Is Devolution already with us? A briefing paper on the major changes to regional funding since 2010
A paper provided to East Devon Watch by D W Daniel – feel free to reproduce or retransmit unchanged and with attribution:
Executive summary
1. In 2010 the coalition government commenced a major shakeup of regional funding with the ultimate aim of providing a form of English devolution. This briefing paper attempts to summarise the sequence of changes from an East Devon perspective when it comes to detail. It has proved to be a difficult task. The author has failed to find a single source listing, for example, the sums paid to Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). Many sources aggregate data to produce numbers that cannot be cross compared. Even government sources are inconsistent. The LEPs themselves are also an unreliable source, publicising bids but not the outturn, especially if unfavourable. Bearing these caveats in mind the author believes the briefing presents an accurate and comprehensive picture of where we are at the beginning of 2017 in a process that continues to evolve.
2. Across England (it only affects England) LEPs now control an annual budget of £2 billion. They are self-selecting bodies, Chaired by businessmen with businessmen in the majority. Although there may be a few local councillors on the board, they have to be in a minority. As the National Audit Office points out LEPs have no track record for delivery. There appear to be no metrics by which the investment decision they make can be evaluated and no mechanism for scrutiny. Likewise there appears to be no mechanism for publicly accountable scrutiny of any conflict of interest that might arise in the way these funds are distributed. All this has happened below the radar of public perception, even amongst councillors.
Regional Growth Fund and Local Enterprise Partnerships
3. 2010 was the year Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, introduced a white paper “Local growth: realising every place’s potential. (CM 7961)”, part of the Localism ideal of “handing power to local people”, announcing a £1.4 billion Regional Growth Fund open to bidders who had ambition and a clear vision for growth. The white paper also announced the eventual abolition of Regional Development Agencies and the establishment of the first phase of 24 LEPs to take their place. “The Government wishes to see partnerships which understand their economy and are directly accountable to local people and local businesses.” The ultimate aim was to move towards regional devolution.
4. LEPs have to be chaired by a prominent business leader and at least half of the board members must come from the private sector. LEPs should be based on functional economic areas rather than regions. The initial intention was that LEPs should be self-funding from private enterprise. In the event this did not materialise. In August 2011 the government allocated funds to LEPs from a one-off start-up fund of £5 million and in the 2012 Autumn Statement each LEP was offered support for “capacity building” to enable them to “support the development and delivery of their strategic plan”. Each LEP was offered £125,000 in 2012/13 for “immediate support”. In a 2016 report the NAO says: “The Department provides LEPs with £500,000 in core funding for administrative purposes, subject to LEPs securing £250,000 in match funding from local partners. All LEPs received the same core funding, regardless of size or structure.” Subsequent growth deals include sums for administration.
5. The first phase of 24 LEPs from 62 bids was announced in the 2010 white paper. These included Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP and the West of England LEP (Bristol, Bath, North and North East Somerset, and South Gloucester). This decision meant that the South West could never subsequently be considered as an integrated economic region from the point of view of devolution. By end 2012 the government had approved a further 15 LEPs to fill in the gaps so that the whole of England was covered. LEPs vary in differing levels of size, urbanisation, population, and existing infrastructure and it is questionable as to how many could be suitable platforms for full devolution along the lines originally envisaged.
Heart of the South West
6. In July 2012 the Heart of the South West (HOTSW) LEP, held its first meeting though research shows it was actually appointed by the government in June 2011. The HOTSW covers 17 local authorities in Devon and Somerset and the two unitary authorities of Plymouth and Torbay. It became a Community Interest Company (CIC) incorporated at Companies House on 6 Feb 2014. Its bespoke articles of association added clauses, for example, allowing for the removal, in certain circumstances, of the lock on asset transfer, normally fundamental to (CIC). The current (2017) self-selecting board numbers 20. It is chaired by Steve Hindley (Chairman Midas Group, a construction and development company). Of these 20 board members: six are elected local councillors; four have backgrounds in construction, development or property; three are senior members of educational establishments; three are connected to defence and software industries; the remainder have backgrounds in utility, employment and skills consulting, outsourcing and grant distribution. Only four of the 20 are women. Not the sort of mix you would immediately think of as having an understanding, or being representative, of Devon’s rural and seasonal tourist economy and its mix of small businesses. The Devon County Councillor and leader of East Devon District Council (EDDC), Cllr Paul Diviani, joined the board on 13 November 2013. Despite this EDDC councillors, and Devon County Councillors, have been kept in the dark about the workings, expenditure and outcomes, if any, of our LEP.
7. Devon and Somerset are surrounded by two single county LEPs: Cornwall and Dorset; and the metropolitan West of England LEP centred on Bristol and Bath.
8. It was not until another three years had passed that, in September 2015, news of HOTSW began to filter out into general awareness and then only because they published their fully fledged statement of intent to launch (on our behalf) a bid for devolution. Not until then had any minutes been available in the public domain. As we shall see by this time HOTSW had already compiled a fully-fledged strategic plan and submitted it to government. There has been no public consultation at any time.
Single Local Growth Fund
9. In October 2012 Lord Heseltine published a government commissioned report “No Stone Unturned: In Pursuit of Growth”. His main recommendation was to combine all separate funding streams supporting growth into a single funding pot for local areas. This was accepted in the 2013 Spending Review with the creation of a Single Local Growth Fund (SLGF) of £2 billion from existing skills, housing and transport budgets from 2015/16, an additional £5 billion transport funding between 2016/17 and 2020/21 and a pledge to maintain SLGF at a total of at least £2 billion each year through the next Parliament.
10. This money was intended to be administered by LEPs who were then barred from bidding in any further Regional Growth Fund (RGF) deals and in the 2015 Spending Review the RGF was in effect closed leaving the LEPs responsible for the distribution of all growth funding i.e. de facto taking the place of the former Regional Development Agencies. Interesting to note that in April 2013 the then Business Secretary Vince Cable argued (interview with the Northern Echo) that big decisions on funding must be administered from Whitehall on the basis that some LEPs had very small numbers of business people on their boards and were not publicly accountable and unsuited to manage large amounts of public money. See later comments by National Audit Office (NAO) which also points out that LEPs lack any track record of delivery.
LEP Strategic Economic Plans and Growth Deals
11. In July 2013, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills gave LEPs guidance and set deadline of March 2014 to submit final versions of their Strategic Economic Plans, which would then be assessed by central government. In March 2014, all 39 LEPs submitted Strategic Economic Plans for approval. In July 2014, the government announced details of funding secured by each LEP over the period 2015 – 2021. In January 2015, the government expanded the deals, with LEPs securing a further £1 billion in total investment between 2016 and 2021. As of March 2016, £7.3 billion worth of Growth Deal funding had been allocated to LEPs. Funding is made as a single annual grant payment, made at the start of each financial year to a nominated local authority to act as accountable body. For HOTSW the accounting body is Somerset County Council. Nothing can be found on how scrutiny is to be conducted. LEPs are grouped into three categories of flexibility in how they can spend Growth Deal funding. This categorisation is based on the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)’s judgement of each LEP’s ability to deliver their Growth Deal programmes and the strength of their governance arrangements. LEPs can receive greater flexibility through improving their governance.
12. As a result of a 2014 freedom of information request, the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (since merged and renamed) published a table listing the amounts awarded to LEP led and delivered programmes and projects in Rounds two, three and four of the RGF (private sector firms could bid independently- see Augusta Westlands below). HOTSW appear to have been singularly unsuccessful in their bidding as they received nothing. (Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP received £13M in round two and West of England LEP £39.8M in round two and £25M in round three). Despite this failure HOTSW is now controlling well in excess of £150 million investment fund to 2021.
13. In Oct 2012 Augusta Westland secured a £46 million cash windfall from the RGF, as a private sector bid, to help the company create a new production line for helicopters targeted at the civil aviation market, with matched company funding. This is a good example of the way the RGF operated historically but highlights the potential for future conflicts of interests as the business controlled LEPs assess and distribute future grants. A Director of Augusta Westlands is a HOTSW board member.
14. In July 2014, the Heart of the South West LEP, following submission of its strategic plan, was awarded £103.2 million from the Local Growth Fund over the period 2015-2021; in January 2015 a further £65.2 million of funding was awarded between 2016 and 2021 (these figures exclude any European funding which LEPs also administer). The LEP estimates up to 22,000 jobs could be created, 11,000 homes built and up to £260 million of public and private investment generated as a result of this funding. The bid proposal included £13 million to provide Hinkley C infrastructure and £55 million of pump priming to provide Hinkley housing. A Nuclear Training College was also proposed. The deal agreed also includes £13.7 million loan funding to three developers to accelerate home building at: Frome, Brixham, Exeter and Highbridge.
15. It is difficult to find these projections in the actual growth plan (because it covers a longer period than the funding) – but they do appear in what are called “Factsheets”, supplementary papers associated with the government published growth deals. There are consistent, comparable, “claimed” growth figures for all 39 LEPs for the 2015-2021 period from which one finds:
(a) HOTSW is claiming to be able to generate the fourth highest number of jobs 22,000 (outbid only by Greater Birmingham and Solihull, Dorset and South East LEPs).
(b) HOTSW is also claiming to be able to deliver the fourth highest number of homes 11,000 (outbid only by Hertfordshire, Thames Valley and again South East LEP).
The author is left wondering at what point ambition over reaches itself.
Growing Places Fund
16. As if this was not complex enough there is also the £500 million Growing Places Fund announced on 7 November 2011, extended by £270 million in 2012. This fund was designed to tackle immediate infrastructure investment constraints, with a focus on housing and transport. The allocations to LEPs were made in February 2012, these were calculated using a formula based on population and employed earnings. The June 2012 HOTSW Newsletter indicates a £21.5m fund is available to them. In retrospect this can be considered as a one-off fund.
National Audit Office findings
17. This transformational process has been subject to a series of reviews by the National Audit Office (NAO). The latest NAO progress report on the Regional Growth Fund was published in Feb 2014. The report found more than three-quarters of the fund set up to boost regional economies remained unspent (£2.6bn allocated in Rounds one to four, but only £492m had so far actually reached projects and £425 million was being held by programme intermediaries (of which £10 million was for administration)). The estimate of the average cost per net additional job of bids selected in round four is £52,300. This compares with £30,400 in the first round, £33,500 in the second, and £39,700 in the third, but these differences probably reflect greater realism. Around half of jobs created were covered by just five of the 291 operational schemes. The general conclusion, as with the previous report, was that this expenditure was not optimising value for money.
18. In a report on LEPs published on 23 March 2016 the NAO made this comment on Growth Deals. “The Department’s [DCLG] published guidance set out what they expected to see in LEPs’ strategic economic plans; however, the Department intentionally did not specify the format that these plans should take. They did this to encourage LEPs to decide the process of formulating plans locally, competitively and in a way that would encourage innovation. This resulted in wide variation across the 39 plans in the way information was presented, time periods covered, and the evidence bases they used. Additionally, the Department did not define output metrics until after the plans were approved. LEPs therefore used different definitions to describe the outputs of their planned interventions, such as jobs. The Department’s assessors reported that they found it challenging to assess the bids consistently; this will have made it difficult to identify the plans that represented the best value for money.”
19. On LEPs the same NAO report says that when the Growth Deals were agreed, the Department did not have enough assurance that they had the resources, capacity and capability to do this, and LEPs do not yet have an established track record of delivery. To oversee and deliver Growth Deal projects effectively, LEPs need access to staff with expertise in complex areas such as forecasting, economic modelling, and monitoring and evaluation. Only 5% of LEPs considered the resources available to them to be sufficient to meet the expectations placed on them by government. Additionally, 69% of LEPs reported that they did not have sufficient staff and 28% did not think that they had sufficiently skilled staff.
20. The NAO also found they were unable to obtain information on senior staff remuneration from publicly available accounts for 87% percentage of LEPs. The median number of full-time equivalent staff employed by LEPs is 8.
Conclusion
21. Over the past six years huge changes have taken place with regard to the way central government grants to regions are administered. But this has largely happened below the radar of public perception. Across England LEPs now control an annual budget of £2 billion. Hundreds of millions of pounds worth of local investment funds are now in the hands of our Local Enterprise Partnership, a self-selecting group of big-business(men) (gender specific term deliberate), who appear to be unaccountable to anyone and unrepresentative of the local economy. This has happened irrespective of whether or not any formal devolution has occurred. There appear to be no metrics by which the investment decision they make can be evaluated and no mechanism for scrutiny. Likewise there appears to be no mechanism for publicly accountable scrutiny of any conflict of interest that might arise in the way these funds are distributed. What has happened to democracy?
January 2017
Main References Sources
Relevant Government papers
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-growth-realising-every-places-potential-hc-7961
Click to access PU1524_IUK_new_template.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/heart-of-the-south-west-growth-deal
Heart of the South West Growth Deal proposal
Click to access Growth-Deal-2015-Heart-of-SW-Final-3-4.pdf
Parliamentary briefing papers on Regional Growth, Growth deals and LEPs:
National Audit Office Reports
Click to access Local-Enterprise-Partnerships.pdf
Click to access 10285-001-Local-economic-growth.pdf
Click to access Progress-report-on-the-regional-growth-fund.pdf
Independent Report University of Plymouth
Hugo Swire and Theresa May: NOT a match made in heaven!
“Some things about her, already evident to those who studied her pre-prime ministerial career, have become clearer to a wider audience. She hates conceited and condescending men who think they are terribly clever, a category that includes rather a lot of her Tory colleagues. This helps to explain the humiliating manner in which she dispatched many of the Cameroons from the government.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/08/theresa-may-control-freak-brexit-queen-misrule
UK a third-world country for health care – “humanitarian crisis” says Red Cross
“There is a “humanitarian crisis” in NHS hospitals in England, the British Red Cross has said.
The charity said volunteers and staff had been helping patients get home from hospital and called for more government money to stabilise the situation.
It comes as a third of hospital trusts in England warned they needed action to cope with patient numbers last month.
NHS England said plans were in place to deal with winter pressure and beds were not as full as this time last year.
Figures show that 42 A&E departments ordered ambulances to divert to other hospitals last week – double the number during the same period in 2015.
Diversions can only happen when a department is under significant pressure, such as lacking the physical capacity to take more patients or having queues of ambulances outside for significantly prolonged periods, and when all existing plans to deal with a surge in patients have been unsuccessful.
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust said on Friday that it was investigating two deaths at Worcestershire Royal Hospital’s A&E department in the last week.
The trust said patient confidentiality prevented it from discussing the deaths, but added it had “robust plans” to maintain patient safety and emergency care. A patients’ watchdog has called for an investigation.
John Freeman said his wife Pauline, who is recovering from a stroke, spent 38 hours on a trolley at the same hospital because of overcrowding.
“My wife was stuck on a trolley right next to the fire doors in a corridor and she couldn’t get any sleep because of all the trolleys banging into the fire door going in and out,” he told BBC News.
“There was probably in excess of 20 trolleys all stacked up. This is going back to the dark ages almost.”
Trusts around the country are taking to social media to urge patients to stay away from A&E, unless it is an emergency or a life threatening illness.
British Red Cross provided support to staff at the East Midlands Ambulance Service across Nottingham, Leicester, Lincoln, Kettering and Northampton on 1 January.
It also boosted existing services offering support at home to help alleviate pressure on hospitals.
Chief executive Mike Adamson said: “The British Red Cross is on the front line, responding to the humanitarian crisis in our hospital and ambulance services across the country.
“We have been called in to support the NHS and help get people home from hospital and free up much needed beds.”
“We’ve seen people sent home without clothes, some suffer falls and are not found for days, while others are not washed because there is no carer there to help them.”
The Red Cross said its volunteers are “on the front line” across the country
He said that if people do not get the care they need, “they will simply end up returning to A&E, and the cycle begins again”.
Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said: “The Red Cross being called in to help in our hospitals is just the latest staggering example of how the NHS is now being pushed to breaking point.
“For the Red Cross to brand the situation a ‘humanitarian crisis’ should be a badge of shame for government ministers.” He called for “urgent help” from the government.
Black alert
The Royal College of Emergency Medicine said staff were under intense pressure, while the Society for Acute Medicine warned this month could be the worst January the NHS has ever faced.
Dr Taj Hassan, president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, said every hospital in Essex has been on black alert and emergency departments are “working at and beyond their capabilities”.
He added: “The emergency care system is on its knees, despite the huge efforts of staff who are struggling to cope with the intense demands being put upon them. This cannot be allowed to continue.
“The scale of the crisis affecting emergency care systems has reached new heights, as we predicted, mainly due to a lack of investment in both social and acute health care beds, as well as emergency department staffing.”
Dr Mark Holland, president of the Society for Acute Medicine, told BBC Breakfast that the term “humanitarian crisis” was strong, but “not a million miles away from the truth”.
He added: “We have been predicting that we would face a winter from hell. I think that time has arrived.”
A spokesman for NHS England said plans remained in place to deal with additional demands during the winter period and asked the public to “play their part” by using local pharmacies and NHS 111 for medical advice.
BBC reporter Dan Johnson said one press officer from the organisation called the claims by the Red Cross “ridiculous”.
He added: “The Department of Health also said it is putting in billions more to try and make the system work.”
Persimmon’s “very affordable homes” claim examined
““Buying a new-build home remains a compelling choice supported by competitive mortgage offers which continue to make a new home purchase very affordable.”
So said Persimmon Homes, on the back of its latest trading statement. An update that made the company the belle of the stock market ball. Revenues for 2016 were 8 per cent higher than in 2015 and the group completed 559 extra sales. Happy days for its investors.
But let’s take a closer look at that quote. Is an average Persimmon home really “very affordable”?
Now, the company said that its average selling price increased by 4 per cent to £206,700 in 2016. To put that in perspective, the median average British wage, which has been increasing at something more like 2 per cent per annum, stands at £28,200.
To find out whether Persimmon’s average home is indeed very affordable to an average family (if there is such a thing) I created one of my own.
The Smiths have £500 each on their credit cards (after Christmas) and they spend £100 a month on loan repayments. That makes their level of debt rather modest by British standards.
John Smith works full time earning £28,200. Jane Smith works two and a half days a week and makes half that on a pro rata basis. I haven’t factored in any child care costs because we’ll assume relatives help out.
Between them, they’ve scrimped and saved enough for a 10 per cent deposit which comes to £20,670. Feeding those details into NatWest’s handy mortgage calculator, I was told that they could borrow a maximum of £169,200.
If Jenny Smith were to work three days a week, earning £16,920, that gets us to £180,400. That’s still just under £6,000 below what it would take to make Persimmon’s average home barely, and not very, affordable.
It looks like Jane Smith will either have to take on more hours, or the family will have to save a bit more and hope that their savings catch up with the rise in average house prices. Perhaps they’ll get lucky and find a lender willing risk the wrath of its regulators to play ball with them. I’m sure Persimmon will be only too happy to point them in the right direction.”
The “Exmouth Vision Group”: “access” deconstructed
In an earlier post Owl deconstructed the “Vision” of the purported “Exmouth Vision Group”:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/06/the-exmouth-creative-group-vision-deconstructed/
Now let us turn to the second part of the document headed “Access”.
Actually, what Owl thinks it covers (and this is subjective) is MUCH more than access.
Broadly and in summary it sets a goal of replacing “low culture” with “high culture” and ensuring that those of “high culture” can cycle from their suburban homes to the seafront or from the seafront to pretty woodlands on their “sit up and beg” bikes during the day and enjoy a “scene” in the evenings!
Here are Owl’s thoughts on the deconstructed points
o How do we draw people into the town when there is a lack of parking?
Especially from the ‘suburbs’ of Exmouth who live on the surrounding hill which is too far away to walk to the town/seafront. If travelling by car, most will just go straight to Exeter.
What Owl thinks most surprising about this point is that this group thinks it can solve the problems of a spread-out, city-commuter town all on its own – which no group anywhere seems to have cracked! IF they could crack it IN A SUSTAINABLE AND INEXPENSIVE WAY they will be in great demand – and might have to move from Exmouth!
o Join together the town, seafront, train station and marina etc.
See above! Of course, what you need is a pedestrian/cycling route – but where will the money come from to build and maintain it? Or maybe a “land train” – though that is “low culture” (see below).
• Bring together the fragmented community groups.
Good luck on that one, guys when, if you exist at all (about which Owl has doubts) you don’t identify yourselves, meet in secret, and (possibly) meet in secret with someone or someones from EDDC!
• Exmouth’s culture is either ‘low end’ or just well hidden.
Which makes you wonder why these “creatives” choose to live in the town! This is highly insulting to Exmouthians, who by implication, appear to be dismissed as largely low end “chavs”. Perhaps this group is just miffed it couldn’t afford to live in Budleigh Salterton (though maybe some do!).
• Create something for all of the age groups.
Yeah, pensioner polo or teenage carriage driving should up culture to the “high end”.
• There is little decent employment and opportunities within the town: the young are leaving the town due to lack of opportunities.
The young are leaving because, like lots of young people, they go to university, travel, meet new people and put down new roots elsewhere, often in vibrant cities – leaving Exmouth, perhaps, to “high end cultured” people and the low-end chavs!
• Exmouth is too small to have a close knit community; but too large to have a ‘scene’.
Oh, God, can you imagine a “scene” in Exmouth – with all those trainee Marines, chavs and cultured people! A concert hall, perhaps, or a polo field (or whatever they call them – see above).
Chukkas away!
There is no problem adding culture to the seaside – eg the art gallery at Margate):
https://www.turnercontemporary.org/
but equally you CAN add a funfair as at Southend:
http://adventureisland.co.uk/
They are NOT mutually exclusive. And the key is:
TOTAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION and
LISTENING AND ACTING ON TOTAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
not consulting with one elitist group (WHICH INCLUDES VESTED-INTEREST DEVELOPERS) at the expense of everyone else.
Dirty lobbying
We do it the other way around in East Devon – we gave a senior officer to a lobbying group viz former EDDC Economic Development Officer Nigel Harrison who was offered up as Secretary to the East Devon Business Forum (a group of local developers under the Chairmanship of disgraced ex-Tory councillor Graham Brown) AND EDDC paid all its expenses!
“Whitehall’s lobbying tsar has launched an inquiry into concerns that informal parliamentary groups set up by MPs and peers are being used to bypass lobbying rules.
Alison White, the registrar of consultant lobbyists, has interviewed officials from all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) after receiving reports that lobbyists are acting as secretaries to gain access to legislators.
The inquiry comes after a growth in the number of APPGs, which are allowed use of the Palace of Westminster’s catering facilities and can invite senior ministers and civil servants for meetings with donors.
There are more than 550 APPGs, which exist to help MPs and peers discuss major issues of the day, according to the parliamentary register. The groups have received more than £5.4m in external funding since the beginning of 2015. …
…Private firms and individuals can sponsor APPGs to help pay for “secretariat services”, trips abroad or reports. Any APPG is allowed to include a secretariat from an outside body, and it is this position that can be easily abused, according to White.
There are more than 200 people or organisations listed as secretariats for APPGs who are not registered on the register of consultant lobbyists, which requires that meetings with ministers or permanent secretaries be disclosed. White believes some APPG secretariats may be breaking this rule. White is planning to issue advice to all organisations that offer specialist services to APPGs later this month.” …
The “Exmouth Creative Group” vision deconstructed
The existence of the group was first mooted here:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/04/exmouth-regeneration-board-chief-threatens-to-ignore-key-community-group/
and later further (unverified) information was offered here along with its terms of reference:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/01/06/exmouth-creative-group-and-eddc-curioser-and-curioser/
So, let’s look at its “creative vision” point by point:
“the creative vision” must:
• Put Exmouth on the map
This is an utterly useless point. Whatever anyone does on the seafront they will claim that it has put Exmouth ” on the map” – i.e. made it more popular, though, of corse, Exmouth appears on maps already!
• Be unique but ‘true’
Yet again an utterly useless point. It would be the only one in Exmouth, so unique. And, if it wasn’t true, it would be untrue!
• Be high quality, intelligent and cultural
Jesus – how arty pretentious!
• Not be a ‘one off’ attraction but be something that encourages repeat visits
So, just like the Seaton Visitor Centre then – ah, we seem to be getting somewhere now!
• Be of value to the local population and attract visitors all year round
Yep, another Visitor Centre!
• Financially and ‘footfall’ viable and sustainable
Most definitely a Visitor Centre!
• Main target audience is ‘National Trust’ but also can’t ignore the youth?
A visitor centre with a skateboard park? Or linked to a “key stage for school trips with bored teenagers? Or next to a watersports centre?
• Be appropriate to Exmouth’s history
And the opposite of this is – to be inappropriate to Exmouth’s history – duh. And, yes, it definitely sounds like a visitor centre! But, of course, an upmarket, trendy, creative visitor centre.
• Enhance our natural assets (ANOB, SSSI estuary, Jurassic Coast, sea front)
A visitor centre! (And it’s AONB by the way).
• Be low impact so it doesn’t detract from the natural environment and maintain the ‘open’ feel of the town and seafront
EVERY tourist attraction these days must make these claims to be “right on” or whatever the current “creative” phrase is these days (is “wicked, bro” already passe?)
• Inspire a wider vision for Exmouth and other developments
Translation: it must make money and be linked to other things that make money – a visitor centre next to a bowling alley or a watersports centre for example?
• Turn ‘locals’ into advocates and inspire them to contribute to the vision
It must have a coffee shop and/or restaurant facing the sea and should be staffed mostly by unpaid local volunteers – just like Seaton!
• Bring employment to the town
Four cheap apprentices, a newly qualified cook and a highly paid manager, plus free volunteers.
• Encourage year round ‘holiday’ trade
Open 365 days a year – with just volunteers in quiet times.
• It must be achievable and sustainable
Cheap.
• Involve local craftspeople
Have a little area in the gift shop for local wares.
• Create a ‘culture’ in Exmouth
Er, pass! Though it is rather arrogant to assume that without this group there is no ‘culture’.
Our NHS – being crushed to speed up privatisation
The deadline for comments on proposals to halve the remainder of community hospital beds in Eastern Devon is
TODAY
Please respond.
The email address is: d-ccg.YourFutureCare@nhs.net
Where to start?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38526285
Nuffield Trust reported on Today programme – their spokesman reported on Today there had been a 25% cut in social care funding. Also that there had been significant pressure in some parts of the country, including the West of England.
Bed pressures:
http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/blog/winter-insight-beds-pressures
Now blocked beds in mental health care:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38517648
Urges to stop this being a party political punchbag:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38521473
And yet it still is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38315259
And, to add insult to injury, see where the money goes in social care when you have privatised providers in this article (“Capital letters” – bottom of page) from Private Eye:
Seaton Heights (Lyme Bay Leisure Ltd) director named in Guardian article
David Sullivan, a director of Lyme Bay Leisure Ltd (current or former owner of the Seaton Heights development (remember that?)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08513325/officers
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-sullivan-4b19152a
was named in today’s Guardian in connection with a highly controversial development in Lewisham (where he was formerly a highly controversial council leader and mayor for more than 20 years) which could see local Millwall football club having to relocate more than 100 miles away:
“Millwall Football Club have admitted for the first time that they may be forced to leave their south London home and relocate to Kent should the seizure of their land go ahead. Lewisham council’s plan to compulsorily purchase areas around the Den and sell them on to a mysterious offshore developer with connections to the current Labour administration has already drawn both disbelief and mass protest. …
… Until now concerns over the Millwall land-grab have centred on the council’s historic relationship with the offshore developers Renewal. Renewal’s chief executive is a former Lewisham officer and colleague of the current Lewisham chief executive, Barry Quirk, an unelected official best known locally for being paid more pro rata than the prime minister for working a three day week. In another bizarre twist Renewal was also set up and originality part-owned by the previous Labour mayor of Lewisham, Dave Sullivan. Sullivan has stated he no longer has any part in the company, which is owned by two anonymous offshore trusts based in the Isle Of Man and the British Virgin Islands.”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/05/millwall-admit-council-scheme-leave-lewisham
“Exmouth Creative Group” and EDDC – curioser and curioser
In The Exmouth Journal today an EDDC spokesperson said they are not aware of the Exmouth Creative Group or this group having been approached. Readers will recall that it was recently mentioned by supporters of seafront development protesters as having met with EDDC.
Now a contact has passed to Owl what purports to be a document produced by the “Exmouth Creative Group”. Owl cannot verify this document and therefore cannot vouch for its veracity or its authorship and it is shown below for information only.
What IS clear is SOMEONE appears to have produced this document for some reason and it further appears that the implication is offered up that EDDC or someone on behalf of EDDC has approached this group with a brief to design a vision for Exmouth – or it may be a complete “fake news” fabrication.
Readers must decide for themselves.
THE DOCUMENT
“Exmouth Creative Group: Brief
Background:
We are a small group of experienced and professional ‘creatives’ who live and work in Exmouth (similar to: http://assemblestudio.co.uk). We consist of designers, artists, writers, architects and developers. We are passionate about the town we live and work in. Add names here… [no names are shown in the document provided to Owl].
Key deliverables:
We have been asked by [a member of] East Devon District Council [who is named in the document] to:
1. Create a vision for Exmouth
2. Develop outline proposals that will deliver this creative vision through any number of creative developments/projects within Exmouth (e.g. iconic sculptures/buildings/etc.)
This is a unique, ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity to realise the future prosperity of Exmouth.
Therefore the creative vision must:
• Put Exmouth on the map
• Be unique but ‘true’
• Be high quality, intelligent and cultural
• Not be a ‘one off’ attraction but be something that encourages repeat visits
• Be of value to the local population and attract visitors all year round
• Financially and ‘footfall’ viable and sustainable
• Main target audience is ‘National Trust’ but also can’t ignore the youth?
• Be appropriate to Exmouth’s history
• Enhance our natural assets (ANOB, SSSI estuary, Jurassic Coast, sea front)
• Be low impact so it doesn’t detract from the natural environment and maintain the ‘open’ feel of the town and seafront
• Inspire a wider vision for Exmouth and other developments
• Turn ‘locals’ into advocates and inspire them to contribute to the vision
• Bring employment to the town
• Encourage year round ‘holiday’ trade
• It must be achievable and sustainable
• Involve local craftspeople
• Create a ‘culture’ in Exmouth
Challenges:
• Access:
o How do we draw people into the town when there is a lack of parking? Especially from the ‘suburbs’ of Exmouth who live on the surrounding hill which is too far away to walk to the town/seafront. If travelling by car, most will just go straight to Exeter
o Join together the town, seafront, train station and marina etc.
• Bring together the fragmented community groups
• Exmouth’s culture is either ‘low end’ or just well hidden
• Create something for all of the age groups
• There is little decent employment and opportunities within the town: the young are leaving the town due to lack of opportunities
• Exmouth is too small to have a close knit community; but too large to have a ‘scene’ “
Anyone think, like Owl, that the whole thing is VERY odd indeed!
Mark Williams refuses to answer questions – because (he says) they were not questions
As if you needed evidence of stonewalling and lack of transparency, here is an extract from minutes of Full Council meeting last week.
Although the Chairman (Stuart Hughes) could see that the speakers were questioning officers and councillors – indeed he asked the CEO to respond to questions, CEO Mark Williams neatly sidestepped the request by calling what people had said as “statements.
MORAL OF THIS STORY: MAKE SURE YOU ASK CONCRETE CLEAR QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT ANSWERS – AS OTHERWISE THE CEO WILL ACT AS IF YOU DON’T WANT ANY ANSWERS!
And would developers who give statements at Development Management Committee meetings be told they would not get answers as they had not asked a specific question in their submission?
“*46 Public speaking
The Chairman welcomed those present and invited members of the public to speak to the Council.
Sally Galsworthy spoke on the Queen’s Drive development making reference to the one remaining developer involved in the project and commenting on the risks should that developer pull out. She spoke of the anger of the residents in Exmouth towards the project expressed at meetings, the town poll and on a recent march, which had been attended by some 400 people.
Laura Freeman made reference to the outcome of the recent town poll seeking additional independent consultation on the redevelopment of Queen’s Drive. She considered that despite the restricted opening times of the poll, there had been a good turnout and that the outcome should be honoured and not ignored. She requested that the whole project be reviewed with a new outline application reflecting what the people of Exmouth wished to see for the area.
Jane Ashton spoke on the costs relating to both the Queen’s Drive development and relocation and also made reference to the collection of Section 106 and CIL contributions. She considered that the failure to foresee the additional costs involved in both projects was the result of the incompetence of those involved and that they should be removed from their positions. In respect of Queen’s Drive she commented that it would cost the Council less if it was to start the whole project from scratch.
Alec Huett advised that he had attended many meetings in the past regarding the regeneration of Exmouth and that Queen’s Drive had never been seen as a priority. He queried why the masterplan had changed so much from what had first been envisaged and commented that the plans would split the town into two leisure and retail zones. He advised that he was against any large development on the sea front when it should be the town centre that was the priority for regeneration works.
Richard Thurlow spoke on the increased costs relating to the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall – which would now cost more that refurbishing the Knowle. He advised that there was no detail or adequate rationale to explain the reasons for the increased costs and therefore did not consider that Members could make their decision based on fact.
Tony Green spoke on the Development Management Committee meeting held on 6 December and congratulated the Committee on their decision regarding the Knowle site. He stated that the Committee had to make their decision on material planning considerations only and therefore any comments relating to the relocation project or the adequacy of the existing building for its purpose should have been disregarded to avoid the appearance of bias. He asked for confirmation that this was the case and if so, asked that members of the committee be reminded of this.
The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to respond to QUESTIONS [Owl’s capitals] raised by the speakers. In response to the first five speakers, the Chief Executive advised that no questions had been asked and therefore they would be noted as statements, however he advised that some of the issues raised were covered in the Cabinet minutes.
In response to the last speaker, the Chief Executive advised that information was often submitted by the applicant giving reasons for a proposal – the key issue was that when the Committee came to vote they only did so on relevant material planning considerations and not immaterial planning considerations.”
More developer-led funding from government for “affordable” rented housing
“Housing providers are being invited to bid for a share of a £7bn fund in what is being billed as a “dramatic expansion” of the government’s affordable housing programme.
Communities secretary Sajid Javid today said he wanted to halt the decline in affordability of housing.
… The funding unlocked today is intended to support the delivery of more shared ownership homes, more Rent to Buy homes (where first-time buyers are helped to save for a deposit) and more Affordable Rent homes, to help those in the private rented sector with housing costs.”
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/01/javid-unlocks-ps7bn-fund-turbo-charge-affordable-housing
You see what they have done there? Yet again, the developers get the money! This will do NOTHING for most people not on the housing ladder but an awful lot for speculative rented sector property investors.
NHS consultation ends on 6 January 2017 – have your say
“You can “have your say” here on-line:
http://www.newdevonccg.nhs.uk/about-us/your-future-care/102019
This is a simple on-line survey form which must be returned by Friday 6 January.
INFORMATION PRIOR TO FILLING IN THE SURVEY
As a member quoted yesterday, she had replied “none of the above” to the
questionaire, but it is then a question as to say why. So key points
are as follows:
This particular new health and care model is complex, particularly in a
rural area like East Devon with an elderly population well above
average. Hence it is vital to carry out a detailed risk assessment
before committing to the new model. There is a lack of information
about the quality questions that will be addressed to ensure that
community services can be delivered safely to the new model before
closing community beds.
The current situation appears to be based on the supposed fact that it
has been working in North Devon so there will be no problems, when in
fact it has NOT worked well in North Devon.
Community services are already overstretched with an acute lack of
appropriate carers for people in their own homes. There are significant
difficulties with recruitment.
This new model of care for East Devon is rejeccted by our local
politicians at all levels, including MPs. It is not at all clear how
much money could be saved using this new model, if any at all. There is
a need to cover for an expected annual 4% shortfall in the local NHS
budget; it is interesting to note that 4% equals the annual underfunding
nationally of the NHS since 2010.
There is a strong suspicion that because of the high value of NHS estate
land, hospitals without beds would eventually be sold off for house
building land. So this would be a strong motivator to cutting hospital
beds.”
http://www.newdevonccg.nhs.uk/about-us/your-future-care/102019
Hinkley C: possible £2 billion hit on British taxpayers played down
“Taxpayers still face a possible £2billion bill for building a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point despite a minister’s claim they were ‘fully insulated’ from the cost.
The Government is underwriting loans to the builders of the plant, which is a joint project with France and China.
This is despite Business Secretary Greg Clark telling MPs in September that after Prime Minister Theresa May paused the project, taxpayers were now protected.
Despite the remarks, the £2billion guarantee – which would kick in if the companies involved in the project collapse – are still counted as a ‘contingent liability’ on the Government’s accounts.
Shadow minister Barry Gardiner told The Times he had been misled by Mr Clark’s response. …
… After work resumed, Mr Clark told MPs: ‘EDF has confirmed to me that it will not be taking up that £2 billion guarantee, so the taxpayer is fully insulated from the costs of construction.’
EDF confirmed by letter it did not ‘anticipate’ calling on the guarantee.
But in October, in a written statement to both MPs and peers, ministers said: ‘The government is confirming that it has approved the provision of a guarantee for up to £2billion to the project for the construction of its new EPR nuclear plant in Somerset, backed by commitments from the shareholders.’
They added: ‘The guarantee will be available from 2018 to 2020 if necessary conditions are met and is at government’s discretion.
‘Even if made available, and EDF have indicated to the secretary of state for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that it is not their current intention to take up the guarantee, I judge the likelihood of any call under the guarantee to be very low.’
After the memo came to light yesterday, Mr Gardiner said: ‘The assurance that Greg Clark gave me was categoric: EDF were not taking up the guarantee.
‘Whilst I took him at his word, it appears that the Treasury were aware the secretary of state was suffering from baroque speech.
‘That is why the guarantee is still marked as a liability on their books.'”
Good coverage of North Devon’s well-organised NHS protest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b085fd4b/spotlight-late-news-04012017
And for MUCH more information on protests throughout Devon see the Facebook group “Save Our Hospital Services Devon“.
Developers on a big roll – but still far too poor to provide truly affordable housing
Owl believes that the Conservative government’s policy is to destroy affordable and social housing in favour of private renting, where housing benefit is payable direct to landlords and councils have no responsibilities for their poorest residents and their families.
Current “affordable housing” provided by developers (at 20% less than average prices on the same site) are actually much smaller houses, with basic and/or cheap fittings on the least pleasant parts of sites – e.g. near main roads, parking areas, etc and require such discounting.
“[Persimmon] reported an 8 percent revenue rise, and said that the sales rate was up 15 percent between July and December, confounding the notion that the Brexit vote could take the wind out of property-related companies.
However, the stock remains down 9.2 percent since the referendum last June.
Sector peers also rose on Thursday, with Taylor Wimpey (TW.L) and Barratt Developments (BDEV.L) both up nearly 3 percent.
“This latest positive update from a sector major adds to yesterday’s positive UK PMI Construction read and improving mortgage approvals data while the UK mortgage market remains highly competitive and government initiatives supportive,” said Mike van Dulken, head of research at Accendo Markets.
“Although house price data does remain notoriously mixed, the post-Brexit crash foreseen by many simply hasn’t materialised and prices held up remarkably well”.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks-idUKKBN14P0YK
“Brexit negotiations will fire the starting gun on the decade – so understanding these changes key for negotiations”
New IPPR report shows an accelerating wave of economic, social and technological change will reshape 2020s Britain
In a landmark report, leading think tank the IPPR has analysed factors shaping the UK up to 2030. It sets out the choices that must be made now if these changes are to lead to a fairer and more equal society.
The report highlights key facts that will change the way we live in the 2020s:
As the population grows, the UK is set to age sharply and become increasingly diverse. The 65+ age group will grow by 33% by 2030.
The global economy and the institutions that govern it will come under intense pressure as the Global South rises in economic and political importance.
Half of all large companies will be based in emerging markets;
Due to demographic trends, a structural deficit is likely to re-emerge by the mid-2020s, with adult social care funding gap is expected to hit £13 billion – 62% of the expected budget – in 2030/31;
Up to two-thirds of current jobs – 15 million – are at risk of automation.
These changes in technology have the potential to create an era of widespread abundance, or a second machine age that radically concentrates economic power;
The income of high-income households is forecast to rise 11 times faster than for low income households in the 2020s;
Climate change, biodiversity degradation, and resource depletion mean we will increasingly run up against the limits of the physical capacity of the Earth’s natural systems;
The UK has the richest region in Northern Europe but also 9 of the 10 poorest regions.
Mathew Lawrence, IPPR research fellow and report author said:
“By 2030, the effects of Brexit combined with a wave of economic, social and technological change will reshape the UK, in often quite radical ways.
“In the face of this, a politics of nostalgia, institutional conservatism and a rear guard defence of the institutions of 20th century social democracy will be inadequate.
For progressives, such a strategy will not be robust enough to mitigate against growing insecurity, ambitious enough to reform Britain’s economic model, nor sufficiently innovative to deliver deeper social and political transformation. They would be left defending sand castles against the tide of history.
“Britain’s progressives should be ambitious, seeking to shape the direction of technological and social change. We must build a ‘high energy’ democracy that accelerates meaningful democratic experimentation at a national, city and local level, and also in the marketplace by increasing everyone’s say over corporate governance, ownership and power.”
The full report is here:
Halt those bulldozers at Hinkley C?
Just how much money is our LEP throwing into this eerily-glowing black and bright green hole? Though maybe it doesn’t think it is such a bad deal when lots of people (perhaps including board members with nuclear interests) are lining their pockets with lucrative pre-construction contracts, training courses and consultancies.
Remember, Somerset County Council is the accountable body for LEP spending, not Devon County Council – and it may also see spending, any spending, in Somerset as a good thing. After all, it’s “growth” – isn’t it?
“After eight years of prevarication, French firm EDF was panicked by Brexit into finally making the “decision” to build a new nuke at Hinkley. Concrete progress? No. Construction of the reactor cannot begin until it has been re-engineered to satisfy regulators here and in France, after discovery of fundamental metallurgical flaws in several French nukes.
Following this, a major component already manufactured in France was tested to destruction (literally) and found to be unsound. Since there is only one foundry in France making these huge steel forgings, and this is unable to meet safety standards, EDF doesn’t know what to do next. We will hear a lot more on this in 2017.”
Source: Private Eye, “Keeping the lights on”, page 9, issue of 23 December 16 – 12 January 17
“NHS groups ‘paying millions to private firms that block GP referrals’ “
“NHS organisations are paying millions of pounds to private firms that stop patients being referred to hospital by their GPs, an investigation has found.
Controversial referral management centres are used by some clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to scrutinise patient referrals to hospitals by family doctors.
Supporters say they can reduce inappropriate referrals, saving the NHS money, but critics argue that adding an extra layer of scrutiny risks delaying diagnosis. There is also doubt over the effectiveness of such schemes.
GP practices ‘offered rewards’ for not referring patients to hospitals
In an investigation, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) sent freedom of information requests to all 211 CCGs in England. Of the 184 that responded, 72 (39%) said they commissioned some form of referral management scheme.
Almost a third (32%) of the schemes are provided by private companies, while a further 29% are provided in-house and 11% by local NHS trusts. Some 69% of the CCGs with schemes gave details of operating costs. These CCGs combined have spent at least £57m on schemes since April 2013.
Most CCGs were unable to provide evidence showing the scheme saved money. Only 14% could show that the scheme had saved more cash than it had cost to operate, while 12% showed that their schemes had not saved money overall.
Meanwhile, 74% of CCGs (53 groups) failed to supply figures to show whether any money had been saved, the BMJ reported.
Some CCGs did not collect data on savings, some said their referral scheme was designed not to save money but to improve the quality of referrals, and others declined to disclose details of savings on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.
Overall, there were 93 referral management schemes in operation across 72 CCGs, with some CCGs having more than one.
Dr Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association’s GPs committee, told the BMJ: “[CCGs] are leaping at these schemes without any clear evidence of benefit. They are just hopeful that it might reduce their costs.
“It is a very short-term approach to healthcare management. We need to see much more evaluation … and not just keep making the same mistakes year after year. As public bodies, there should be an expectation on every CCG to account for what it is doing.”
Vautrey said some schemes were helpful because they gave GPs rapid access to advice from local specialists.
Graham Jackson, co-chair of NHS Clinical Commissioners, the membership organisation representing CCGs, said referral management was only one way of managing demand for services.”
Owl bets that, if NEW Devon CCG hasn’t yet done this, it will be champing at the bit to commission a scoping study for a feasibility study for a consultants report for a pilot study at a health hub near you!
“In many cases they provide a useful and effective role which is more than a redirection service,” he said. “CCGs will balance the cost of commissioning with the benefit they provide to GPs and patients in terms of peer review, education, caseload management and choice.”
In October, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Labour MP for City of Durham, criticised a local scheme to screen referrals for conditions including cardiology, gynaecology and gastroenterology.
The North Durham CCG has awarded a contract to the private firm About Health to manage referrals.”
