Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 21 November
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr P W Moore
Mr R Price
Mr R Shepherd
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director, the Head of Finance, the
Health Improvement Officer , the Head of Organisational Development, the
Sports and Leisure Services Manager and the Scrutiny Officer.
Members in
Attendance:
Mr T FitzPatrick, Mr P W High, Mr K Johnson, Mr J Lee, Mrs B McGoun,
Mrs A Moore, Mr W Northam, Mr R Oliver, Mrs A Sweeney, Ms V
Uprichard and Mr J Wyatt
Democratic Services Officer (ITV)
CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman informed Members that Mrs Alison Argent, Democratic Services Officer, was
absent through a family bereavement. Members asked that their sympathies be conveyed
to Mrs Argent.
The Chairman also reported on Mr B Smith’s absence through ill health. It was agreed that
the Committee’s best wishes be sent to Mr Smith.
Finally the Chairman referred to an e-mail message which had been circulated following Mr
Perry-Warnes’ notification of his decision to relinquish Chairmanship of the Council for
health reasons. Members were sorry to hear this news and passed on their best wishes to
Mr Perry-Warnes.
87 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr R Reynolds, Mr B Smith and Mr P Terrington..
88 SUBSTITUTES
Mr R Price for Mr R Reynolds, Mr R Shepherd for Mr J Perry-Warnes and Mr D Young
for Mr P Terrington.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
89 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
90 MINUTES
On Minute No 84 – Review of Outside Bodies - Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds pointed out
that her remark in (a) that none of the outside bodies (apart from NHOSC) was reported
to Council would more accurately refer to not many outside bodies. Members agreed
and, subject to that amendment, the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee held on 23 October 2012 were approved as a correct record and
signed by the Chairman.
91 ITEM OF URGENT BUSINESS
Call-in: Cabinet: 12 November 2012: Item 15: North Walsham Dual Use Sports
Centre
A call-in had been received from Mr P Moore in accordance with the Council’s
Constitution in respect of the Cabinet’s decision on the management of the North
Walsham DUSC. To comply with the constitutional requirement to deal with the call-in
as expeditiously as possible, the Chairman had agreed to take the matter as an item of
urgent business at this meeting. The Chief Executive summarised the advice of the
Monitoring Officer on this point. The Leader queried whether the call-in was valid as he
felt that it challenged the decisions of Cabinet rather than the process to reach those
decisions. The Chairman responded that the Monitoring Officer had confirmed that the
call-in was valid and that it was appropriate to call-in a Cabinet decision.
A note of the Cabinet decision, together with a summary of the grounds of Mr Moore’s
call-in, had been circulated to Committee Members. Mr Moore explained why he had
called in the decision with the aid of a longer written statement tabled at the meeting.
The resolution of the Cabinet was as follows:
1) That officers are authorised to negotiate and conclude variations to the Dual Use
Agreement with North Walsham High School to ensure that:
a) The Council pays the school only for the additional costs incurred in having the
school buildings open for community use.
b) The Council assumes overall responsibility for setting all fees and charges
relating to the Dual Use Centre, in consultation with the Voluntary Management
Committee
2) That, should it be necessary to serve notice to vary the existing agreement or enter
into a new agreement to be implemented by 1 April 2013 officers, with the
agreement of the relevant portfolio members, are authorised to serve the required
notice on the school to end the current Dual Use Agreement.
3) That officers are authorised to work with the Voluntary Management Committee to
improve local Management of the Dual Use Centre, including the setting up of a
Community Sports Trust if this is feasible.
4) That improvements to the facilities, such as the provision of a Multi-Use Games Area
at the Dual Use Centre, are explored further with the school.
5) That officers are authorised to negotiate and conclude variations to the Dual Use
Agreements with Cromer Academy and Stalham High School as per
recommendation (1) above.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
Mr Moore sought equality of treatment across all such centres by committing the
Council to negotiate simultaneously with the Cromer and Stalham facilities with a view
to a comprehensive package of revised costs and prices being brought forward for
consideration. He felt that the proposal was not clear as to how funding for the North
Walsham facility would continue; that the recommendation potentially harmed the
Council’s negotiations with North Walsham High School on future rents and that, in
the absence of discussion with the High School thus far, a more conciliatory
approach, setting out options on future rents, needed to be taken. In his view, the
proposed course provided insufficient clarity on the setting of fees and charges,
omitting reference to any mechanism for dealing with disputes and disagreements
with the Voluntary Management Committee.
Mr Moore proposed that the matter be referred back to Cabinet with a request that
a) All three DUSCs are reviewed simultaneously, so that a comprehensive total package
of revised costs and prices can be brought forward for consideration as part of the
Council’s budget setting process. Part (5) of the resolution should state that
negotiations and variations to the dual use agreements with Cromer Academy and
Stalham High School will be conducted simultaneously with those relating to North
Walsham High School.
b) Part (2) of the resolution should be amended to read: “That the Council enters into
negotiations with the School(s) with a view to securing a new or varied Agreement(s);
that officers should be authorised to vary the Agreement(s) or if necessary negotiate a
new Agreement(s); if the officers are not successful, the matter will be referred back
to Cabinet for resolution.”
c) It would be inappropriate for Cabinet to finalise its position regarding the future
finances of the DUSC(s) unless and until accurate financial data is provided.
The proposal was seconded by Ms Gay, who commented that the matter had suffered
from confusion and undue confidentiality.
The final part of Mr Moore’s proposal was based on the premise that three different
figures were in use. Following a question from the Chief Executive, when it became
became apparent that the figures being queried comprised an initial budget figure plus
projections for the next two years, Mr Moore agreed, with the consent of his seconder,
to withdraw part (d) above from his proposal.
Mr Lee wondered how this call-in had come about, as the way in which Cabinet had
reached its decision was not being called into question. Furthermore, the questions
asked by Mr Moore had been dealt with by Cabinet and previously at Council and
elsewhere. The Cabinet was not picking on North Walsham – all three agreements
were different. The North Walsham agreement had not been looked at since 1986,
since when the Council had effectively been subsidising the school. The report to
Cabinet had been perfectly clear on finances and on officer support to the facility.
Consultation with the Voluntary Management Committee had taken place and the
Council would continue to work with that body.
Ms Uprichard stated that a petition signed by over a thousand North Walsham residents
was being presented, expressing opposition to the Council’s proposal to withdraw
funding and transfer management of the Dual Use facility. Mr Johnson pointed out that
this was now outdated, negotiations having moved on since the signatures had been
collected.
Following discussion on the issue and service of notice, Mr Oliver commented that
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
failure to take account of these matters in the formal agreement would mean that there
would be no incentive for the school to renegotiate. This was a professional approach
with the aim of achieving the best value for money for the local taxpayer. Mr Johnson
informed the meeting that he had been to the North Walsham Town Council last week,
when there had been no dissention to what was being proposed by Cabinet.
On being put to the Committee initially, the proposal, as amended, received 5 votes in
favour and 5 against and the motion was carried on the Chairman’s casting vote.
RESOLVED
That the decision of Cabinet be referred back in accordance with (a) and, (b) above.
92 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 15 –
Presentation: East of England Ambulance Service Trust – as the Council’s
representative on the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
93 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
A petition initiated by the North Walsham Sports Centre and bearing 1023 signatures
was handed in by Ms V Uprichard.
Minute No 91 above refers.
94 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
95 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
96 THE FORWARD PLAN AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES WORK PROGRAMME
Noted.
97 BUDGET MONITORING REPORT 2012/13 – PERIOD 6
Mr W Northam, portfolio holder, presented the report, drawing attention to the forecast
underspend of £23,552 on the revenue account.
The Chairman commented on the General Fund Capital Programme, where actual
expenditure fell well short of the updated budget. This appeared to be a regular feature
and was presumably a situation which had to be accepted due to commitments and
projects yet to come to fruition.
In reply to a query from Ms Gay, the Head of Finance clarified the outlined
savings/additional income shown for court costs by pointing out that the word
“recovered” had been omitted from the relevant column at Appendix G of the report.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
Mr R Smith drew Members’ attention to a service variance in Development Management
(page 63 of the report) where a shortfall had occurred in the projected budget for
planning income.
The report was noted.
98 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT - DELIVERY OF ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2012/13
QUARTER 2
The Head of Organisational Development presented the report.
The Chairman pointed out that the interim report on The Big Society Fund would now be
considered at the December meeting of the Committee.
In reply to a question from the Chairman on the Business Manager appointment for
Democratic Services, the Chief Executive said that the initial response had prompted
another look at the structuring of the post.
Ms Gay enquired as to progress on Cabinet consideration of the proposed business
plan for the new Destination Management Organisation for the North Norfolk coast and
countryside. Mr K Johnson confirmed that this was on schedule for a Cabinet decision at
the December meeting.
The Chairman asked whether there was anything further to report on the development of
the key site at North Walsham referred to in paragraph 2.23 of the report to Cabinet and
where £2.4m had been secured from the Local Economic Partnership (LEP) Growing
Places Fund for infrastructure investment. The Chief Executive stated that officers from
the LEP were happy with progress, although slightly behind the original timetable. A
further meeting of the LEP was to take place on the following day and Members were
reassured that the funding remained secure.
In noting that 4 out of 5 major planning applications had been determined outside the
thirteen week target in the second quarter (paragraph 2.36 of the Cabinet report), the
Chairman assumed that the fifth application had been that for the Waitrose development
at North Walsham. Things were moving quickly on this project, which was good news for
the town.
Mr P Moore, in moving the recommendation, made the point that, although the proposed
annual reporting on the rate of take up of new designated employment land was
sensible, this or indeed any other frequency of reporting would not increase take up.
The motion was seconded by Mrs A Green.
RESOLVED
(a) That the report be accepted.
(b) That the rate of take up of new designated employment land (indicator J 005) be
reported annually instead of quarterly as originally agreed at Cabinet in May 2012.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.05am and reconvened at 11.25am.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
99 SHARED SERVICES
Deferred.
100 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Noted.
The meeting was adjourned at 10.40am and reconvened at 11.10am.
101 PRESENTATION – EASTOF ENGLAND AMBULANCE SERVICE TRUST
The Chairman introduced Paul Leaman – Assistant Director, Chris Hartley – Assistant
Director and Teresa Church – General Manager, in attendance to make a presentation
on the background, services and challenges facing the East of England Ambulance
Service NHS Trust. The presentation took account of questions forwarded to the Trust
prior to the meeting.
Mr Leaman, in commencing the presentation, welcomed the opportunity to share the
challenges and issues facing the Trust and to discuss how the service could be moved
forward in the quest for improved patient care. The Trust served nearly 6 million people
in six counties in the East, comprising a diverse mix of urban and rural areas. Some
4,000 staff and 2,000 volunteers, whose activities were managed by three control
rooms, worked towards the achievement of a regional target. Mr Leaman explained that
80% of the Trust’s work revolved around the Emergency 999 service. The challenges
ahead were to deal with an increasing level of 999 calls, to save £50m over 5 years and
to seek continual improvement in quality of service provision, all within the wider
changes being implemented in the National Health Service. The Chairman sought
clarification on when this programme of efficiency savings had begun. Mr Leaman
informed the meeting that the process had commenced in April 2010 and that the
savings were required to be made by the NHS commissioning authorities.
Mr Hartley informed the meeting that the Trust had been set a cost improvement target
of £10.6m, out of a total budget of £227m. He agreed to supply more detailed figures for
Members.
A new service model was needed to replace the existing one, which was unsustainable.
A more responsive service would be achievable through having the right resources,
putting them where patients needed them and deploying resources in the most efficient
way. This could mean, for example, identifying where patients could be handed over to
local nursing teams or surgeries, rather than being taken to hospital and, where they
were taken to hospital, ensuring that patients were seen by hospital staff in a timely
manner, rather than kept waiting in ambulances.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Mr David Russell, Vice-Chairman of the Norfolk
Involvement Network (LINK) and lead on ambulance matters, asked a question
regarding lost off road hours and whether these were contributing to waiting times at the
Norfolk and Norwich Hospital.
Mr Leaman replied that achieving the target time of 15 minutes for patients to be
transferred from the ambulance on arrival and a further 15 minutes for preparation for
the ambulance’s departure was a particular issue at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
Anecdotal evidence of delays in getting patients into hospital attributed to the
ambulance service showed these were often caused by deficiencies in the hospital’s
processes; the ambulance service sympathised with this, often to the extent of crews
actually assisting inside the hospital with duties beyond their remit, but this did
adversely, and unfairly, affect their performance against targets. 166 hours had been
lost at the hospital within the last week. A possible interim solution would be to provide
another vehicle at the hospital into which the patient could be temporarily transferred,
allowing the speedier release of ambulance and crew, but this would still involve the
Trust’s resources. The hospital was working very hard to rectify the problem, which was
not an issue to the same extent at any other hospital in the region. In reply to a question
as to whether the Trust could charge the hospital, Mr Leaman said there was no
mechanism for this and that commissioning was a matter for the PCT.
Following a comment from Mr R Price on a suggestion that another consultant was
being procured by the hospital, Mr Leaman agreed that a suitably trained person, not
necessarily a consultant, could improve things considerably for patients.
Mr W Northam had heard that problems were exacerbated by the referral of immigrant
patients from the Peterborough area to Norwich rather than their local hospital.
Mr Leaman explained that the two response targets for the most urgent 999 calls were
to achieve a 75% response time of 8 minutes to emergencies determined as life
threatening and a 95% response of 19 minutes to the next category. In 2008, the figures
achieved were, respectively, 57.25% and 84.87%. Figures for 2010/11 were an 48.51%
success rate for the 8 minute responses and 84.95% for the 19 minute target. More
detailed figures by local area would be provided for Members. Mrs A Sweeney asked
whether lives were being lost through waiting for a response to a 999 call, with particular
reference to an example where a patient waited for 60 minutes. Mr Leaman said that
any wait was too long and 8 minutes was a challenge. He referred to the availability, in
life threatening circumstances, of an excellent Air Ambulance, run by a charitable body,
with whom the ambulance service had a very good relationship. For clarification, he
mentioned that there were 4 other categories of response and, in certain circumstances,
a 60 minute wait would be within target. He would be happy to look into an individual
case on request.
Mr Leaman confirmed that 999 calls were increasing year on year, partly because
people were living longer, with a greater dependency on the health service, partly
through misuse and to a degree because of the decision of general practitioners to
decline an out of hours service. There was scope for some reduction in demand through
a preventative approach, such as that adopted by the Fire Service, where basic safety
measures introduced in the home had been very effective in reducing demand. The use
of the new 111 number would also help, as well as further measures to educate the
public. On the last point, Mr Hartley stressed that the service needed to be better at
setting out what it did and how it was funded, to prioritise different patients and do more
to explain this.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds agreed that an approach that included educating the public
was necessary, recalling an experience, on a shift with an ambulance crew as a
Member of the Norfolk Health and Overview Scrutiny Committee. This had involved a
physically impossible response time to reach a patient in the care of the Police, which
could have been handled differently. Mr R Shepherd, speaking as a former Police driver,
felt that an 8 minute response time was generally impractical and could, depending
upon conditions and time of day, be dangerous. He wondered to what extent stress
affected staffing sickness levels. Mr Leaman confirmed that a very good employee
assistance programme was available. Ms Church said that 25% of sickness absence
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
was due to stress and, until recently, would not have been recorded as such. Managers
were now trained in stress assessment and picking up the signs early.
In reply to a question on vacancy rates, Ms Church revealed that there were currently 62
technician and paramedic jobs available in Norfolk and Suffolk.
Teresa Church outlined the changes taking place locally, referring to details of present
and proposed cover at Cromer, Fakenham and North Walsham ambulance stations, as
circulated. Following an anecdote from Mrs Claussen-Reynolds concerning the
difficulties of an ambulance crew from Ipswich in travelling between Stiffkey and North
Walsham, Ms Church , in agreeing to look into this incident, explained that once an
ambulance had arrived in Norwich from Cromer, it could be re-routed to any emergency.
An ambulance from Ipswich would not normally find itself in North Norfolk, but this
showed how crews could become displaced.
Mr R Oliver, thanking the representatives for an excellent presentation, said that the 999
response times were not good enough for the people of North Norfolk who, he hoped,
were not losing out through preferential treatment in more urban areas in order to
maximise target compliance. Mr Leaman assured Members that this was not the case.
He mentioned more ways in which the local community could help improve the service
in North Norfolk, for example through the appointment of more community first
responders, or even through sponsorship. More local commissioning presented a
greater opportunity to become involved.
Mrs A Green referred to discussions at parish councils on the merits of acquiring a
defibrillator and sought advice on this. Mr Leaman felt that the purchase of such a piece
of equipment, at a cost of around a thousand pounds, was an excellent investment. The
equipment was simple to use, cost effective and an asset to any community.
Mrs Claussen-Reynolds asked how the service’s objective of a paperless office was
progressing. Mr Leaman said that this was some way off, but would eventually lead to
much easier maintenance and transfer of records.
The Chairman mentioned recent publicity on a review of rural services. Mr Hartley
explained that the terms of reference for a capacity review were currently being
formulated and agreed to forward details to the Council as soon as they were available.
Mr Leaman suggested that he and his colleagues come back, once the review was
under way, to enlist the Council’s support.
The Committee agreed with the Chairman’s suggestion that an update be considered at
the meeting on18 December, in the light of the further financial and response time
details promised and any more information on the capacity review.
Members expressed their appreciation to Ms Church, Mr Hartley and Mr Leaman for a
very helpful and candid presentation and the Chairman thanked the representatives for
their attendance.
The meeting concluded at 12.54pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012