Category Archives: Locality Budget

Woodbridge – County news Jan 2021

Local Coronavirus Update   The rate of COVID infection increased in Suffolk over the Christmas break, leading to a new national lockdown on the 6th of January. As of the 24th January there have been a total of 24,503 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Suffolk, which is a third more than there were on 6th January.

However, on 6th January, COVID infections were 517 per 100,000 while now they are 334, which is below the national average..

Since the pandemic started, there have been 879 Suffolk deaths where there was COVID-19 on the death certificate, and 1054 deaths within 28 days of a COVID test in Suffolk.

In Woodbridge 41 People tested positive for COVID-19 in the week up to 19 January equivalent to 498.3 per hundred thousand resident population: this was down on the week before, but still is a high number (well above the UK average of 406 per hundred thousand). However the population numbers of a place like Woodbridge are so small that looking at infection in terms of numbers per 100,000 can be misleading.Over the same seven day period, East Suffolk reported 727 new infections, down by 332 from week before. This means that the rate of infection in East Suffolk as a district is 348 per 100,000 residents. As the figures are updated daily, it is worth checking them out on https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ where you can get figures by postcode.

t is clear we need to continue sending out the same hands, face, space message and ensure people realise it really applies to them personally.

Vaccination Strategy At a briefing on Suffolk’s Vaccination Strategy last week we were told that Suffolk had speeded up vaccinating after a relatively slow start: and had quadrupled COVID-19 vaccinations over the last week. The Pfizer vaccine had been used since early December, and the Oxford AstraZeneca from January.

This is the largest vaccination effort in history and is being rolled out as a partnership between councils, NHS organisations, voluntary and community organisations overseen by the CCG. Patients who have a mobile phone will receive a text and those who do not are being posted first-class letters.

However there is ongoing debate about the government’s decision to delay the second dose until 12 weeks after the first dose There is ongoing debate about the UK government’s decision to delay the second dose of vaccine until 12 weeks after the first dose, instead of following the recommended dosing interval of 21 days.

In our area delivery is by the Suffolk GP Federation, which is running the COVID-19 vaccination programme for 28 of the county’s 62 GP practices (This must not be confused with your actual GP surgery). Priority is as the national priority list:

1. Residents in care homes for older adults and their carers
2. 80-year-olds and over and frontline health and social care workers
3. 75-year-olds and over
4. 70-year-olds and over and clinically extremely vulnerable individuals
5. 65-year-olds and over
6. 16- to 64-year-olds with serious underlying health conditions
7. 60-year-olds and over
8. 55-year-olds and over
9. 50-year-olds and over

Critical deadlines: all Suffolk care home residents should have received their first vaccination by Sunday 24th January. We were assured that the first 4 cohorts should have received their first vaccination by 15th February.

The key message is: Don’t not contact your GP: you will be contacted, by text or by letter. The Federation is aware of anomalies – they were made aware of many in the briefing I attended – and is doing its best to fix them as soon as possible.

As a separate issue, I am contacting the CCG to see where exactly the Cinderellas of social care: the unpaid family carers sit within this.

As many clinically extremely vulnerable people live at home, supported solely by a family member, it would seem appropriate that they are always vaccinated in the same cohort and at the same time as the person they care for,
More information from https://sneevaccine.org.uk/

New Head of Adult and Community Services: Georgia Chimbani
Georgia was a social worker for 25 years, working in London boroughs, unitary authorities, and county councils. She has also worked in hospitals and with voluntary organisations. Her most recent role was director for local delivery in the south of Essex. Equality and diversity are very important values to her, and she believes in promoting individuality and self-determination. She wants to help service users become independent and live a good life, whatever that might mean to them.

Georgia will be devoting the first few weeks of her time to listening and learning, understanding the way things are done in Suffolk.

I have raised concerns that certain specifically older people are having to choose between being either unsupported or directed toward support they do not want, through a corporate mantra of ‘choice,” pointing out that often they are in situations not in any way of their own choosing. She has promised to look at individual cases I have three on hand, but if anyone has any egregious examples please contact and I can put them all in together.

A wild landscape: trees, reeds, reflected in a running streamLDGI Biodiversity strategy adopted
You will be very pleased to know that at Suffolk County Council unanimously passed a motion that will see Suffolk County Council developing a biodiversity strategy and embracing biodiverse land management practices. The motion was proposed by the LDGI Group and supported by all other groups. I was asked to second it but unfortunately was still convalescent. The motion will ensure:

• Delivery of a biodiversity strategy that will set out how we could increase Suffolk’s biodiversity, halt the loss of habitats and species, and reintroduce declining species in suitable locations.
• Assessment of how the council can lead organisations across the county in efforts to improve biodiversity.
• Adoption of biodiverse land management options on council land.
• A letter to the Secretary of State asking what further support can be made available to local authorities to enhance bio diversity within their areas.

The SCC Budget 2021-22 & Medium Term Financial Plan
SCC is currently preparing its budget for 2021-22, and my group will be contesting some proposals. The long-term Budget Gap ( the difference between forecast resources and expenditure) is looking gloomy, with a predicted constant overspend leading to a predicted cumulative budget gap of just under £160m by 2024-25.

Consultation on the Suffolk Climate Change Action Place  SCC is currently running a consultation on its proposed Streets Guide, which will assist with the design of new residential developments showing how best to create sustainable transport layouts that promote walking and cycling.

A new Street Guide has been commissioned to update guidance for residential streets. Comments on the draft guide are welcomed and there is a survey to complete. The consultation closes at 5pm on 10th February 2021.
Link: https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/planning-waste-and-environment/planning-and-development-advice/suffolk-design-streets-guide/

Locality Budget  I think I have now spent my full locality budget, having provided 9 laptops for lower-income students. I say ‘think’ because there is a small amount that might be returned. If so I plan to spend it on benches or noticeboards for the community.

November report: what’s been happening in Woodbridge

Rocky Singh stands in for County Councillor Page to represent SCC at the Woodbridge centennial Armistice Day Parade and service. Photo: Charmian Berry

Apart from my own health,  last month my principal concerns  were to do with Broomheath, Woodbridge gritting, social care, period poverty  and the ongoing issue of my challenge to Woodbridge Town Council’s Annual Governance and Accountability report.

I am currently off work after a total knee replacement which has left me significantly incapacitated and still largely bedbound. I am not expecting to be able to work this month, but. I hope to be able to return in December.

As I was unable to attend the centenary Armistice Day parade, my place was taken by Mr Rockey Singh who has seen active service in a Commonwealth country.

I will regretfully be cancelling my November surgery.

Highways Improvement – SCC trials new approach to pothole repairs etc The county council established a Highways Improvement and Innovations Board in June which recently announced that Suffolk Highways will be piloting a new approach to prioritising pothole repairs over the winter, but only for those divisions served by the Ipswich Phoenix House depot. If successful, it will be rolled out to other depots.

The new approach will mean more potholes in a single area will be repaired together, and potholes of 200mm width will also be included.

The pilot aims to tackle more potholes at once, rather than later returning to the same area to repair nearby potholes. It will also aim to reduce the number of temporary repairs, which also have to be returned to at a later date. This should reduce the travelling time of maintenance crews, and result in more potholes being filled.

The Board looking into improving the coordination of road closures, reducing the number of roadworks which overrun, and exploring ways for Suffolk Highways to work closer with town and parish councils.

Broomheath resurfacing mystery However, I have had little luck in trying to establish why Broomheath was unexpectedly resurfaced without official notification over the summer.

I have had complaints raised by residents in other parts of Woodbridge, who were at a loss to understand why this no through road of no strategic importance was resurfaced quietly over the summer without apparent need, notice to local councillors, or public appetite – although many other roads and culs de sac in Woodbridge are overlooked. (I am thinking particularly of Naverne Meadows and Grove Gardens, where the need is high and public concern has been loud, protracted and prolonged).

I have found it hard to get any  information as to the whys and wherefores of this operation from Suffolk highways. After some weeks’ persistence, I received the following rather opaque remarks:

“Broomheath was resurfaced using TO15 traffic management, legally we are unable to close a no through road, so this traffic management allows us to delay traffic for up to 15 minutes whilst materials are laid on the ground. This is the safest way of working on site for resident and members of staff. This would have been the reason that you weren’t informed due to the fact that this was not a full road closure, however residents that were immediately affected received a letter from the team on site directly.. The previous resurfacing programmes were governed by formal condition surveys. This site was identified due to its condition and suitability for preventative treatment. Preventing pot holes forming is a far more cost effective approach to maintaining our asset, this is in keeping with national best practice”

I have to say I do not find the explanation compelling.

In fact the entire situation makes the county council look very bad indeed in the eyes of the people of Woodbridge. I have therefore put my concerns  in the hands of deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Highways, Mary Evans.

Woodbridge Gritting Scheme  Just before I went into hospital I reminded Highways of the requirements of the Woodbridge Gritting scheme, and told them that the Town Council should hold the lists of past volunteer gritters and the master list of bin sites. These names need to be confirmed annually to ensure the volunteers are covered by Highways insurance.

So far I have not had a request for funding for additional bins/equipment from Woodbridge town council, nor do I know if the volunteers have been contacted so far this year, or whether any call has been put out for new ones?

We have had some warning that this year might be colder than the last two, and the gritting scheme has been a very efficient way of enabling mobility and reducing falls among the older people of the town. I will not be able to do my regular mile of pavement this year for obvious reasons!

My Official objection to Woodbridge Town Council’s Annual Governance and Accountability Return 2017-18 As I reported at last Town Council meeting, I regretfully had to challenge WTC’s Annual Governance and Accountability Return on the grounds of some anomalies between what the town council declared had been done in 2017-18, and the actuality. Please note these are concerns about process, not about final figures, and they concern the Annual Governance Statement (AGAR) section1 that Woodbridge Town Council confirmed and signed on 15 May.

Although unfortunate, the external auditors are apparently not unused to small councils needing to amend their AGAR, and they confirm they can do so. All they require is for WoodbridgeTC to amend some of the incorrect assertions made in its response to section one of the AGAR (there are several, but most importantly, is failure to follow own financial regulations, included in eg statements 2 and 3 of Section 1) and to elucidate.

The 15th May AGAR statement was voted on by all attending councillors and signed on their behalf by the chair.

The cost of issuing a new letter is £40.00, according to the external auditor’s website. I mention this because the sum of £14,000 was being plucked out of the air and stated as fact by at least one councillor at the last Town Council meeting. It is very important to be accurate in these matters.

One of my formal roles as County Councillor is, as Community Leader, “to participate constructively in the good governance of the area” and “to act as an informal local scrutineer.” I continue to be surprised that Woodbridge Town Council should seem to be reluctant to put right what they know to be wrong, and demonstrate transparency to those they represent.

SCC refuses funding to help end period poverty On 18 October, my group were happy to support a Labour motion asking the county council for a budget commitment of £15,000 to help tackle “period poverty”. Many girls suffer and frequently miss school because they are unable to afford sanitary products. The motion therefore asked the Council to fund free sanitary products in all local authority maintained schools in Suffolk, which would encourage academies to implement similar measures.

Unfortunately, the Conservative administration once again amended the motion, removing all funding commitments. Their claim was that this was because the level of funding in the original motion was too small and unfairly favoured girls at maintained schools.

However, this claim did not hold water. I immediately put in a later amendment on behalf of my LDGI group which proposed increasing the funding commitment to a still notional £30,000 to include all schools in Suffolk. This was voted down by the Conservative majority without explanation.

New Home Care operating model At Cabinet on 9 October a new Home Care operating model was agreed. It was acknowledged that the previous model had not been a success and had caused unnecessary stress to both care providers and residents receiving home care. We were assured that “lessons had been learned” from this previous experience, and that greater care had been taken to develop the operating model in partnership with stakeholders.

I raised – here and later in full council – the problem of the combined impact of Suffolk’s free market housing policy (which is losing us our young people) and Brexit on care in Suffolk. Currently 1in 5 people are over 65. In twenty years it will be 1 in 3. Yet Suffolk hasn’t enough carers now. What will happen to people’s care needs, I asked? Substantive answer came there none.

After a call-in the model went to the Council’s Scrutiny Committee. However, the majority of the Scrutiny Committee voted to proceed with the new model rather than asking Cabinet to reconsider their decision.

Budget consultation and reduction in overspend  Suffolk County Council is currently consulting on the 2019/20 budget and is asking the public to share their ideas for potential savings. The consultation runs until 5pm on Friday 16 November, and can be found at: https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/consultations-petitions-and-elections/consultations/a-tough-call-to-make-budget-20192020/. We will get our first look at the 2019/20 budget proposals on Thursday 22 November, when they are presented to the Scrutiny Committee. I would encourage everyone to put in their suggestions and pass on this link.

At the end of Quarter 1 the council was predicting an overspend on the 2018/19 net budget of £8.6m. This prediction has now reduced, at the end of Quarter 2, to a £7.5m overspend. Although an improvement, it is unlikely that the overspend will be reduced completely by the end of the financial year, and the council will still need to make use of reserves to cover the funding gap.

School admissions consultation Suffolk County Council is consulting on its school admissions policy for 2020/21, available at: https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/children-families-and-learning/schools/school-places/consultation-on-admissions-to-schools-in-suffolk-for-the-20202021-school-year/. The consultation is open until 12 November 2018.

No significant changes are proposed for 2020/21. However, the council are also seeking views on potential future changes to the oversubscription criteria, in terms of the removal of catchment area priority. If they decide to progress with this change, there would be another consultation October 2019 and any changes would then apply from 2021/22.

Second Suffolk children’s home judged “inadequate” A children’s home run by Suffolk County Council has been judged “inadequate” by Ofsted, following an inspection on 3 October 2018. This is the second council-run children’s home to receive an inadequate rating in the past 2 months.

Ofsted expressed particular concern over unsafe behaviour management techniques used by staff in the home, and noted a significant increase in the number of physical interventions.

Council signs up to 100% nuclear energy deal  At the Council meeting on 18 October, members of my political group put forward a motion calling on the Council to recognise the benefits of renewable energy, commission a report into smart grids, and commit to ensuring at least 50% of the Council’s energy comes from renewable sources by 2025. Unfortunately, the Conservative administration amended the motion to remove any clear actions or targets.

It was also revealed that the Council have recently signed off on a 100% nuclear energy deal for the next three years, to commence in March 2019. This represents a major step backwards for Suffolk County Council, whose current energy contract includes 18.7% renewables.