Already at close to 1,000 signatures:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-community-hospital-beds-in-east-devon
Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/events/779686012163579/
Telegraph: “Secret plans to shut hospitals could put lives at risk, say doctors”
“STEALTH NHS plans for sweeping closures of hospitals and accident and emergency departments are “potentially catastrophic” and could put lives at risk, leading doctors have said.
The warning came as a major report by the King’s Fund lambasted health officials for ordering the suppression of proposals that will affect millions of people.
The respected think tank suggests the plans – being drawn up behind closed doors in every part of England – may be doomed to fail patients.
Secrecy about the process, combined with “breakneck” timescales and a lack of funding for new services means patients could bear the brunt of brutal cuts, they suggested.
Two weeks ago, The Daily Telegraph disclosed that half of NHS leaders are planning bed cuts, with one third intending to close accident and emergency departments.
It follows orders to produce “sustainability and transformation plans” (STPs) to tackle the greatest financial crisis in the history of the NHS and meet unprecedented patient demand.
On the critical list:
Some of the plans floated so far
♦ South West London: closure of one of five major hospitals
♦ North West London: closure of two A&E units
♦ North East: Darlington Memorial Hospital or North Tees Hospital to lose A&E unit
♦ Devon: cuts to almost 600 beds, with the loss of maternity and paediatric services from north Devon site
♦ Cheshire and Wirral: downgrade of at least one A&E department
♦ St Helens and West Lancs: possible closure of two A&E units
The country has been split into 44 areas, with each told to produce proposals to balance the books and change the way care is delivered.
NHS leaders have pledged to shift more care into the community, and to strengthen GP services, in efforts to boost health.
But cost-cutting has now taken precedence in many of the plans, the head of the King’s Fund warned. Today’s report criticises NHS England for telling local leaders not to publish plans until the details have been checked by senior officials.
In recent days, increasing numbers of NHS bodies and councils have broken ranks, publishing or leaking documents that set out plans for major changes to their services, arguing that the public deserves honesty.
The plans issued so far warn of the closures of whole hospitals as well as A&E and maternity units.
The King’s Fund criticised health officials for keeping patients in the dark, warning that the public has been “largely absent” from debate.
As well as telling local NHS managers not to publish their proposals, health officials also told them to block Freedom of Information requests seeking the information, the report says.
“National NHS leaders wanted to be able to ‘manage’ the STP narrative at a national level – particularly where plans might involve politically sensitive changes to hospital services,” the report says.
Local managers in the study said the approach was “ludicrous” and meant that controversial plans were being drawn up with no local involvement – which was likely to end in a “massive fight.”
Dr Tajek Hassan, president of the College of Emergency Medicine, said: “Secretly producing plans without involving those who are – or should be – at the heart of the NHS; the patients, is wholly unacceptable and will not result in effective or sustainable services.
“Transparency is also needed to address the current speculation regarding the potentially catastrophic closure of emergency departments, which – if true – would only add to the substantial difficulties emergency medicine faces and put lives at risk.”
Chris Ham, chief executive of the King’s Fund, said the NHS had been told by Government that “we don’t want too much noise” about the controversial plans.
Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, said changes were needed to meet the needs of the country’s ageing population, and to ensure specialist care was available round the clock.
“We are talking about steady incremental improvement, not a big bang. If we don’t, the problems will only get worse,” he said. ”
http://digitaledition.telegraph.co.uk/editions/edition_1mboe_2016-11-14/data/239163/index.html
Guardian reporter asks for Devon NHS changes feedback
Hello – I’m a Guardian reporter. I’m writing about the proposed changes to hospital services and am keen to speak to people who worry they will be directly affected. steven.morris@theguardian.com if anyone would like to contact me. Steve Morris
KPMG Section 106 report: high-level risks identified by external auditor
Verbatim from the report to be discussed by the Audit and Governance Committees
17 November 2016, 2.30 pm, Knowle
“The Council currently has no summarised monitoring document which shows the value of all s106 contributions outstanding at any one point, with the trigger which would lead the contribution to be payable and, if the contribution is liable to be paid, the current status of the collection process. In addition to this the Council does not currently have the information in a format which is consistent with s106 contribution triggers so it cannot determine if triggers have been met.
From our understanding there is no challenge or enforcement of the developers’ legal obligation to provide the Council with details of the number of dwellings constructed, sold and occupied, instead only information on completions is supplied. In addition this information should be received quarterly but our testing suggests that it is received on an ad hoc and untimely basis. This means that there is a risk that the Council has inaccurate information on which to track outstanding s106 contribution monies.
It has been found that at present there is a gap in the understanding of the financial and accounting implications of a contribution trigger being met within Planning, due to an oversight in communication between Finance and Planning over the treatment. When contributions become virtually certain to be received, but are not invoiced for practical or commercial reasons, they should be recognised as accrued income.
At current however, given this gap in understanding in the planning team, the Council’s Finance team only accounts for s106 contributions when the cash has been received or an invoice has been raised. This has led to the financial accounts having an incomplete accrued income balance on the Statement of Financial Position.”
Click to access item-12-management-of-s106-contributions-report.pdf
“Virgin Care”: like a measles rash all over the country, including Devon
Want to know where Virgin Care operates? Look here:
Plenty of those red dots in Devon – with at least a dozen locations operating in East Devon.
It is currently advertising 24 job vacancies in Devon including Locality Pathway Coordinator”, Health Visitor, Speech Therapists and several mental health practitioners.
Owl thinks the contract to run many, many more Devon services is ready and waiting until that pesky bed closure “consultation” is over with …
Clinton Devon Estates wants to make it easier to build in AONB
A landowner is using its drawn-out application to build 40 homes and a doctors’ surgery in Newton Poppleford as a case study to lobby for changes to planning rules.
Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) was awarded outline permission to develop a field south of King Alfred Way in 2012, but its detailed, reserved-matters, plans have failed to win over decision-makers.
It initially expected that construction would have finished by the end of February 2017, but now it is unlikely before 2019.
CDE is appealing the refusal – but is also calling for it to be made easier to develop in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), harsher sanctions for ‘poor’ decisions, and for the potential for legal challenges to be reduced.
East Devon District Council (EDDC) has told CDE that the 16 ‘affordable’ houses should be ‘pepper-potted’ throughout the King Alfred Way development, as this is a policy in its Local Plan.
The landowner, now in a joint venture with developers Cavanna Homes and Pencleave 2, has also faced opposition from residents, who voiced fears about flooding and that the doctors’ surgery would not be delivered.
A CDE spokesperson said the report is an early draft of a case study that was submitted in its final form to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) in May. It was also copied – for information only – to EDDC and a Cabinet Office representative.
The spokesperson said: “It is interesting to note that since the paper was submitted to RICS six months ago, the planning application is no closer to determination. A series of legal arguments and appeals have stalled the progress and a hearing date has still not been set for the latest appeal.
“It is disappointing that, five years after a housing needs survey in Newton Poppleford identified the pressing need for 18 affordable new homes in the community, that they are no closer to being delivered.
“Even if the appeal is heard early in 2017 and the development is given the go-ahead, it is unlikely that the first homes and the surgery will be available before 2019.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/devon_landowner_lobbies_for_planning_rule_changes_1_4770875
“Fears that secretive NHS reforms will put savings before patients”
“Widespread bed cuts, closures of accident and emergency units and even shutting hospitals have been proposed by NHS bosses
A “secretive” plan to reorganise the NHS risks failing patients, a report warns.
Widespread bed cuts, closures of accident and emergency units and even shutting hospitals have been proposed by NHS bosses who are often more focused on saving money than improving care, the King’s Fund think tank says.
Simon Stevens, head of NHS England, has conceded that managers in many areas are not up to the job of implementing his vision for the health service and is warned today that it risks failure in most of the country.
Mr Stevens is attempting to undo Andrew Lansley’s 2012 NHS reforms without the need for another structural reorganisation, and has divided England into 44 areas where local bosses have been told to come up with “sustainability and transformation plans (STPs)” to move care closer to home.
He insists that doing more in local clinics will keep older people with long-term illness out of hospital. The report published today endorses that aim, but says that STPs are the “right thing being done badly”. Short-term savings are being prioritised over long-term improvements as the NHS faces a £22 billion black hole by 2020, it says.
Plans have been drawn up behind closed doors with patients “largely absent” and with little input from frontline staff, the King’s Fund says. Uncertainly over accountability for the plans is hampering the ability to get anything done, it adds. Chris Ham, chief executive of the fund, estimated that a third of plans were likely to succeed, a third had little hope and the rest would need more help.
“I don’t think the deliverability of STPs is something we can be confident about,” he said. “If STPs do not work then there is no plan B.”
Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said the plans were “more about saving money”, adding: “They cannot axe services in a secretive way and expect the public to be happy.”
Professor Ham said that cutting hospital services was unlikely to work without money for local clinics to replace them. “GPs and district nurses are under massive pressure. It’s unrealistic to expect them without more staff and resources to take on more of the workload,” he said.
About a quarter of the plans have now been published or leaked and many include centralisation or shutting hospital units or cutting beds. In southwest London, one of Epsom, St Helier, Kingston and Croydon hospitals would be shut entirely.
Taj Hassan, president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, said that shutting A&E units would be “potentially catastrophic” and put lives at risk. “Furtively producing plans without involving patients is unacceptable,” he said.
Mr Stevens has acknowledged problems, telling NHS bosses last week that councils might need to take over from health service managers. “In some parts of the country the reality is we are short of leadership that is capable of engaging in the task ahead,” he said.
Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of NHS England, insisted the plans would be “making it easier to see a GP, providing more specialist services in people’s homes, speeding up the diagnosis of cancer and offering help faster to people with mental ill health”.
He conceded that “to realise these benefits some communities might need to make choices about where to put resources and the NHS will need to be clear with the public about the options” but argued: “Claims of secrecy have been overtaken by the fact that we’ve asked that all STPs are now published over the next few weeks.”
Analysis
Most patients would agree that it makes more sense to keep elderly patients well at home rather than letting them tip into crisis and have to go to hospital (Chris Smyth writes).
In essence, this is what Simon Stevens’s “sustainability and transformation plans” are trying to achieve: getting the local NHS to pay more attention to preventing illness, improving mental health and working with social care.
Of course, it is not quite that simple. Nothing brings patients out on to the streets faster than plans for hospital closures. When Theresa May met Mr Stevens for the first time, she warned him not to use the threat of closures as a weapon to try to prise extra cash out of the government.
Often, there are good clinical reasons for shutting poorly performing units. But when so much emphasis is put on saving money, many in the NHS understandably fear this will mean cost-cutting masquerading as better care.
Among the possible cuts…
Southwest London One of St Helier, Epsom, Kingston or Croydon hospital to shut.
Northeast Stockton or Darlington could lose A and E.
Devon Cut 600 hospital beds and A and E, maternity, stroke and children’s services are deemed “not sustainable”.
Northwest London Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals to be downgraded.
Merseyside Merger of four Liverpool hospitals.
Cheshire Downgrade Macclesfield A and E.”
Source:Times (paywall)
The Great EDDC Section 106 Scandal of 2016 – and probably earlier years
OWL’S SUMMARY: EDDC HAS NO EFFECTIVE MONITORING OF SECTION 106 PAYMENTS DUE AND OFTEN RELIES ON DEVELOPERS TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY OWE TO THE COUNCIL. THIS IS NOT JUST A PROBLEM FOR THIS FINANCIAL YEAR BUT, ACCORDING TO EXTERNAL AUDITORS, COULD HAVE HAPPENED IN PAST YEARS TOO.
Due to the explosive nature of the report detailed below, it is hardly surprising that the Audit and Governance Committee is meeting in the afternoon on 17 November 2016 at 2 pm, while most people have to be at work. Had it been held in the evening there might well have been some seriously embarrassing problems for the committee. As it is, even the afternoon session is likely to throw up some VERY tough questions.
Only recently added to the EDDC Audit and Governance Committee agenda papers is this little nugget of a report – it is only 21 brief pages and deserves very focused reading. The report is as per the link below:
KPMG: Management of s106 contributions
and boy, what interesting reading it makes!
It seems that a local elector complained to EDDC’s external auditors – KPMG, new to the job this year – that it appeared that management of Section 106 payments (the money due from developers) was, in Owl’s lay-owl opinion, not fit for purpose – as reported in recent East Devon Watch postings:
The elector concerned alleged serious mismanagement of the listing, monitoring and collection of Section 106 money – the payments due from developers as part of their requirement to mitigate any problems that the development might cause and for the provision of green, open and play spaces within and around their developments. This was as a result of a Freedom of Information request to which EDDC responded that it did not have the information the elector required.
BEAR IN MIND THAT DETAILED BELOW ARE SUMS FOR THE LAST FINANCIAL YEAR ONLY AND THE EXTERNAL AUDITOR DID NOT EXAMINE PREVIOUS YEARS.
After a very light-touch investigation by the new auditors KPMG (which simply sampled various agreements in this financial year only rather than forensically analysing them all over a period of several years), they found:
“As at 31 March 2016 the Council had £5.8 million of s106 contributions held on its Balance Sheet. During the 2015/16 financial year it accounted for £1.9 million of s106 receipts.
We found that at the Balance Sheet date there was a gross amount of £636,000 in s106 contributions due to the Council where it had not identified that conditions had been met which triggered liability for payment from the relevant developer.
No invoices had been raised seeking payment and consequently this amount had not been included in the 2015/16 financial statements, meaning the accounts were understated.
When other audit findings are taken into account there was a net understatement of £227,000 in the Council’s financial statements. This is because our financial statements audit work had separately identified that the Council had incorrectly accounted for an amount totalling £409,000 for a different s106 agreement which actually related to another body.
Whilst we have not exercised formal audit powers in response to the objection, our work has indicated that the issues raised by the objector are correct and we have upheld the objection.”
Here are the external auditors findings FOR THIS YEAR ONLY in more detail:
“Our evaluation of the processes has identified the following control weaknesses.
1. An absence of summarised financial information to facilitate the monitoring of s106 contributions
The Council currently has no summarised monitoring document which shows the value of all s106 contributions outstanding at any one point, with the trigger which would lead the contribution to be payable and, if the contribution is liable to be paid, the current status of the collection process. In addition to this the Council does not currently have the information in a format which is consistent with s106 contribution triggers so it cannot determine if triggers have been met.
2. Lack of challenge or enforcement of the Cranbrook developers’ legal obligation to provide information
From our understanding there is no challenge or enforcement of the developers’ legal obligation to provide the Council with details of the number of dwellings constructed, sold and occupied, instead only information on completions is supplied. In addition this information should be received quarterly but our testing suggests that it is received on an ad hoc and untimely
basis.
3. Understanding of financial and accounting implications of triggers being met and the communication between Planningand Finance over this
It has been found that at present there is a gap in the understanding of the financial and accounting implications of a contribution trigger being met within Planning, due to an oversight in communication between Finance and Planning over the treatment. When contributions become virtually certain to be received, but are not invoiced for practical or commercial reasons, they should be recognised as accrued income. At current however, given this gap in understanding in the planning team, the Council’s Finance team only accounts for s106 contributions when the cash has been received or an invoice has been raised. This has led to the financial accounts having an incomplete accrued income balance on the Statement of Financial Position.
In addition to the evaluation of the s106 processes and controls, we performed testing to enable us to quantify the potential misstatement as a result of the control weaknesses found in the system.
We focused this testing on s106 agreements associated with the Cranbrook development, as these agreements (individually and in total) represented the major value of all agreements in place. We requested a listing to be prepared of all s106 contributions that the Council has in place at the Cranbrook site and found that there were nine contributions that had been triggered and are due to the Council. It was also found that there was a tenth contribution where it was uncertain if the trigger point had been met and the financial value of the contribution, this is therefore not included within the misstatement below. The contributions ranged from £5,000 to £200,000 in value individually, see page 12 for further details.
It was found that the planning Officer was aware of the individual cases, but not the aggregate position of the un-invoiced amounts. None of the contributions had been invoiced or accrued in the financial statements but as noted previously, there is no evidence of financial loss and the misstatement is one of accounting treatment. If the total value of this misstatement was recognised in the Council’s accounts,the Grants in Advance balance would increase by £636,000, as documented below.
It is noted however that this is the gross misstatement as a result of the weaknesses in the system and that our final accounts audit procedures had already identified a misstatement that overstated the Grants in Advance balance by £409,000. This was because the Council had incorrectly accounted for a s106 contribution due from a developer but payable to another body, rather than the Council itself.
Consequently, when concluding effect of these misstatements on our audit opinion, we were able view the impact at 31 March 2016 as a net understatement to the balances is £227,000. This was reflected in our reporting to the Council’s Audit & Governance Committee in September 2016.
Whilst neither the gross or net misstatement were considered individually material to the financial statements, they are nevertheless significant sums. Given the weaknesses identified in the Council’s controls, it is possible that understatements of a similar scale or even larger could be apparent at any point in time.”
Exmouth’s Franksy in top form with Tyrannosaurus Exe!
Don’t ask NHS employees or patients what’s wrong – ask consultants (in secret)
“NHS plans that could lead to hospital and A&E closures have been kept secret from the public and barely involved frontline staff, a thinktank has said.
NHS England has told local health leaders not to reveal the plans to the public or the media until they are finalised and have been approved by their own officials first, according to published documents and a new analysis by the King’s Fund.
The national body even told local managers to refuse applications from the media or the public to see the proposals under the Freedom of Information Act.
Local managers accused NHS England of being intent on “managing the narrative” about the plans.
The sustainability and transformation plans (STPs), some of which have been published or leaked, could see some hospitals, A&E units or maternity units close, and other services merged.
The proposal for Cheshire and Mersey includes the downgrading of at least one A and E department, while in south-west London the number of acute hospitals could be cut from five to four.
In north-west London there are plans to reduce the number of sites offering a full range of services, while Birmingham and Solihull’s STP proposes a single “lead provider” for maternity care.
NHS England and some health experts say the changes will improve patient care and are necessary to fulfil the plan of the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, for full seven-day services. Opponents argue they are just a way of cutting services.
Some councils have objected so strongly to the lack of public involvement that they have ignored NHS England’s demand to keep the documents private until a later stage and have published them on their websites.
The report from the King’s Fund, based on a review of plans and interviews with local managers, says NHS England set very tight timescales, which is partly to blame for patients and doctors being shut out.
Expensive management consultants have been brought in but clinical teams and GPs have often been only “weakly engaged in the process”, it says.
The report says: “It is clear from our research that STPs have been developed at significant speed and without the meaningful involvement of frontline staff or the patients they serve … Patients and the public have been largely absent from the STP process so far.”
One local manager said of the lack of public involvement: “I’ve been in meetings where I’ve felt a little bit like, you know, where are the real people in this?” Another described the secrecy demanded by NHS England as “ludicrous”.
The report says: “As well as the timeline creating a barrier to meaningful public engagement, national NHS bodies had also asked STP leaders to keep details of draft STPs out of the public domain. This included instructions to actively reject Freedom of Information Act requests (FoIs) to see draft plans.”
On management consultants, the report says some leaders “felt that STPs had ‘created an industry’ for management consultants – and questions were raised about why money is being invested in advice from private companies instead of in frontline services”.
However, the King’s Fund said STPs still offered the “best hope” of improving health and care services.
Sustainability and transformation plans are ‘least bad option’ for NHS
Chris Ham, chief executive of the thinktank, said: “The introduction of STPs has been beset by problems and has been frustrating for many of those involved, but it is vital that we stick with them.
“For all the difficulties over the last few months, their focus on organisations in each area working together is the right approach for improving care and meeting the needs of an ageing population.
“It is also clear that our health and care system is under unprecedented pressure and if STPs do not work then there is no plan B.”
Ham said it was a “heroic assumption” to say out-of-hospital services and GPs could take on more of the work currently done by hospitals, given how under pressure they were.
He said there was “mixed evidence at best” that moving services closer to home improved care.
The NHS medical director, Prof Sir Bruce Keogh, defended the plans. “Advances in medicine mean it is now possible to treat people at home who would previously have needed a trip to hospital. It also means those with the most serious illness need to be treated in centres where specialist help is available around the clock,” he said.
“So this is not a moment to sit on our hands. There are straightforward and frankly overdue things we can do to improve care. We are talking about steady incremental improvement, not a big bang. If we don’t, the problems will only get worse.”
Care at home? Good luck with that!
A report on the national care company Mears and its operation in Torbay:
“”It [also] highlighted a growing breakdown in the carer-service user relationship – the basis of trust and wellbeing – largely due to the miscommunication and lack of empathy from Mears office staff.”
Examples reported by clients include:
Not knowing who will visit and at what time. One client said: “We are never informed when changes are made and when we do have a rota late arrivals are always blamed on “sickness”,”
Care workers are always rushed and not always prepared or provided with adequate client information.
Clients have to instruct care workers what is required during their visits.
Inexperienced and inadequately trained care workers unable to undertake basic tasks.
Lack of understanding in administering medication at the correct times.
Clients at risk due to minimal reference to Clients’ Care Plans.
Clients’ and family members’ concerns aren’t being listened to.
Clients have lost faith and confidence in the support being provided by Mears.Staff reported demoralisation through reduced job satisfaction and concerns for clients’ safety.
Staff in turn reported demoralisation through reduced job satisfaction and concerns for clients’ safety.
These are the report’s main conclusions:
A lack of continuity in care and inadequate response to complaints or concerns from Mears’ office staff are common themes to the feedback.
The majority of clients highlight care workers arriving at the wrong times, or, in the worst cases, not arriving at all. There appears to be an ‘erratic rota system’.
A common complaint is that same-sex care workers were requested but the requests were ignored.
A lack of ‘familiar’ faces causes concern especially for those with dementia.
Inconsistency of rotas having too many ‘unallocated’ slots together with ‘poor’ communication, leading to stress and anxiety for clients and their families.
Many feel that care workers lack ‘appropriate training’ with regard to specific medical conditions and even in such basics as food hygiene.
Many also feel that care workers are often in a hurry to complete tasks.
In particular, both care workers and clients want consistency. Many expressed disbelief at the way the rota system is managed.
Both clients and care workers request that a more consistent and structured approached is used when putting together clients’ rotas, rather than the chaotic and random system currently being experienced.
Further, travel time is part of a carer’s working day and care workers want to be paid for it. (If travel time is included in the wage calculations most care workers are not being paid the minimum wage.)
Evidence collected from current and former staff members of Mears highlighted that they are hugely dissatisfied with the way in which they, and the clients, are being treated, while a typical comment is that the office is not ‘helpful’.
Incomplete Care Plans, together with care workers having insufficient time to read them, impacts on the care needs of the clients, with concerns that complex care is often not met.
New staff are given insufficient support and are leaving due to lack of care in the system.
Care staff feel untrained for the care tasks they are asked to undertake
Healthwatch is recommending an audit of the ways in which Mears complies with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. It is sending a formal letter of concern to Mears’ clients and will review the service again in six months to make sure its recommendations have been met.
Mears is a nationwide organisation which provides care for older and disabled people in their own homes.”
Laura Freeman’s speech at the Exmouth seafront march – Skinner where are you?
““In April this year, just over 4,500 Exmouth people voted yes in a Town Poll. We voted yes for independent, public consultation. This means that we told East Devon District Council – and anyone else listening – that we want to have a say in what happens on our seafront.
“We came out in huge numbers, despite none of the usual help that comes with a general or council election. We came out despite the fact that polling stations were only open for a very, small space of time. Some of us even went out prior to voting, to stand around town – in all weathers – to tell people about the poll, as many people didn’t even know what was going on.
“And what’s happened since the poll in April? Nothing. Why are we being ignored? Ignored by the very people we elect. Well, that’s just not good enough. Today, we have sent a message to East Devon District Council. We have said “We will not be ignored. Our views are important.” East Devon District Council, you need to listen to us.
“We live here. We work here. Some of us will have grown up in this town like generations before, and others will have moved here for a better life or opportunity. When people feel they are being ignored, they shout louder. And that’s what we are doing here today. We are shouting louder!
“Now for those who don’t know, there is a group of people at East Devon District Council who are responsible for the development of this site on the seafront. They are the ‘Exmouth Regeneration Board’. The Chair of this board is Councillor Philip Skinner. We asked Councillor Skinner to come today, along with all East Devon District Councillors and all Exmouth Town Councillors.
“Now, we’ve asked Councillor Skinner to meet with the public before, but this has proven a very tricky task. Actually, we’ve been asking him for months. But he just cannot seem to find any time for meeting with the public. Though, we will still keep trying!
“Councillor Skinner, we hope that you – as someone who can influence something that affects our lives so much – will still come and meet with the people of Exmouth, to answer questions we have, and discuss our ideas and concerns. But with the demolition of assets, closing of businesses and loss of jobs, I’m sure everyone here today will all agree with me, that this meeting with Councillor Skinner must happen soon. There is urgency in this situation.
“So, thank you all for coming here today, standing side-by-side with other members of your community.
“We have shown East Devon District Council that we will take to the streets when they refuse to listen to us through official platforms.
“In a few weeks’ times, on Thursday, December 1, we are having an SES meeting at 7.30pm in the Harbour View Cafe. I really hope many of you will be there. I know that together we can create some great ideas to sort through this situation, and help to protect, as well as enhance, this town we call home.
“Oh, and before I finish, please show your support for the businesses still trading on the proposed development site, The Crazy Golf Course is open today, so go and have a play! And also pop along to the Harbour View Cafe for a nice hot cup of tea and cake! Thank you so much!”
http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/save_exmouth_seafront_speech_by_laura_freeman_1_4773423
Well done, Laura!
“Sacked ministers warn Theresa May: Promote us in a year or there will be ‘trouble’ “
Does this include our own dear Hugo?
“Theresa May has been warned by sacked ministers that she must promote them back into Government within a year or face “trouble” in Parliament.
Senior Tories dismissed by the Prime Minister in the summer have privately warned their “loyalty” only stretches so far after being sent to the backbenches.
Some are ready to increasingly rebel over Mrs May’s grammar schools ban and Brexit priorities unless they are put back on the Government payroll soon.
The ultimatum, made in conversations with The Sunday Telegraph, is designed to make sure Mrs May makes good on indications there is a route back to the Government for those who behave. …
… Some 29 ministers left the Government after Mrs May took over as PrimeMinister – a far higher number then her working majority in the House of Commons of around a dozen.
The unexpectedly brutal reshuffle saw Mrs May accused of “purging” allies of Mr Cameron and Mr Gove, who ran against her in the Tory leadership race.
At the time there were warnings that creating new enemies on the backbenches when the Tories only have a slim majority risked undermining her ability to win votes.
It is understood Tory whips and intermediaries for Mrs May’s team have let it be known there are paths back to Government for those former ministers who behave themselves.
However some have grown impatient and are warning that unless they are promoted by July 2017 they will begin to cause “trouble”.
Exmouth seafront demonstration: video
Just in case EDDC or a local newspaper tries to give the impression of only a handful of protesters today, here is a video which disproves it.
NHS – Swire v Wright: Caption competition
Here is the picture with a first entry!
Exmouth Save our Seafront rally
Campaigners in Exmouth staged a protest march calling for further consultation on controversial seafront redevelopment plans.
The Save Exmouth Seafront group organised the rally on Saturday morning.
It said the peaceful event was held “to express the public’s feelings that their Town Poll request for an independent consultation about the seafront is being ignored by East Devon District Council”. …
… Save Exmouth Seafront recently raised concerns about the escalating costs of the redevelopment, which the council argues will bring long term economic benefits.
Campaign spokeswoman Louise MacAllister said: “SES have been calling for over a year for an independent consultation on the future of the seafront, and have been previously told that it would be too costly.
“Now we hear that EDDC officers are asking cabinet to accept a more than doubling of projected costs for this contentious project from £1.5m, to over £3m. We call on the cabinet to represent the public as they were democratically elected to do so, and ensure that the assumptions and claims made in this report are scrutinised, and that this flawed project is considered in light of evidence rather than an officer’s report based on countless assumptions.”
Swire asks 3 parliamentary questions about furniture!
Owl wonders why, in the midst of all our troubles in East Devon, Swire has this on his mind.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-11-03.51764.h&s=speaker%3A
11265#g51764.q0
Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy, what information his Department holds on changes in
the level of use of chemical fire retardants in furniture over the past
five years.
Written Answers – Department for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy: Fire Prevention: Furniture (11 Nov 2016)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-11-03.51763.h&s=speaker%3A
11265#g51763.q0
Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy, whether his Department plans to propose amendments
to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 to
reduce toxic fire retardants in furniture.
Written Answers – Department for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy: Fire Prevention: Furniture (11 Nov 2016)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-11-03.51765.h&s=speaker%3A
11265#g51765.q0
Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy, if he will make an assessment of the potential
merits of introducing a mandatory requirement for furniture products to
carry a label stipulating the chemicals used in those products.
“GP defends plans to cut hospital beds across eastern Devon” – or does he?
Another example of post-truth journalism, this time from the Sidmouth Herald. Under the above quoted headline, this is what the GP ACTUALLY says:
“I share the concern that there won’t be enough provision in the community – that would be my number one concern. We can only reduce beds when we see corresponding change in the community. The timescale will centre on getting the services in place.
“I understand the huge financial pressures within the system, but it’s not in anybody’s interest to do it badly. Getting it wrong will inevitably cost the system a lot more. Moving our services in that direction is the right thing to do and trying to make sure we get the capacity right is very important. It will be a disaster if we do not.”
Dr Mejzner admitted there will always be people who require non-acute hospital care, but argued this could be provided in remaining community hospital beds, or with private sector contracts in nursing and residential homes.
He stressed the importance of responding to the public consultation to inform decision-making and raise issues that might have not been previously considered.
The GP added that if respondents do not agree with any of the four options presented – which each propose bed cuts – it is important that they state why the proposals are wrong in order to help health bosses determine the main concerns and issues.”
Does that sound like he defends current bed cuts?
We have no system in place, and very little chance of getting it in place in a largely rural community where the costs will be very high and suitably qualified staff are difficult to find and will become more so with immigration controls.
Housing “need”?
“A review of Cornwall’s social housing register has seen about 12,000 applicants taken off the waiting list.
Cornwall Housing has reviewed the accounts of every applicant who hasn’t logged into the allocation system for more than a year.
Those who didn’t get in touch when they were asked to say they wanted to stay on the register have been removed from the list.
When the review started there were more than 30,000 applicants waiting for homes, that’s now been cut down to 18,500.”
BBC Devon Live website
Very rare grey long-eared bat confirmed in East Devon
Owl wonders where these fellow creatures are roosting and if there are any developments planned nearby. How will we know if ecologists won’t say where they are? It would be very awkward if they forage on the Seaton Wetlands, flying over the green wedge, which developers are still trying to build on.
“Exeter-based company Acorn Ecology shared photographs of a grey long-eared bat, of which there are less than 3,000 in the country. Staff carried out biometric tests on droppings below the roosting mammals to confirm it was the rare species and not the more common brown long-eared bat.
Colin Bonfield, senior ecologist, said: “The bat appears to be using the building as an occasional day roost and a regular night roost and is probably associated with a larger colony somewhere in the locality.
“The South West is a stronghold for bat species and 17 species have been recorded in Devon. In my opinion, the presence of grey long-eared bats in Devon is highly linked to lower levels of light pollution as long-eared bats are one of several light averse species present in Devon.
“Other very important factors include currently favourable agricultural practises, suitably diverse foraging habitat and the presence of suitably managed woodlands and the presence of old buildings and structures that provide suitable roosts.”
The company carries out ecological surveys and impact assessments in support of planning applications. It could not disclose the exact location of the bats.”
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/rare_bat_discovered_roosting_in_east_devon_1_4772609
