Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed Judith Moore from the Waste and Resources Action Programme, Mandy Renton and Christopher Hall from the Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Members of the Mental Health Services Working Group and members of the public.

To receive comments or views from members of the public at the Panel’s discretion.

A comment was made by Mrs. Patrick of Stamford on the provision of beds for mental health patients in Stamford. She stated that funding had been withdrawn from the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust and in her view the only safe unit left for patients in Lincolnshire was Lincoln prison.

The Panel to be notified of any substitute members.

None.

None.

Members are asked to declare interests in items for consideration at the meeting.

None.

The notes of the meeting held on 6^th September 2005 are attached for information.

(Enclosure)

Noted.

The Healthy Environment Portfolio Holder acknowledged receipt of the DSP’s recommendations on waste management. Consultation would cease in November and a report to Cabinet was expected in December, at which point recommendations would be made on how to proceed.

The Panel to receive a presentation from the Waste and Resources Action Programme.

Judith Moore from the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) gave a presentation on their background, objectives, sustainable procurement and products available.

WRAP are funded by DEFRA and the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. WRAP’s mission was to accelerate resource efficiency by creating efficient markets for recycled materials and products, while removing barriers to waste minimisation, re-use and recycling. WRAP was launching a national campaign to raise consumer awareness of recycling and to encourage people to take action to recycle.

Encouraging people to use products with a recycled content makes the resources collected more valuable and is important for:

• Creating markets, better prices and increased demand for materials collected;
• Offering a practical measure and cost-effective way to demonstrate progress against sustainable objectives;
• Leading by example.

Uses for materials with recycled content include: construction, printing, highways and estates management, for which a minimum quota for recycled content could be stipulated within the project specification and included in conjunction with the tendering process. Case study details for projects that have included materials with a minimum recycled or reclaimed content are available on the WRAP website. WRAP had experts who would assist any authority seeking to pursue sustainable procurement of paper products.

All WRAP publications and guidance had been made available on the website: (http://www.wrap.org.uk/procurement/local_authorities).

Ms. Moore answered questions from Panel Members that had arisen from her presentation. She stated that WRAP had produced a series of guidelines for people within target sectors including construction. WRAP were working with many different groups, including Local Authorities and the construction industry; the presentation for each was tailored to reflect potential needs and objectives of all of the organisations. The quality of products with recycled content would need to stand against “conventional” products on the open market and would need to look right, perform right and cost the right price.

The Chairman thanked Ms. Moore for her presentation and the information that she had provided.

The Director of Finance and Performance for the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust and the General Manager, Woman and Child Service Unit for the Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to attend the meeting.

The Chairman welcomed Mandy Renton and Christopher Hall from the Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and thanked them for attending the meeting. He informed the Panel that disappointingly a last minute apology had been received from the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust. Notes from a meeting with the Trust were circulated for the information of Members. Although there would be no guaranteed outcome from the NHS Trusts, the DSP would be able to make recommendations to Cabinet or Council for their consideration.

Stamford

Ms. Renton gave a presentation detailing an overview of the services provided on site. She stated that there was a minor injuries unit, which was open from Monday to Friday, in-patient medical facilities, day-case surgery, outpatient services, diagnostic facilities, pharmaceutical facilities and rehabilitation facilities. Theatre specialties included orthopaedics, gynaecology, urology and general surgery; approximately 3,600 procedures are performed every year. Over the past 2-3 years there had been an increase in day-case surgery, reflecting the clinical strategy and contemporary practices in medicine where in-patient surgery was no longer normal. Of the 45,000 outpatients seen from the Stamford area across all 3 hospital sites (Peterborough District Hospital, Edith Cavell Hospital and Stamford Hospital), 22,400 were treated at Stamford hospital. Figures for the minor injuries unit for three time periods are listed below:

The east end of the estate was being used for medical purposes, the older buildings at the west end of the estate were closed because they were not used and there was no need to use them. A workshop had been held in October to find ways to use the buildings that responded to changes within medicine and to commissioning and funding patterns. Any changes that had been made were backed up by clinical changes.

Ms. Renton and Mr. Hall responded to questions from the Panel and discussed the following:

• No comparable accounts for the previous year had been included in the statement of accounts sent to the District Council because the financial year 2004/05 was the Trust’s first year as a Foundation Trust. Two sets of figures would be included in the next set of accounts produced;
• There had been a spending increase attributable to a variety of circumstances including increased employer contributions for staff pensions, additional costs associated with central government initiatives, which had not been fully covered despite an increase in revenue and increased local costs in the way services were provided, thus having to adjust to reflect the level of funding available;
• Because the Trust had become a Foundation Trust, they were subject to legally binding contracts with Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). They had over-performed in the first six months of their contract; this has meant that they have had to decrease the number procedures in order to meet contracts. The Hospital could do additional procedures but the PCT would not stand the cost. They were unable to put tenders out to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

The Head of Leisure and Cultural Services to update the Panel on the principle of a Leisure Trust.

The Corporate Director of Community Services updated the Panel on the process of the formation of a Leisure Trust. Work is being undertaken on whether a single trust or multiple trusts would provide the best service for the District. The Leisure Trust had been included as a consultative item on the agendas for all Local Area Assemblies; this consultation would be completed on 16^th November 2005. There had also been consultation with town councils, schools, the County Council and Burghley Estates. A report detailing the findings of the consultation would be considered by Cabinet on 5^th December.

Panel Members briefly discussed the consultation aspect of the Leisure Trust, including obligations to the Grantham Charter Trustees and the Guildhall. Building Ownership would be retained by the Council and leased to the Trust; obligations to users and other stakeholders could be dealt with under the terms of any contract. The District Council would retain some control of the services provided because representatives would be appointed to the Board of Trustees.

There would be an event providing more information on Leisure Trusts for staff on Monday 14^th November 2005, while a similar event would be held for Members on Tuesday 15^th November 2005.

Members requested that a single page guide should be produced, listing the pros and cons of Leisure Trusts. Members were advised that, following the release of the Cabinet report, they should contact the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or the Scrutiny Officer to request its inclusion as an agenda item for the next meeting.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.                  That a brief guide listing the pros and cons of Leisure Trusts should be produced and circulated to Panel Members;

2.                  That if, following the production of the report to Cabinet, Members require it including as an item for the meeting on January 17^th 2006, they should contact the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or the Scrutiny Officer.

• Mental Health Services Working Group
• PIPs Working Group                                                 (Enclosure)

Mental Health Services Working Group

Members of the Mental Health Services Working Group were thanked for their attendance. Given that their report was not yet complete, it was suggested that the item should be deferred to a future meeting of the Panel and included as a substantive agenda item to enable extensive discussion.

CONCLUSION:

That Members of the Mental Health Services Working Group should be invited back to present their final report on 14^th March 2006, where it will be considered as a substantive agenda item.

Public Information Pillars Working Group

The notes of the PIPs Working Group had been circulated to all Members of the Economic DSP, the other interested Panel. No representations had been received from them. Members of the Healthy Environment DSP agreed to endorse the sites preferred by the Working Group. Any PIP the company wants to install would require planning permission.

CONCLUSION:

That the Panel endorses the recommendations for preferred sites for Public Information Pillars in Grantham.

(Enclosure)

Copies of the most recent performance indicators had been circulated with the agenda. The only red indicator was for satisfaction with Street Scene by TCMPs. This information was derived from a questionnaire circulated to TCMPs, it was thought that the lack of satisfaction could partly be attributed to the format of the questionnaire. This was being redesigned.

Member foresaw that given the success in meeting recycling targets, future targets could be very challenging. It was felt that bring-sites were still not emptied sufficiently.

(Enclosure)

The most recent Work Programme had been circulated with the agenda for the meeting. The Scrutiny Officer reminded Members that it reflected the Forward Plan. This was noted. He advised Members that the decision on waste, noted as not before December 2005 could be moved back, if necessary, the meeting schedule could be reviewed accordingly. There was concern that not all households in South Kesteven had had SK Today circulated, it was deemed that if any recommendations were to be made based on consultation through SK Today, it would not offer a representative view of the District. The Panel were informed that some houses had been missed in circulation but the distributor had been tasked to return to ensure that every household had a copy.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.                  To request a report on high hedges for the next meeting of the DSP on 17^th January 2006;

2.                  That Kevin Brumfield should be contacted to request a copy of the letter he was tasked to send to the haulage companies on completion of the Bourne Inner Relief Road;

3.                  That the design competition to promote recycling and the wheeled-bin scheme should be included as an agenda item for 17^th January 2006.

Access Criteria for Non-Urgent Patient Transport Requests Policy

A draft of the policy had been circulated to all Panel Members, the deadline for representations was Friday 2^nd December. Members appointed a Working Group to submit a response on the Panel’s behalf.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. That a Working Group should be appointed to consider the draft Access Criteria for Non-Urgent Patient Transport Requests Policy, consisting of Councillors F. Hurst, Mrs. Radley and A. Williams;
2. That the Working Group should be delegated the authority to represent the Panel.

The meeting was closed at 17:47.