Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Education (local)

Comments

1 Comment

“Private fat cats have got rich on the sale of our schools”

” … The invention of academies has involved a different kind of transfer of assets (schools) from public hands to private. In most cases, publicly owned schools are leased to academies and trusts on 125-year leases, with the local authority retaining the deeds. The academies must carry on educating children but can “maximise their assets” by using the premises to raise money. It is this area of money-making that has on occasions caused problems, as with Durand academy and its on-site businesses.

Academies can also flog off land and buildings, if the much weakened local authorities agree. Serious money can be made, management salaries are high, and hidden in all this is the long-term public subsidy in such sites.

The birth rate didn’t stay low. Children need schools. The very same councils that flogged off their prized school buildings are forced to squeeze children into overcrowded schools elsewhere in their districts. Fair enough: children from overcrowded homes should go to overcrowded schools, eh? Local authorities are not allowed to open new ones. The government solution is to use our money to send search squads to find and buy sites for new schools, some at enormous cost, such as £7.6m paid for a former police station, some within spitting distance of the ones now converted into flats.

I must remind myself that these new schools are called “free” and I do hope that these transactions and new arrangements have enabled a few thousand people to make some serious money out of the public sector. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/28/fat-cats-sale-schools

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Planning System

“The government lacks the political will to fix the broken [housing] market

“If the price of milk had risen in line with average house prices over the past 40 years, consumers would now be shelling out more than £10 for a four-pint carton: a sobering reminder of just how broken Britain’s housing market is. With price increases like these, it is little surprise the number of first-time buyers relying on family loans is now at a historic high, according to new research from the Social Mobility Commission: one in three rely on family help, and the proportion of 25- to 29-year-olds who own their home has almost halved since 1990.

A world where a growing proportion of young people can only afford to buy a home with family support makes a mockery of equal opportunity. Home ownership matters in Britain: yes, as oft remarked, it is a cultural aspiration; but one that is underpinned by rational financial interests. Home ownership provides a stability and financial security simply unavailable to those who rent, thanks to house price growth that benefits owners but drives up rents, and our very weak framework of tenants’ rights.

The success of government attempts to improve housing policy should be judged by a simple indicator: price. For decades, governments have rolled out policies aimed at improving affordability and helping people to get on the ladder, but at the same time long-term house price growth has far outpaced any increase in wages. What’s gone wrong?

The biggest problem is a land market that serves landowners and developers at the expense of buyers. Land is a fixed commodity and a public good: its sale should be highly regulated. Yet our planning system delivers huge windfall gains to landowners in areas of high demand: giving agricultural land residential planning status increases its value on average by a factor of 328. Landowners sell to developers offering the highest price, who maximise profit by slowly releasing houses on to the market to fuel further price growth, skimping on build quality and affordable housing.

This is a distortion relatively easily fixed. As Shelter has argued, local authorities and public development corporations should be given the power to buy undeveloped land based on its existing value: a power widely used across much of Europe. They could then sell land on to developers who commit to building affordable housing of better quality for quick release. This should be accompanied by tax reform – council tax is a hugely regressive property tax based on property values from 1990 – and stronger rights for tenants in the private rented sector, including caps on rent rises and longer-term minimum tenancies of at least five years.

This package of reforms would slow house price growth while increasing security for renters. But it is one the government shied away from in its recent white paper: it took only the most tentative of steps towards land market reform and improving tenants’ rights. Instead it has lifted regulations on minimum home sizes, paving the way for a flurry of tiny “rabbit hutch” homes to come on to the market. It is focusing the bulk of its political capital on deregulatory planning reforms, unlikely to have much impact given that planning permission has already been granted for almost half a million homes yet to be built.

The problem is not a lack of solutions, but a lack of political will. This is an area where ministers fear their own success. What government truly wants to preside over years of flatlining house prices at the expense of relatively affluent homeowners in the south-east? Almost 10 years after the financial crisis, economic growth remains too fuelled by the consumer debt enabled by rising house prices, and too little by long-term investment. And so the charade continues: politicians tout over-ambitious house building targets while tinkering at the margins, avoiding the market intervention needed to truly put a brake on price growth. It is young people without family wealth who will pay the price.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/27/the-guardian-view-on-house-prices-the-government-lacks-the-political-will-to-fix-the-broken-market

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development

‘Dog kennel’ flats 40% smaller than Travelodge room!

“Hundreds of tiny studio flats, many smaller than a budget hotel room, are to be squeezed into an eleven-story block in north London as its developer takes advantage of the government’s relaxation of planning regulations.

‘Rabbit hutch’ homes should be consigned to the past, say architects
Plans for Barnet House, used by the London borough of Barnet’s housing department, reveal that 96% of the 254 proposed flats will be smaller than the national minimum space standards of 37 sq metres (44 sq yards) for a single person.

The tiniest homes will be 16 sq metres – 40% smaller than the average Travelodge room. They are legal because of government deregulation designed to promote the conversion of underused office space to help meet housebuilding targets.

Local residents have labelled the Barnet scheme “ridiculous” and “immoral”, comparing the planned homes to dog kennels.

Once kitted out with basic furniture, such as a small kitchenette, bed and wardrobe, the smallest flats will have very little room to move around. There appears to be little space, for example, for a sofa or a washing machine, unless it is stacked on top of the fridge.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/27/dog-kennel-flats-barnet-house-smaller-than-travelodge-room

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2017

Posted under

Democracy, Electoral Commission, General Election, UKIP (local), Voting

First UKIP MP charged with election fraud

“Former Conservative MP Bob Spink, who defected to Ukip and became its first MP, has been charged with electoral fraud.

The 68-year-old has been charged alongside a second man, 38-year-old James Parkin, over allegations that they submitted false signatures on Ukip nomination papers.

The accusations relate to the local election for Castle Point Borough Council in south Essex, England in 2016. [Irish Times]”

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148910/bob-spink-ukip-electoral-fraud/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Mar 2017

Posted under

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

Comments

1 Comment

“NHS bosses ‘spent half of extra Autumn Statement cash on outside services’ “

“About half of a £2bn cash boost from the 2014 Autumn Statement for frontline health services in England was spent outside the NHS, research has found.

The Health Foundation analysis for the Financial Times showed £901m was spent on buying services from private and non-NHS providers in 2015/16.
It said £800m was spent buying the same kind of care from NHS trusts.

The government said it showed the NHS was “making clinical judgments about delivering high-quality care.

Ex-chancellor George Osborne said in his final Autumn Statement before the 2015 general election that the money for NHS England was a “down payment” on a plan drawn up by NHS bosses, which called for an extra £8bn a year above inflation by 2020.

‘Diverted’ patients

The Health Foundation report also found that £1 in every £8 of local commissioner’s budgets in England is spent on care provided by non-NHS organisations.

Anita Charlesworth, director of research and economics at the Health Foundation, said: “Rising demand for emergency care meant that NHS providers haven’t had the capacity to deliver planned care and patients had to be diverted outside the NHS.

“NHS hospitals were left squeezed by sharply rising drug and staff costs with little additional funding.

“The result was big deficits that had to be covered by raids on investment budgets.”

She said the NHS had to “urgently” consider how to ensure additional funds reach NHS providers.

“The health service needs to plan better for emergency demand, fund emergency care fairly and make sure it gets the best possible price for care provided outside the NHS,” she said.

The Department of Health said it spends less than 10% of its budget on independent providers.

A spokesman said: “This report simply shows the NHS is making clinical judgments about delivering high-quality care for patients.

“The truth is that for many years the independent sector has made a contribution to helping the NHS meet demand, now amounting to less than eight pence in every pound the NHS spends.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39401540

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Mar 2017

Posted under

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

Surprise! Government says one thing and does exactly the opposite – this time rural pharmacies

“Ministers are planning to allow hundreds of rural chemists to close across the country despite repeated assurances to MPs this would not happen, The Telegraph can disclose.

In private letters to Theresa May, last August Philip Hammond and Jeremy Hunt warned that pharmacies would have to close because of the cut in a subsidy worth hundreds of millions of pounds a year to the hard-pressed pharmacies.

The Cabinet ministers’ warnings appear to be at odds with ministers’ repeated public claims in Parliament and in official documents that no closures are likely.

They also appear to confirm that Mrs May is concerned about the plans and had to seek reassurances from Mr Hammond, the Chancellor, and Mr Hunt, the Health secretary.

Campaigners said the letters amounted to a “smoking gun” which laid bare the Government’s indifference to saving rural pharmacies. …

… According to letters disclosed in a High Court challenge to the plans, and seen by The Telegraph, Mr Hammond and Mr Hunt warned that the cut will result in the closure of pharmacies.

Mr Hunt told Mrs May on August 2 the cut would mean that “500-900 pharmacies will close”, in a letter that was copied to Mr Hammond.

Mr Hunt said: “We cannot know exactly how individual pharmacies will be affected by the funding reductions and there is a risk that some pharmacies may close as a result of these changes, although this has never been our objective.”

Mr Hammond went further in a second letter on August 11, telling Mrs May he supported the subsidy cut to what he described as an “inefficient and over-subsidised market” to move chemists “away away from the traditional bricks-and-mortar business model”.

He told the Prime Minister: “Longer-term I would like the community pharmacy market to follow trends we have witnessed in other retail markets.

“This might include a shift away from the traditional bricks-and-mortar business model towards scaled-up, innovative supply solutions employing digital technology, where Government expenditure is minimised.”

The Government announced revised plans in October that increased the number of chemists that can access a special fund from 900 to 1,300, only half as many as the up to 900 that Mr Hunt expected to close.

Weeks later Pharmacies minister David Mowat told MPs three times that no closures were likely. He told MPs on October 17: “We do not believe that community pharmacies will necessarily close as a result of these cuts.”

The department’s own impact assessment was based on a scenario “a scenario where no pharmacy closes” as a result of the cut.

Labour’s shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said Mr Hunt should explain to MPs “why he was saying one thing to the Prime Minister while Mr Mowat was telling the House of Commons something different”.

He said: “Someone in Government needs to get a grip and clarify the future of these hundreds of community pharmacies, the staff who work in them, and the patients who depend upon their services.” …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/26/exclusive-philip-hammond-jeremy-hunt-tell-theresa-may-secret/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, EDDC, Transparency

Transparency for developer viability appraisals must be published

Owl says: EDDC makes it seem that THEY decided these appraisals should be made public – but government directives, fights with the Information Commissioner and case-law have meant that they really have no option on this!

“Confidentiality
6.28 There is a strong public interest in financial viability appraisals being made available for scrutiny when relied upon to secure planning permission and, for this reason, the council will make this information publicly available.

We consider that transparency is extremely important and the public benefit of publishing all aspects of a viability appraisal will generally outweigh any potential commercial harm to the applicant.

If an applicant feels that some or all of the information should be kept confidential, then it will be necessary for the applicant to show how disclosure of that information would cause specific harm (in this context this means that ‘it is more probable than not that some harm would be caused’ – it will not be sufficient to say it might cause harm) to a legitimate economic interest.

Applicants will need to identify to the Council what the economic interest is and how specific harm would be caused to it when the viability information is provided. This view will be taken into account, and balanced against the wider public interest in disclosure, when the council makes its decision about the publication of the viability appraisal.

Click to access 290317-combined-strategic-planning-agenda-compressed.pdf

page 107

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Voting

Another broken Tory manifesto promise: starter homes

“The Tories have quietly ditched their manifesto pledge to build 200,000 starter homes.

The party promised to build the homes five times in their 2015 manifesto.

The manifesto promised the Tories, if elected, would “build 200,000 new Starter Homes – 20% below the market price, for first time buyers under 40.”

Later it pledged they would: “Build more homes that people can afford, including 200,000 new Starter Homes exclusively for first-time buyers under 40.”

It went on to say that at the 200,000 figure was a “clear objective” and was at the “heart” of the party’s housing plan.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-quietly-dropped-another-manifesto-10004409#ICID=sharebar_twitter

Now THAT’S how you do spin!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, General Election, Hugo Swire, Voting

Comments

2 Comments

Wonder what Swire and his Conservative Middle East Council think of this?

“Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world, official government figures show – with most of the weapons fuelling deadly conflicts in the Middle East.

Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked “not free” on the Freedom House “Freedom in the world” report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government’s own human rights watch list.

A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West. …

… Ministers, who must sign-off all arms export licences, say the current system is robust and that they have revoked permission to export defence equipment in the past – for example in Russia and Ukraine.

But the Government has also ignored calls to stop selling weapons to repressive regimes, including Saudi Arabia, which has been accused by UN bodies of potentially committing war crimes in its military operation in Yemen against Houthi rebels.

Both the European Parliament and the House of Commons International Development Committee have called for exports to the autocracy to stop, but the Government says it has not seen evidence of Saudi war crimes. …

… Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade warned that the dependence of British exporters on unsavory regimes could make the UK less likely to intervene against human rights violators.

“These terrible figures expose the hypocrisy at the heart of UK foreign policy. The government is always telling us that it acts to promote human rights and democracy, but it is arming and supporting some of the most repressive regimes in the world. The impact of UK arms sales is clear in Yemen, where British fighter jets and bombs have been central to the Saudi-led destruction,” he told The Independent.

“These regimes aren’t just buying weapons, they’re also buying political support and legitimacy. How likely is the UK to act against human rights violations in these countries when it is also profiting from them?

“There is no such thing as arms control in a war zone and there is no way of knowing how these weapons will be used. The fact that so many weapons were sold to Russia and Libya is a reminder that the shelf-life of weapons is often longer than the governments and situations they were sold to.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Economy, EDDC, Exmouth Creative Group, Philip Skinner, Regeneration

Comments

2 Comments

EDDC Exmouth Visitor Survey- a flaw

The survey says that by far the largest proportion of visitors (31 per cent) were aged 65+ years:

15% – 15 years or under
6% – 16‐24 years
8% – 25‐34 years
10% – 35‐44 years
14% – 45‐54 years and
15% – 55‐64 years
31% – 65+

BUT:
16-64 year old are broken down into decades
Under 15’s span 15 years
Over 65’s span around 35 years

So obviously over 65’s are the largest group as they cover the largest number of years.

But, if you wished, you could say the largest group was 35-64 year olds (39%) as they also span 3 decades and are a higher percentage than the over 65’s!

Plus, it should be fairly obvious that people 65 – 74 are just about as fit and active as the 55-64 year olds. Lumping them in with centenarians is just a tad ageist!

AND it skews figures by comparing unequal groupings.

Messy.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Health and Social Care (local), Honiton/ Gittisham, NHS (local), Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

More “Red Line” round our hospitals info – Saturday 1 April

http://www.devonlive.com/devon-hospital-closures-red-line-protest-planned-across-the-county/story-30227709-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Democracy, Independent Councillors, Voting

Douglas Carswell defects from UKIP to become “Independent” MP

Well, that’s his third political change – Tory to UKIP to Independent:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39393213

Down here we do it differently – Claire Wright has always been Independent – no shilly-shallying!

So, beware false “Independents” in the DCC election. You know the ones. They who ALWAYS coincidentally vote with just one party and are usually seen schmoozing with members of that party in and out of County Hall!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Mar 2017

Posted under

Budleigh Salterton, East Devon Alliance, Independent Councillors, Voting

Beware Boundaries in Budleigh

If you are registered to vote (though this could be problematical – see post below) and you live in the hinterland of Budleigh Salterton, you might wish to comment on boundary change proposals for the area.

With the local land owners/property developers creeping (sorry, leaping) ever-closer to the town, the proposed change could have worrying implications for residents of that lovely countryside.

Congratulations to East Devon Alliance councillor Geoff Jung for spotting this one – he has been instrumental in ensuring that the local land owners/property developers keep to the letter of the law about their expansion plans, which seem to get more and more grandiose.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Want to register online to vote in East Devon? Don’t bother, website unavailable

You could try here:

https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

but if it links to the EDDC website – tough.

Hope Mr Williams is at work today getting this fixed. We pay him extra to be our Electoral officer.

Perhaps someone might like to let the Electoral Commission know that things are going wrong – again – in East Devon.

Last time we lost 6,000 voters because Mr Williams decided he knew best and used telephone contact to trace missing voters instead of personal canvassers (though Owl is still puzzled how he got those telephone numbers). Though this was fixed later after he appeared at a Parliamentary Committee to explain himself.

And then there was that little matter of the postal vote forms with the wrong information on them …

Have a good day in the office, Mr Williams!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Neil Parish

Neil Parish worries about Equitable Life, expanding Colyton Grammar School and grammar schools in general

Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the House yet again because policyholders with Equitable Life have been very badly treated. The finances of this country are now much improved, and it is time that we looked yet again at the situation of these policyholders, because their policies were oversold and actuaries hyped up their value well beyond anything that could be delivered, even at the time. Many people have never been held to account, but the policyholders have had millions of pounds taken from them through their insurance policies and pensions.

Neil Parish

Colyton Grammar School in my constituency has a great headteacher, wonderful staff and pupils with huge levels of attainment. The school would very much like to expand. How can the Secretary of State help it to expand more than it can at the moment?

Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)

15. What steps her Department is taking to support the expansion of grammar schools. [909334]

And nurseries, primary schools and secondary schools in our area being deprived of funding – what about those, Mr Parish?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Hugo Swire, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Swire worried about laptop ban for our allies” in the Middle East, particularly Egypt and Sharm el Sheikh

“Following the announcement by the British Government of a flight ban on Laptops affecting six Middle Eastern countries the Conservative Middle East Council would like to urge the Government to ensure that all measures are taken to mitigate the diplomatic damage that the ban may cause.

CMEC is not in a position to make a judgement on the security basis of the ban and has every confidence that the relevant agencies have acted to prevent lives being put at risk. CMEC thinks it vital that real efforts are made – at ministerial level – to assuage the concerns and possible offence taken by our allies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia and Turkey.

Our allies must be reassured that this measure is taken with the protection of all passengers – not just British Citizens – in mind. This is particularly the case in Egypt, where due to the fact that the ban on direct flights from the UK to Sharm El Sheikh is now in its 18th month there is a rising feeling among many Egyptians that it is in some way politically motivated.

All efforts must be made to reassure our allies that this is a not a political issue but one of security and that the laptop ban is an inconvenient but very necessary mutual security measure, implemented in the interest of travellers from all of the countries affected.”

[Signed]

The Rt Hon Sir Hugo Swire KCMG MP, Chairman, Conservative Middle East Council

Charlotte Leslie MP, Vice Chairman, Conservative Middle East Council

Remember, Owl reported that he asked a question in the House of Commons about when flights to the diving resort might restart, shortly after his visit to Egypt a few days ago:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/03/23/swire-makes-commons-plea-to-resume-flight-to-sharm-el-sheikh/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Mar 2017

Posted under

Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Rural communities

“Looming countryside health crisis as stoic elderly ‘won’t make a fuss’ “

“A crisis in countryside health care could be looming because of the number of older patients who are reluctant to “make a fuss” and seek out help, a new report suggests.

The Public Health England study warns that one in six areas with the worst levels of health and deprivation are in rural areas, with “pockets of real hardship” in areas assumed to be idylls.

Almost half of rural households are at least five miles away from a hospital, when 97 per cent of those living in cities have one close at hand. And 20 per cent were more than 2.5 miles from a GP surgery, compared with 2 per cent of those in urban areas.

“Rural areas have worse access in terms of distance to health, public health and care services,” the report says. “Longer distances to GPs, dentists, hospitals and other health facilities mean that rural residents can experience ‘distance decay’ where service use decreases with increasing distance”.

The report, written jointly with the Local Government Association, says councils are under increasing pressure as they attempt to meet the needs of an ageing rural population.

On average those living in rural areas are five years older than those living in cities.

Councillor Izzi Seccombe, Chairman of the LGA’s Community Wellbeing Board, said:

“We often think of rural areas as picture-postcard scenes of rolling green fields and farming land, yet this idyllic image is masking pockets of deprivation and poor health.

The stoic nature of some countryside dwellers could fuel pressures on services, because some were prone to put up with health complaints until they became serious, she suggested.

“The make do attitude and reluctance to make a fuss of some older rural residents means they may not seek out health care or treatment when they need it. This stores up worse problems for later on where they require far more serious and emergency care.”

Duncan Selbie, chief executive of PHE said the report “busts the myth that poverty, deprivation and ill health are confined to urban, inner city areas.”

http://newscdn.newsrep.net/h5/nrshare.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Mar 2017

Posted under

Misc

Owl gets result on Seaton Premier Inn

Owl asks the questions that others fail to ask … Seaton Premier Inn work “will start in May” says company, after Owl asked why the site was still bare.

See, you just have to ask – but it appears no-one else did!

http://www.devonlive.com/work-will-begin-soon-on-new-75-bed-premier-inn-in-east-devon/story-30226857-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Irregularities at French firm manufacturing Hinkley C components

“Inspectors find safety irregularities at Creusot nuclear forge in France.

Evidence of doctored paperwork found at Areva-owned forge, which has made parts for Hinkley Point.

An international team of inspectors has found evidence of doctored paperwork and other failings at a forge in France that makes parts for nuclear power stations around the world.

The UK nuclear regulator said the safety culture at the site, which has produced forgings for British plants including Sizewell B and the planned new reactors at Hinkley Point, fell short of expectations.

Last December regulators from the UK, US, China, Finland and Canada visited the Creusot forge run by the French state-owned nuclear builder Areva, to address their concerns after the country’s regulator ASN discovered quality-control problems and falsification of records in 2014.

A report of the inspection by the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), obtained via a freedom of information request, concluded the improvement measures ordered by ASN were not yet effective.

The visit uncovered an example of an employee at the forge “amending a manufacturing record in an uncontrolled manner” as recently as September 2016, two years after similar problems were uncovered. The doctoring went undetected by Areva’s on-site quality control, Areva’s independent third-party body and inspectors from EDF.

The international inspectors also discovered the use of correctional fluid – like Tipp-Ex – at the forge’s operational control room. Correctional fluid is banned at the site, where a manager told the inspection team she regularly searched workstations for it.

Experts said the report was worrying and would damage Areva. Paul Dorfman of the Energy Institute at University College London, who obtained the document, said: “Given nuclear regulation is all about safety, this kind of language is extraordinarily damaging coming, as it does, from the UK nuclear regulator.”

Areva is already suffering serious financial problems. The company recently reported a €665m (£575m) net loss for 2016, though that is smaller than the €2bn net loss it posted in 2015.

The ONR said there was a greater quality control presence “on the shop floor” of the Creusot, and much of the top management had been replaced since ASN told it to improve. But it said the international team of inspectors “were not confident that the improvement programmes and associated remedial actions … were sufficiently resourced, prioritised and integrated in order to bring about sustained improvements in manufacturing performance and nuclear safety culture”.

The report said the UK regulator should reflect on whether EDF’s oversight of Areva was up to scratch, given it is a key supplier to the Hinkley Point C power station that EDF is building in Somerset.

The ONR told the Guardian that since the visit to Creusot it had put in place plans to ensure any forgings destined for UK reactors, including Hinkley, met UK standards.

A spokeswoman said: “Since this multinational inspection, ONR has developed its intervention plans to ensure that the licensee has in place and implements adequate management and assurance arrangements to clearly demonstrate that all components are manufactured to the required standards.

“These plans will include a series of targeted inspections and other assessments of both the licensee and the supply chain, specification of appropriate regulatory hold-points, and a targeted regulatory review at an appropriate time in the next year to assess the progress and performance of both the licensees oversight and assurance activities and the expected improvements within the supply chain.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/areva-creusot-nuclear-forge-france-hinkley-point