Are Ottery, Honiton, Axminster and Seaton now classed as “rural communities” now they have no hospital beds, along with villages?
http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/press-releases/shortage-of-rural-doctors-puts-patients-health-at-risk
http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/services/rural-social-care-is-underfunded-–-network
http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/services/communities-blighted-by-patchy-rural-services
http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/analysis/are-rural-carers-overwhelmed-by-need
“… In community health nursing, there has been a 12% drop overall in full-time equivalent staffing numbers since September 2009, despite growing demand.
In the East Midlands, district nurse Mary Black says her team and other colleagues are struggling to cope, because of a mixture of unfilled vacancies, maternity leave and long-term sickness absence, which directly affect patient care. “We firefight every single day: moving patient visits, ringing round to see if other teams can help, and we often have to cancel or defer. We have bank and agency nurses to cover vacancies, but not usually sickness or maternity leave, so it means the staff who are left have lots more visits to do each day,” she says. “There is no continuity, as often there’s a different agency nurse each day and there are a lot of duties and patient visits that an agency nurse can’t do, so the complex patients fall to our permanent members of the team. Agency staff often cancel at the last minute and sometimes don’t turn up.”
Black says: “It often feels like we’re not giving our patients a very good service, we cannot spend the time with them that they often need. Incidents and complaints will have risen.”
Last month’s report on the public sector workforce by the Reform thinktank is blunt about the impact of staffing problems. “Public services fail when employees fail,” it concludes. “This is the dramatic lesson from a number of high-profile errors in recent public service delivery. In many instances, quality is compromised, not because of individual incompetence, but the way the workforce is structured and organised. …
… “When you don’t have the right staff levels, we have to see patients on a prioritised basis,” he says. “Patients don’t get the quality and sometimes it means people get sub-optimal outcomes. It’s frustrating and demoralising.” Some of his colleagues have voted with their feet: leaving for private sector jobs with better work-life balance, or moving somewhere with lower house prices. “They are on the same money as it’s nationally done but the property prices are different,” Davies says. In the South-West, the shortages are particularly acute for more junior grades. “It tends to be easier to recruit more senior physios as they are a band up so the pay is better but it still can be an issue getting the right people down to us.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/08/uk-social-care-crisis-staff-shortages
IF ONLY SHE HAD BECOME OUR MP! DIVIANI AGAIN VOTED AGAINST REASSESSMENT OF THE PLANS! LET’S MAKE SURE CLAIRE WRIGHT IS RE-ELECTED AS DCC COUNCILLOR IN MAY, ALONG WITH ANY OTHER TRULY INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES – AND FEEL VERY GRATEFUL THAT DIVIANI IS NOT STANDING FOR DCC AGAIN!
A decision to halve the remaining hospital beds in Eastern Devon will be referred to the Secretary of State for Health, unless a raft of assurances are provided.
A review of all community hospital bed closures across Devon since 2014, will also take place, including examining the role of social care.
I made the proposal at Devon County Council’s health and wellbeing scrutiny committee this afternoon and it was voted through by seven votes to five.
Last week, Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (NEW Devon CCG) made a decision to close 71 beds at Whipton, Okehampton, Honiton and Seaton Hospitals, retaining beds at Exmouth, Tiverton and Sidmouth.
Their proposal had previously been to retain beds at Seaton and close beds at Sidmouth, but the CCG’s governing body decided to shut beds at Seaton instead of Sidmouth for demographic reasons.
Following today’s health and wellbeing scrutiny committee meeting 14 assurances will now need to be provided by the CCG on its decision within 28 days, which the committee will examine in its new form after the elections on 4 May.
If the assurances are insufficient or inadequate, the decision to close 72 beds will be referred to the Secretary of State for Health.
From my own personal perspective it seemed to me that the four members of the CCG – Laura Nicholas – Director of Strategy, Rob Sainsbury – chief operating officer, Janet Fitzgerald – chief officer, and Dr Simon Kerr – GP from Ottery St Mary, who attended today were trying to convince the committee that the care at home system was going to work, but it was clear that they themselves had doubts.
At one point Laura Nicholas said: “We are very cautiously optimistic that the new model of care can be implemented.”
I asked the following questions:
– How much money will be saved? Answer: Between £2 and £5m
– How many more staff will you need? Answer: This will be variable and it depends. We are working these issues through (I had previously been told by the CCG chair, Tim Burke, that there may be around double the number of staff required for the new care at home scheme)
– How many objections were there out of the more than 2000 consultation responses received?
Answer: Cannot say. I then asked about an approximate percentage, but this couldn’t be given either.
– When are you going to implement the bed cuts? Answer: We don’t know yet. When we are confident that the new model of care is ready
– Sir Simon Stevens announcement last week about NHS England ensuring that health trusts must demonstrate that sufficient alternative provision is there before any future bed cuts are made. Are you confident that if this guidance was in place now you would be able to meet it? Answer: We will ensure the new model of care is ready before any bed cuts are made.
But… the decision to close the beds has already been made!
Chairman, Richard Westlake asked about the future of hospitals that would have their beds removed. But was told there was no hospital buildings identified for closure. It was that the beds were being removed.
Yet in the CCG papers I read last autumn it made it very clear that some hospital buildings would be deemed surplus to requirements and be sold.
Of course NHS Property Services now owns all community hospital buildings in the Eastern Devon area and is already charging its hefty commercial rents ……
We heard from three members of the public including Paul Hayward, Mayor of Axminster, who is concerned about the decision to close beds at Seaton, which will affect Axminster residents, who lost their beds at the same time as Ottery’s in 2015.
We also heard from Cllr Jack Rowland from Seaton Town Council who argued similar points to Paul Hayward and Philip Wearne, a north Devon hospital services campaigner.
Cllr Hayward had carried out some research and found that Devon County Council’s own statistics on demographics were at odds with those published by NEW Devon CCG last week to justify keeping Sidmouth’s beds open instead of Seaton’s.
He and Cllr Rowland also expressed concerns about travel distances to the nearest community hospital.
And to complicate matters, Northern Devon Healthcare Trust has just announced temporary closure of all Holsworthy Hospital’s beds due to staffing shortages and apparent low bed occupancy levels.
The difficulty is that during the consultation the CCG had advised that people from the Okehampton area would be referred to Holsworthy Hospital for inpatient care. Something that they cannot now deliver on.
Cllr Barry Parsons made a compelling case for why this decision was quite wrong and how upset the people of Holsworthy are.
Cllr Kevin Ball from Okehampton expressed his dissatisfaction with the consultation process which he viewed as unfair and how the loss of Holsworthy Hospital’s beds will negatively affect any alternative provision in Okehampton.
The CCG said they would do further work in Okehampton on this.
Caroline Chugg proposed that the committee should recommend no bed closures should take place until there was sufficient alternative provision in place.
Finally, the CCG’s own health scrutiny paperwork admitted that this following damning staff response was a theme (p71): – http://democracy.devon.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=1981&Ver=4
“The potential financial savings of the proposed changes have not been clearly established and the actual costs of replacing hospital based care with community based care are not even estimated. The existing hospital nursing staff have not been consulted on their willingness to transfer to a very different pattern of working. Many of them are very concerned about the professional vulnerability that this presents and, at a time when there are many vacancies both in the NHS and through agencies, they are not likely to simply accept a situation that they do not see as professionally or personally secure.
“ Assurance was given that no hospital beds will be closed before the staff are in place for Care at Home. But assurance also needs to be given to local hospitals now, potentially blighted, to stay open, or staff will walk.”
Managers say that bed closures will affect only 20 patients a week, but this is over 1000 patients a year plus their visitors who may need to travel further to visit.
I have to say that I cannot fully blame NEW Devon CCG for this hopelessly rushed and poorly thought out decision. They are under the cosh of the government’s Success Regime as one of three most financially challenged health areas in the country.
The Success Regime exists as a hatchet programme of cuts because of the projected deficit of £384m by 2020/21.
My understanding is that this deficit is largely caused by a growing elderly population in Devon with complex health needs, combined with a reduction in the annual growth funding from government, which has dropped from around six per cent to around 1 per cent in the past seven years.
My proposal was put to the vote and was immediately objected to by Cllr Jerry Brook, who claimed it was ‘pre-determined’ because I had typed it out and given it to officers beforehand.
He was reminded by the chairman that this was common practice.
The votes were seven votes to five in favour. Voting in favour (I believe) were: Me, Caroline Chugg, Andy Boyd, Emma Morse, Brian Greenslade, Robin Julian and George Gribble.
Voting against (I believe) were: Jerry Brook, Paul Diviani, Chris Clarence, Debo Sellis and Rufus Gilbert.
The issue will be pursued again after the elections on 4 May.
Here is the motion (it was altered in committee so may appear slightly differently in the minutes but this is the essence):
This committee:
1) Objects to the decision by NEW Devon CCG to reduce the number of community hospital beds in Eastern Devon from 143 to 72
2) Resolves to refer the decision to the Secretary of State for Health on the following grounds if adequate assurances are not given on the points below:
a) It is not in the in the interests of the health service in the area
b) The consultation is flawed
3) Agrees to conduct a review of community hospital bed closures made across Devon since 2014 to establish the effectiveness of the replacement home care, including examining the role of social care
Notes relating to 2 above:
– That no beds are closed before there is sufficient alternative provision
– There is no clear explanation of what care at home will look like or work and this model has frequently been mixed up with Hospital at Home which is entirely different
– There may not be adequate care available in people’s homes, given the staffing shortages in the NHS, and the significant difficulties in adult social care
– That Hospiscare reported in its consultation response to the bed closure proposals that during 2015 managers reported 58 incidents to the CCG where the breakdown of social care packages for people at end of life had caused distress. All of these people had wanted to be cared for at home
– There are no clear answers on how many more staff are required to make the new model of care work. And that there are shortages in many health professional disciplines
– Despite a significant budget deficit, there is no clear financial saving to be made. In fact once the new model of care is in place the savings may be extremely small
– That there is no clear plan on the future of hospital buildings that have lost their beds and are now in the ownership of NHS Property Services
– The new government direction that will come into effect next month which mean health trusts will need to prove that there is sufficient alternative provision before any beds close
– Okehampton and Honiton Hospitals were excluded from the consultation process
– The temporary closure of Holsworthy Hospital beds which is where Okehampton patients were to be referred
– The ongoing and significant pressure on the RD&E hospital beds and difficulty with discharge
– Doubt over the soundness of the data relating to the decision retain Sidmouth Hospital’s beds over Seaton’s
– Staff appear to be opposed to the plans
– Closure of many care homes
The link to the webcast is here – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/268434
“The legal logic behind the UK’s planned exit from a key European nuclear group has been called into question by experts who have branded the risky move an unnecessary step in the Brexit process.
The Government said it will leave Euratom as a result of the decision to exit the EU because “they are uniquely legally joined” but the justification has been rubbished by experts who say there is no legal reason the UK cannot remain within Euratom while leaving the bloc.
Herbert Smith Freehills, the law firm advising EDF on the Hinkley Point C new nuclear project, said the Government’s legal interpretation has created unnecessary risks.
Leaving Euratom’s regulatory framework could delay the planned Hinkley Point and Horizon nuclear plants while complicated new bilateral agreements are formed. It could also bring imports of nuclear fuel to an immediate halt, which lead to a shutdown of existing nuclear power reactors which make up a fifth of the UK’s electricity supply.
Julia Pyke, a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills and the firm’s lead adviser to EDF, told the Daily Telegraph the risk is “an own goal”.
“The balance of legal opinion is that it’s not legally necessary to exit Euratom in order to leave the EU,” she said. …
… Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association and a former shadow energy minister, said the sector has made it crystal clear that it would prefer to maintain membership of Euratom.
“However, if the UK ceases to be part of Euratom, then it is vital that the Government agree transitional arrangements, to give the UK time to negotiate and complete new agreements. The UK should remain a member of Euratom until these arrangements are put in place,” he urged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/07/hinkley-advisers-slam-euratom-exit-legal-goal/
David Hodge, the leader of Surrey council, told Conservative colleagues that he had secured a “gentleman’s agreement” with senior cabinet ministers that persuaded him to cancel a threat to raise council tax by 15%.
In a secret recording of a Conservative group meeting on 7 February, the politician revealed there had been a “series of conversations” with the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, in a car outside Downing street, followed by a second meeting with the chancellor, Philip Hammond.
Hodge told those in the room not to email or tweet any details as he shared details of meetings that appeared to take place between an MP acting as an intermediary and the cabinet members.
He said the MP was “looking for assurances, looking for clarification, looking for help basically on how we could stop the referendum” from Javid in the car.
“He [the MP] then went inside and spoke to the chancellor – I think I can say that. He went inside and spoke to the chancellor, his spad was waiting – spad being his political whatever they call it [special adviser] – he was with him and then the spad rang me with what we can and cannot say,” Hodge added, according to a transcript of the meeting passed to the Guardian.
Hodge implied that the outcome of the meeting was for him to withdraw the decision to push for a referendum that day, which would allow the council to raise the tax to 15%, and instead stick with the 4.99% allowed without asking voters for permission.
The question over whether Surrey was subject to a sweetheart deal was raised in the House of Commons by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a day later, on 8 February after he received leaked texts from Hodge that suggested an agreement had been reached.
But this recording goes much further – with Hodge talking about his major worries about finances, particularly disability funding. He talked about the government pushing forward with some form of funding review.
“We’ve agreed this morning that, subject to them agreeing, that if it’s possible, we will become part of that process going forward,” he said, before adding that he was not giving up the fight over disability funding or the Better Care Fund for social care.
“We listened carefully to the information that was being relayed back to us from government. Yes, on one hand Tony is absolutely right, we should get something in writing. But on the other hand I do actually have something in writing, that Helen knows I have in writing, Sir Paul Beresford knows I have in writing, which gives me a certain amount of comfort but I’m not going to release that information for obvious reasons,” he added.
“There may come a time that if what I call gentleman’s agreements, that the Conservative party often does, are not honoured, we will have to revisit this in nine months or a year’s time. If we do, let me assure you, you’ll have to drag me kicking and screaming not to go for a referendum next year.”
The shadow communities minister, Gareth Thomas, said: “Sajid Javid and Philip Hammond should come to the House of Commons and explain what the gentleman’s agreement that they’ve done – explain why they are offering it to Surrey council and not the rest of English councils trying to manage budgets that are at tipping point.”
The meeting of the council’s Conservative group took place on a Tuesday, the same day that the council announced plans to cancel the referendum. The issue was then raised by Corbyn at prime minister’s questions in the House of Commons the next day following texts referring to a “memorandum of understanding” between the government and council.
A day later, on Thursday 9 February, it emerged that Surrey county council had been chosen to take part in a new government pilot scheme under which the local authority would retain 100% of business rates raised in the county.
But both Javid and the council strongly denied there was any sweetheart deal. A spokesman for Surrey county council said they could not comment on a meeting of the Conservative group, but said there had been no shift from a statement issued when the controversy first emerged.
Hodge said at the time: “Surrey’s decision not to proceed with a 15% council tax increase was ours alone and there has been no deal between Surrey county council and the government.
“However, I am confident that the government now understands the real pressures in adult social care and the need for a lasting solution.”
Businessman calls for budget to boost businesses that just happen to be those of his fellow LEP board members.
Not the NHS, not social care, not tourism, not agriculture – businesses such as his own (housing developer – CEO of Midas Group).
Move on, move on, nothing to see here!
“<em>A budget to boost business is at the top of the wish list for the South West. Economic leaders are calling for policies that support innovation and investment – and that means business rate reform and investment in the region’s infrastructure.
Steve Hindley, CBE DL Chairman of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, said: “The South West peninsula crucially needs step change in its connectivity to unlock its potential for economic prosperity.
“We already have clusters of thriving businesses, top class universities, colleges, schools and a Science Park that compete in a global arena; and with improved access to markets, many other businesses can achieve sustainable growth and create new employment opportunities to bring our GVA up to the national average and beyond. … “
NHS crisis? What crisis? We must worry about how soft drinks manufacturers will suffer with a sugar tax.
Why are people voting for this man?
Written Answers – HM Treasury: Sugar: Taxation (6 Mar 2017)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-02-28.65915.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g65915.q0
Hugo Swire: To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will consider mitigating the effects of the soft drinks industry levy on those manufacturers currently paying additional tax to use organic rather than conventional sugar.
Written Answers – Department of Health: Sugar: Obesity (6 Mar 2017)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-02-28.65916.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g65916.q0
Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effects of high-cost and low-volume sugary drinks on levels of obesity.
“The Bank of England’s new deputy governor has admitted breaching the Bank’s guidelines after she failed to declare that her brother worked for Barclays.
In a letter to the Treasury select committee, Charlotte Hogg apologised for not formally disclosing that her brother was the bank’s director of group strategy, which could conflict with her work on the Prudential Regulation Committee (PRC).
The apology comes after Hogg, who has been touted as a possible successor to Mark Carney, the Bank’s governor, told the committee at a hearing last week that she always declared areas of conflicts of interests and was compliant with all of the Bank’s codes of conduct because she helped write them.
The PRC has direct responsibility for regulating banks, including Barclays.
In the letter, Hogg wrote: “As Barclays Bank plc is regulated by the PRA, under the Bank’s internal code of conduct and personal relationships policy, I should have formally declared my brother’s role when I first joined the Bank.
“I did not do so and I take full responsibility for this oversight. I have now added a full record of my brother’s role in the Bank’s HR systems.
“Regrettably, my oversight means that my oral evidence to the committee in this respect was not accurate. I write now to correct that evidence at the earliest opportunity and to place on record my sincere apologies to the committee.”
“Cllr Val Ranger (Newton Poppleford & Harpford); Mayor of Axminster, Paul Hayward; Cllr Cathy Gardner (Sidmouth Town)
leading the support from East Devon at what the national papers describe as “one of the biggest NHS Rallies in history”.
They joined an estimated 250,000 healthcare workers, and their supporters, including coachloads from Devon, in a march from Tavistock Square to Parliament Square last weekend (Sat 4th March). The aim is to stop the current dismantling of the NHS, which it’s claimed is putting patient care , and lives, at risk; and to rethink policies where huge amounts of government money are going to PFI (Private Finance Initiative) hospital loan repayments, and to tiers of administration such as the much criticised Clinical Commissioning Groups. (CCGs).
Watch for reports in the local press this week.”
Question: why is there no retirement housing in Cranbrook?
“Retirement housebuilder McCarthy & Stone PLC (LON:MCS) expects first half revenue to fall, reflecting a decline in sales releases and a reduction in the forward order book.
The company expects revenue in the six months to 28 February 2017 to dip to £238mln from £250mln in the year-ago period.
McCarthy & Stone said trading in the first half was constrained by a lower forward order book brought into the year, the weighting of completions from higher margin sites into the second half and a drop in sales releases.
Total legal completions during the period edged down to 866 units from 923 units.
The total forward order book, including legal completions, dropped to £418mln from £440mln, while net reservations fell to 1,084 from 1,132.
The average selling price climbed 1% to £260,000 from £257,000 and the company expects further growth as it improves the location and quality of its developments.
However, margins in the first half are expected to be lower than the previous year.
Net debt is expected to be £30mln, up from £24mln.
“We have delivered a solid performance during this half year despite the headwinds created by the lower forward order book brought into the year and the weighting of expected completions from higher margin new sites into the second half of the year,” said chief executive Clive Fenton.
“Our forward order book remains healthy and leaves us well-placed to deliver results in line with market expectations for the full year.”
Fenton said the market for retirement housing continues to be attractive due to an ageing population. He also noted the UK government’s pledge to address housing needs for older people in February’s Housing White Paper.”
And still they close our beds! Madness”
“Hospitals had to provide 4,500 extra beds a day at the height of the pressures this winter to avoid “a full-blown crisis”, NHS bosses have revealed.
That is the equivalent of creating more than eight extra hospitals to cope with unprecedented demand in recent months when large numbers of patients were stuck on trolleys and in the back of ambulances outside A&E units.
The NHS in England came under such intense pressure that patients found hospitals “distressing and potentially dangerous”, according to a report from NHS Providers.
The organisation, which represents the majority of NHS trusts in England, claims hospitals are close to “breaking point” as they become overcrowded all year round.
Its analysis of NHS England data on how hospitals performed during December, January and February shows they had to add sometimes dozens of “escalation” beds at short notice so they could admit every patient who needed to stay in. Some used rehabilitation gyms and other areas not usually used for patients.
Chris Hopson, the chief executive of NHS Providers, said: “This has been the busiest winter ever for the NHS. Be in no doubt, these figures show a system running hot and – in particular times and places – overwhelmed by the demands placed on it, risking patient safety.”
In the NHS’s busiest week this winter, between 30 January and 5 February, hospitals opened up a total of 32,558 additional beds. They created almost as many overflow beds in the first half of February, when cold weather added to existing pressures.
Patients had to be diverted from one hospital A&E unit to another 476 times over the winter – almost double the 266 of last winter, NHS Providers says.
“As pressure continues to grow, the likelihood of more trusts reaching and moving beyond breaking point increases,” said Deborah Gulliver, a senior research analyst with NHS Providers. “For patients these difficulties are distressing and potentially dangerous. They are also demotivating and demoralising for the clinical workforce. It is thanks to the extraordinary efforts of frontline staff that we have made it through this winter period without a full-blown crisis. However, trusts are telling us that it was a close-run thing.”
The heavy demand on the NHS all year round was leading to worryingly high levels of bed occupancy, she added. Bed occupancy reached 96% this winter, above the 85% considered safe.
“So the resilience of trusts to deal with unexpected spikes in pressure, such as flu outbreaks and norovirus, is compromised. We cannot afford to ride our luck indefinitely,” Gulliver said.
Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, said: “This stark warning from NHS Providers makes clear this has been an NHS winter like never before.
“Theresa May’s refusal to take seriously the twin threat of NHS underfunding and rising demand has pushed services to the brink. The direct result of the prime minister’s stubbornness has been a collapse in standards of patient care, with the worst performance on record for A&E and most hospitals dangerously overcrowded.”
NHS Providers is urging Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, to order a review of how the NHS coped this winter in order to learn lessons and prevent hospitals from coming so close to not coping in future. The current situation is “not sustainable” for the NHS or patients, it argues.
Meanwhile, a poll of 96 MPs of all parties by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, which represents A&E doctors, has found that only 33% of them believe A&E departments have enough money and staff to provide safe care. More than six in 10 MPs believe A&E departments need more money, said the college.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/07/nhs-forced-to-provide-4500-extra-beds-a-day
Capital Risk Assessment
page 36:
“The Capital Programme does not accurately estimate the cost or timescales necessary to implement the capital projects required by the Council to deliver its corporate objectives, leading to unanticipated additional spend or delayed completion of the capital programme.”
Page 37:
“As part of our sample testing, we found that three of the four projects tested did not have a risk register to manage their associated risks. Relevant risks included uncertainties in securing external funding (Seaton Workshop), delays in completion of the project (Seaton Workshop, New Feniton Flood Alleviation Scheme and Mamhead Slipway) and significant overspends (New Feniton Flood Alleviation Scheme and Mamhead Slipway.)
Without formal risk management processes in place, there is a likelihood that individual projects are not identifying risks at an early stage leading to an increased risk of projects not being completed on time or within the agreed budget.”
Page 39:
“In our sample of capital projects, it was evident in speaking to staff that the Council had not anticipated the level of funding required for the Seaton Workshop project at an early stage, which may suggest that insufficient research was done to review the viability of the project prior to approval of the project/budget.
The Finance Team should consider whether evidence to support capital appraisals should be clearly documented. They should also consider implementing clear guidance on the level of initial assessment which should be required to be undertaken for capital projects if this is not clearly stated on any current policy/guidance. Any approach should be based on the level of risk and funding of the project as it was evident that some capital projects are lower in risk and value than others.
There is a risk that proposed projects are not being subject to the right level of assessment which could increase the likelihood of funding the wrong projects, and could also lead to delays and overspend to individual projects.”
Click to access 020317combinedagagenda.pdf
Oh dear.
“Barratt has sold 172 luxury London new-build flats as rental homes, including an entire block at Nine Elms.
Here’s an unusual move by a housebuilder: Barratt Homes has bundled together 172 flats at various developments across London and sold them off as rental homes.
The housebuilder said it had sold the units to Henderson Park for £140.5m. The portfolio includes 29 units at Aldgate Place, a joint venture with British Land, 25 in Fulham Riverside and all 118 at its Nine Elms Point tower in Vauxhall, a joint venture with L&Q.
The deal is Henderson Park’s first foray into the private rented sector: Greystar will manage the homes.
David Thomas, Barratt’s chief executive, called the move an “excellent opportunity”.
“In particular the build and sale contract for an entire tower at our Nine Elms Point development enables us to deliver homes more quickly than we would otherwise.”
Back in January Barratt reported the number of sales it completed in London had fallen more than 56 per cent in the six months to the end of December, to 367 from 842 the year before.
The company said it had lowered prices and was offering bulk deals, like today’s, to shift homes in the capital.
However, last month the housebuilder reported an 8.8 per cent rise in pre-tax profits during the period, partly thanks to the fact completions outside the capital were at their highest level in nine years.
Meanwhile, figures published by Hometrack suggested house prices in the capital grew just 6.4 per cent in January, the lowest growth in four years.
At the time Richard Donnell, insight director at Hometrack, said: “When you consider that house prices in London are 85 per cent higher than they were in 2009, it is not surprising that the pace of increases is slowing toward a standstill as very high house price increases mean affordability is stretched.”
http://www.cityam.com/260324/barratt-sold-172-luxury-london-new-build-flats-rental-homes
” … If you didn’t know your local council had become a trader in gardening services, you may be even more surprised to learn it has turned into a property trader, buying up shopping centres, business parks, office blocks, hotels and garages. In 2016, local authorities spent over £1bn on real estate. [EDDC will be doing this when it funds its new Honiton HQ].
You may think this is a peculiar state of affairs when councils are simultaneously selling assets to mitigate budget shortfalls. But the arithmetic is simple. The Public Works Loan Board, a statutory body established in 1793, will lend at 2.5% interest. Property assets will yield at least 4.5% and often far more. The result is that local councils are becoming significant players in the UK property market, causing the Financial Times columnist John Plender to warn of its “creeping nationalisation”. Canterbury’s Whitefriars shopping centre (Kent), Sutton Coldfield’s Red Rose shopping centre (Birmingham) and Sunbury’s BP Business Park (Surrey) are all owned or partly owned by a local council.
Municipal enterprise is nothing new – councils sold local gas supplies in the Victorian era, and Joseph Chamberlain, Harold Macmillan and Anthony Crosland all proposed an expansion of municipal trading. But until recently, such opportunities were strictly limited by legislation that, for example, restricted them to trading only with each other. New Labour gave them explicit permission in 2003 to trade “ordinary functions” for a “commercial purpose”. In 2011, the coalition government’s Localism Act allowed them to do whatever they liked unless specifically prohibited by law. Now councils, having been forced to relinquish their roles as landlords of inexpensive housing for local people, re-emerge as landlords of multinational stores.
The dangers are obvious. If the property market were to crash, councils would be saddled with assets of dubious value. Moreover, it seems strange that, after deeming them incapable of running schools, Tory ministers are now happy for councils to manage investment portfolios covering areas of which they have little experience. But it is all part of the neoliberal vision for the world.
Boundaries between public and private sectors are being blurred. Since 1990 companies have been allowed, in effect, to bribe councils with payments for improved roads, new schools, high-street facelifts and affordable homes in return for planning permission. It is another step along the same road for the council itself to become a company and/or a property developer. Just as the state was omnipresent in the Soviet Union, stamping out entrepreneurial instincts, so the market becomes omnipresent in our society, sweeping away the ethos of public service. …”
“What will happen to acute services at North Devon District Hospital? “I don’t know,” says Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust’s chief executive.
Alison Diamond gave a presentation at North Devon Council’s executive meeting on Monday, March 6, under special request from the committee.
The meeting took place at Cedars Inn to allow member of the public to attend and more than 100 people turned up to hear the update and ask their questions.
When asked what was going to happen to the Barnstaple hospital and the proposed cuts to its acute services, which includes stroke, A&E, maternity, paediatric and neonatal support, Dr Diamond did not know the answer.
She said: “I am here on behalf of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP), which aims to provide a Five Year Forward View, to give an update. I do not have any answers today and I do not know what the model of care will look like because no decisions have been made yet.
“Our vision is to have people managing their own care and for that we need responsive care services and fair access to services. Our services are under review because the demand is going up, they were designed for the needs of people from a long time ago, we do not have enough staff, and the standards we have to comply with are always changing.
“Urgent and emergency care, stroke, maternity, paediatric, and neonatal are currently under review but others will follow.”
The emergency services review, led by Adrian Harris, medical director at the Royal Devon and Exeter, states there is a national requirement to meet seven day services, particularly with critical need patients.
It states staffing shortages, especially consultants and nurses, are becoming critical in some of our hospitals and people need to be seen in a timely way but we don’t meet the four hour target in some places in Devon.
The maternity service review, led by Rob Dyer, medical director at Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, has found staff shortages in all three services, resulting in a high use of agency staff.
It has said it is more difficult to provide a service 24/7 and there are not enough choice for births, for example, if someone would like to give birth at home. It was noted to have a home birth the mother must live a maximum of 20 minutes from a hospital.
Dozens of members of the public, who were not required to give their names, stood up to put their questions to Dr Diamond and voiced many concerns about the proposed cuts.
The main points were:
Travelling times from the rural North Devon areas to hospitals in Exeter and Plymouth
Social care and appointments needed looking at to improve care
New housing developments would lead to an increase in the population needing care
Staff would not want to come to work at a hospital about to be downgraded
Rob Sainsbury, the trust’s director of operations, said Okehampton patients would be accommodated at Holsworthy hospital, just a day before their cuts were announced
What would the impact be on the hospitals in Exeter and Plymouth and the ambulance service?
Why can planned operations not be moved to more distant hospitals, rather than emergency care?
Is this a move towards privatisation?
One man stated: “The STP is butchering the NHS. Stop these cuts and give the taxpayers back their service.”
A woman added: “Everyone here has reason to be grateful to NDDH, we want it to stay and be improved if anything. We are asking you to help us. We want a hospital that is fit for purpose.”
said
And finally, a man said: “If someone dies on the road to the hospital, that will be on your conscience.”
Councillor Des Brailey, leader of the council, proposed the following statement of principles: “The council will not support any proposals to change preventative services, clinical care or social care, which it considers would disadvantaged the wellbeing of individuals or communities in North Devon.
“People should have ease and timely access to health services to achieve the best outcomes. The structural and service characteristics of any newly commissioned service must have regard to the population characteristics and the local geography of North Devon.”
The proposal was passed by the committee unanimously after it was amended to include equity, aspirational and affordability, as Councillor Frank Biederman stated: “I don’t want to see people having to choose between feeding their children and taking them to hospital.”
The next step is for the STP team to get feedback and create a model of care. Throughout March, clinical workshops and public engagement will continue. In spring, this feedback will be incorporated and in the summer, the options for change will be published, followed by public consultation on these options, led by the Northern Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group.
Challenges were raised in the Case for Change document created by the Success Regime:
One in three people live with one or more long term conditions
Two in three people would prefer to die at home and only one in four are able to
15 years life expectancy difference in some areas
Deficit of more than £550 million by 2020/21 if nothing changes
600 people in hospital do not need to be there
Care home sector is struggling
Stroke, maternity, A&E and children’s services are unsustainable in patches across Devon.
Less money is spent on health and social care in most deprived areas
95,000 people with a long term condition have a mental illness
One in 4 GPs to leave NHS in next few years.”
Would never happen here … though Owl does recall something not dissimilar … a while back.
“A local authority has applied for a judicial review of one of its planning decisions, after a councillor voted in favour of an application brought by her brother-in-law.
Applicant Nick Barrett, owner of a restaurant in Long Melford, had applied to Babergh District Council for permission to build an annexe.
His application was approved at a meeting in November 2016. The minutes of the meeting note that Melanie Barrett, Mr Barrett’s sister-in-law, had stated that she had a family association with the applicant.
The minutes of the meeting also said that another councillor had stated that he was employed by a family member of the applicant.
The minutes continued: “Following clarification from Phil Devonald, Interim Deputy Monitoring Officer -Programme Delivery, the legal advisor to the Committee, the Councillors asserted that the statements by Councillors Barrett and Holt did not constitute a disclosable interest by reason of close family relationship or employment as provided for under the Suffolk Local Code of Conduct adopted by the Council.
“He advised however that this was a matter of public perception and confidence in the transparency and fairness of the system and that Members should consider whether they should take part in the proceedings given the nature of their relationship to the Applicant. This advice was not accepted by the Councillors concerned.”
A spokesman for Babergh told Local Government Lawyer that the council had not received any complaints but the authority considered it necessary to take the issue to judicial review.
“On the one hand it is not a good thing that we are having to do this,” he added. “However, it shows that the mechanisms are there to review our actions.”
Mr Barrett told the Suffolk Free Press that the annexe was being built for his 87-year-old father.
Owl says: CDE not getting their own way with highly ontroversial AONB development blames officers and councillors at EDDC – CDE not happy bunnies!
[To] Housing Delivery Task and Finish Forum – Observations on Issues affecting Housing Delivery
“[From]Leigh Rix, Head of Property for Clinton Devon Estates Iestyn John, Partner at Bell Cornwell LLP
Background
Clinton Devon Estates are rural landowners with substantial land and property interests in East Devon, notably in the southern part of the district between Exmouth and Beer. The Estate therefore operates within a large number of rural communities and in an area which is subject to a range of landscape and other sensitivities, all of which have with the potential to affect housing delivery. The Estate seeks to act as a responsible landowner with the principles of sustainability at the heart of all its activities. The Estate takes a long term intergenerational view which takes precedence over short term political and economic interests. It is within this context that its observations on the issues affecting housing delivery are provided.
In the Estate’s experience, there are two types of issues which are frustrating housing delivery:
cultural factors and technical factors
Cultural Issues
The absence within the Council of a positive, solution focused mindset necessary to properly resolve the undoubted tensions which exist between business, community and local politics, reflecting an agreed vision of how housing delivery will support wider longer term ambitions for the district in the context of an economically, socially and environmentally vibrant community. This absence appears to ‘set the tone’ for the setting of land use policy and decision making and may act as a barrier to investment in the area;
Greater pragmatism is needed, especially with regard to pursuing opportunities for properly considered housing proposals in rural areas. Such opportunities have the potential to act as a source of considerable amounts of additional housing without harming rural character. It is notable that earlier drafts of the Local Plan proposed to allocate 5% extra housing to each village. In individual villages, this would represent very small scale growth but is an approach, which collectively, would have contributed at least 500 more houses to the District’s identified supply than the approved Local Plan. The current approach of relying on neighbourhood plans to deliver local growth, whilst politically expedient, is inherently problematic especially in those areas in which the Estate operates, given the predominance of NIMBY interests which do not typically act in support of traditional local communities or longer term, future generational thinking;
Stronger, more decisive leadership is needed and at all levels. Amongst other things, this will generate certainty for the development industry and confidence that planning applications once supported, will be approved.
There are clear political tensions within the Council which create considerable uncertainties, delays and costs to bringing forward housing supply. The Estates’ experience with their development at King Alfred Way in Newton Poppleford is a clear example. Despite receiving officer support throughout the process, it took five years, four applications and five planning committees to secure a development which is modest in size, provides a high level of affordable housing and a clearly identified community facility in the form of a new doctor’s surgery. It will be understood that such problems do not act as positive signal to those seeking to invest in housing schemes – of any form – in East Devon.
Technical Issues
Some officers within the planning teams seek to apply seemingly needless bureaucracy; for example in the scope of the information they ask for to validate or process applications. It is obviously important that properly relevant information be provided, however unnecessary requests generate delay and cost and add little to consideration of the issue. We note the recent application validation list actually seems to make this issue worse. A more pragmatic and proportionate position is needed.
Feedback from statutory consultees is extremely slow. This is partly an issue of under-resourcing of these agencies which is out of the control of the Council. However, such poor responses have the potential to significantly delay decisions on applications. We would suggest that officers need to feel able to come to their own view on issues where specific advice is not forthcoming in a timely manner unless there are fundamental issues such as highways safety under consideration.
Officers need to support schemes which are common sense and where there is unlikely to be any harm to wider objectives. It is notable that there are various schemes in the Cranbrook area – a central part of the Council’s housing delivery strategy – which are not being determined until the Council’s much delayed SPD for the area is approved. In this core location, the Council appear to be getting locked into a planning rather than delivery cycle which prevents certain sizeable schemes e.g. the non-consortium site at Farlands from coming forward with, in that case, an approval for 200 + dwellings.
From the experience of the Estate it would seem that some members of Development Management and other Committees require training in their responsibilities and the planning process as well as more general Committee Management skills. Poor quality, ill informed decisions made by members disregarding legal and planning advice causes increased skills costs for housing projects and local taxpayers as well as a lack of delivery of schemes which meet agreed local plan criteria.”
“John Andrewes admitted fraud and gaining financial advantage when he appeared at Exeter Crown Court on Monday. He lied on his CV, claiming he had a PhD to become a chief of two NHS trusts.
Jon Andrewes, 63, admitted fraud and gaining a financial advantage when he appeared at Exeter Crown Court, where he is being sentenced today.
The Walter Mitty style health chief said he had a PhD which meant he could call himself a doctor.
He chaired the Torbay NHS Care Trust for nearly ten years, and was a former chairman of the Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust.
He also earned nearly £100,000 a year as chief executive of a Taunton hospice in Somerset.
On CVs Andrewes claimed to have a management PhD from Heriot-Watt University in Scotland, as well as a ‘first degree in PPE’ and an MBA ‘with a financial specialism’ from Bristol University. All these claims are untrue. He also claimed to have been a partner in a technology firm before retiring early.
Andrewes, from Totnes, Devon, had worked as a social worker, probation officer and builder before using his fake CV to start his healthcare career in 2004.
In January, a senior NHS source said: ‘It took investigators a couple of days to discover the truth about Andrewes. Once they started looking at his claims closely everything started to unravel.
During one court appearance, the prosecutor called him a Walter Mitty. That is exactly what he was. It is amazing he managed to reach such top jobs built on a CV made up of lies.
‘It beggars belief that no due diligence was carried out when he was appointed to these NHS trust roles.’
Andrewes pleaded guilty to dishonestly making a false representation over his qualifications to make a gain as chairman of Torbay NHS Care Trust in July 2007.
He admitted a second charge of false representation over his qualifications to make a gain as chairman of the Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust in Truro, Cornwall, in April 2015.
He also admitted making a financial gain for his role as chief executive of St Margaret’s Hospice in Taunton, Somerset, by deception in 2004.
He pleaded not guilty to a fourth charge of having a false degree certificate from the University of London which he is accused of using in connection with a fraud.
He will be sentenced today.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4286080/Walter-Mitty-NHS-chief-63-lied-having-PhD.htm
Tories call for transparency from Labour over bus station vanity project gone wrong in Exeter whilst in Tories try to block transparency on Knowle relocation gone wrong in East Devon. Tories demand answers in Exeter, Tories refuse to give answers in East Devon!
“Exeter Tory leader Cllr Andrew Leadbetter has blasted the city council for “biting off more than it can chew” with their unrealistic “passion project.
In his 20 years on the council he claims he has never seen “such disarray” on a development.
He said: “The whole thing so far has been shrouded in secrecy. And we want a proper explanation about what is happening.
“For instance, is it a long-term delay? Is it a cancellation? How much has been spent so far? What is the secrecy and why can’t all members be told?
“If the Labour council is getting this so wrong, what else can they get wrong?
“We want to talk to the people about what cheaper option they would want there. We are certainly not adverse to the idea of a theatre or a hotel and conference centre.”
He added: “I also have strong concerns about the Crown Estate’s Princesshay Leisure part of the scheme. They do not need much to walk away from this, and we’ll be left with a bomb site.”
You can see why (Tory) politics gets a bad name in Devon!
Remmber this when you vote in the May 2017 county elections and vote Independent!
“MORE than 600 NHS chiefs are now on six-figure salaries after a huge surge in the number of deep-pocketed fat cats.
Many of the high earners have made repeated demands on government to increase NHS funding as it looks to save £22billion.
… Among the highest paid is Dr Jonathan Fielden – the NHS deputy medical director who pockets £225,000 a year.
He is currently suspended from work and banned from contact with patients after being arrested on suspicion of voyeurism, according to the Telegraph.
Another fat cat, Simon Stevens, earns £195,000 as chief executive of NHS England.
He told an audience on Friday that the NHS needed more cash, pleading: “We do need capital, we’ve said that from the get go”.
His call came a day after the £240,000 Chief Inspector of Hospitals, Prof Sir Mike Richard, said the NHS was on a “burning platform”.”
