Greasing the wheels as Cowick deserves better buses

Tine and time again - on the doorstep, on the street, in phone calls and e-mails - I am being told that Stagecoach's P service does not met the needs of the residents of Cowick.

And the main focus of complaint is that the P bus goes nowhere near the nearest doctors' surgery.

Why is this such a concern for those people living in Cowick?

The 2011 census might hold some clues. The data from that census shows that there were 5,650 residents living in 2315 households.

Cowick has 1277 residents over retirement age (that's 22.6% of them, and puts the ward second in the ranking after Topsham). 

There are 333 residents who have stated that they have " bad" or "very bad" health (5.9% and ranked third after Whipton Barton and Priory).

On car ownership, 21.3% of Cowick households do not have a car - that means nearly 1,000 residents of Cowick might need to use public transport.

That's why it's been important to campaign for a bus service that allows Cowick's residents easy access to their GP.

I've been speaking to Ben Bradshaw who is keen to see some of the recommendations of the IPPR report Greasing The Wheels implemented.

These include:

• giving greater powers and responsibilities to local bodies to shape local bus markets
• replicating the Transport for London (TfL) model at the city-region and combined authority level
• greater integration of transport spending and services by health and education providers (such as hospital shuttles and school buses)
• a new long-term, national transport strategy, to be written and owned by the Department for Transport.

Potholes in Cowick | Spot the difference 2

I've already commented on the state of potholes along Bowhay Lane

However, it seems that although they looked similar and were with some 50m of each other, the one at the junction with Merrivale Road has been permanently patched and the other near the junction with Surbiton Crescent has not. This despite the order for both to done at the same time.

Pothole near junction with Surbiton Crescent 

Pothole near junction with Merrivale Road

Where is Cowick? What is Cowick?

Many people living in Cowick refer to their postal address as St Thomas or Higher St Thomas.

So where is Cowick?

Basically its everything on the left hand side as you drive along Cowick Lane and Buddle Lane from after the allotments through to Iselworth Rad (left hand side as you go up Isleworth Road). Hope that helps!

And here's a link to the googlemap view of Cowick ward

DRAFT @DevonCC map of #CowickPNSL

What what is Cowick?

Here are some facts and figures from 2011 Census:

Presented below are key facts from the 2011 Census for Cowick.

Cowick Ward Image

Main Census Indicators - Cowick

Indicator	Cowick	Exeter	Ward*
Population	5,650	117,773	13th
Households	2,315	49,242	17th
Population change since 2001	- 0.1%	6.0%	14th
Persons aged under 16	18.3%	15.8%	7th
Persons of working age (16 - 64)	58.9%	68.6%	16th
Persons of retirement age	22.6%	15.6%	2nd
Persons of non white ethnic group	2.1%	6.9%	17th
Persons stating general health 'bad' or 'very bad'	5.9%	4.8%	3rd
Persons aged 16 - 74 with no qualifications	27.0%	18.3%	3rd
Persons aged 16 - 74 with degree level qualifications	19.3%	28.6%	16th
Persons aged 16 - 74 who are full time students	4.8%	16.4%	17th
Households with no cars / vans	21.3%	27.1%	12th
Households rented from local authority / housing association	13.6%	17.0%	8th
Average household size	2.4	2.3	3rd
Households with no central heating	4.4%	5.3%	11th

* Rank out of the 18 wards in the city

Source: 2011 Census, Crown Copyright

An Open Letter to Maddi Bridgeman

Maddi, 

I've just read the article "Plymouth's new UKIP councillor: 'Judge me on my personality, not my party" on the Plymouth Herald website.

Well, the thing is we could have judged you on your personality if you didn't stand for a party.

I live up the A38 in Exeter, and from what I've heard and read about you and the campaign over re-opening Plymouth Airport, you could have stood as an Independent (or even a single issue Viable candidate) and probably won on your own personality.

But you didn't. 

You chose to stand as a Party candidate - and that brings baggage.

I don't know you - but I do know Nicky Williams who lost her seat in 
Honicknowle on Thursday.

She didn't lose her seat because of her personality, she lost her seat because of her party and your party. That's the way it goes in politics.

Nicky did great work trying to get survivors of Domestic Violence exempt from the Bedroom Tax. A great campaign taken up by Alison Seabeck in Parliament. Maybe you would like to continue in her footsteps?

In the article you say that your party has a great local election manifesto. 

But to UKIP Plymouth Chairman, Hugh Williams, all that means nothing.

I'm sure you heard him on the Sunday Politics South West slot on 25/05/14 (available on iPlayer until 01/06/14 - see from 43:25) on Sunday in response to questions about policies tell Lucie Fisher:

"I look on UKIP...as a single issue Party because we have to leave the European Union first and then we can sort out all the other things".

Can Plymouth City Council make that happen - NO

Does this help residents of Plymouth in any way - NO

To me, Mr Williams has just trashed the local election manifesto on which you stood. He has no interest in the local problems you say you want to tackle - "homelessness, poverty, that's what I stand for".  That may be so, but from Mr Williams comments, that's not what your local Party stand for.

When challenged on the same programme on your Party's plans to cut maternity pay (from 56:250), you said:

"I can't see that happening...we fought so hard to get it, haven't we." 

And who helped us get maternity pay and leave. Well the EU , of course. 

The House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/BT/1429 Maternity Pay and Leave published on 13 January 2010 states:

At EU level, the Pregnant Workers Directive 92/85/EC provides for a minimum maternity leave period for employees of 14 weeks and for a minimum payment during this leave at the level of sick pay. The maternity provisions in the UK generally either meet, or are more generous than the minimum requirements of this directive.

You went on to say:

"I don't understand why THEY want to cut it" (my emphasis).

Well, the THEY that want to cut that hard-won maternity pay is YOUR Party.  

And they know that claim is toxic.

It was made on various people's websites but this claim has been removed.

For example, Vox Political is informed that Amjad Bashir, UKIP's Small and Medium Business Spokesman, has changed his website to remove the reference to maternity pay and other employment rights. 

Fortunately, another member of our online community had the presence of mind to keep a copy of the site as it was before the edit, and created an image that demonstrates the differences. 

The point was  confirmed on UKIP member Keith Rowe’s website where he had a small business policy (now removed), where item 3.2 stated: “UKIP proposes to vastly simplify this legislation. It would be up to each employer to decide whether to offer parental leave.” 

Make no mistake, Maddi, that would mean the end of Statutory Maternity Pay.

You have said that you are the first female elected as a UKIP councillor. 

To me that speaks volumes for your Party - you are more important to them for this, than for any other reason.

Of course you aren't  the first female UKIP councillor - there was at least one previously, Cllr Donna Edmunds in Lewes, but she defected to your Party from the Conservatives.

Maddi, I am sorry that you have been called racist and homophobic - I don't believe either you or your Party are. 

But your Party does seem to attract a fair few that are racist and homophobic - Cllr Dave Small in Redditch seems to be just the latest of a long list associated with your Party.

I look forward to your public condemnation of him.

Yours

Paul

Potholes in Cowick | Spot the difference

At the Exeter Highways And Traffic Orders meeting on  Tuesday 22 April, elected members received a presentation from David Whitton, Head of Highways, Capital Development and Waste, where he gave on update on the state of Devon's Highways.

The presentation covered many topics:

- impacts of winter weather  - 1340 fallen trees; 176 bank slips; 4600 reported flooding incidents

- introduction of Members Information Pack 

- building the case for more capital funding - Devon highways budget and road condition index; and

- examples of efficiencies - recycling of materials e.g. reedbed treatment of gully waste and surface dressing.

David Whitton also mentioned that Devon County County Council needs to spend £64m per year to maintain Devon's highway network in it's 2012 condition - however, this year's budget is only £34m.

So, DCC  are working to maintain Devon's busy A and B roads and slow down deterioration as much as possible elsewhere.

But of most interest to me was the bit on repairing potholes...

What is a pothole? 

Apparently a pothole a fault in the road which measures at least 300mm in diameter and 40mm in depth. 

Anything smaller than this is not considered to be pothole and will not be repaired.

How to report a pothole?

The preferred method of reporting potholes is to use DCC's on-line reporting form but most use the Highways Customer Service Centre on 0845 155 1004.

I sometimes use CTC smartphone app Fill That Hole and if local residents contact me, I'll pass their concerns on to Cowick's Neighbourhood Highways Officer

According to the Fix That Hole league table, Devon sits at 130 out of 214 highways authorities with

1655 reported

1327 open

  312 fixed

so that makes a 19% fixed rate

What happens next?

Once DCC have received your report , they aim to repair the pothole the next working day on main roads and within seven working days on minor roads.

David Whitton went on to explain the process to fixing potholes.

Category 3-6 Potholes

- clean and cut out

- apply bitumen and bond to edge

- place and compact hot-lay asphalt

Teams can do about 10 of these a day

Category 7-11 Potholes

- clean and remove loose materia

- apply bitumen and bond to edge

- place and compact cold-lay material

This method is more expensive, but teams can do 20 of these a day. 

From DfT Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme Prevention and A Better Cure pothole review 2012

RIGHT FIRST TIME DELIVERY

Current Practice

7.8 Proprietary cold materials may be laid quickly with the advantage of ‘make safe’ repairs minimising traffic disruption. They may, however, be less durable." (p38)

The same document goes on...

QUALITY CONTROL AND SUPERVISION

7.17 There is often minimal, if any, direct supervision or quality control of pothole repairs. Contractors undertaking the work will carry out normal managerial supervision of operatives but this is not production control of the end product. Local highway authorities often rely on contractors self certification, or on random quality checks. Auditing contractors’ method statements should be an important step in managing quality.

7.18 Some local highway authorities have instigated a regime of before, during and after photographs for defect repair, similar to the process set out in the ADEPT report. This provides evidence of the initial defect and the completed repair and is available for review as necessary. Ideally, any pothole reported by the public can be completed by responding automatically with a photograph of the repair.

In that case here's before and after pictures of a large pothole in Bowhay Lane, near the junction with Surbiton Crescent 

BEFORE | 03/04/14

AFTER | 26/04/14

 In particular look at the narrow tip at the top of the after photo:

CLOSE-UP | 26/04/14

I'm guessing that this part of the original defect didn't meet the size criteria for repair?

Further along Bowhay Lane, near the junction with Merrivale Vale, the quality of the patch is even more questionable:

AFTER | 26/04/14

I do hope that in both instances these are temporary repairs 

UPDATE 10/06/14

i've discovered that the categories mentioned above refer to the ROAD that the potholes are on, rather than the severity of the pothole!

Within Cowick, for example:

Category 4 - County Primary Route

Cowick Lane, Buddle Lane and Dunsford Road

Category 8 - Minor Collector Road

Bowhay Lane

Category 9 - Service Road (primarily for residents, but also a through road)

Surbiton Crescent

Category 10 - Minor Service Road  (cul-de-sac)

Solar Crescent

More information can be found under Devon County Council's Highways Briefing for Members

Why I am standing for the NEC of the Co-op Party

The Co-op Party believes that people will achieve more by working together than they can by working alone.

As the political party of the co-operative movement, the Co-op Party works to promote co-operative and mutual forms of organisation, working in partnership with the Labour Party.

Paul Bull

National Executive Committee Candidate - South West 
 Twitter

Well, what a year it’s been for the Co-operative movement? 

A year ago,  the Co-operative Bank was to take over 632 branches from Lloyds to create an enlarged operation based on a model of customer-centric, member-led, ethically-driven banking with the goal to promote the interests of mutuals.

The Co-operative Party was there to support those aims, because they are fundamental to the values and principles of the co-operative movement.

The Party was there, even when the deal collapsed.

Since then it seems to be a catalogue of disasters for the Group

Who was there each time, offering strong support for the future of mutuals in the face of pressure for a big business solution to these problems?

Yes, the Co-operative Party.

Throughout the all these crises, the Co-op Party has helped keep the vision of the Rochdale Pioneers alive.

It is important for the Party to make sure that the Group remain true to the founding values and principles of co-operative movement.

This is the time is the time for the Party to become the face and voice of the co-operative movement and to ensure that the Co-op Group remain steadfast in its aims

Yet the Party is under threat – under threat from that self-same Co-operative Group.

There is no doubt about the Group has already cut the Party’s funding.

The “Having Your Say” exercise may mean those funds will be reduced even further. They may even be cut completely.

  We have to remember, though, that the Co-op Party is not the political voice of the Co-operative Group – it is the poitical voice of the whole co-operative and mutual movement. The Group may be the biggest player in the UK movement but that movement doesn’t begin and end with the Group.  

The Party needs to survive.

The Party needs to survive to give voice for a movement  of over 6000 co-operatives in the UK, each of which are working together to seek positive change.

For the Party to survive, the Party needs to change.

I’ve already noticed that the Party has started to change.

I was there at Conference in Manchester in 2012 under the old system – and there in Edinburgh last year offering a dynamic new future.

The Party is formulating good polices through engagement with members in a structured manner.

Party Conference has refined these policies through debate and will use this to inform the manifesto for the 2015 General Election.

An election we need to win in partnership with the Labour Party.

The Co-operative Party is on the move to ensure that it is viable, and it needs a strong NEC to realise that future.

I want to secure the future of the Co-operative Party

I believe that people can achieve more by working together than they can by working alone.

I think I can best serve that aim by working with other members of the new NEC to ensure the future of the Co-operative Party.

Stonger Together – Better with Bull

Rachel Reeves on Closure of Independent Living Fund

            RACHEL REEVES MP

UNIT 10, ARMLEY PARK COURT,

STANNINGLEY ROAD

LEEDS

LS12 2AE

[T] 0113 263 0411

[E] rachel.reeves.mp@parliament.uk

                                                                                                           [W] www.rachelreeves.net

Dear Mr Bull,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Government's plans to abolish the Independent Living Fund (ILF).

I appreciate the importance of supporting disabled people to live independently and in their local community and I know that many people value and rely on the funding they receive from the ILF. Indeed, 19,000 people currently receive an average of £300 per week through the ILF and many disabled people and their families will be extremely worried by the Government's decision to no longer accept new ILF applicants, and to close the Fund entirely in 2015. After this date, local authorities will be responsible for meeting the care and support needs of current ILF users.

As I am sure you are aware, the Government held a public consultation on how to fund and support independent living for disabled people beyond the closure of the ILF in 2015. This consultation closed on 12th October 2012 and a large number of respondents and their carers expressed strong opposition to the closure of the ILF. The response from local authorities also showed concern about the level of funding that will be made available beyond 2015 to support current ILF users. It is vital that the Government listen to and address the very serious concerns that have been expressed by disabled people, disability charities and local authorities about the closure of the ILF.  

These changes of course come on top of a Government programme of funding reductions to Local Government which has disproportionately targeted poorer areas and more vulnerable groups.

These cuts are having a real impact on the delivery of local services that are essential to helping disabled people live independently. Indeed, four in ten disabled adults are now failing to have their basic social care needs met and nearly half of all disabled adults say that services are not supporting them to live independently in their local community. 

I believe independent living is crucial to ensuring that disabled people have the same rights, choices and chances as any other citizen. As you may be aware, Labour tabled an amendment during the Committee Stage of the Care Bill which would have ensured this was the case, and would have included the concept of independent living in the duty on local authorities to promote an individual's well-being. I am disappointed that the Government voted against and defeated this amendment. 

Labour will continue to press the Government to explain how it will ensure that disabled people are supported to live independently in the community. In particular, we are calling on the Government to bring forward a detailed plan for how it will ensure that the money people received through the ILF will be used to promote independent living for disabled people, and not simply swallowed up by local authority budgets. We are also calling on Government to ensure the needs of existing claimants will be protected - and Ministers should explain how the successful elements of the ILF (such as a national, portable system) will be sustained.

I hope this answer is helpful in explaining Labour’s concerns about the announcement. Thank you once again for writing to me about this very important matter.

Yours sincerely,

Rachel Reeves

Member of Parliament for Leeds West  

Nick Clegg on closure of Independent Living Fund

Thank you for getting in touch with Nick Clegg MP regarding the Government’s decision to close the Independent Living Fund. I am replying on his behalf. The Government recognises the valuable the role the Independent Living Fund has played in the lives of its users and the depth of concern about its closure. However, the Government does not think that continuing a separate system of support operating through a discretionary trust, outside the mainstream adult social care system, is the right approach. The key features that have contributed to the Independent Living Fund’s success - particularly the choice and control it has given disabled people over how their care and support is managed - are now provided, or are very soon to be provided, within the mainstream care and support system. Continuing with the present arrangements, which benefit a relatively small number of disabled people, would fail to take account of the significant developments over the last 20 years in the way disabled people are supported to live independent lives. This decision has been driven by a clear need for reform, not a desire to make savings. Once the Independent Living Fund closes, both funding and responsibility for former users will be transferred from the DWP to Local Authorities in England, and the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales. As announced in last year’s Spending Review, all these bodies will be fully funded to meet these additional costs. This transfer of responsibility does not mean that funding is being reduced; last year’s Spending Review announced that total amount of funding for 2015/16 would be £262m - the same amount that would have been allocated had responsibility remained with the DWP. We are also confident that recent and upcoming changes to adult social care mean that the main benefits of the Fund – the choice and control over care it has given people – will now be provided within the mainstream system. Thank you once again for getting in touch about this important issue. With best wishes, Rory Belcher Office of Nick Clegg MP

Govt Announces Closure of Independent Living Fund

The Government has announced that the Independent Living Fund will close on 30th June 2015 despite losing a Court of Appeal battle over this plan.

The following comes from 

The Department for Work and Pensions originally planned to abolish the fund on 31 March 2015, but was forced to review the move after the Court of Appeal ruled that it had failed to comply with its legal duty to promote equality when making the decision.

The fund provides cash payments to top-up local authority social care support to around 18,500 severely disabled people so they can live more independently.

This fund is ESSENTIAL to disabled people up and down the country -a lifeline for many and must be re-opened to new applicants.

The fund closing after the next general election gives us a window of opportunity.

This petition is to Nick Clegg and David Cameron and it is calling on them to not close the Independent Living Fund.

 *As the PM does not have a public email address, this petition will send email to offices of IDS*

Dear Sirs,

I write to you to express my extreme disgust that your Government has announced the closure of the Independent Living Fund in June 2015.

This fund is a lifeline to some of the most vulnerable in our society. For your Government to ignore the High Court decision and proceed with this closure reeks of punitive and out of touch politics that shows extreme disdain to the welfare of the most vulnerable.

You should be ashamed of your Government actions and I call on you to immediately cancel your Government's plans to axe the fundand open the fund to new applicants.

Regards

--
Paul Bull
paul4cowick@aol.com

Also, the fact that this fund will not end until after the next general election puts the onus on the Labour Party to save the fund if it is elected in 2015.

“This petition calls for the Labour Party to put forward their proposals to save and expand the fund at the earliest possible time and have this proposal in their 2015 manifesto. We need to make them understand how important this support is to sections of the disabled community.

Dear Rachel,

As you may be aware, the coalition Government has announced that the Independent Living Fund is to close on the 30 June 2015.

This fund is essential lifeline to many disabled people. It is cruel and vindictive to remove this support without an adequate replacement.

I call on you, as Shadow Minister for the DWP, and the Labour Party to put forward a proposal to save ILF and have this as a manifesto pledge for the 2015 election.

Thank you for your time on this matter.

Regards

--

Paul Bull

paul4cowick@aol.com