Agenda and minutes

To confirm the appointment of Cllr Andy MacLeod as the Chairman of the Committee for the 2018/19 Council Year.

Councillor Andy Macleod was appointed Chairman of the Community Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the 2018/19 Council Year.

To confirm the appointment of Cllr Liz Wheatley and Vice Chairman of the Committee for the 2018/19 Council Year.

Councillor Liz Wheatley was appointed as Vice Chairman of the Community Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the 2018/19 Council Year.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 March 2018 (to be laid on the table 30 minutes before the meeting).

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 March 2018 were confirmed as a correct record and signed.

To receive apologies for absence and note any substitutions.

Members who are unable to attend this meeting must submit apologies by the end of Tuesday 19 June to enable a substitute to be arranged, if applicable.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Else.

To receive from Members declarations of interests in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting, in accordance with Waverley’s Code of Local Government Conduct.

There were no declarations of interests in connection with items on the agenda.

The Chairman to respond to any written questions received from members of the public in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.

None.

The Chairman to respond to any written questions received from Members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.

None.

To receive a presentation from Rebecca Brooker, Communities and Prevention Lead for Surrey County Council.

The Committee received a presentation from Natalie Gordon, the Communities and Prevention Officer for Adult Social Care at Surrey County Council on loneliness and social isolation.

Members were advised that there was a difference between Loneliness and isolation People could be isolated (alone) yet not feel lonely. People could be surrounded by other people, yet still feel lonely. The distinction between these two concepts was  ften overlooked by policy makers and researchers, which made it difficult to understand what could help people reduce their feeling of loneliness.

Loneliness was a subjective feeling about the gap between a person’s desired levels of social contact and their actual level of social contact. It referred to the perceived quality of the person’s relationships. Loneliness was never desired and lessening these feelings could take a long time. Social isolation was an objective measure of the number of contacts that people have. It was about the quantity and not quality of relationships. People may choose to have a small number of contacts. When they felt socially isolated, this could be overcome relatively quickly by increasing the number of people they are in contact with.

The Committee was informed that loneliness and social isolation were different but related concepts. Social isolation could lead to loneliness and loneliness could lead to social isolation. Both may also occur at the same time. People could experience different levels of social isolation and loneliness over their lifetime, moving in and out of these states as their personal circumstances change. Loneliness and social isolation also shared many factors that were associated with increasing the likelihood of people experiencing each, such as deteriorating health, and sensory and mobility impairments.

Loneliness was an emerging social issue for many years, with organisations including Age UK and the Campaign to End Loneliness raising its profile. Most recently, the Jo Cox Commission started a national conversation on loneliness and successfully encouraged the Government to accept many of its recommendations with the appointment of a Minister for Loneliness to take forward the work. With this new impetus, it was important for policy makers, practitioners and researchers to understand the distinction between loneliness and social isolation in order to ensure that solutions were not focussed simply on increasing opportunities for people to meet or speak, but on helping build, maintain and re-establish meaningful relationships. That was, bringing people together to increase the number of social contacts was not an end in itself – to combat loneliness, the quality of relationships needed to be addressed.

Loneliness and isolation, or social isolation, were often discussed together and even used interchangeably. While they were related, they were distinct concepts. Loneliness could be understood as an individual’s personal, subjective sense of lacking desired affection, closeness, and social interaction with others. Although loneliness had a social aspect, it was also defined by an individual’s subjective emotional state. Loneliness was more dependent on the quality than the number of relationships.

It is possible to be lonely but not to be socially isolated - research  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To receive the final report of the Working Group on the Factors Affecting Health Inequalities in Waverley.

Recommendation

That the report be endorsed by the Committee and forwarded to the Executive for consideration.

The Committee received the final report of the Health Inequalities Working Group which had been set up in September 2017 to investigate the reasons why there were very significant disparities in life expectancy across the Borough. The objectives were to establish as far as possible the reasons for those disparities, to raise the awareness of those reasons and to make recommendations to the Executive and the Council on the actions that could be taken to improve the situation.

The Working Group met on several occasions and heard information from a number of different groups and organisations. This resulted in a large number of recommendations being put forward, both to the Council’s own Executive, Surrey County Council, Guildford and Waverley and North East Hampshire and Farnham Clinical Commissioning Groups. The report is attached to these minutes as it outlines all these recommendations put forward and the Action Plan proposed.

The Committee thanked the officers involved in the writing of the report for the detailed summary of their discussions. All Members had found the review very informative and much welcomed the findings. They felt that it was important that the action plan was carefully monitored to ensure progress with their recommendations.  Furthermore, that they continued the good working relationships with Surrey County Council in moving actions forward.

To receive an update on the relocation of Stroke Services within Surrey.

Yasmine Makin, the Policy Officer, advised the Committee that the Portfolio Holder, Cllr Else had been heavily involved at the public consultation stage with the stroke service relocation and sent her apologies for not being able to attend to speak with Members.

The Committee was advised that this item was designed to introduce the topic to Members who were not aware of the recent changes to the location of stroke services and to provide background on the reasons, changes made and implications.

The Committee was advised that the Hyper Acute Stroke Unit (HASU) provided expert specialist clinical assessment, rapid imaging and the ability to deliver intravenous clot busting drugs 24/7, up to 72 hours after admission. Acute Stroke Unit immediately follows the hyper-acute phase, usually after the first 72 hours following admission and up to 10 day following a stroke. Acute service provide continuing specialist day and night care.

The West Surrey stroke services were subject to review as part of the wider Surrey stroke review process initiated in 2014. The review that was undertaken by a national panel of experts and clinicians found that 3 hospital sites in Surrey offering a HASU would allow volumes of patients needed to keep skills up to date. This model was the co-located model, with 3 co-located HASUs and ASUs. It was decided that the locations of these hospitals would be Frimley Park Hospital, East Surrey Hospital and Ashford St Peters Hospital. There was a report form Committees in Common in September 2017 which outlined what this would mean for different area of Surrey.

For Farnham there was no change to location of the hospital or follow on care.

For the rest of Waverley the people who usually go to the Royal Surrey will now go to Frimley Park Hospital for HASU and ASU. This would clearly result to a change in ambulance times.

In terms of the follow on care for the rest of Waverley, early supported discharge would now be linked to Frimley rather than via the adult community services with hospital rehabilitation at Farnham, Ashford, Woking or Milford hospital. Since then Frimley Health and Royal Surrey had submitted a case for a networked HASU and ASU with the ASU and RSCH (this meant FPH and RSCH will work closely together to provide the acute stroke care) this proposal had been subject to NHS England assurance process with consent to proceed to committees in common for CCG’s decision.

Guildford and Waverley CCG considered that bedded specialist rehabilitation in RSCH linked with provision of the ASU with access to non specialist rehabilitation within the community was the best fit for the local population. The result was that the Guildford and Waverley population will be served by co-located HASU ASU at Ashford St Peter’s and a HASU at Frimley with a networked ASU at RSCH.

To ensure that these pathways were delivered as modelled the CCGs had established a surrey wide stroke oversight group including commissioners and providers across Surrey. The change in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The report provides an analysis of the Council’s performance in the fourth quarter of 2017/18 in the service area of Community Services. Annexe 1 to the report details performance against key indicators.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Community Wellbeing Overview & Scrutiny Committee:

1.    Considers the performance figures for Quarter 4 and the 2017/18 outturn and agrees any observations or recommendations about the performance and progress towards target it wishes to make to the Executive.

2.    Endorses the proposed changes to the current indicator set under the remit of this committee. 

The Committee received the performance management report for . The report provided an analysis on the Council’s performance in the third quarter of 2017/18 in the service area of Community Services. Members noted that as agreed, they only received a report on an exception basis so focused on performance indicators which were 5% above or below their targets.

The Committee was advised that all 6 performance indicators performed on target showing a great improvement over the preceding quarter. Members noted that The number of visits to the Farnham Leisure Centre (FLC) had picked up in Q4 and returned to green after 3 quarters of underperformance caused by the tougher market conditions, due to an increase in local competition. The number of visits for all leisure centres exceeded the target by 11.65%, with an overall number of 2,000,719 visits in 2017/18 compared with the joint target of 1,792,000.

The Committee noted that The museums performed well in 2017/18 compared to the preceding year, with higher numbers overall for visits and learning activities. The new Careline indicators introduced last quarter performed well, with a steady number of clients throughout 2017/18. The collection of the data for the additional indicator monitoring the number of “critical faults dealt with within 48 hours” started in April and the performance figures will be presented to the committee from September 2018/9. To boost the residents’ awareness about Careline, marketing brochures advertising the

service were sent in April with the council tax bill around the borough.

The Committee noted that In order to allow a more meaningful analysis of leisure performance, the officers had conducted the review of the current indicator set. It had been noted that up to this point the committee only received the data on the number of visits to the leisure centres, which although easy to measure did not present a full picture about the health and

wellbeing of our residents or participation at our leisure events. Therefore it was recommended to make the following changes:

Number of Access to Leisure cards issued - Discontinue

Total number of visits to Waverley Leisure Centres - New

Number of visits to Farnham Leisure Centre - Discontinue

Number of visits to Cranleigh Leisure Centre - Discontinue

Number of visits to Haslemere Leisure Centre -Discontinue

Number of visits to The Edge Leisure Centre - Discontinue

Number of visits to Godalming Leisure Centre - Discontinue

Total number of attendees of the health and wellbeing activities - New

Total number of participants to Waverley leisure events - New

It was also proposed to discontinue the current museum indicator set as of Q1 2018/19. In 2017 Waverley completed the transfer of ownership of Godalming Museum’s daily operations to Godalming Town Council and the Farnham Museum was already managed by Farnham Maltings. In light of these changes, the performance monitoring through the current indicator set was no longer required and the officers suggest a discontinuation of these two KPIs:

·        Total number of visits to and use of museums (Farnham & Godalming);

·        Total  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Service Plans are devised each year in order to deliver the Council’s corporate priorities.

This report gives the Committee the opportunity to scrutinise the annual objectives outturn of the Communities Service Plan for 2017/18 and make observations and comments to the Executive.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Community Wellbeing Overview & Scrutiny Committee considers the progress against actions contained within the Service Plans set out in Annexe 1 to this report and agrees any observations or comments it wishes to make to the Executive.

The Committee received the service plan annual outturn report which detailed progress against the objectives set for Community Services over 2017/18. Members were advised that the annual analysis of the services objectives showed an overall 75% completion rate. It was not higher mainly due to the delay in the Memorial Hall project which now had a completion date of around summer 2018.

The Committee noted that out of 24 service plan objectives, 6 were not able to be fully achieved at this stage. However, a notable success and the culmination of a number of years work, was the start of the major Brightwells regeneration scheme. In addition, the new Business and Marketing plans had been agreed for Waverley Training Services and Careline and these were now in the implementation phase.

The Committee thanked officers for the report and had no observations to pass forward to the Executive. 

The Community and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee, is responsible for managing its work programme.

The work programme (attached) includes items discussed at the O&S Co-ordinating Board and takes account of items identified on the latest Executive Forward Programme (Annexe 2) as due to come forward for decision.

A Scrutiny Tracker has been produced to assist the Committee in monitoring the recommendations that have been agreed at its meetings. The Tracker details the latest position on the implementation of these recommendations and is attached as Part C of the work programme.

Recommendation

Members are invited to consider their work programme and make any comments and/or amendments they consider necessary, including suggestions for any additional topics that the Committee may wish to add to its work programme.

The Committee received the work programme outlining the items to be received at future meetings. Members noted that Waverley Training Services and the Memorial Hall would come to the next meeting.