£15 Billion - But not for Local Government

The following looks at the impact on recent Lib Dem Conference announcements on Sutton.

Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor is looking for £15 billion changes to government expenditure to pay for Personal Care for the elderly, abolition of tuition fees and increased pensions. These were all 2005 Lib Dem election pledges, which the Economist described at the time as money for the "middle class welfare state" as the biggest gainers would be people who currently lose out from means tests that are aimed to benefit poorer students and pensioners. However quite a few better-off Sutton residents would benefit from these proposals.

This £15 billion change to public expenditure is required as the Lib Dems through their conference vote have now in effect limited their proposed tax take and thus need to find other ways to fund their pledges. If the proposed Green Taxes are effective in changing behaviour and as a result reducing the tax take, Ming Campbell admitted to Jeremy Paxman that they would then have to look at other ways of raising money to offset this potential reduction. No wonder they need to find at least £15 billion from current government expenditure!

As up to three quarters of government expenditure goes on salaries, up to 500,000 public sector jobs might be affected by the proposed shift in money. This would be a potential disbenefit to some Sutton residents.

In terms of local government, there do not seem to me any proposals for extra expenditure for local government, so when Lib Dem Councillors bemoan the Labour Government (which has allowed Sutton budget to increase by up to £100 million in the last 9 years - a 30% real terms increase) they should remember that a Lib Dem Chancellor is unlikely to be any more generous as they want to commit £15 billion elsewhere rather than on local government!

Tax and Pain!!

As I said would happen the Lib Dems at their conference voted through their new tax plans and rejected the 50% policy.

All the hype over the last two day's that it might lose (which was never on the cards) was spin to get the media interested - and they accuse Labour of this sort of thing?

The 50% policy was hardly a totem as it was only brought in by Charles Kennedy during the 2001-05 parliament to attract a few Labour voters and replaced the infamous Ashdown 1992-2001 "Penny on income tax to pay for education/health/pensioners - delete as appropriate" (note it was education at first and then tended to vary from 1999). This earlier policy was dumped as the Lib Dems recognised that the Labour Government had actually increased public spending and the old policy became irrelevant.

The 50% policy was also becoming less relevant due to the greater variety of capital and spending by the very wealthy. Clearly it has a strong symbolism and is redistributive, but has in recent years had the danger of being seen as a threat even by people well below the current 40% threshold. That is why we have the move to Stealth Taxes and Green Taxes that can also redistribute too.

With the Lib Dems dropping it, only John McDonnell's campaign for Labour Party Leader is now advocating the 50% rate though he is currently polling just under 10% in the electoral college. Will he now make this more of an issue for his campaign?

The big problems for the Lib Dems is having adopted the new policy they will now pretend it won't affect anyone, just as they did with Local Income Tax.

They are claiming that only 10% of voters will be worse off, which, means we can pretty much assume the real figure is 20% and probably over 30% in Sutton, which of course is more affluent than the national average. Will we see local Lib Dem literature saying that some people will be worse off?

I suspect the new policy will go down well in places like Hornsey and Wood Green and Brent East. I just wonder whether local parents taking their kids on the school run will be so happy about possible extra costs. The assumption seems to be that since the Council has green policies all the residents are very green. Recycling rates of 30% after a decade or more of effort by the Council say to me that residents may be less signed up to the messages than people think.

Combined with the retention of Local Income Tax, I wonder whether Paul Burstow and Tom Brake may end up regretting their support for this Tax policy?

Take the Money and Run!

Good to see that Sean Brennan was very happy to launch a £5 million transport initiative with money from the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone to cut congestion in the borough.

However it doesn't seem to stop Sean having a go at Ken Livinstone's Londoner magazine, despite the fact Sutton Council also produces a borough magazine!

I think we need both magazines and I have consistently said this. Let's have a little less hypocrisy and inconsistency from the Lib Dems in the next London Mayoral elections. Leave that to the Tories, they do it with so much more style!!:-)

Mayflower Park?

I notice this name for the proposed park at the Hamptons development in Worcester Park is increasingly appearing as a done deal, despite the fact I have nver seen any minute to approve this by the Council. The name of the Park is now appearing on Council produced leaflets (eg the Worcester Park walking leaflet). Is this sort of decsion really left to developers nowadays after the fiasco of Tavern Close, which I and other exposed at the time.

It's a pity really as we could have ended up with a park actually called "Worcester Park" to unite the whole local community together.

Development Control - 27 September

Just a few comments:

Item 2 - The Drive, Cheam

Is anyone really going to notice the difference with this planning application in South Cheam? I mean we are still getting two 5 bedroon houses on this plot. Hardly overdevelopment! The strongest objection seems to be the garages look the same. Laughable really!

Item 3 - Langley Avenue, Worcester Park

I suspect we will quite a few more planning applications like this as there are many houses in the Worcester Park Area with similarly long gardens. As more Councillors argue for even more of the borough to be Areas of Special Local Character (ASLC) it is areas like this that don't qualify that will come under even more pressure. Some Tory Councillors will have to remember they still need to win three more wards for a clear majority, so in effect arguing for more development in those sort of wards through protecting their current wards is not a good electoral policy in the long-run. Maybe Mr Willis and Mr Andrews will calm them down.

Norther Wards Forum - 21 September

Just a few comments:

Item 5 - Community Issues

Pleased to see the Rosehill Section 106 issue is still on the agenda. You might have thought the Lib Dems would have found the 25k from capital to sort the remaining sum out.

Item 6 - St Helier Hospital

Maybe the Forum could as the the Area Committee to support any phased rebuild (it won't be a large one any more0 to occur on the current site?

Item 7 - Planning

I will cover this in a more detailed article

Item 8 - Hackbridge

Will the bioregionalists of Bedzed be happy with the retail proposal or are we looking at another "clone town"?

Item 9 - Youth Shelter at Poulter Park

How was Groundwork allowed to build this the way they did? I do not accept the excuse that the local kid wanted it this way. I could have told them from my experience as a youth on St Helier that a non-metal construction was likely to be vandalised.

Item 10 - St Albans Grove.
Interesting to see that Councillor Paddy "Holocaust" Kane has got a load of bollards!:-)

The Forward Plan - What a waste of an Item??

Scrutiny Co-ord Committee meets on 26 September and will consider the Forward Plan (see my earlier posting) for an indicative time of just 5 minutes!!

In view of decision of the Lib Dems to remove the opposition from Strategy Committee, they should now be seriously considering making the "Forward Plan" the first item on Scrutiny Co-ord, so that the Tory Opposition can indicate what items they think should have debate prior to a decision at Strategy Committee.

At present, the current system empowers Strategy Committee and not the Scrutiny process.

Sustainable Travel

I popped along to the stall in the High Street today as part of Sustainable Transport week. I thought the short walk leaflets that had been produced were excellent.

Following the £4.5 million Sutton has received from Transport for London (TfL), I hope there is wide consultation by the Council and TfL on how we use the money.

One of the crucial things to do is make travelling on bus feel safer in evening through actions and publicity. We have significant spare capacity on evening bus services and we should be thinking of may to maximise usage.

At the same time I think there are a number of bus routes such as the 470 and the S3 where improving the frequency and the time they operate in the evening would make "quick wins" for improving local public transport.

Sutton Magistrates Court - Time for a Local Scrutiny?

I note that our local MP's are strongly arguing for the retention of Sutton Magistrates Court.

This along with hospital A&E's seem to be the two services that are under some threat of centralisation, despite all the talk of localisation for other services.

However no one has set out all the options for potentially retaining magistrates court services in the long-run. If we sit back we might lose the service. We need a proactive approach.

For example, should we be that hung up about the present location in Wallington?

Is it possible the Court might be more effective moving into a Council owned building and taking part in the development in partnership activities that might aid both local justice and a preventative activity towards crime?

Perhaps a Council Scrutiny on local Justice services might be a good idea to explore the options?

Public Email Update

Just a quick update on public email addresses. Congratulations to Margaret Court in now having a public address (though Wandle Valley Councillors are the only ward Councillors not to hold a surgery). Still only the Wrythe ward without any public email address. My view is that there should be at least one Councillor in a ward contactable by email. Hopefully we should soon achieve this minimum standard.

Beddington and Wallington Area - 8 out of 12
Lib Dem - 5 out of 9
Con - 3 out of 3

Carshalton and Clockhouse Area- 10 out of 15
Lib Dem - 5 out of 10
Con - 5 out of 5

Sutton and Belmont Area - 11 out of 15
Lib Dem - 6 out of 8
Con - 5 out of 7

Cheam and Worcester Park Area - 11 out of 12
Lib Dem - 5 out of 5
Con - 6 out of 7

Council Total - 40 out of 54
Lib Dem - 21 out of 32
Con - 19 out of 22

From small acorns...!!

I am pleased to see the Tories nationally have chosen to in effect produce a new party logo of a tree that is remarkably similar to the Sutton Council logo of a tree!

Of course when the Council introduced the tree logo in the late 1980's the local Tories at the time objected to such a change arguing for retention of the quaint Council heraldic crest. This was despite knowing that almost every major business in the country was introducing simplified logos at the time. However with the retirement of Councillor Trevor, I suspect the last of the defenders of the old logo have gone.

I also suspect we will see a similar change of heart happen with the Council magazine, despite the usual cheap shots from a minority of Tory Councillors, I really suspect they will sensibly keep the magazine if they come to power. This of course is just what their collegues in both Croydon and Merton have done, having come to power. Colleguse in Westminster and Wandsworth also have rather impressive magazines too.

Knowing full well, they will do the same, instead of cheap jibes it would be much more sensible if they get one of their Councillors like Tim Crowley to examine how, for example, they could save money on the publication, through more advertising and sponsorship.

A new Super Hospital or a Super New Unit??

Further to my recent postings, if you read what Lorraine Clifton, Epsom and St Helier Trust Executive, has to say in this weeks Sutton Guardian (Pages 22-23), you will notice that she says, "we need a new build but there will probably be a years delay on it".

Does this sound like a new super hospital??

It sounds more like some extra investment on the St Helier site to me, or possibly a small unit attached to the Royal Marsden presumably funded out of a disposal of part of the Epsom site, to another health related provider. Therefore the only "world class" critical care unit we might actually get is a 10 bed one tacked on the side of the Royal Marden in due course, like the one there is at the Royal Marsden building in Central London. It may well a be very positive idea, but will that be a massive benefit to large numbers of Sutton residents?

I just cannot now see a large development as was proposed in BHCH.

Press coverage in yesterday's national Guardian and today's Daily Telegraph (page 2) does not give credance to her views that such a super hospital is likely when so many Trust's are potentially losing A&Es. The adjoining Surrey area is going from 5 A&E's down to two. The former South West London Strategic Health Authority in 2003 referred to Critical Care being at St George's, Kingston and Mayday and not in the Sutton area, so where does a super hospital with "world class services" fit in to these wider plans?

It just does not add up?

The reality is the Trust has in effect implemented the 2000 "Investing in Excellence" plans (well worth a read) which the proposals prior to Better Health care Closer to Home (BHCH). The 10 Local Care Hospitals (of which 8 of the sites already in effect already carry out that function) will evolve in a more piecemeal way with the Surrey PCT and Merton & Sutton PCT developing revenue led local changes through their turnaround plans rather than the capital plans proposed in BHCH.

Perhaps the Epsom and St Helier Trust should stop raising expectations.

Local Government Reform - On Hold

The article on page 2 of Today's Times seems to indicate that Local Government Reform is being put on the back burner.

I'm not really surprised. The ring-fencing of education budgets, Council Tax capping and the Gershon agenda are significant recent changes in their own right. Sutton Council's revenuce expenditure has risen by £100 million in the last 9 years, a 30% real terms rise. This has mainly gone on salaries of extra staff. Over the next few years we will see a focus on how we can use new technology to make better use of the extra staffing levels we have now got compared to the early 1990's. That is the big modernisation challenge we need to address over the next 5-10 years.

In a London context I suspect any future reform will continue to focus around the issue of extra powers for the Mayor of London. In many ways this will be good as there will then be a longish period of relative stability after the upheavals of the 80's.

In terms of finance, I think business rate will stay nationalised (except for Business Improvement Distrcts - BIDs) and council tax in effect remain capped, though local government may be given the ability to levy some small scale green taxes in return for good performance.

Whilst I think the Lib Dems will at their national conference next week, drop their 50% income tax rate for green taxation, it will be interesting to see if they continue to support local income tax or instead go back to something like site value rating.

The main problem with local income tax, is not its practicality, but the fact that the Lib Dems tried to pretend there were no losers from it. Even their own optimistic assessment on their Axe the Tax website showed at least 30% net losers, so why didn't they ever say "there will be losers from it, that just tough." The reality is with any local tax change (remember the 1990-1993 period)there would likely be a 50% losers and 50% winners and that is why the earlier 1990's pain will put people off changing the Council Tax. If the Lib Dems were more honest about this pain maybe it would be worth a principle worth promoting, but I suspect the Lib Dems will continue to pretend that it would be a painless change.

St Georges - Our new Critical Care Hospital??

The interview with NHS Chief Executive David Nicholson in today's national Guardian about the move to less Critical Care Hospitals as a result of "better healthcare closer to home" (where have we heard that phrase before!!) is well worth reading.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/

None of what he says is that new and has been the thinking of Royal Colleges and the NHS Executive for at least 4 years. Look at the former South West London Strategic Health Authorities documents from 2003 if you need further evidence. They never ever referred to a CCH in the Epsom and St Helier Trust area as I kept pointing out through the entire BHCH fiasco.

The national Guardian article demonstrates that the 1 Critical Care Hospital (CCH), 10 Local Care Hospital (LCH) BHCH proposal (see articles below) was really a pipedream and already out of date when it was proposed in 2004/05. That is why the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee should investigate whether it was a waste of money.

The only Critical Care Unit I think we would have got was a 10 bed unit attached to the Royal Marsden, similar to the one attached to their central London site. Indeed we may still get that at some stage in the next 5-10 years, but it won't be a full Critical Care Hospital!!

What BHCH succeeded in doing really well, was splitting political opinion across Surrey with Reigate and Surrey CC in favour of the Sutton site against Epsom and Ewell, thus making it easier to downgrade Epsom Hospital as Sutton Council was never going to have a wide enough strategic approach to stand up for the provision of services outside its area.

As I said years ago, the battle was never "Epsom v St Helier" as both were always under threat. The likelihood is with Epsom downgraded from next month, St Helier may well be downgraded itself within the next 3 to 5 years as St Georges develops as the main CCH for this area.

The St Helier Health Campus (as surely it will be called in due course) will remain an important health facility, but instead of pipedreams maybe we can have a more serious debate over the evolution of the services there through a more likely gradual rebuild in the coming years.

Instead of opportunistically sitting on the fence over the Sutton Hospital site, Sutton Council needs to tell its officers to get on with developing a strategy through its planning powers and influence on the PCT to defend the maximum level of services at St Helier in the coming years.

That is the only game in town, not pipedreams from the past!

Greenwich Judgment Plus!!

I notice that the Tories nationally are looking at the option of scrapping all catchment areas for all schools.

I wonder if local Tories will be very happy this bearing in mind they want the Greenwich Judgment (which in effect stops a borough boundary being a catchment boundary) scrapped?

I have always argued that the Greenwich Judgment is a bit of a red herring as we already had substantial numbers of outborough pupils prior to it, due to the selective system.

Ironically the Greenwich Judgment has almost certainly made our local comprehensives in Sutton even more comprehensive as over 85% of Sutton pupils now go to them rather than our local grammar schools, packed to the gills as they are with Purley and Epsom pupils.

Indeed it is arguable that the 5 grammars (along with their Kingston neighbours) would be better described as South West London schools rather than Sutton schools. I am personally quite relaxed about this as having defined them as such, we can then spend more effort on supporting the real Sutton secondary schools (where 85% of local kids go), such as the recent government invetment in "Better Schools for the Future" which should have improved Stanley Park by 2010 and Carshalton Boys and Girls by 2016.

No Surgeries in the Wandle!!

There used to be a time in the 1980's when Lib Dem Councillors criticised Tory Councillors for not holding ward surgeries.

However times have changed. Nowadays you are more likely to find Tory Councillors with a public email address and a ward surgery.

As well as having the only ward without a public email address (The Wrythe), it is Lib Dem Wandle Valley Ward that is now the only ward without a public ward Councillors surgery.

We know you will never get Councillor Kane to sit at a surgery, but I thought John Drage, who used to sit in for Matthew Bishop would be up for it. Indeed John and Margaret could simply publicise their attendance at one or other of Tom Brake's two surgeries in the ward.

Let's see if there is any change in the next month or so with Wrythe hopefully joining the internet age and Wandle Valley regaining a Councillor surgery, it had for 20 years under popular Labour Councillor Mike Woolley and under some of his successors!

Learning Disability Day Centre Review

The debate on this Strategy demonstrated some of the weaknesses in the current Strategy Committee structure of "no opposition".

Whilst there were some interesting presentations from users, and the Executive Head, the questions from Strategy Committee members were neverhteless rather limited, except for some reasonable points on transport and social activities.

1. Carers in the audience said to me the debate was a bit of a farce.

2. No reference was to made as to what had happened to the Fellowes Road proposals. My understanding this was deleted for cost reasons, but this was never stated at Committee!

3. The future of Woodlands Craft Centre and Seears Park sites was not made clear. One of the problems why these sites are not used well is that Woodlands is never open to the public on a Sunday morning when large numbers of members of the public visit the area. There was no discussion on their future.

4. In view of the significant impact on staff no reference was made of the impact on proposed Model 2 on them. This is rather bad when staff are supposedly such an asset to what is meant to be an Excellent Council!!

Hopefully we will get answers in due course?

The Future of Franklin House

I have previously speculated on the future of Franklin House. At Strategy last night it was clear that despite the positive points in the report before the Committee, the future of Franklin was dependent on what the PCT and the Mental Health Trust were planning for care in the future. This is also tied in with the future of Malvern Ward at Sutton Hospital.

I think there should be an early debate on this, so we can all be clear on what all the options are for the Council and the local NHS.

Investment in services is welcome and integration makes sense too, but so far all we see is a lot of uncertainty!

Strategy Committee - Report

I went to Strategy last night. I was surprised no Conservative Councillors was present to monitor proceedings for their group?

Judging by the lack of debate on the details of the Learning Disability Day Centre issue (which I comment on separately), it still raises questions about the effectiveness of the new "no opposition" arrangements for the a Committee that meets in public?

It was interesting to hear that Ken Livingstone will be visiting Sutton on Thursday to launch the Sustainable Travel Project, which now seems sensibly to be a borough project rather than just a town centre one.

Strategy Committee Preview - 11 September

A few comments prior to this meeting:


Item 5. Learning Disability Day Services

a) I have already commented on the disappearance of the Fellowes Road Day Centre from the project. I just think there should be some explanation (cost?) for the record at Strategy Committee.

b) Many of the proposals seem broadly sensible and take account of the likely expansion of direct payments. The plan for Hallmead has been around for a number of years. It would be helpful to be clear now what will be the plan for the entire Hallmead site after the reprovision. Is there any chance of linking it with development of the Pobjoy Mint site?

c) In terms of the models set out in para 2.29, I am concerned that there seems to be stark difference implied between models 1 and 2. I would have thought there was scope for negotiation with staff representatives for a far more evolutionary approach that responds to the evolving level of take up of direct payments. I am pleased that there is a recognition that we can be a enabler and a provider of choice in a mixed market. I also welcome the rejection of Model 3 as that would meant we had much less influsence on the market.


Item 7 - Building Schools for the Future

It makes sense to support Stanley Park as the school most in need. Whilst a land swap with the PCT for part of Orchard Hill might be a good idea, I suspect it might take too long to achieve. Rebuilding on the current site might be the only option in the end. In terms of the future it would make most sense to rank Carshalton Sports College as next for investment with Carshalton Girls as third. The idea of a joint bid might be worth looking at, to perhaps develop a Carshalton Schools Federation in due course?


Item 8 - Sustainable Town Centre Project.

Sounds very nice, but it would be nice to see the money also spent on quick wins such as increasing bus frequencies and the time the 470 runs ins the evening. It is certainly better to do something rather than pin our hopes on a future Tram link.


Item 10 - Care Centre Building Programme

I welcome the proposed investment in Franklin House in view of previous concerns about the future of this site (we know Bawtree and Ludlow are due to go). However it is still unclear whether this is a long-term investment. Indeed the PCT rep at Health Scrutiny last night also seemed to query its long-term future. Perhaps we should have a clear statement on this at Strategy?


Item 11 - 14-19 Strategic Plan

This is very welcome but does not seem to cover the status of weaker sixth forms which may need extra support.


Item 13 - Local Nature Reserves

The new reserve at Belmont Pastures is welcome as it clearly states the future of this site. Hopefully the status of the northern end will soon be resolved. Councillor Geiringer last night at Health Scrutiny mentioned the proposed health facility on that site.


Item 14 - Parking Review

We all know the parking waive scheme is expensive, but the Lib Dems should continue to honour their commitment on this and this time even Tory Councillors will probably all sing from the same hymn sheet on this issue (ie no differences between Cllrs Shields and Pinfold).


Item 15a - Rights of Way Officer

I hope an exisiting Council Officer can take on this role as the proposal seems sensible.


Item 18 - Urgency Procedure

I have previously speculated what this item is (see below). All may be revealed soon?

Old BHCH is Dead. Long live the new BHCH!!??

Whilst the debate was ostensibly about finance issues, at Health Scrutiny last night, the big news was that the last nail of the coffin in the original Better Health Care Closer to Home (BHCH) project was actually being hammered in.

With no new Critical Care Hospital (CCH) being built in the next 5 to 10 years at the very least, there was little evidence last night of a chain of Local Care Hospitals (LCH) being built either.

Instead, as the "turnaround" paper from the PCT showed, the new BHCH strategy will be "revenue led" rather than "capital led". In other words instead of all new grandiose buildings, the PCT will use its commissioning role to shift more people out of acute settings into the community, with PCT nurses doing a "meet and greet" (and hopefully "Treat" as Sally Brealey observed) at St Helier Hospital to people who turn up at A&E and more community matrons.

Where capital is spent it is likely to be on smaller facilities as we have seen at Middleton Circle, Robin Hood Lane and at Shotfield. Over the next few years we will therefore see in Sutton the emergence of a local health system based round a Major Acute Unit (not a CCH) at St Helier with a modernised Local Care Network.

All of this may be much less controversial than parts of the original BHCH proposals and much more evolutionary than the massive 5 year top-down 1 CCH, 10 LCH project, which when you now think about it, was really a nightmare from a risk management point of view, as so many things could have derailed it and did!!

It should also be noted that with the establishment of the Surrey PCT to replace EEMS and the decision by Surrey Health Scrutiny not to object to Epsom's downgrade, we are seeing a decoupling of London and Surrey health strategies which clearly are moving apart, with the only thing connecting them being that Epsom and St Helier Trust will happen to be a provider of some services in both areas. However the need for an all encompassing Strategy from Dorking to Wimbledon is now clearly dead. I suspect this change will strengthen the role of local authorities in developing community health services.

The question has to be asked, why didn't the PCT try this "revenue-led" approach before and I suspect a lot of this is to do with deep seated cultural issues amongst GP's and consultants.

Clearly there are issues with specific aspects of the PCT's "turnaround" plans that should cause concern and over coming weeks I will look into them in more detail.

ASLC for Shanklin Village!!??

I note that Councillor Peter Geiringer at Sutton Area Committee is requesting more of Belmont Ward to be an Area of Special Local Character.

Judging by the length of his list, perhaps he might be quicker telling us which areas of Belmont shouldn't be an ASLC?:-)

Presumably he and his ward collegues have consulted fellow Tory collegues over this expansion, as the more of the borough that becomes an ASLC, the more planning pressure that is put on the rest of the borough such as marginal Sutton North Ward or Nonsuch Ward?

Secret Urgency?

I note an urgency item coming to Strategy Committee next week. I wonder if it has anything to do with the rumours that a Housing Officer is coming to trial next week?

If that is the case there will no doubt be a lot of press coverage of this issue as well as comment and analyis here.

Decent Homes by 2012?

I have recently seen the letter sent from the Sutton Housing Partnership in which they sensibly give tenants and leaseholders advance information that as a result of initial inspection weaknesses they are pushing back their formal inspection, which will decide how much money they get from the Government.

This seems sensible to me for the following two reasons:

1. As I predicted at Housing SCAG 6 months ago, Secretary of State Ruth Kelly in a recent speech signaled that the pressure on all authorities to achieve Decent Homes Standard by 2010 had been released and exceptions would be allowed.

2. It is better for the ALMO to get its house (so to speak) in order before the inspection that determines how much of its £136 million bid it gets.

I recently sat in at the last SHP Board meeting and it seemed very focussed on the need to improve weaker areas in the coming year or so.

I also welcome the fact that SHP is now represented on the wider Sutton Partnership as it is one of the 4 largest partners (along with Health bodies and the Police) so deserves representation. At some stage I will write up some further thoughts on the Policy4Sutton website.

Where Fellowes Gone??

Just read the Review of Learning Disability Day Services coming to Strategy next week. I will comment in more detail on that and other items shortly.

However it is noticeable that the previous proposal to develop a day centre at Fellowes Road with the Youth service facility has disappeared from when this issue was last discussed.

Maybe this will be clarified at Strategy Committee??

Health Scrutiny - 7 September

A few quick comments:


1. Good to see from the minutes that Councillor John Leach is focussing on acute services. The "pro-Sutton Hospital CCH" faction clearly still needs an advocate in the right place!!:-)


2. on Item 3, the PCT Financial Recovery Plan, I hope Councillors ask for more info on this issue. For years the NHS has had pretty appalling financial management and it whinges far more than even local government does in what has been a period of significant financial expansion. In addition Local Government has been much more effective at managing it equivalent resources. The move from acute to community settings makes sense and points to my suggestion of a larger "Local Care Network" (see postings below) rather than just 3 Local Care Hospitals as being more effective and more likely to be implemented in the coming 5 years. Again this paper shows that all aspects of BHCH have now been dumped and we need to look beyond it. However there may well be inappropriate cuts and my comments are:

a) Consultant to consultant referrals. This is an interesting challenge to current NHS culture!

b) A&E Meet and Greet. This seems a really good idea, that should have been implemented years ago, especially since we have have had to go through the BHCH fiasco.

c) Investment in Community Matrons. Another good idea that souns much better than BHCH.

d) Day Hospitals. A review is ok, but what are the real implications?

e) Respite for Disabled Children. The move from Cedar Close to Orchard Hill could be controversial in view of the fact we are unclear on the future of NHS facilities on the Orchar Hill site. Is this a permanent proposal? Presumably Cedar Close would be flogged off for housing?


3. Item 10 on BHCH should be quick as it really doesn't exist any more in the form proposed. Part of it will of course be dusted down for acute services after the Trust has achieved Foundation Status in 2 years. I will be writing more soon on what we should be the early demands to aim at the Foundation Trust application.

Development Control - 7 September

Two quick comments:

Item 2 - Sainsbury's Worcester Park
I appreciate there are concerns from adjoining residents regarding parking, but having a Sainsbury's in Worcester Park High Street is better than having less shops in the High Street.

Item 4 - Storage Warehouse at Kimpton Road.
This seems to be a reasonable use of the site, in view of the increasing market for this sort of facility from middle-class "declutterers" following the advice of day-time TV.

Nice Map!!

Just popped in the Civic Offices Reception. Liked the large map with all the Councillors shown on it and their phone numbers.

Will the Council get its freelink phone in the reception area set up so residents can ring their Councillor free from that point?

Residents can also email a ward Councillor with the exception of Wrythe Ward! How long before they have a public email address?