Agenda and minutes

Venue: Cabinet Room 'C' - The Duke of Lancaster Room, County Hall, Preston

Contact: Gary Halsall  Email:  gary.halsall@lancashire.gov.uk, Tel: 01772 536989

Media

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies were received from County Councillors Gina Dowding and Charles Edwards and Councillors Barbara Ashworth, Rossendale Council, Glen Harrison, Hyndburn Borough Council, Colin Hartley, Lancaster City Council, Julie Robinson, Wyre Council, Matthew Tomlinson, South Ribble Borough Council and Viv Willder, Fylde Council.

 

2.

Disclosure of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Members are asked to consider any Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests they may have to disclose to the meeting in relation to matters under consideration on the Agenda.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

None were disclosed.

 

3.

Minutes of the Meeting Held on 5 February 2019 pdf icon PDF 79 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

In response to a request the Chair agreed to write to NHS colleagues regarding the Lancashire and South Cumbria Transforming Care Partnership Update presented at the Health Scrutiny Committee held on 11 December 2018.

The chair would ask for a response to unanswered questions raised, as the clerk had been unsuccessful in securing a reply.

 

Resolved: That the minutes from the meeting held on 5 February 2019 be confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.

 

4.

Housing with Care and Support Strategy 2018 - 2025 pdf icon PDF 128 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed Lancashire County Council officers: Joanne Reed, Head of Service for Policy, Information & Commissioning (Live Well), Craig Frost, Policy, Information and Commissioning Manager (Age Well) and Julie Dockerty, Policy, Information and Commissioning Senior Manager.

 

The report presented provided an update on the implementation of the county council's Housing with Care and Support Strategy for 2018 – 2025.

The Committee provided feedback regarding the draft Strategy, as presented and sought further clarification as follows:

 

·  Members commented that the key investigations from the consultation centred on working with developers and service providers, rather than meaningful engagement with families. The consultation responses showed that only 21% of feedback on the draft strategy was from family members, members of the public or unspecified, meaning that the most vulnerable had not been reached for their comments. Officers countered that although the exact number of family members who had responded could not be confirmed, a significant number had been family members. Regular local meetings with stakeholders and family members had taken place to share information and establish common concerns and a number of mechanisms had been put in place such as a Transfer and Challenge group to engage those who would be affected. It was also confirmed that the initial work had been at a strategic level and this would be followed by more detailed work by Social Care officers regarding gathering information about individuals' circumstances for the next stage.

 

·  Concerns were expressed regarding the risk assessment of housing providers' finances which had been raised by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the Regulator of Social Housing. It was clarified that the district council partners would need to comment on this and that the county council were awaiting further guidance from central government regarding equity-linked supported housing.

 

·  The vision and strategic aims of the previous strategy had also committed to having at least one extra care scheme per district. Members asked why only a third of districts had implemented this.  Officers clarified that many of the issues causing a lack of confidence in the market from developers and registered providers, arising from welfare reforms had now been resolved. Districts were committed to developing extra care schemes and there was an enthusiasm to move forward and make investments.

The schemes relied on funding from Homes England and other partners. However Lancashire County Council may make a financial contribution for high priority areas, where there was a strategic need for a service which could not proceed without such a capital contribution.

 

·  Members stated that the focus of provision of extra care units for older adults should be prioritised according to need rather than aiming for an additional one per district. The report indicated that some districts already had some units in existence or were being developed, when others had none. Officers clarified that the county council was undertaking a needs analysis at both district and neighbourhood level to determine the number of care schemes required, in terms of risk and need according to health and social  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Whyndyke Garden Village Healthy New Town pdf icon PDF 135 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed Allan Oldfield, Chair of Healthy New Town Board and Chief Executive of Fylde Council and Lancashire County Council Officer Andrea Smith, Public Health Specialist.

 

The report presented provided an update on the NHS Healthy New Towns Programme, its inception and up to date position, as well as an overview on the proposed Whyndyke Garden Village Healthy New Town in the Fylde district and the development of Homes for Life Long Living.

 

In response to questions it was confirmed that:

 

·  Currently there were no elected members or health representatives from NHS Foundation Trusts on the Board, however this could be considered at the annual review of membership.  The board did link in with NHS providers and Clinical Commissioning Groups and representatives were involved and attended meetings depending on the relevance of the discussion to their expertise.

 

 

 

·  Five expressions of interest had been received from developers and all were aware of the inclusion of the ten healthy living principles in the Section 106 agreement and the additional implications of the project as outlined in the report.

 

·  Members stated that initiatives such as community park runs and working to increase physical activity in schools were already in place across the county and questioned whether this would be encouraged within the project. This was an NHS initiative and the Board would work with developers to design the area and use the environment to support healthy and sustainable methods of travel. Health initiatives would be piloted to engage the community.

 

·  With regards to timings, the design and infrastructure would be finalised with the developer once this was announced. Additional grants for an early community facility would also be discussed at this stage to promote community cohesion from the beginning.

 

·  The current plan was for 1450 properties to home in the region of 3,500-3,700 people. However this could increase as there was some adjacent commercial land that may not be required for its original intended purpose.

 

·  During initial planning, the Board had looked at best practice and learning points from other similar successful and unsuccessful preceding projects. The key learning point was influencing behaviour change in terms of self-care of physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing. The programme aimed to improve attitudes, behaviours and lifestyle in terms of health, including the use of digital resources.

 

·  Environmentally sound innovations were also included in the principals of the Section 106 agreement for both the properties and the public infrastructure. Homes for Life Long Living included adaptations such as digital 'plumbing' to ensure homes were enabled for digital assistance as and when needed. National funding would be accessed for change management, for example ensuring families and practitioners were upskilled to use assistive technology.

 

·  The position of the site meant that it would easily integrate into the wider network of other local cycle routes. It was requested that the paths were made multi-use to incorporate the needs of all non–motorised users, not just walkers and cyclists. Currently the Board was debating how the site could be linked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Report of the Health Scrutiny Steering Group pdf icon PDF 135 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report presented provided an overview of matters presented and considered by the Health Scrutiny Steering Group at its meetings held on 20 February 2019 and 13 March 2019.

 

Resolved: That the report of the Steering Group be received.

 

7.

Health Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2018/19 pdf icon PDF 81 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Work Programmes for both the Health Scrutiny Committee and its Steering Group were presented to the Committee.

 

Resolved: that the report be noted.

 

8.

Urgent Business

An item of urgent business may only be considered under this heading where, by reason of special circumstances to be recorded in the Minutes, the Chair of the meeting is of the opinion that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.  Wherever possible, the Chief Executive should be given advance warning of any Member’s intention to raise a matter under this heading.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no items of Urgent Business.

 

9.

Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Health Scrutiny Committee will be held on Tuesday 14 May 2019 at 10.30am at County Hall, Preston.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The next meeting of the Health Scrutiny Committee will be held on Tuesday 14 May 2019 at 10.30am in Cabinet Room C – The Duke of Lancaster Room, County Hall, Preston.