Weekender was doing the job of a proper local paper. Indeed, it even planned to run columns from local political leaders, again echoing a feature in Lambeth Weekender. Hartley was among those approached, but the columns never apeared.

This website understands leading figures in the council were angry about the paper covering “negative” news stories – and were also unhappy about Efford’s coverage in the paper during June’s general election campaign.

A proposal to scrap Greenwich Weekender‘s ad contract – which would effectively close the paper – was discussed. But councillors voted down the measure at a meeting of the council’s Labour group in mid-June, which is said to have descended into a “huge row”. One idea discussed was to place the ads in the London Evening Standard instead, 853 has been told.

Instead, it was decided that the council would tell Weekender to stop covering news stories.

News stories disappeared from the title at the end of June, and the only “news” in Greenwich Weekender – which still bills itself as “an independent weekly newspaper” – since have been advertorial pieces paid for by Greenwich Council. …

The three-year Greenwich Weekender deal is worth up to £1.2 million to Southwark Newspaper. It also means the paper can be distributed from libraries and other council-affiliated locations.

But in the council report recommending taking up the contract, it said it wanted its public notices to be “published… in the context of engaging local editorial content which helps to positively inform local residents about the measures that their neighbours and local service providers are undertaking to make the borough a great place to live, work, learn and visit”.

It would appear that Greenwich Council believes this means snuffing out scrutiny of its actions in any outlet that carries its ads. …

Greenwich’s newest local paper drops news coverage after council pressure

Transport charities may not be allowed to compete with non-existent bus routes!

The government is proposing that, if a charity such as TRIP, which provides has salaried employees or carries out services under contract it could be considered as a competitor to bus companies and might lose its licence – even if there is mo bus company doing the same thing.

Wonder which MPs have bus company shares!

“The manager of a Honiton community transport charity says a proposal to change how legislation is enforced could ‘stifle’ many of the services it offers.

Neil Hurlock, who oversees TRIP in New Street, has expressed his fears about the impact of proposed government changes detailed in a letter from the Department for Transport (DfT).

The letter revealed that the government is currently consulting on a raft of alterations to existing legislation for all groups using a Section 19 permit under the Transport Act 1985.

This permit, under which TRIP operates all of its vehicles, allows charitable and not-for-profit groups to provide transport services at a reduced cost.

But in its letter, the DfT warned that an operator whose activities mirror that of a bus company, in that it employs salaried drivers and carries out services under won contracts, cannot be regarded as carrying out its activities ‘exclusively for non-commercial purposes’.

As a result of this, the DfT added, operators can not operate any vehicles under a section 19 permit as it ‘falls outside the scope of the derogation’.

This means TRIP could be forced to consider the way it is run if it wants to carry on with any commercial work.

Mr Hurlock says if the proposed alterations are approved, the regulations could greatly increase the charity’s vehicle operating costs – potentially forcing its ‘essential’ rural transport services to be axed.

Mr Hurlock said: “This could be the kiss of death for older people who use our service.

“A lot of these people are only able to live in their homes because they can rely on us to help maintain their ability to stay there by taking them shopping and to other vital appointments.

“If our services were forced to be axed due to this legislation, it will massively impact on our users, who could be left high and dry.”

Mr Hurlock says the charity is unable to afford the extra expenditure that it would face if the legislation is passed.

He is urging the community to rally behind a national campaign to ensure that the services can continue without extra cost burdens being placed on them.

Mr Hurlock added: “Devon has already lost three important community transport providers. We want to make sure this does not happen to others.

“The DfT is holding a consultation on these proposals during the autumn and I strongly urge people who rely on our services to write to them and emphasise the importance of affordable community transport in their own words.”

A spokesman for the DfT said: “Community transport operators provide vital services that encourages growth and reduces isolation by linking people to existing transport networks, jobs, education, shops and services.

“We are committed to supporting community transport operators and have no intention to end the permits system.

“We will carry out a consultation later this year, which will set out the changes needed to the guidance on the issue and use of permits.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/fears-that-legislation-changes-could-damage-honiton-transport-charity-1-5194867

“Coastal communities among worst off in UK, report finds”

“The UK’s coastal communities are among the country’s worst off for earnings, employment, health and education, a report for the BBC has found.
The Social Market Foundation said the economic gap between coastal and non-coastal places has grown.

Average wages are £3,600 a year lower in these “pockets of deprivation”, according to the think tank.

Meanwhile, the minister for coastal communities has announced £40m in funding to help coastal areas.

The report, produced for BBC Breakfast, found that five of the 10 local authorities in the UK with the highest unemployment rate for the three months to March 2017 were coastal. These were Hartlepool, North Ayrshire, Torridge, Hastings, South Tyneside and Sunderland. It also found those in employment in coastal areas were likely to be paid less. Of the 98 local authorities on the coast, 85% had pay levels below the UK’s average in 2016.

… The report found the economic gap between coastal and non-coastal areas has widened from 23% to 26% from 1997 to 2015.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41141647

“Five areas in England to pilot voter ID checks” – unfortunately ours isn’t one of them

“Voters in five areas in England will be asked to take identification to polling stations at local elections next year as part of a pilot scheme.
People in Woking, Gosport, Bromley, Watford and Slough will be asked to take different forms of ID with them to see which works best.

The Electoral Commission recommended three years ago that voters be asked to prove their identity.

Minister Chris Skidmore said the aim was to ensure the system was “secure”.
Reports of “personation” in polling stations – votes cast in someone else’s name – increased from 21 in 2014 to 44 in 2016.

Mr Skidmore said the current situation meant it was harder to take out a library book or collect a parcel than it was to vote in someone else’s name.
He told the BBC: “We currently have a situation where people can go into the ballot station, point out their name on the register, don’t need to provide any information to prove who they are.”

He said it was corrosive to democracy if people did not believe the system was secure.

“At the moment we simply don’t know if people are impersonating one another or not. We just need to make sure that the system is secure enough.”
For some years, voters in Northern Ireland have had to prove their identity at polling stations.

But Tom Brake, for the Liberal Democrats, described the latest proposals as “a completely unnecessary move that risks undermining our democracy by preventing millions of people from voting”.

“Evidence from around the world tells us forcing voters to bring ID won’t stop determined fraudsters, but is likely to led to even lower turnouts amongst young people and minority groups.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41287240

Charities politically gagged by Tory government

Note that professional lobbyists have no restrictions – only charities and non-governmental organisations.

“Charities have condemned ministers for rejecting changes to the Lobbying Act which were made by a government-commissioned review body. Campaign groups say they will be left unable to speak out for vulnerable and marginalised people in society because the law has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

The Lobbying Act restricts what non-governmental organisations can say in the year before a general election.

As a result of an outcry from the charities sector, the government commissioned a review of the recommended amendments.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts called for the scope of the act to be reduced to include only activity intended to influence how the public vote. The Conservative peer also called for the period during which its rules apply to be reduced from a year.

But the Cabinet Office has said in a statement it would make no changes to the law. In a statement the Cabinet Office said: “The rules on third-party campaigning in elections ensures that activity is transparent and prevents any individual, company, or organisation exerting undue influence in terms of an election outcome.

“We recognise and value the role that charities play in our society and are keen to work with voluntary bodies to ensure the rules are well understood.”

Charities and NGOs said this amounted to a blanket rejection of recommendations made by by Hodgson’s review.

The Cabinet Office decision comes a few weeks after more than 100 charities sent a letter to the civil societiy minister Tracey Crouch to put pressure on ministers to overhaul the act.

The charities and campaign groups who signed the letter represented a wide range of domestic and global issues including health, social care, global poverty, human rights, environment, and vulnerable groups. They included Greenpeace, Girlguiding, Deafblind UK and Action for Children.

Greenpeace was the first NGO to be fined under the Lobbying Act.

Tamsyn Barton, chief executive of Bond, the UK network of organisations working in international development, said: “How are charities supposed to speak up for the most vulnerable and marginalised people in society, both here and globally, when they are at risk of being penalised by the Lobbying Act? The government is legislating the sector into silence at a time when our voices are needed the most. This is a terrible day for British democracy.”

Greenpeace fined under Lobbying Act in ‘act of civil disobedience’
The Conservative government led by David Cameron passed the act as a result of high-profile corporate lobbying scandals. It amended existing rules on non-party organisations introduced in 2000, requiring groups to register with the electoral commission if they plan to spend more than £20,000 in England or £10,000 in the rest of the UK on so-called “regulated activities”.

Critics say the government’s definition of these activities is so broad it can include any activity that could be interpreted as political.

Vicky Browning, chief executive of the charity leaders network Acevo, said of the government’s decision: “Charity leaders will be dismayed by the Cabinet Office’s decision to ignore wholesale Lord Hodgson’s recommendations to reduce campaigning restrictions. This decision is in direct contradiction with the views of not only Lord Hodgson but the cross-party Lords select committee on charities and over 100 charity leaders from across the country.

“Lord Hodgson insisted that his reforms would ensure the clarity and definition of campaigning boundaries. Without them, the Lobbying Act’s restrictions remain deeply intimidating.”

“Government spends four times more subsidising private housing than building affordable homes” – Study shows 79 per cent of total housing budget is spent on higher-cost homes for sale

“The CIH report reveals that the number of affordable homes being built with Government money has fallen by 50 per cent since 2010, from 56,000 to 28,000.

Instead, money has been diverted to help middle- and high-income households get on the housing ladder. For example, around £5bn of loans have been given to buyers via the Help to Buy Scheme established by George Osborne in 2013.

“The CIH called for a shift in spending to help people on lower incomes afford homes.

Its chief executive, Terrie Alafat, said: “People on lower incomes are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet as they experience the impact of stagnant wages, rising inflation and welfare reform cuts. These factors and the shift towards ‘affordable rent’ all mean that housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable in many parts of the country.

“We know we need to build more homes to get to grips with our national housing crisis – our UK Housing Review briefing highlights that annual supply remains at least 30,000 homes short of household growth. But it’s not just about building more homes; it’s about building more affordable homes for people on lower incomes. The Government needs to take an urgent look at rebalancing the housing budget and investing more in genuinely affordable homes for rent.

“The November Budget gives the Government a golden opportunity to rebalance investment away from the private sector towards affordable housing without having to increase its overall commitment to housing.”

Critics say that, because affordable homes can cost up to 80 per cent of market value, they are not affordable for millions of people on low incomes.

However, Conservative ministers have prioritised building affordable homes over social homes.

As a result, since 2010 the number of new social homes has plummeted by 97 per cent, from almost 37,000 in 2010 to just over 1,100 last year.

The CIH called for more investment to maintain existing social homes – a need it said had been exposed by the Grenfell disaster. It said the Decent Homes Standard, which is used to measure whether a property is of an acceptable quality, has not been updated for ten years and that funding for helping landlords to maintain their properties has been scrapped.

“Essentially, investment in the existing social stock has been left for landlords to finance from rents, while government has been cutting their rental income and will continue to do so for another two years”, the report said. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/affordable-housing-spending-private-tory-government-a7945616.html

Rebellion in the shires – no affordable homes in MY backyard (acres) say Tory MPs

“Proposals to force some of the most affluent parts of England to accept up to 40 per cent more homes are bringing the prime minister into conflict with Conservative MPs.

It emerged that Theresa May successfully fought against plans for new homes in her constituency just weeks before unveiling the increase. She supported the Save Poundfield campaign to stop dozens of new homes in Cookham, a greenfield site on the Thames in Berkshire.

Berkeley, the housebuilder, withdrew its planning application without giving a reason about two weeks ago. Mrs May is believed to support another development which is not in the green belt.

The plans announced on Thursday will force several cabinet ministers’ constituencies in the southeast to accept the maximum 40 per cent increase in housing. The number of homes that must be built will rise from 250,000 to 266,000 annually from April.

Crispin Blunt, the Conservative MP for Reigate in Surrey, told The Daily Telegraph: “We need to incentivise more homes in regions and cities in need of development, whilst ensuring that those areas of the country unsuitable for large-scale housing expansion are under less obligation.”

Cabinet ministers affected include James Brokenshire, Justine Greening, and David Lidington.”

Times, paywall

Why are only police and prison officers getting a pay rise?

A Guardian letters correspondent has a theory:

“The decision to release the pay cap only for police and prison officers will inevitably attract strong criticism from nurses and others, but it makes sense. Most Tory MPs probably have private healthcare, but they might well need the services of the police to intervene between them and the electorate during the conference season and beyond. Tory peers should also support the decision; Lords Archer, Hanningfield and Taylor of Warwick [Tory peers who have spent time in prison] could tell them how helpful prison officers can be at difficult times.

Geoff Booth

Knebworth, Hertfordshire”

Only 93 NHS beds freed up after bed (un)blocking drive!

“Only 93 beds have been freed by an NHS drive to get elderly patients home quicker, official figures show.

Doctors warned that the health service was not ready for winter after figures showed it ended the summer by missing most of its main targets.

This week Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England, said that the health service needed to do more as a severe outbreak of flu in Australia threatened to move north for winter. He has given hospitals until November to free 3,000 beds by sending home patients who do not need to be on wards.

However, at the end of July there were 5,861 beds occupied because no suitable care could be arranged for patients elsewhere, barely down from 5,954 last year. “Progress over the next eight to ten weeks is going to have to accelerate markedly in conjunction with local authorities in order to free up further bed capacity ahead of winter,” a spokesman for NHS England said.

Long waits for routine surgery are also up, with 390,659 patients having waited more than 18 weeks, the highest number since 2008. More than four million people are on a waiting list.

A&E visits were down but only 90.3 per cent of patients were seen within four hours, compared with 91 per cent last summer. The target is 95 per cent.”

Source: Times pay wall

Save Our Hospital Services

Facebook page post:

““Lest we forget”

Over the past few years as a result of piecemeal demolition of our NHS in Devon we have lost ALL the inpatient beds at 20 community hospitals, named below, from across Devon.

Many of these hospitals have been closed down completely and others have been turned into “hubs” providing some limited health services to day patients. [Many of these services are provided by private businesses and have to be paid for]

This means we have lost a staggering 71% of our community beds across Devon, most in the last year.( In North Devon we have only 16 beds remaining at South Molton and these are now under threat).

They now want to make further cuts to our health services and we are told when it comes to cuts to, “think the unthinkable” as they aim to cut £557 million from Devon’s health budget.

If they even think about implementing these cuts, then they should be prepared for the anger that will follow, and they should be prepared to “think the unthinkable” as far as the opposition that they will face.

All beds now closed at these community hospitals:

Bideford Community Hospital
Holsworthy Community Hospital
Tyrrell Hospital, Ilfracombe
Lynton and lynmouth Hospital
Torrington Community Hospital
Ashburton and Buckfastleigh Community Hospital
Bovey Tracey Community Hospital
Brixham Community Hospital
Dartmouth and Kingswear Community Hospital
Paignton Community Hospital
Teignmouth Community Hospital
Axminster Hospital
Budleigh Salterton Hospital
Crediton Hospital
Exeter Community Hospital (Whipton)
Honiton Hospital
Moretonhampstead Community Hospital
Okehampton Community Hospital
Ottery St Mary Hospital
Seaton Community Hospital”

Devon and Somerset devolution deal goes wrong on Day One

“The leader of Exeter City Council has complained that he was left out of talks in London to secure devolution for Devon and Somerset.

Devon county council leaders as well as those from Plymouth and Torbay council chiefs were invited to the Westminster meeting this week with Jake Berry, the Minister responsible for devolution and coastal communities.

Following the meeting, it was announced by Devon County Council Tory leader John Hart that an agreement had been reached to devolve powers to an economy estimated to be worth £34 billion, more than Birmingham.

Peter Edwards, leader of the Labour-controlled city council, warned that the deal had no “mandate” from Exeter and revealed he had not been invited nor even told about the planned announcement.

Tory MP Gary Streeter, who organised the meeting and drew up the guest list, said he had never heard of Mr Edwards but offered an assurance that he would be “pleased” with the deal being struck.

Mr Hart emerged from the gathering on Thursday to declare that a plan had been agreed by “the two county councils, the two unitaries, all the district councils, the Local Enterprise Partnership, the two national parks and NHS representatives”.

“We have 17 local authorities working closely together on this plan with our other partners,” he added in a statement.

But hot on the heels on the press release came a strong response from Cllr Edwards.

He said: “Mr Hart went to this meeting without my knowledge. I would be interested in knowing if any other district councils took part or knew about it.

“He met me the day before and didn’t feel the need to mention it, let alone say he intended to indicate we were all signed up. I don’t have that mandate from my council – and he certainly doesn’t.

“We agree there is a need to go to Government and to unlock funding. We have been eager to see this happen and to see what is on offer.

“But we don’t agree that you should be offering up a new combined authority for Devon and Somerset blindly without knowing what any deal is. Councils could be giving up all their powers – without knowing that the prize is.

“Exeter has a strong economic agenda – it would be madness to jeopardise that without knowing what any benefits could be – or even if there are any benefits.

“My council’s position is that we could welcome devolution – but only once you know what any benefits are.”

Mr Streeter, MP for South West Devon, told Devonlive.com that there had been no snub and said “none of the districts” had been invited.

“I invited the county and unitary councils,” he added. “It was just a meeting to find out where we are in the devolution process with ministers, post election, with councils to report back.

“It was a lively successful meeting – the others will find out next week when a full report is made.”

Asked if Cllr Edwards, a longstanding councillor and city leader since 2010, was right to feel aggrieved, Mr Streeter added: “I don’t know him but I am sure he is a wonderful person.

“We don’t have dealings with Exeter or North Devon – it is very parochial. I know know who this gentleman is but once he gets the full story he’s going to be very pleased.” …”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/council-leader-angry-exeter-snub-483839

Plymouth postal votes fiasco gets fierce criticism; EDDC’s SECOND postal vote fiasco still awaiting scrutiny

Our fiasco here:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/07/17/eddc-second-postal-votes-fiasco-will-be-scrutinised/

Plymouth fiasco here:

“Plymouth City Council has received a report into electoral issues that led to problems at the last general election.

Between 150 and 200 people were unable to vote, and about 2,000 postal ballots were not sent out.

An independent report headed by Dr Dave Smith, the former chief executive of Sunderland City Council, looked into all aspects of the way the election was managed.

He will present it to full council on 25 September.

The council said his recommendations included telling it to:

Act swiftly to permanently recruit enough suitably experienced electoral registration staff to ensure the elections team is up to recommended staffing levels

In the meantime, ensure there are enough interim staff with sufficient operational experience to manage the team, build capacity and ensure focus

Make sure sufficient resources and properly documented systems, procedures and processes are put in place to ensure a successful election canvass and prepare for local elections in 2018 and plan for a future general election

Develop a more detailed communications plan with key stakeholders to ensure effective election communications especially when unusual situations arise

Carry out an independent review in January 2018 to ensure the council is suitably prepared for elections in May 2018″

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-41161495

Finding an NHS GP is going to become as hard as finding an NHS dentist

Owl particularly liked the very last sentence where it showed the local CCG initially got its figures wrong!

“… The seven practices in Folkestone – which cover around 64,000 patients – have applied to NHS South Kent Coast CCG for formal list closure, saying there is a shortage of 16 full-time equivalent GPs.

They took the step of applying for formal list closure after they announced this month that 4,700 patients previously under the Folkestone East Family Practice (FEFP) would be – in the practices’ words – ‘forcibly allocated’ to practices after partners handed back their contract in May.

This is the latest in a growing number of towns that have had to close their lists en masse, including Bridlington in East Riding of Yorkshire and the Three Towns area in Ayrshire, Scotland.

This move also comes after a survey of GP practices by the BMA revealed half of practices were willing to close their lists in response to the pressures facing general practice.

The BMA said that what was happening in Folkestone was indicative of pressures across the country.

A statement issued by the practices in Folkestone said: ‘The following GP surgeries – Central Surgery, Guildhall St Surgery, Hawking & Elham Surgery, Manor Clinic, The New Surgery, Park Farm Surgery, Sandgate Rd Surgery – have taken the unprecedented action of applying to NHS South Kent Coast CCG for formal list closure in order to maintain safe patient care to their current patient population.

‘We all feel that as a consequence of the national GP shortage which has been acutely felt in Folkestone, with a shortage of 16 full time equivalent GPs we have no other option in the interest of patient safety.’

The practices say they have been highlighting the crisis for ‘over a year’ to local authorities, including the CCG, the council, the local foundation trust and the local MP.

The statement added: ‘The crisis became more acute with the handing back of the Folkestone East Family Practice (FEFP) contract which affected 4,700 people in May.

‘The practices have advised the CCG throughout that we are unable to take on more patients safely without long term investment in clinical staff as well as infrastructure to ensure the safe integration of these patients without jeopardising patient care for all residents of Folkestone.’

Dr Richard Vautrey, chair of the BMA’s GP Committee, said: ’This crisis in Folkestone highlights why four out of ten GP practices in England told the BMA in a survey only last week that they were considering applying to have their practice lists closed because their services are at breaking point. Many GP services across the country are being put under unsustainable pressure from rising patient demand, falling funding and staff shortages that are stopping them from providing safe, effective care, including enough appointments, to their local communities. The situation for practices is made even worse when one in the local area closes altogether and local health bodies fail to provide sufficient support for those practices remaining.

’It is unacceptable that even one surgery should be being placed in the position of having to close their practice list. We need politicians to realise that general practice needs an urgent, immediate plan to invest more resources into frontline patient services as we cannot allow GP services to slide further into crisis.’

A spokesperson for NHS South East Kent CCG said: ’If a GP practice feels it needs to close its patient list over a significant period, it must apply to us so we can consider the potential impact on patients and neighbouring practices and avoid displacing a problem elsewhere.

’We have received applications from seven practices in Folkestone to close their lists to new patients. These applications will be considered by the CCG and we will reply to the practices within 21 days.’

They added: ’To support practices to take on new patients, the CCG will pay practices an additional £42.68 per patient to support any additional costs for the first year. This compares favourably with other patient distribution investments to recognise the specific issues in Folkestone.’

Please note – this story was updated at 13:15 on 14 September 2017. The CCG originally said it would pay an additional £48 per patient, but it later corrected this to £42.68p.”

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/access/all-seven-practices-in-town-set-to-close-patient-lists-en-masse/20035268.article

Sidmouth Drill Hall ‘propaganda’

Owl says: starting a consultation by illustrating it with a detailed schematic plan of 5 storey buildings is asking for trouble – duh!

If you then go on to construct those 5 storey buildings, it would get very murky indeed!

“A campaigner determined to see Sidmouth’s Drill Hall considered as part of any regeneration plans for Port Royal has slammed ‘propaganda’ from project leaders.

Mary Walden-Till’s research into the history of the eastern town has covered much of the same ground as the scoping study commissioned by landowners Sidmouth Town Council (STC) and East Devon District Council (EDDC).

Town clerk Christopher Holland and Councillor Jeff Turner sat down with the Herald in a bid to reassure residents nothing has yet been decided – but Ms Walden-Till took issue with several of the points they raised.

She raised: “I know that both Cllr Turner and Mr Holland are committed to doing what they think is the best for Sidmouth so I was very disappointed to read something in the Herald (‘Port Royal could see massive development – or nothing at all’) which appeared to be propaganda rather than unadorned fact.

“If we want the best outcome for the town, we all need to make sure we are not playing games, even accidentally. If they can’t avoid ‘spin’ then they can’t claim to be open-minded on the issue. It is a matter of fact that both of them are on record as being vehemently opposed to preserving the Drill Hall.

“If the starting point is that the Drill Hall must be demolished, then it has to be accepted that it is unlikely that a developer would be interested in such a small plot, so then the search begin for a way to make it worth a developer’s time.

As a designer, it is important to me to start a project with no preconceptions about what should be removed or retained in order to achieve the desired result.

“The scoping exercise consultants should have started from the same point, and we should be able to see that they had considered a range of ways of increasing what Port Royal can offer to the town.

“This development should be about the town and not about ways of making money for the district as a whole. The district has already benefitted from Sidmouth’s loss in far too many circumstances: for example the loss of Fortfield Hotel to expensive apartments, the Section 106 money from which went to the district not solely to Sidmouth, and the upcoming loss of the council jobs at the Knowle, moving employment from Sidmouth to other areas of the district.

“To suggest that reusing the Drill Hall will of necessity ‘take away from other users’ of Port Royal is clearly ridiculous. How would preserving what is there at the same time reduce what is there?”

In a joint statement, Mr Holland and Cllr Turner said: “STC and EDDC would like to reiterate the aims of the scoping study. It is to research, investigate and report on the opportunities and constraints of improving the whole important Port Royal area.

“The councils have yet to receive the independent consultant’s Scoping Study to even begin discussing issues such as detailed designs, which would come further along in the project.

“The study is the start of a process that would, if supported by the councils, involve a much more detailed visioning for future consideration.

“To champion a single building at this stage which is a small part of a much larger area and be in constant opposition to a simple study which only aims to help inform councillors is not helpful.

“Members of both councils will decide how and if to proceed once the scoping study report is presented to them.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/drill-hall-campaigner-hits-out-at-port-royal-propaganda-1-5194185