So, we got our “sovereignty” back …

“Education Secretary Nicky Morgan is to force through the appointment of her nomination for the next head of Ofsted, despite a cross-party committee of MPs saying they had “significant concerns”.

The Education Select Committee, scrutinising the appointment, rejected the choice of Amanda Spielman.

But Mrs Morgan is to override their finding and press ahead with her selection for the independent watchdog.

Mrs Morgan said Ms Spielman “will not shy away from challenging government”.
The education secretary said she was “disappointed that the committee underestimated Amanda’s vision, focus and leadership style. Her objectivity and openness are important strengths”.

Mrs Morgan said she was “100% confident” in her decision – and that “I am not seeking what one committee member described as a ‘crusader’.” …

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36737123

Who will fund the Sidford Industrial Park post-Brexit?

Property funds that own offices, shops, industrial units and warehouses are freezing their assets as fundholders seek to remove their investments in them. In a recession, such properties are millstones, as they go quickly into negative equity and are hard to shift unless you do so at a loss.

Businesses contracting and cautious entrepreneurs no longer want accommodation and this leads to a glut of empty properties which exacerbates the problem.

In this climate, who would fund Sidford Fields and why?

What happens when you put Oliver Letwin in charge of Brexit policy

“Reassuringly, the man in charge of the government’s ‘Brexit unit’ is the go-to guy for not having a clue.

People have always called David Cameron a pragmatist, but the morning after the referendum he must have become a nihilist. Nothing else can explain the appointment of Oliver Letwin to lead the United Kingdom government’s Brexit unit. A prime minister who basically won an election by holding up Liam Byrne’s “I’m afraid there is no money” note has effectively dumped Oliver Letwin on to his successor’s desk – in all senses of that verb. I’m afraid there is no plan. I’m afraid there is Oliver Letwin.

Oliver Letwin! And come to that: unit! “Unit” implies a crack squad, an elite fighting force, a sort of A-Team meets Delta Force outfit whose moral grey areas are a trade-off with the extreme effectiveness best distilled in the famous Jack Nicholson speech in A Few Good Men. Deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want that unit on the wall. You need that unit on the wall.

Instead, you’ve got Oliver Letwin. To fully absorb the fact Oliver Letwin is our guy at the sharp end of Brexit planning is to realise that even as the pound was nose-diving that first morning, we hadn’t reached rock bottom. There was a very deep concealed basement, into which we are only now beginning our journey.

Our tour guide is Oliver Letwin, a man whose chief claim to fame was once being the victim of one of those idiosyncratic Tory burglaries (see also Liam Fox). You know the sort of thing: when you let two strange men into your house at 5am in your pyjamas because they ask to use the loo, only to find – in a development that could only have been predicted by a computer the size of Los Alamos – that they nick your wallet. Or at least, that was Letwin’s chief claim to fame until last year’s declassification of a 1985 report he wrote for Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the Broadwater Farm riot, in which he suggested that social malaise was down to “bad moral attitudes” among black people, who would only re-route regeneration funding into the “disco and drug trade”. (He apologised when this came to light 30 years later.) …

… What’s the plan? “I’m trying to give you the truth,” Letwin twinkled terrifyingly, “which is that I have a completely open mind.” “Which is that you haven’t a clue.” Well of course he hasn’t. Oliver Letwin is your go-to guy if you want someone not to have a clue about something. In 2003, he pledged that a Tory government would automatically deport all asylum seekers to a foreign island “far, far away”. Where? He conceded he did not have “the slightest idea”. He is one remove beyond even Captain Hindsight, the South Park superhero whose speciality is showing up to disaster scenes and explaining what could have been done to avert them. Letwin is Captain I-Haven’t-the-Slightest-Idea. That’s the guy running the Brexit situation room.

“Why was there no mention of Brexit in the national security strategy?” wondered Blunt. “Because,” reasoned Letwin wholly unreasonably, “the government’s firm intent was to remain part of the EU.” And yet, for a government whose firm intent is not to be involved in a nuclear war, it sure has a lot of nuclear weapons. Perhaps it wishes to move to a situation where we wait to be hit by an intercontinental ballistic missile, then appoint Oliver to scratch around for some kind of plan for how to build a nuclear deterrent from the ashes. After all, the ever-upwardly-failing Letwin may be surely added to the list of things that would survive a nuclear holocaust.”

http://gu.com/p/4z3nh

Cranbrook – “Virtual Town Council Consultation Group”

“VIRTUAL TOWN COUNCIL CONSULTATION GROUP

Do you have something to say, but don’t have the time to attend meetings?

Do you have ideas about how to improve Cranbrook?

Do you have ideas about how you would like to see services provided, changed or improved? …

Then join our Virtual Town Council Consultation Group – which we are setting up in response to residents who have indicated that they would like to be involved in the future of the town but are unable to attend meetings or are unable to become a councillor.

As a member of the Virtual Group we will send you emails asking you for your opinions on a range of topics which will help us and partner organisations make decisions. You decide how often and when you would like to answer.
By becoming a member you will help the Town Council to provide an accessible and responsive service and you will be amongst the first to hear about news and updates.”

If you want to be part of this exciting initiative please email us at clerk@cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjO-2O5Hmj8

But no mention of what happens when the “Virtual Consultation Group” overwhelmingly disagrees with the councillors!

The danger of whipping

Nathalie Bennett on the Chilcot Report:

“The government should immediately announce that all future military interventions will have unwhipped votes in the House of Commons. We must never again see MPs being cajoled into voting along party lines when their conscience tells them otherwise.”

Who guards the guards when the all the guards are in trouble?

This is the board of our Local Enterprise Partnership:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/chief-executive-and-non-executive-directors

Post-Brexit, the vast majority of this board is having trouble: housebuilding slowing down, AgustaWestland talking of massive redundancies, universities losing EU funding and students, and many of them have cross-interests and common interests that are going to be very fragile (several have nuclear power interests).

How can we be sure that they will not put their own interests first in tough times when funding is tight?

If, given their interests, they had to decide between, say, supporting their direct or indirect business interests or supporting small and isolated rural communities which would you expect them to choose?

Exeter residents use neighbourhood plan to challenge “studentification”

Residents group Exeter’s St James Forum has issued judicial review proceedings against Exeter City Council in a dispute over ‘studentification’.

It opposes construction of a 320-bed student development near the St James Park football ground, which it argues is a breach of an agreed neighbourhood plan, which sought to change the balance of the locality by resisting the spread of student accommodation.

The neighbourhood plan was approved by a planning inspector and won the support of 92% of residents in a 2013 referendum, the forum said.
It was then adopted by the city council and became part of Exeter’s local development plan.

The Forum argues that the neighbourhood plan should “carry considerable weight” in any planning application in the St James area, as in April planning minster Brandon Lewis said in a letter to local MP Ben Bradshaw: “Where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that had been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted.”

It asked the minister to call in the planning application, which forms part of Exeter City Football Club’s regeneration around its St James Park ground, in March but he declined to interfere with the council’s judgement on the matter.

A statement by the forum said it had been “left with little choice, other than on one hand to concede that the neighbourhood plan was a worthless document in so far as consideration of community balance was concerned or on the other hand stand up for the plan and the residents of St James”.

Exeter City Football Club said it was “bitterly disappointed” by the forum’s legal challenge.

Club chair Julian Tagg said: “Our efforts to work with the forum and find a compromise have been thrown back in our face by what appears to be a minority of individuals who, rather than engage in sensible and amicable discussion seem to be hell–bent on having a confrontation with the city council with the future of the football club as potential collateral damage.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27601%3Acouncil-faces-planning-judicial-review-challenge-over-studentification&catid=63&Itemid=31

Remove rural tourism red tape = more holiday lets for farmers!

Isn’t it just predictable that the givernment would think that tourism can only be improved by more holiday lets!

What about removing VAT on ALL tourist accommodation – as is the case in most of – you would never believe it! – Europe! What about not concreting over our green fields? What about not building houses on our beauty spots and AONBs? No – just let farmers (and other developers) build more!

“Rural campaigners have called for the abolition of planning red tape to help turn round a decline in the number of visitors to Devon and Cornwall’s glorious countryside.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee has announced that it will examine the reasons behind a national wane in visitors to the countryside.

Sarah Lee, head of policy at the Countryside Alliance, said tourism was vital to the economy of rural areas in the region and the Government needed to take action.

“Tourism is of enormous financial importance to rural areas like the Westcountry and it is alarming to see the market decline in this way,” she said.

“We welcome the Efra Select Committee inquiry into the problem and urge parliament to do everything it can to boost and support rural tourism.”

Ms Lee said the Government could act to “remove the red tape” that surrounds planning permission to make it easier for redundant farm buildings to get a new lease of life as holiday lets…. ”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/remove-red-tape-call-to-boost-rural-tourism/story-29484249-detail/story.html

Devolution: if one size doesn’t fit all, how can you be sure you have the right size?

“… In his speech Clark also announced the launch of an official consultation on business rates retention, and insisted that devolution deals were “very much available to all of the country”.

The Communities Secretary said: “No place is the same and no deal should be the same. The geography and powers and governance that are right for one place will not be right for another. But in every case I will look for local agreement, not central imposition.

“Now I know that in many cases it would seem easier to give a standard blueprint and compel authorities to adopt it. But if you believe in devolution as I do that is to miss the whole point. I will not compel any council to join any devolution arrangement. It needs to be locally agreed.

“But in a Britain in which the question has changed from whether to devolve to how significantly, there is a huge opportunity for leaders who are willing to work together in harmony to take powers and budgets which can be used to magnify the impact on the lives of their residents.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27623%3Alocal-government-to-have-seat-at-brexit-negotiating-table-says-communities-secretary&catid=59&Itemid=27

Unfortunately, this probably means that those areas which have not built in robust scrutiny will probably not get it.

When does a park become an “ecology park”? When it’s in Cranbrook!

“We are currently being consulted on the following planning applications:
16/1007/MRES (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, for the construction of 134 dwellings, highway infrastructure, including highway access from London Road/B3174 and associated landscaping works at the land north of London Road and east of Royal Court)
…
16/1235/MRES (access, appearance, landscape, layout and scale for the construction of an Ecology Park and drainage basins at the Ecology Park land east of Cranbrook Education Campus)”

The “drainage basin” sounds just a bit ominous – let’s hope the ecology isn’t drained away with its first flood!

Bovis and Seaton affordable housing – a long and winding road

Below is a report of the original discussion EDDC had in July 2013 about affordable housing on the (then) Tesco site. It should be notec that, though “overage” was discussed and apparently agreed at this meeting, the requirement was subsequently dropped, though no explanation was given for this:

“… Tesco has petitioned for the removal of all the affordable housing on its site to make it more saleable, as it has many problems associated with the infilling of the site which mean that only certain types of houses can be built and fewer of them.

“What I say below is a personal opinion only and reflects my layperson understanding of the debate.

The DMC heard from myself [Sandra Semple] and Paul Arnott: there were no representatives of the town council in attendance. District Councillor Peter Burrows was in attendance earlier in the day as a member of the DMC but left before this item. District Councillor Steph Jones appeared in her capacity as Deputy Portfolio Holder for Housing.

Members of the committee appeared strongly of the view that Tesco was going a step too far. They particularly disliked the comment from the company’s agent that if EDDC did not agree to what they wanted, they would appeal. Some thought this was unacceptable pressure. One member of the committee noted that no affordable housing has been built in Seaton for many, many years and if this reduction was allowed other developers in the town would think they should have the same treatment.

Mr Freeman (I forget what title he has these days) pointed out that there was a mistake in calculations in the documentation (not sure whose fault) and that whereas it had been stated that the company might sustain a loss of over £2 million if affordable housing were included, the real amount on the figures provided was more like £750,000.

It was suggested that this application was a good candidate for EDDC’s new policy of “overage” and here I get a little fuzzy about what they mean – and to be fair so did some of the members of the committee. However, what it appears (to me) to be is that yes, Tesco will be allowed to take out the affordable housing BUT EDDC will put in place an overage clause which says that when the potential loss has been recovered (i.e. after the £750,000 loss has been taken into account – or whatever the correct figure is) then EDDC will take a percentage of the profit thereafter. This means, as I understand it, that, say, Tesco sells the site for £5 million, then they ignore the first £750,000 and the remaining profit is then split between EDDC and Tesco. The EDDC lawyer in attendance could not remember what the percentages agreed were but I have looked it up and the default allowed in the new policy is 50% each but EDDC has the option to increase this percentage if it sees paperwork which shows that the profit could be extremely high.

This only applies to the current planning application. If the site is still vacant when the current planning application runs out then everything has to be renegotiated including the S106 agreements and percentage of affordable housing.

Throughout the afternoon several members of the committee (perhaps with an eye to the next election) said that the economic climate was improving and that this meant that Tesco has less to worry about.

https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/seaton-eddc-votes-to-share-the-profits-with-tesco-but-no-affordable-housing-on-the-site/

The legal requirements of consultation … watch out, EDDC!

“Clearly in austerity times the moment of reckoning approaches where traditional well tried strategies and tactics of keeping posts vacant, business process/organisation design, efficiencies, productivity improvement, mergers and outsourcing will not alone balance the budget and services will need to be rationed or cut entirely.

Furthermore take it as read if you are cutting a service that will have a detrimental effect on a current service user, it cannot be done without consulting those affected.

At the same time understandably your clients [written for lawyers dealing with local authorities] may be tempted to carry out a low-profile consultation for a number of reasons, not least the cost and fear of agitation of organised and political objections.

Well that’s local government.

[The paper goes on to set out current case law on consultation]

… what does this mean in a nutshell? It means that where there is a duty to consult going through the motions will not do. If there is a prescribed method such as set out in the primary or secondary legislation or by a code it must be followed and at the stage where the consultation feedback can be taken into account in the final decision making. Furthermore the case made clear that while there is no general common law duty to consult persons who may be affected by a measure before it is adopted an obligation to consult may arise because of the common law duty of fairness.

This year (February 2016) the Cabinet Office published guidelines on consultation. These are to be treated as expectations for local government too.

What this now means for consultation

The Courts have made a restatement as to who should be consulted and on what basis for consultation. This is of general application for all consultation. The key message is that consultations must be carried out fairly.

This can be summarised as Who, How, When, What and an Evidence Based Analysis:

1. Who do you consult? – In broad terms it is to let those who have a potential interest in the subject. In terms of who must be consulted the demands of fairness are expected to be somewhat higher when an authority contemplates depriving someone of an existing benefit or advantage than when the claimant is a bare applicant for a future benefit.

2. How? – So if a person is likely to lose something or be worse off, then they should be specifically identified and consulted. In Haringey all those affected were written to and the letters were hand delivered. This is considered to be sound practice. So if you know that an individual or household will be adversely affected an attempt must be made to contact them by preferably personal calling and hand delivered letters or by phone call and this be re-enforced by press releases and street and notice poster media.

Twitter “tweets” or council web pages augmented with Survey Monkey are not good enough on their own. If there are partners involved in the services such as health authorities or the third sector, get them involved and seek their view on the consultation and its message even if they may one day turn out to be objectors better you are on cordial or respectful terms with them.

3. When do you consult? – So when should consultation take place? You have to do it with sufficient time to let people know what you are thinking of doing, telling them what your options are and giving them time to reflect upon it and give their views to you that you can take them into account so:
Firstly – consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage and give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit a person to in the court’s words “give an intelligent consideration and response”.

Secondly – adequate time must be given for consideration and response, and,

Finally – the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory required proposals. This should be evidenced by a briefing document presented to the decision making body

4. On what basis? – The purpose of a statutory duty to consult is to ensure public participation in the local authority’s decision-making process. In order for the consultation to achieve that objective, it must fulfil certain minimum requirements.

Meaningful public participation in the decision-making process, in a context with which the general public cannot be expected to be familiar, requires that the consultees should be provided not only with information about proposals such as a draft scheme or policy, but also with an outline of the realistic alternatives, and an indication of the main reasons for the authority’s adoption of its preferred option.

The courts say that there is an obligation to let consultees know, “what the proposal is and exactly why it is under positive consideration”, and telling them enough (which may be a good deal) to enable them to make an intelligent response”.

5. An Evidence Based Analysis – Consultation will only be of use if the data collected from the consultation is properly handled and objectively managed.

This means there must be a sound methodology for data collection, processing and analysis. Responses must be clearly presented and not cherry picked so as to support a particular preferred approach.

This means the findings of a consultation are backed by evidence and where assumptions are made reasons for doing so are identified such as for example statistics supplied by other accredited organisations such as Government sources.

Consultation plans

What does this mean for services particularly in the context of austerity?

The key message is that the quantity and quality of information may need to be re-examined. Thus any strategy or policy likely to have an impact on the community needs to be founded on proper consultation. This is best done by drawing up a consultation plan.

Methodology of qualitative and quantitative collection handling and analysis needs to be stated. While judges are not expecting a full scale committee report to be sent to the public at large, effective consultation plans will need to have anyone likely to be affected specifically identified and targeted to receive information on the subject matter of the consultation and a strategy worked up on how they can be enabled to take part. …

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27528%3Aconsultation-in-austerity-2016-a-practical-guide&catid=59&Itemid=27

Brexit and the environment

“… Boris Johnson was careful to say that deregulation “will not come in any great rush”. However, since the 2010 election, the Government has already shown some eagerness to disengage from the environmental agenda:

In December 2012 Eric Pickles made a statement to Parliament on the emerging new EIA Directive criticising the ‘regulatory creep’ of the European Union
In June 2013 the Environmental Audit Committee report on the UN Rio+20 Earth Summit noted that: ‘the Treasury appears to view the environment as a block to economic development.’

The Technical Consultation on planning carried out in 2014 stated that there was ‘over-implementation’ of environmental assessments;

In March 2015, the Code for Sustainable Homes was removed, and only partially reinstated into Building Regulations;

In July 2015, the Government announced it would no longer proceed with regulations to make all new homes carbon neutral.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27567%3Adontleave-me-this-way&catid=63&Itemid=31

And that is only the tip of the iceberg. The current government has always wanted to reduce the environmental load on developers and now, with developers on the back foot, they will be inclined to put their interests first.

Progressive Alliance

” … Unless something drastic and decisive happens, the next election threatens to become a contest between the Tories and Ukip: in other words, between rightwing technocrats owned by the banks and rightwing demagogues owned by Arron Banks.

What is this drastic something? A progressive alliance.

This means Labour, the SNP, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Féin and other parties agreeing to field just one candidate between them in every constituency. Whether that means a unity candidate representing all parties (perhaps chosen in an open primary, as the political innovator Paul Hilder has suggested), or making way for the party representative most likely to capture the progressive vote is a question that needs to be debated. The Greens and Lib Dems seem ready to play. What about Labour?

Joining such an alliance means giving up Scotland and giving up its hopes of a majority in England and Wales. You could see that as a lot to ask, or you could see it as accepting the inevitable. Here’s where the kinder, gentler politics is required: to abandon tribalism and strike generous bargains with old opponents. It’ll be hard, but the urgency of the task, as we confront an elite that is now empowered to tear down the remains of postwar social democracy, should be apparent to everyone. By giving up hopes of governing alone, Labour could be offered a last chance of survival – but only as part of a wider alliance.

Combined, these forces can win the next general election, whenever that might be. Apart, they will inevitably lose. A progressive alliance need win only once, then use that victory to reform our electoral system, to ensure that the parties of the left and centre never again engage in destructive competition.” …

http://gu.com/p/4npen

Who pays? Who benefits? Who cares?

Construction slows down, right down.
Local Plan targets are not met.
Government penalises councils by raising targets 20%.

Anyone spot the flaw?

And will developers cease buying up land for land-banking during this period?

Dream on, dream on.

Development Management Committee defers Bovis Seaton affordables decision to study viability figures

East Devon’s Development Management Committee has refused to approve an application from Bovis to build extra houses on the Tesco regeneration site at Harbour Road. It decided instead to bring the matter back to its next meeting to look more closely at the viability assessment for Affordable Housing.

Members were surprised when officers said that they were free to look at the viability assessment, although it will not be made publicly available.

This setback for the developers came after the DMC’s chairman, David Keys, and the Council’s Development Officer, Ed Freeman, recommended approval of an extension of the ‘zero relaxation’ for affordable housing (which means NONE at all in the huge project) in March, without bringing the matter to the Committee or informing the town council of the application.

However, it transpires that Bovis had already applied for extra houses on the site, and said no affordable housing should be included because the scheme overall was still £6 million in the red.

But as Seaton ward member Jim Knight asked the DMC, why would they be building these additional houses if the site was not profitable?

The issue came to DMC only because of the persistence of Seaton Town Council, supported on the DMC by Councillor Peter Burrows who insisted that the matter be on the DMC agenda.

The Chair of Seaton’s planning committee, Martin Shaw, argued that the viability assessment for the new application, which linked it to the viability of the scheme as a whole, was flawed because it did not take account of the improved density of the development. He questioned whether the District Valuer had been fully informed when he signed off the viability assessment.

DMC members on all sides expressed concern. Independent leader, Ben Ingham, said that for a long time Seaton had not had enough new housing, but now that it was coming on stream, Seaton people could not afford to buy the houses being built.

Conservative councillor Simon Grundy said ‘We need to stop being treated like children over this matter. The Town council seem to have got a lot closer on this than we did.’

Scandal hit academy school still being funded

Duryard Academy (see previous posts), once hailed by Michael Gove as the “Eton of the State Sector” is still being funded by the government after being threatened with closure.

Its former head teacher SIR Gregg Martin (once the highest paid head teacher in the country with a salary of more than £200,000 with around an extra £161,000 for running a swimming and gym complex in school grounds), who was knighted by Michael Gove, is now its Chair of Governors.

Mr Gove awarded the school £17 million to create a weekly boarding school in Sussex as well as running junior schools in London.

Its financial dealings have been described as “complex”.

Source: The Times

The government recently announced it would make all schools academy schools, but when MPs of its own party threatened to rebel, they rolled it back to only “inadequate” schools which would be forced to do so.

Local Enterprise Partnership scrutiny: Owl says “I told you”!

From Conclusions and Recommendations of Public Accounts Committee Report on Cities and Local Growth:

9. It is alarming that LEPs are not meeting basic standards of governance and transparency, such as disclosing conflicts of interest to the public.

LEPs are led by the private sector, and stakeholders have raised concerns that they are dominated by vested interests that do not properly represent their business communities.

There is a disconnect between decisions being made by local business leaders and accountability working via local authorities. It is therefore crucial that LEPs demonstrate a high standard of governance and transparency over decision making, at least equal to the minimum standards set out by government in the assurance framework.

It is of great concern that many LEPs appear not be meeting these minimum standards. The scale of LEP activity and the sums involved necessitate that LEPs and central government be pro-active in assuring the public that decisions are made with complete probity.

The fact that 42% of LEPs do not publish a register of interests is clearly a risk to ensuring that decisions are made free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

The varying presentation and detail of financial information across LEPs also makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or make comparisons across LEPs on how they spend public money.

Recommendation: The Department should enforce the existing standards of transparency, governance and scrutiny before allocating future funding to LEPs. LEPs themselves also need to be more transparent to the public by, for example, publishing financial information.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/296/29605.htm

NHS Property Services: questions in Parliament hinting at privatisation

Here are just two of several questions asked and answered recently by Parliamentary Question (an opportunity unavailable to Hugo Swire – or so he says – because they conflict with his ministerial duties at the Foreign Office):

NHS PROPERTY SERVICES
13th June 2016

Sir Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent discussions he has had on (a) complete and (b) partial privatisation of the National Health Service’s Property Services.

George Freeman, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Life Sciences: The Department is always looking at ways to realise efficiencies and value for money from the use of its assets and investments, and this includes its investments in companies like NHS Property Services.

Hansard 39784

and

NHS PROPERTY SERVICES: SUSSEX
14th June 2016

Sir Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will order a review to be undertaken of the administration and operational effectiveness of NHS Property Services in (a) West Sussex and (b) Mid Sussex.

George Freeman, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Life Sciences: Review of the effectiveness of NHS Property Services’ operations in all areas of the country is an ongoing process by the Company’s Board, which includes a Departmental senior civil servant as a Director, and by officials in the Department’s Commercial Division.

Hansard 39520

http://www.nicholassoames.org.uk/content/nhs-property-services-sussex-0

NHS Property Services: how it “works” in practice

“THE empty floor at the new Townlands Hospital in Henley shows no sign of being occupied in the near future.

Health chiefs would like the town’s two GP surgeries to move in but negotiations over rent believed to be around £250,000 a year have failed to produce a deal.

The space is being advertised on the Government’s property finder website, leading to speculation that a private healthcare provider might be interested in it.

The hospital was still being built when Sue Ryder pulled out of a deal to relocate its hospice in Nettlebed to Townlands in December 2014. The building was completed in February and opened to patients in March.

Last summer, GPs at the Hart and Bell surgeries said they would be interested in relocating but they have not agreed a rental deal with NHS Property Services, which owns the building.

Philip Unwin, senior partner at the Hart Surgery, said: “We are trying to do it but at the moment NHS Property Services is advertising it on the open market to try to get a bigger rent.

“The best way of securing healthcare services for Henley in the long term is if we move up there and rent it on a long-term lease. It would be a really tight hub of medical services for Henley and the surrounding area.

“There’s a very small window of opportunity and if we don’t grasp it we will miss out. It would be the perfect site for us to move to but we need everybody to be on side to be able to do that.

“I understand why they are advertising it but I hope it’s going to be too expensive for anyone to take the bait. If someone does, we will stay where we are and plod on.”

Ian Reissmann, who chairs the Townlands Steering Group, said the most important thing was that a tenant was found as soon as possible.

He said: “We don’t want to see an empty floor. This hospital has been built to provide medical services and we want these much-needed services to be provided locally.

“Moving the GPs in there would not be straightforward and even if everyone wants to see it happen it’s unlikely to be quick.”

Cllr Reissmann said he would be reluctant to see a private company move in but this might be the only option.

He said: “I’d like to see NHS Property Services bring in other services from the Royal Berkshire Hospital and other providers rather than some sort of private provider.

“It’s an NHS hospital and we want to see NHS services available for free there, which is what we were promised.

“It’s important that the hospital is financially viable and while the hospital isn’t occupied fully then the financial model is not as originally planned, which is a concern.

“My first preference for the empty floor is NHS services which are free to use and my second choice is the GPs. My third choice, if there’s really nothing else, is to reluctantly allow someone to move in there to provide paid-for services. The worst option of all is to leave the floor empty.

“If NHS Property Services was serious about sorting out the problem they would have.

“They’ve known about Sue Ryder for 18 months and they could have made arrangements for someone to move in at least temporarily.”

Henley MP John Howell said: “Who goes on the floor is a matter for the NHS and Townlands Hospital to decide.

“The doctors should get a move on and finalise their bid. It would be good to have them there so they need to make sure they put in a good bid.”

A spokesman for NHS Property Services said: “We are continuing negotiations with prospective occupiers of the second floor.

“It is important to secure tenants for this prime site as soon as possible and we are exploring all options. Rent would be discussed as part of negotiations with prospective tenants.

“As previously stated, we have informed public sector partners that the space is available by listing it on the Government’s electronic property information mapping service for 40 working days.

“After this period, the property also appears on the Government’s property finder website. We have not placed the property on the open market at this stage.”

http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=222190