| The
NSE distributed it's 'Newsletter No 2' around the local Chalfont St.
Peter Community in December 2003. As with Newsletter No 1, sense's
following commentary looks at the NSE newsletter page-by-page to present
an alternative perspective. |
|
|
|
|
|
The
NSE's Perspective |
|
sense's
Alternative Perspective |
|
|
|
|
Introduction
We promised we would provide further feedback on the responses to
the questionnaires that were distributed during our public exhibition
in July. We have now analysed all of the 341 responses and are pleased
to report that 97% of respondents felt we had explained clearly the
need to upgrade accommodation for NSE's residents. 34% said they were
in favour of our proposal to seek planning permission for private
housing to fund this upgrade; 18% said they didn't mind, 26% said
that they were against it but could see NSE has no other option and
22% said they were against it and NSE needs to find an alternative
solution. These are responses from people who have taken the time
and trouble to study our proposals, to consider the reasons for them
and arrive at an informed opinion.
76% said there were aspects of the proposal that caused them concern.
We have taken note of these and looked at ways of addressing them.
Increased traffic was by far the biggest concern (51%), pressure on
services such as schools, GPs and dentists was the second most common
worry (20%), impact on the environment was the third (12%) and density
of housing and disruption during building came joint fourth (8%).
A short list of other concerns included the need for better lighting,
the impact on house prices, and potential parking problems, but each
of these 'other concerns' were expressed by just 1% or 2% of all respondents.
Although density of housing had worried some people, 54% felt that
Chalfont St Peter needed more affordable housing for sale and 48%
felt there was a need for more starter homes. 43% said the village
needs more three-bed family homes, more affordable housing for rental
and more housing for older people. Only 16% felt there was a need
for more large detached executive homes and 10% felt no more housing
is required. These comments support the NSE's proposals, which are
also entirely consistent with central government policies and with
the housing needs survey conducted earlier this year by Chiltern District
Council.
A large number of people felt traffic calming measures were needed
on Chesham Lane (66%), Denham Lane (60%), junction of Rickmansworth
Lane and Denham Lane (56%) and Rickmansworth Lane itself (53%). We
continue to liaise with the Highways Authority to ensure that our
proposals meet with their requirements. In contrast, 73% welcomed
the proposal to add more footpaths to create better access to the
open countryside beyond NSE's site and 12% said they would like to
see more leisure facilities included in the plans.
Suggestions as to other ways the upgrade of accommodation could be
funded included gravel extraction, income from leisure facilities
and the NHS. 14% thought the lottery should provide the funding and
8% thought the government should.
|
|
Introduction
The NSE's questionnaire was dumbed-down and self-serving. It can come
as no surprise that the 'results' are very much as they would want
and will have predicted. Check out the
real questions the public wanted the NSE to answer. The NSE
continues to try to control the public debate by issuing information
biased heavily towards their desired outcome and shying away from
the real questions that the local community want answered.
Don't believe this? Look for the words 'Green Belt' in their newsletter.
According
to the NSE's figures, only 26 percent of 341 respondents said they
were against their proposals. This equates to 89 people. Given that
more than 1,800 signed the petition opposing the scheme in anything
like it present form, the NSE's figures misrepresent public opinion.
Actually, the whole 'questionnaire' was rather misleading. Take,
for example, the continued attention to "traffic calming"
and additional footpaths - both of these are independent of the
NSE's problems and proposed development and so are irrelevant to
the current debate. Yet the NSE had them occupy a large portion
of their questionnaire.
|
|
|
|
|
Funding
the redevelopment
As reported in our last newsletter, it has been made quite clear to
us that the required level of funding will not be made available from
the Community Fund (the lottery). We have also now had confirmation
that adequate funding will not be forthcoming from the government.
Following the exhibition in July, both Cheryl Gillan, MP for Chesham
and Amersham, and I wrote independently to the secretary of state
for health Dr John Reid requesting financial support for this work.
The minister for health Dr Stephen Ladyman has replied on Dr Reid's
behalf. He makes it clear that no significant funding will be made
available to us and points us in the direction of the section 64 general
scheme which, he writes: "represents the greatest single source
of financial support that the Department of Health provides to the
voluntary sector". He adds that "grants are made to national
organisations or to projects that are potentially of national significance,
but continues by stating that while there is no limit to the amount
that may be awarded "a typical grant is around £30,000
a year".
NSE is well aware of the S64 scheme, which is currently funding some
of the work of our information and education department and some specific
work in medical research. Grants awarded are made in three categories
- project, core and capital and there is no potential for movement
of funds between the different categories. We are not, therefore at
liberty to use money provided for our information services or our
research to fund other aspects of our work.
Although a section 64 grant would make little impact on our total
funding requirement, we continue to present our case to central government
as forcibly as possible. Dr Ladyman is due to visit the NSE in December
to view our site and we will take this opportunity to press home to
him the difficulties that are facing the NSE at the present time.
We, like many of you, would like central government to fund at least
a significant part of this development. However, when John Stoker,
the chief charity commissioner, visited the NSE recently he stated
that rather than seeing charities like the NSE receiving support from
the NHS, the voluntary sector is currently subsidising the NHS by
over £500 million per annum in London alone.
We are continuing tirelessly to explore other funding streams. In
the New Year, we shall be announcing details of a new fundraising
appeal to deflect some of the overall sum that is needed. This was
suggested by some of the people who responded to our questionnaire
and will give local people a tangible way of supporting the essential
improvements while reducing the pressure to release land for private
housing. If we can raise funds from alternative sources, we will reduce
the scale of our proposed development accordingly.
We are aware of the comments circulating locally suggesting that there
are alternative ways of meeting the costs of reproviding accommodation
for the reduced number of people with complex epilepsy living on site.
But to date we have not received any viable alternative proposals.
We remain convinced that ultimately we will be forced to sell some
of our land and we must therefore continue in our resolve to achieve
planning consent.
|
|
Funding
the redevelopment
None of this can come as any great surprise.
Look at it this way - if you were a responsible official in central
Government and somebody came to you and said "We have a deserving
cause - please give us £25Million to care for 150 very needy
people" you'd have to think about it, wouldn't you?. A little
research reveals the 'fully-funded' nature of the NSE's care residences
and dividing £25Million by 152 gives a surprisingly high cost
per person. There is just no way you could justify such a large expenditure
from public funds.
sense
note once more that the NSE are unwilling to put their hands in
their own pockets for a contribution towards their scheme.
[Update May 2004: NSE Planning Application submitted to raise
£32Million, not £25Million above.]
|
|
|
|
|
Why
£25 million?
We have been asked on a number of occasions to give a breakdown of
the estimated costs of our proposed development. It is extremely difficult
to be precise about costs at this stage as the plans we put forward
in July were merely conceptual proposals.
Costs can and will change as a result of amendments we are making
arising out of the comments we have received and as a result of more
detailed discussion with the district council planning officers and
the officers of the Highways Department at the county council. Costs
will also inevitably change as we add detail design to the plans and
with the passage of time as inflation continues to have a differential
effect on costs of building and value of land.
However the breakdown of the costs for the conceptual scheme that
was put before the public in July, calculated for us by Atis Real
Weatheralls, NSE's planning and cost consultants, were as follows:
|
|
Why
£25 million?
Why indeed. Sense estimate that housing for the long-term
care residents could be completely renewed for just £5.6 million.
This is outlined here.
And this is not the cheapest option - some of the accommodation could
be modified/refurbished to increase its useful life by another decade
or so.
Sense
do,however, take some solace that the plan is put out by the NSE
in July "were merely conceptual proposals".
| Apparently,
a breakdown of costs was calculated by the NSE's "planning
and cost consultants". It doesn't seem to be very much
of a breakdown. Sense note that: |
| • |
if
a better one was available, the NSE have chosen not to share
it with the community as part of their consultation process,
and |
| • |
if
this is the best breakdown available, it hardly seems adequate
upon which to make decisions of such a scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
Table
showing breakdown of costs
Care homes £17,000,000
Landscaping £275,000
On-site work to roads £1,336,000
Off-site works to roads £200,000
Infrastructure and services £548,000
Community/therapy facilities £3,800,000
Workshops £1,100,000
Contingency (3%) £ 730,000 (say)
Total £24,989,000
It is important to note that these figures take account of the predicted
40% reduction in the amount of accommodation on site for people with
epilepsy in the next few years. However, it should also be noted that
our client group includes - and will increasingly include - the most
severely disabled people. The requirement is therefore extremely high
for specialist equipment and facilities to cater for their needs.
For example, specialist beds and baths cost between £8,000 and
£15,000 each. Such equipment and facilities are not luxuries.
They are essential in enabling us to provide the round the clock care
and support that is central to our work in ensuring the comfort and
safety of our residents at all times. As you may be aware, we are
not alone in this situation. Other epilepsy centres around the country
are faced with similar difficulties and are quoting costs that are
comparable to ours.
|
|
Table
showing breakdown of costs
Bearing in mind that sense calculate £5.6 million
would meet the stated objective, there are two major problems here.
1. We already see £8Million pounds earmarked for items not directly
connected with long-term residential care, and
2. The figure of £17 million is still opaque to review and understanding.
Sense
understand and accept that there will be a need for some specialist
equipment. We have allowed something for this in our numbers, but
in the continued absence of information from the NSE, cannot be
sure about their adequacy. We do presume though, that such costs
are incorporated in the NSE's overall cost of care figures and are
recharged to the local authorities supplying the residents on a
"full life cycle" basis. We would be interested to know
further details about "the other epilepsy centres quoting similar
costs" - are these residential charges or practical implementation
costs?
|
|
|
|
|
Need
for change
Remember the NSE provides a home for its residents. The people who
live here are not patients, as I've seen them described in various
letters in the local newspaper. They are residents. Chalfont is their
home. All we are trying to do is create a standard of accommodation
acceptable in the 21st century.
So the NSE needs to change if it is to remain viable. If we can't
transform the place, I doubt it will be here in ten years. Care homes
across the country are closing every week because their owners, whether
they be voluntary organisations or private companies, can no longer
afford to run them. Two care homes close very week, with around 12,000
bed spaces lost last year. That's a fact. The response to our consultation
exercise demonstrates that the vast majority of people don't want
that to happen to the NSE. This is an urgent situation with no easy
solution. We need your help and support in trying to resolve it for
the benefit of the people with epilepsy that the Society exists to
serve.
We will issue a further newsletter in the new year. In the meantime,
my senior management colleagues and I are more than happy to answer
any questions you may have. Please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Graham Faulkner
Chief executive
November 2003
|
|
Need
for change
sense have said on this web site and in other publications
that they agree and accept that there is an urgent need to upgrade
the accommodation for the long-term care residents. In fact, is
not clear why this has not been done by the NSE far far sooner.
There has been no need for a kick up the backside from an Act of
Parliament to make this happen.
What sense take issue with is the outrageous capital
sum stated which in turn the NSE say can only be funded by a massive
housing development to the detriment of the local community and
quite possibly the long-term care residents themselves, particularly
in the short term.
The
biggest need for change is on the part of the NSE. Charities, by
definition, are not selfish and inward-only looking organisations.
They help their particular good cause(s), but not to the detriment
of others. Somewhere along the line in recent years, the NSE's actions
have become more akin to a property speculator than a traditional
charity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
