Tuesday, October 31, 2006

An Inconvenient Truth!!

I went to the free showing of the Al Gore Climater Change movie arranged by Sutton Council.

Congratulations to Councillor Colin Hall for arranging this and it was very appropriate this was shown the day after the publication of the Stern Report.

The movie set out the impact of human generated climate change.

Apart from being a major impact on the world as a whole, there are more immediate impacts on the poorest both in the developing and developed world. Thus this is also an equality issue.

The scientific evidence in support of a human impact is very strong and thus we have seen the debate move from one of proving a theory, through to the weighing up the cost of the impact compared to other pressing needs (the Copenhagen Consensus debate) through to the issue of risk management, which is where the Stern Report is at. The Economist magazine recently published a survey that shifted to this position as well.

I also think we need to go beyond that immediate need and recognise that climate chaos as well as being human generated is also caused by other activities as well (solar luminosity, volcanic activity etc) and has happened many times before (Permian/Triassic boundary 90% mass extinction, no ice caps in the early Eocene etc) due to our climate being a chaotic system, with many tipping points. Thus the best way to tackle it is:

1. A short term (ie 50 years policy) of reducing human generated climate change with a minimum 60% and up to 90% carbon reduction. This will be achieved through new technolo0gy and its spins offs (which will help with the longer term) and regulatory activity combined with educational work, that ensures all the public are are fully aware of the implications and act on them.

2. A much longer risk management approach of "preparing for climate change" which recognises that even if we secure a 90% reduction, non-human impacts may still change climate and we need to maximise our adaptivity to maximise our chances to overcome such changes.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Crime in Sutton

I was at Police Consultative Committee AGM last night and was very proud to be elected unopposed to its Executive, so at least I have won one election this year!!:-)

Key points from the meeting:

1. We were audited by the Metropolitan Police Authority who have higher expectations of their groups in return for funding and clearly we will need in future to demonstrate our levels of community engagement through a clear constitutional connect with the Safer Neighbourhood Teams. In return I suspect we should be aiming to have non-voting representation on any future local Community Safety Scrutiny Committee, in a similar way to the Pateients Forums having speaking rights at Council Health Scrutiny Committees.

2. The Sutton Guardian published crime figures yesterday, that seemed to have confused perscentages for crime levels in wards. I asked about this and the Police said that Annual Crime rates in the borough as a whole had dropped as well as in 13 out of 18 wards, including, I am pleased to say, a 14% reduction in St Helier ward. I have no doubt this reduction is due to the deployment of local Policing teams. I understand a clarification of the figures will appear in next weeks Sutton Guardian.

3. The Police circulated a list of the priorities of all 18 Safer Neighbourhood Panels. This is really helpful in getting an overview on what is happening across the borough in terms of anti-social behaviour. I assume this will also go to Council Area Committees.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

3000 Non-permanent staff at our Hospitals??

According to today's Sutton Guardian (page 3) 3,000 of the 7000 staff at St Helier Hospital are not on permanent contracts.

If this is the case I would expect the 480 jobs to go mainly from non-permanent staff. I also expect this to have a knock-on effect on local employment agencies who make a good living by providing temporary staff for the local NHS, especially for unsociable hours.

The Bed reduction is even more serious as it goes much further than the original Better Health Care Closer to Home (BHCH) proposals.

Maternity Services in Sutton and Epsom

The Evening Standard yesterday published figure for the anuual number of births at each London Region NHS Hospital. This showed that Epsom Hospital (1868) and St Helier (2,664) had the lowest figures in the list. This compares to an average of 3,500-4,000 for most London Hospitals, with St George's at 4,654 and Kingston at 4,845.

This will add to pressure to reduce services to one unit, thus raising the total for one unit up to nearly 4,000 assuming at least some mothers migrate to other hospitals. Again this is likely to lead to services transferring from Epsom to St Helier. Due to the size of any single unit, I suspect that is likely to survive locally in the evolving NHS even if some aspects of Critical Care subsequently migrate to St George's. In effect a phased rebuild St Helier, with enhanced maternity services might well be the final outcome of the discredited BHCH process. Within Sutton at least they might actually have quite a lot of consensus behind it despite what a few Trust senior managers might think.

The question is whether there will even be a midwife led birthing unit at or near Epsom Hospital, especially in the current climate of Trust cuts and the lack of available staff.

As well as Epsom residents, this issue also affects 14% of Sutton residents living in Nonsuch and Cheam Wards, whose child births are currently handled at Epsom. Hopefully the Sutton Health Scrutiny Commitee will remember this when it comes to consider its response on the subject.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Cheam and Worcester Park Area - 25 October

Good to see local Cheam and Worcester Park Tories are giving local Tory activist Mrs Capiello and her neighbours such a good service over the Carlton Crescent bridleway.

My advice from experience is that extinguishment Orders are likely to go to public enquiry and will be opposed by the local Ramblers Association. With a petition of 67 residents against. I cannot see this being agreed and there is about to be quite a lot of money wasted by the Council in going through this process.

Development Control Committee - 1 November

A few quick comments:

Item 3 - Downs Croft, The Drive, Cheam.

Modernism comes to South Cheam but Eleanor Pinfold doesn't like it. It looks rather good to me. In 50 years it will probably be owned by the National Trust.

Item 7 - Iceland Store, St Nicholas Road, Sutton

The previous application was for a table dancing club which local Tories campaigned against. Now the proposal is for a bingo hall. It will interesting to see what local Tories say about this? In my view it will bring a wider range of people to the High Street in the evening thus making it safer.

Item 8 - Kimpton Park Way.

The application seems reasonable. I assume this isn't the site which the Council sold for less than it was worth.

St Helier Hospital Cuts

The latest cuts proposals from St Helier Hospital Trust indicate over 480 job losses and 208 bed closures. I suspect much of the reduction will be of agency and bank staff and keeping posts vacant as compulsory redundancies are very expensive. The Beds reduction is more serious as it would be more than that proposed in the ill-fated Better Healthcare Closer to Home proposals.

This is a good reason why people should join the Unison organised march on November 25.

It will be interesting to see where these job losses fall at a time when the Trust is reconfiguring jobs across its two main hospital sites. I suspect Epsom may in the end take a bigger loss, which is why the Epsom Campus Development Group has been established to come up with other uses for parts of the site.

Maybe Health Scrutiny can clarify the proposed distribution of posts after the reductions are completed?

In addition the lack of transparancy in Trust finances in the past doesn't give us confidence as to how they will manage their finances in the future. We currently have less detail compared to the PCT Turnaround Plan. Such a lack of information would never be tolerated in local government. Perhaps the local NHS is at last catching up with the financial management that local Council's have? We therefore need more details to be provided to Health Scrutiny Committees.

Regenerating St Helier Hospital

The following two paragraphs from the the most recent Better Health Care Closer to Home press release on their website, put the current process in perspective. In particular the last sentence shows the Secretary of State still wants to see any capital investment aimed at the St Helier site, even if this may well be a more phased approach. No doubt the Acute Trust will try to spin this a different way, but the Secretary of State’s position is clear over where investment should in future go. Local MP's met with the Secretary of State last week to lobby her on the issue.

EXTRACT FROM BHCH PRESS RELEASE

“In view of this report and the financial challenges faced by local PCT's, the Secretary of State has withdrawn her decision of 19 December 2005 to have the critical care hospital located at St Helier site and asked David Nicholson to carry out a review, in consultation with local stakeholders.

“In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State has requested that any proposals are consistent with the aims of the White Paper, “Our health, our care, our say”, in delivering care in the community and closer to people’s homes where clinically appropriate. Particular attention must also be paid to the needs of the most disadvantaged communities, in light of the Government’s determination to tackle inequalities in health and the regenerative impact of major NHS capital developments.”

October Council Meeting - Report

The Council Meeting had a few items of interest last night.


1. Council Allowances

John Drage announced that there would be a review of Council allowances, implying the Tories will be offered more. Will they accept the money in view of their Council Manifesto commitments? However Peter Geiringer has always gone on about getting a raw deal as Deputy Leader of the Tory Group. So maybe an interesting Group meeting when the money is on the table?


2. Social Services Complaints

As a result of questioning by Tim Crowley, the Council will inform the inspectorate in future over any complaints made about old people's homes.


3. Decent Homes Standard

In view of the confusion over this issue last night, the most likely scenario at present is that instead of Decent Homes Standard for Council properties being achieved by 2010, it is now likely to be 2012-13. It was pointed out at the meeting that Sutton now has the second worst level of homes complying with Decent Homes Standard at only 24.1% (The London Paper – 20 October). This is due to the lower overall level of investment over the last 20 years tied in with the fact we have some of the lowest rents in London. This has been the joint collective choice of Councillors and tenant reps over a long period endorsed by some of the highest tenant satisfaction rates in London. However it is clear that some investment is now needed to bring stock up to date, which is why the Council and tenants strongly supported the ALMO as a way forward. The only way to have made more rapid investment between 1988 and 2000 would have been through the option of Stock Transfer, which had little support from tenants (12% in 1988 and 9% in 2004). By delaying investment decisions, we now have the option of the ALMO and tenants keep the Council as their landlord. This will take longer, but tenant satisfaction remains high and the ALMO does have wider support.


4. Sutton Community Leisure

As I predicted in an earlier posting, Graham Tope admitted last night that SCL had suggested a transfer (novation) to Greenwich Leisure (GLL) . Whilst the Council are examining bids from other providers as well, I hope that this proposal is agreed as it provides clear continuity for staff as well as linking Sutton into the Olympics preparations as GLL provide Leisure services for the 5 main Olympic London Boroughs.


5. Planning and Back Garden Land

In view of the outbreak of consensus on this last night, I predict that “Option 1” in the current planning consultation will be agreed and that the other two options are only being included to pretend to the Planning Inspectorate that the Council are considering them. I am drafting a submission on this.


6. Annual Review

The Tories raised a reasonable point about Plain English. Maybe there should be a scrutiny taskgroup that could look through the Council website and Council publications to make suggestions?


Overall the Tories raised a few issues but did not go over the top. They seem to be learning that it makes more sense to research their subject matter before rushing into an issue. The Lib Dems were quite low-key, however there were good speeches from Graham Tope and Lyn Gleeson.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Roundshaw - What a Difference

As a former Director of Sutton Regeneration Partnership for 10 years I do take quite a bit of pride in the work that has been done to regenerate Roundshaw.

After today's Sutton Partnership Conference I went for a walk round the estate.

Compared to 10 years ago, there is an amazing difference in how the estate looks.

Next month residents in 680 Council properties on the estate on whether to transfer to Roundshaw Homes. I visited the "Show Home" at 34 Daimler Way and also picked up a copy of the offer document to tenants. I will write separately about this issue in due course.

More from Sutton Partnership Conference

The afternoon session was very interesting as the issue of community safety for people with learning disabilities and other vulnerable people came up.

This is exactly the area where local Safer Neighbourhood Teams of Police and PCSO's can make a difference by getting to know those vulnerable people living independently on their patch.

Overall a very good conference and nice to meet a lot of voluntary sector people again.

Live Blogging from the Sutton Partnership Conference

This post is being made at lunchtime from the Sutton Partnership Annual Conference. Such are the miracles of modern technology.

This years conference is about learning disabilities. This is a big issue in Sutton as Shaun O'Leary in a presentation showed that up to 1100 people with learning disabilities are in the borough, with 150 in hospital settings, 650 in various residential home settings or living independently and 300 at home with parents.

It is noticeable that the statistics presented today show that whilst the majority of people nationally with learning disabilities lived at home with parents or independently, in Sutton it was only 28%,which shows the level of historic institutionalisation that exists in the service in Sutton.

However the longer-term move outside institutions will not be cheap with much higher transport costs required to make a difference to people's quality of life.

The conference is a worthwhile event and I am pleased it was well supported with 176 people registered quite a few who were people with learning disabilities. I was also pleased to see that this year at least 1 Tory Councillor had also registered for this event.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Full Council Meeting - 23 October - Preview

A quite short agenda with only a few items on it:

1. Council Annual Review

A motion from the Lib Dems on the Council Annual Review. I am glad this item is being discussed at full Council. Maybe the Tories will table an amendment drawn their manifesto setting out their own views on the way forward for the Council?

2. Development of Back Garden Land

Having set out three options for planning, the Lib Dems are already seeking to pre-empt the consultation with a motion. I will be writing on this issue in more detail soon, but the implication of the motion seems to be that option 1 is likely to be adopted. Any other option would be hypocritical if this motion is passed. No doubt the motion will be agreed unanimously.

3. Sutton Community Leisure

The Tories have requisitioned this item and state that they believe facilties should: "still be available to the public for the future." A very clear public commitment from them. As I state in an earlier post, let's get on with negotiating a long-term deal with GLL. However the other likely option is a short-term deal with another operator. Without prejudicing negotiating positions, I hoep the Tories and Lib Dems set out their view as the longer-term provision of Council owned leisure facilities.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

St Helier and Epsom Hospitals - Where Now?

The following is an update on where things are after recent media reports.

Following the well attended Epsom Hospital March, Unison have now called for a March over the future of St Helier Hospital on 25 November. Marchers will assemble at the car park near the Junior Tennis Centre in Rosehill Park and march to the open space opposite the hospital for a rally. Please support it.

Despite senior Trust officers saying I was wrong at their recent Board meeting, I was proved right when the whole St Helier and Epsom issue appeared on Sunday on TV on "The Politics Show"

It was good to see local MP's united on the issue with the realisation that we have moved on from previous site debates.

Below I set out a likely scenario for the coming years.

Over the next year. Maternity will shift from Epsom. The 7 patient a day A&E shift from Epsom will also remain, so instead of it being 150-220 daily split between Epsom and St Helier as it was up until September, it will now be 143-227.

Thus we will from next year have the Critical Care Hospital that was proposed in the 2000 Nigel Sewell "Investing in Excellence" proposals, which came before BHCH and is still worth reading.

Assuming downgrading to St Georges occurs, St Helier will survive as the current CCH for 2-3 years before up to 50 patients a day transfer to St Georges. This will probably split 13 extra from Epsom and 37 from St Helier.

Thus at the end of the change process in the next 5 years probably 130 patients a day will still go to Epsom for minor injuries/elderly breathing problems etc, 190 to St Helier and 50 to St Georges compared to the September 2005 position of 150-220-0 respectively.

In the longer run it is possible that has home based services develop, less people will go to minor injuries units, though I suspect you will see more GP services provided from Epsom and St Helier.

In the unlikely event they succeed with the the Sutton Hospital option, the 50 a day figure will go there, with the 130-190 figure respectively for Epsom and St Helier remaining.

Thus the next desperate argument will be that the real long-term choice is between St Georges and a suggested Sutton site. In a year or two I predict that certain people in Epsom will switch to supporting their Reigate Council and Surrey County Council colleagues who have already expressed a preference for the Sutton site over Epsom and who have already abandoned the Epsom site for A&E purposes.

Sutton residents are by a 2-1 majority in the Trust's own consultation strongly opposed to the development of the Sutton site. However I do not believe there is any money to fund a Sutton site and the Royal Marsden seem much more interested in spending money on their "West London" projects.

Thus I suspect Epsom and St Helier would become downgraded health facilties with links to super hospitals at Kingston, Mayday, St Georges in London and East Surrey and St Peter's in Surrey.

Nevertheless it is worth fighting to protect local services at St Helier as well as campaign for phased investment in the site in the coming years.

The figures above are based on Keith Ford's CCH presentation at the ICR building from November 2005 extrapolated on to the recently reported daily figures that I got out of them from the last Trust Board meeting. Health Scrutiny might want to ask them to set out the whole issue of likely daily patient flows under the changing arrangements as until they do. my analysis is likely to be the only one around.

Whilst the Sutton and Epsom Post is totally right that the NHS could make up to 20 million from the sale of the Epsom site, it is unlikely to make any money from the St Helier site as it is actually owned by Sutton Council which it leases to the NHS for the specific purpose of providing "a hospital for the community of St Helier". I know as Nigel Sewell showed the lease to me.

Thus the only organisation that would gain from the redesignation of the St Helier site would be Sutton Council, who as planning authority are currently reviewing their planning policy. No wonder some in Sutton Council want the Sutton Hospital site as Sutton could make up to 20 million from a disposal. There would be a large number of objections to any proposed redesignation.

However, I suspect Sutton Council will sensibly not have the guts to do this, so assuming St Helier is downgraded, it is likely to be kept for NHS purposes and GP services, Intermediate Care and mental health wards are likely to be proposed for the site. Epsom is much more likely to be a prime spot for the development of privately provided NHS services, which of course will still be free at the point of use but privately managed. In addition I suspect other social care services will also be relocated on the Epsom site, through commissioning by Surrey County Council.

Belsize Gardens Orchard - What is left?

Perhaps Councillors Brennan, Lowne and Tope might want to have a look at the Belsize Gardens building site. Only about three trees of the former orchard on the site are left. I hope we are going to get a few more trees as promised in the planning process?

A Single Equalities Forum for Sutton

Since this item is meant to come to Strategy Committee on 16 January, perhaps the Council should start consulting the Disability and Community Relations Forums now?

At the same time perhaps stakeolder groups in the area of women and age, (both youth and older people) should also be consulted soon?

The Future of Looked After Children's Services

Polly Toynbee wrote in the national Guardian on Tuesday that the some in the Government were looking at reducing the provider role of local authorities for looked after children services and focussing on its commisioning role.

I agree with her and believe such a debate is throughly premature in an area that is still developing. Surely we need the full roll-out of children's services to occur by 2010, before we can even start to review its strengths and weaknesses.

I worry that positive new policies announced this week that will enable looked after children to be supported up to age of 21, will be damaged if we are also having to change the only recently set-up structures.

A PFI You Might Like!!

Many people are sceptical over Private Fiance Initiative (PFI) as to its cost and the fact that the Private Sector profit out of public goods with a reliable income stream for 30 or more years that is now refinanced and traded.

However there does seem to be an emerging form of PFI where money is recycled within different parts of the public sector through local authorities bidding to provide services for other parts of the public sector

Tory controlled Huntingdonshire District Council, for example, has opened a 6.5 million health centre which the local PCT will lease back from the Council. Any "profit" the Council makes can either be reinvested in services or passed back to the public through a lower Council Tax.

This is the sort of idea we should be looking for regarding the Wallington/Shotfield Local Care Hospital and the Malden Road Baths sites.

Maybe the senior PCT staff soon to be setting up their desks at the Civic Offices can have a look at this?

Tories hit the Sutton Rich!!

Sutton Tories are beginning to set out their local planning polciy.

They seem to have definitely taken David Cameron to heart!!:-)

In recent weeks they have proposed planning policies to that seem to imply up to a third of the borough should be an Area of Special Local Character in planning terms.

As a result they are aiming to send the message to the wealthiest third of households in the borough that they should not be making the 60,000-100,000 extra capital they would make if they could redevelop their houses. This cap on aspiration clearly shows that they do seem to believe there is such a thing as society!:-)

As a result I think we can assume local Tories do seem supportive of owner-occupiers making extra money in the remaining two-thirds of the borough which nowadays has up to a 70% owner-ocuupation rate and which developers will focus on. As a result of their ASLC polcies, Tories are presumably happy for some development to occur there instead of in ASLC areas (otherwise they wouldn't propose such a designation?) and for local residents to enahance the amount of capital obtainable on their property in non ASLC areas.

In the past such a policy for well-off areas (up to the 1980's when the Tories were last in power locally) was aimed to protect the wealthy from the status of their area supposedly declining in comparison to other local areas, however nowadays suburbs in general have declined relative to urban areas and the countryside and also through the higher turnover of residents who are likely to move more often when family circumstances change to make better use of their tied up capital.

Whilst what the Tories locally are not proposing redistribution as such, they do seem to recognise that it is proper to cap certain ways by the very well-off to of obtain extra wealth through introducing policies that promote the wider interest of society!:-!

No doubt they will be strongly promoting this policy as an example of how they are prepared to take on sectional interests such as the wealthiest third of the borough!:-)

Greenwich Leisure Now!!

I no we are probebly have to spend a lot on time on the review of the Leisure Contract as a result of the proposed termination by Sutton Community Leisure (SCL) on 1st January.

In view of SCL's close connections with Greenwich Leisure (GLL) over the Reading Council Leisure Contract, why don't we just cut out the middle-men and start negotiating with Greenwich Leisure (GLL) who will be a big player in the area of Olympic Legacy (they have contracts with all the 5 key boroughs). Tory Councillors may be interested in this as they may hope to be in power by then, so instead of just being oppositional, here is a chance to think ahead.

When we set up SCL , I did suggest at the time that we instead go with Greenwich Leisure.

I hope we can at last set something up.

Strategy Committee Review

A few comments on the meeting from Monday.


1. Kimpton Road

The agreement with the preferred developer for Sutton's land has fallen through and the second choice developer is now in discussion with the Council. I think it is important that we don't just sell the land for it to stay as just an investment opportunity with undeveloped land being a magnet for flytippers. It is important we see the whole area properly developed as set out in the masterplan.


2. Accomodation

The relocation of senior PCT management to the Civic will help with future integration of health and social care services. I agree with Graham Tope that regulatory functions would be better off at Sutton Police station, so we free up more space at the civic to transfer senior education and environmental services officers there, to better emphasise the strategicdirection/service provider split within the Council.


3. Leisure Contract

I will separately comment on this.


4. War Memorial

As I predicted, in response to Eleanor's de-delegation, the Council sensibly changed the policy to retain funding for cleaning up war memorials. Well done! Ruth Dombey pointed out it was a manifesto commitment, which now saves me asking a Council question about that! I can see why Eleanor did not have a go about possible over-spending on audio-visual equipment as I would have been forced to remind everyone, that she would be hardly credible criticising in view of her support for extra money on political assistants.


5. Smoke Free Policy

This was withdrawn for the moment. Stuart Gordon Bullock rightly pointed out that the policy may have more impact on former manual staff.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Development Control - 18 October

A few items of interest.

Item 2 - Canon House, Wallington

It makes sense to redevelop this site as it will take some development pressure off the roads further from Wallington Town Centre. The Council was also right to press for a higher percentage of affordable homes on this site as it was well connected in terms of public transport. The key thing to try to mitigate is the infamous "Tory Canyon" which does make the road area near the station rather dark and forbidding. Many remember the scandal of the extra height being incorrectly added to the building and all sorts of confidential meetings in the early 1980's. This was one of the issues that Ted Dutton made his name on.

Item 3 - Carshalton Football Club Floodlights

The temporary extension does not seem to have been too intrusive with only 5 objections this time round. This demonstrates having trial periods are a good idea.

Item 5 - Avenue Primary

The provision of better facilities for this sucessful school makes sense and it has already been modified as a result of Councillor and resident objections.

Item 7 - Farm Way

This sort of development does set a dangerous precedent for the redevelopment of similar sites in the rest of Worcester Park. The other planning application in this area (Item 9) looks more appropriate.

Social Care Performance Committee - 17 October

A few points:

Item 3 - Sutton Housing Partnership

The delay in obtaining funds for the ALMO will enable a thorough review of its services to occur. This will enable more efficient procurment approaches to be developed so should mean we get more bang for bucks when we do get the money for the 2008-12 period.

Item 5 - Mental Health

This is an excellent document setting out a lot of detail in area where this sort of information has been deficient in the past. This is very helpful for Merton and Sutton Council's and the PCT in providing ammunition for future lobbying for more resources in this area. The focus on community care is vital as I think the Mental Health Trust estates strategy will take up more than the projected 5 years they are currently assuming. Lets get the community services right first before we all get bogged down in issues relating to the estates strategy.

Carshalton and Clockhouse Area Committee - 11 October

Just a quick comment on item 5 regarding Hackbridge. As I have said in earlier posts, the big issue is how regeneration is funded. This is likely to be private sector led. There will need to be a serious debate on the trade off between the commercial investment, possibly including larger retail units and potential "clone town" issues and the environmental improvements requiring funding.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Transport

Went to the Sutton Sustainable Transport Conference yesterday where I learned how Ken's £5 million for Sutton would be spent.

There seemed to be a lot of soft marketing strategies that are worth giving a go.

I suggested that TfL also pilot a hard marketing strategy in another borough by putting on 18 hours a day bus services with 5-8 minutes frequency.

I also pointed out that more and more Sutton residents are commuting not to London and Croydon, but to Surrey and the M4 corridor and public tranport was weak in this area. There seem to be weak linkages with Surrey and GLA Transport Strategies.

In the breakout sessions I went to the one on the future of Hackbridge. The BedZed people seem to have come up with some good ideas, but the only they way they will be funded is through private sector led regeneration. For example to fund environmental improvements they may have to accept a "clone town" retailer.

Whatever Happened to the Thomas Wall/Robin Hood Merger?

On the Council's October Forward Plan there is a proposal to Merge Thomas Wall Nursery and Robin Hood Infants which says it will come to Strategy Committee on 9 October. However this hasn't happened.

What is the current status of this proposal?

There was a time when the Tories threatened the future of Thomas Wall Nursery and the Lib Dems, along with Labour campaigned for it to survive.

Wouldn't it be ironic if we now see a role reversal on this issue on the Council!

Strategy Committee Preview - 9 October

A few quick comments:


Item 4 - Capital Programme

Can't this be amended to finally sort out the £20,000 outstanding for Rosehill? You might have though the Lib Dems might want to finally put this issue to bed.


Item 6 - Tenant Participation Strategy

It would be good if we could be clear how tenent reps to the ALMO board were elected and isn't £16,500 for tenant participation a bit low?


Item 7 - Civic Offices Accomodation

Will an empty Mint House now be part of the PCT bid for a Local Care Hospital combined with Shotfield? When will we get round to moving staff from Denmark Road to the Civic Offices? These are key services and they should be at the centre of the Council.


Item 8 - Sutton Community Leisure

I hope we can at last sort out the future of this service perhaps by getting Greenwich Leisure to take over. This will then link Sutton into a key player in the London Olympics Legacy.


Item 9 - Audio Visual Equipment

Talk about insensitive. It is completely wrong for the Council to take money allocated for war memorials to pay for Council audio-visial equipment. Eleanor Pinfold was right to de-delegate this. I assume the Lib Dems will withdraw this proposal and issue a public apology on Monday.

October - No Change

We are now in October and:

The Wrythe Ward Councillors still don't have a single public email address.

The Wandle Valley Councillors still don't hold a surgery.

Long gone are the days when it was the Tories who were criticised for not being accessible. Perhaps 20 years in power are breeding complacency in the ruling group?

I will do a further update in November.

The Titanic moves full speed ahead!!

Much to my amazement, with a financial position worsening and Foundation Status further away the Board meeting of the Epsom and St Helier Trust anounced today it was still going forward with plans to resurrect the Critical Care Hospital on the Sutton site.

I suggested to them that such a proposal would at best be for a very small unit attached to the Royal Marsden. They claimed it would still be a big hospital.

I also asked where the money would come from and they basically said they would pay for it from a mortgage based on their revenue income. This is despite the fact that they seem to have a declining income as a result of PCT's at last implementing a revenue led form of Better Health Care Closer to Home through their Turnaround Plans.

The entire debate seemed like a scene form the film "Downfall" on the last days of Hitler, where imaginary armies were committed to battle.

Having reported at the Board that only 7 people would transfer a day from Epsom to St Helier under the new changes so that the new daily figures were now Epsom 143 and St Helier 227, I suspect many people would now prefer to accept this current unpalatable change and no further. Instead after the likely transfer of maternity services from Epsom to St Helier with no birthing unit to replace it (despite what Jayne McCoy hopes) the Board want to take away further significant services from Epsom and St Helier.

If in the end Patients Choice combined with clinical change leads to a slow decline of the Trust, so that in the end St Georges, Kingston and St Peters become the main regional Critical Care Centres with Epsom and St Helier slowly declining into Local Care Hospitals, then that is something we will all have to work together to at least mitigate, but the public themselves will have spoken through their own choices which we all may have to respect. However the proposal by the Trust to develop a new Critical Care Hospital is not patient led but actually bureacracy led.

My advice to the Trust is to drop this mad plan and get on with working with the PCT on better community serves for which the Epsom and St Helier Trust could also be the largest provider for.

Though I am not convinced they will be successful in the current national climate, they could end up wasting a lot more money on more abortive plans. Perhaps Health Scrutiny people might like to ask about this?

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Belmont Prisons!!

The electronic countdown system at the the Bus stop at Sutton Green has an interesting new destination. It is called "Belmont Prisons". I assume they mean Highdown and Downview, which are actually in Banstead. I thought for a moment that Peter Geiringers's demand for a crime crackdown was getting even stronger!!:-)

Watch out now for David Pickles demanding TfL remove the description in view of its potential impact on Belmont House prices!!:-)

Health!, Health! Health!

Just a quick comment on Tory Conference.

It was welcome to see David Cameron's personal commitment of the NHS.

The question he and his local representatives Richard Willis and Ken Andrews need to answer now is are they committed to ensuring St Helier Hospital remains the main hospital in this borough?

I have no doubt the Epsom and St Helier Trust, when it becomes a Foundation will reopen the issue of a smaller specialist unit on the Sutton General site.

Will the Tories "Save the NHS" campaign oppose this proposal when it emerges in the next 2 toi 3 years?

Life with Lyons!!

Just a quick report from Labour Party Conference, where I was at last week.

Went to a fringe with Sir Michael Lyons present. He will present his review of Local Government in the New Year.

He gave the impression that the business rate would not be denationalised.

Afterwards I made the point to him that some useful quick wins would be:

a) Ward Councillor Budgets for them to spend on local issues.

b) Enhanced powers of local scrutiny for Councillors so partner organisations such as the Job Centre and Magistrates Bench were held to greater account.

I also suggested that localism was strongly tied into revitalising the main political parties in all seats. The Lib Dems are weak 400 parliamentary seats, the Tories in 300 and Labour in 200.