Agenda and minutes

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 18 June 2019 (to be laid on the table 30 minutes before the meeting).

10.1    The Minutes of the Meeting held on 18 June 2019 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 10 September to enable a substitute to be arranged, if applicable.

11.1     Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Jacquie Keen. There were no Members attending as substitutes.

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.

12.1     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.

The deadline for receipt of written questions is 5pm on Tuesday 10 September 2019.

13.1     There were no questions from members of the public.

13.2     The Chairman confirmed that the question from Mrs Betty Ames received at the last Committee meeting had been referred to the Portfolio Holder, Cllr David Beaman. Cllr Beaman had met with Mrs Ames and Kelvin Mills, Head of Commercial Services, on 26 July 2019 to discuss the matters raised in her question.

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

The deadline for receipt of written questions is 5pm on Tuesday 10 September 2019.

14.1     There were no questions from Members.

The Corporate Performance Report provides an analysis of the Council’s performance for the first quarter of 2019-20. The report, set out at Annexe 1, is being presented to each of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees for comment and any recommendations they may wish to make to senior management or  the Executive.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee considers the performance of the service areas under its remit as set out in Annexe 1 to this report and makes any recommendations to senior management or the Executive as appropriate.

15.1     Nora Copping, Policy & Performance Officer, presented the Corporate Performance Report for the first quarter of 2019/20 (April – June 2010).

15.2     Kelvin Mills, Head of Commercial Services responded to questions about car parking at Farnham Leisure Centre and the Frensham Heathland Hub:

·         Comments about the lack of lighting along the path to the Riverside car park had been noted, and this would be addressed by winter.

·         It had been very disappointing to have the grant application refused for funding for the Frensham Heathland Hub, and the decision had been challenged. Application had been made to a different funding source; the intention was still to deliver the whole project, but the works could be split and phased in order to make progress. The National Trust supported the project, but not financially.

15.3     Cllr Deanus queried the fall in performance on responding to complaints. Robin Taylor, Head of Policy & Governance, responded that the very low number of complaints meant that one complaint taking more than the target period to resolve had a big impact on the indicator when expressed as a percentage. In response to a question from Cllr Cosser, Mr Taylor agreed to circulate the corporate complaints policy to Members, and also advised that the complaints annual report would be submitted to the Value for Money & Customer Service O&S Committee in November.

15.4     Turning to the Communities Service, Andrew Smith, Head of Housing Delivery & Communities, explained the work being done to address the increased level of street homelessness and begging in the Farnham area. The individuals usually had very complex histories, with homelessness being only part of their problem. Cllr Mirylees asked what councillors could do to signpost to homeless people where they could go to get help, bearing in mind that some did not want to go to a hostel. Katie Webb, Community Services Manager, explained that as well as genuine homeless people, there was also an element of Serious Organised Crime with gangs of beggars arriving in a town. The council was working with Guildford Borough Council on a multi-agency protocol across both boroughs, to ensure that incidents could be dealt with effectively. The Community Safety Team should be councillors’ first call for assistance with responding to rough sleepers.

15.5     Cllr Jenny Else noted that annual review of the 12 organisations that the Council helped to fund through Service Level Agreements had taken place, and expressed concerns about the Gostrey Centre: as part of their move to the Farnham Memorial Hall a coffee bar had been provided for the Gostrey Centre to operate as a way of generating income that would offset their loss of hiring income; however, to date, the coffee bar had not been opened and this would be impacting on their income.

15.6     Katie Webb explained that there were two organisations that officers were working with closely, to help them with their organisational development and ability to deliver services that met Waverley’s requirements as a funding body. As part of the SLA renewal process,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Discussion led by the Chairman to consider future work programme items and areas of work.

16.1     The Chairman led a discussion to explore with the Committee Members and Officers areas of work to which the Committee could contribute and add value. There were two topics that had been identified through his discussions with Members: the Older People’s Day Centres, and services for young people.

16.2     With regard to the Older People’s Day Centres, and following on from the discussion on the previous agenda item, the Chairman emphasised the importance of Member involvement in the health check process: notwithstanding the sensitivities of the relationships between the council and each voluntary organisation, Members had to be satisfied that the council was getting good value for its funding contribution, and users of the Day Centres were getting a good service that was in line with best practice for the sector.

16.3     Katie Webb agreed that the funding of the Day Centres had always been a sensitive issue, and the health check aimed to provide objectivity to the organisational assessment that would enable comparisons between organisations. Officers had just completed the annual monitoring exercise and it was possible to do some crude value for money assessments to compare services provided within Waverley, and also with similar services operated by councils across Surrey.

16.4     The Committee noted that Haslewey, in Haslemere, was thriving as a busy community centre for all ages: it provided the Community Meals Service in the area and also a day time café service, and offered a wide range of activities and exercise classes. This was a model that officers would like to see Rowleys and the Gostrey Centre move towards. The Farncombe day centre was a very traditional centre, but was meeting local demand and operating at close to capacity.

16.5     The Committee agreed that Cllr Jenny Else and Cllr Steve Cosser would work with Officers on the Day Centre health check project, to add weight and Member support to the process and outcomes. It was noted that the timing of this review would inform decisions to be taken in 2020/21, as part of the considerations around renewal of the Service Level Agreements.

16.6     With regard to youth provision, Cllr Kika Mirylees and Cllr George Wilson wanted to understand better what services were provided, and by which agencies, and what could be done to expand services. Cllr Wilson reported that Godalming Town Council was doing some work on youth provision in relation to the problem of anti-social behaviour, with the aim of trying to divert the attention of some of the ‘hangers on’ away from the influence of the ring-leaders.

16.7     Katie Webb explained that Waverley’s contribution to the provision of services for young people in Waverley was through the lens of addressing youth anti-social behaviour. The Safer Waverley Partnership had responsibility for action in relation to Child Sexual Exploitation and Serious Organised Crime, and had seen an increase in incidents of youth anti-social behaviour since Surrey Youth Services had been cut back. The Safer Waverley Partnership annual report was due to be scrutinised at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The purpose of this report is to update the O&S committee on the progress and amendments to the Health and Wellbeing Action Plan. The Committee is invited to consider that each Priority Theme within the Action Plan is looked at separately over the course of a year.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

1.         Notes the updates within the Health and Wellbeing Action Plan; and

2.         Considers examining each Priority Theme separately over the course of the year.

17.1     The Committee received a brief update on the Health and Wellbeing Action Plan from Fotini Vickers, Interim Leisure Services Manager. The Health and Wellbeing Strategy and Action Plan was now the single over-arching strategy document that encompassed all of the Council services that contributed to maintaining the health and wellbeing of Waverley residents. The Action Plan highlighted the importance of working with partners and voluntary organisations in order to deliver the actions within it.

17.2     Fotini acknowledged the criticism that the Action Plan was very long, and suggested that the Committee look in depth at one of the five priorities each meeting, beginning with Priority 3: Improve older adults’ health and wellbeing. The Health and Wellbeing Strategy and Action Plan would be reviewed in 2020/21 ahead of developing a new action plan that would align with the new Surrey County Council Health and Wellbeing Strategy priorities, to maximise opportunities for partnership working:

-        Priority one: Helping people in Surrey to lead healthy lives

-        Priority two: Supporting the mental health and emotional wellbeing of people in Surrey

-        Priority three: Supporting people in Surrey to fulfil their potential

17.3     With regard to action 3.1.4 in the Action Plan, Cllr Cosser asked that the Towns and Parishes be recognised as partners in the ‘Dementia friendly’ work programme, and cited the work of the Godalming Dementia Action Alliance as an example. Cllr Else asked how the success of various actions would be measured, for example improve physical wellbeing, or more people remain in their homes. Katie Webb agreed that it was difficult to attach metrics to these actions; the Ageing Well Action Plan was about to be reviewed and updated, and the intention was to have an action with SMART targets.

17.4     The Committee thanked officers for the updated Health and Wellbeing Action Plan but felt that in its current format it was too confusing, with too many actions, to be a useful document. The Committee agreed to scrutinise the Priorities in more depth over a number of meetings, beginning with the Ageing Well Priority in this meeting, and Safeguarding at the November meeting.

To receive a presentation from the Head of Housing Delivery and Communities and Community Services Manager.

The purpose of the attached report is to update Members on the delivery of the Council’s Ageing Well Strategy and accompanying Action Plan 2015-2020.  The Committee is invited to nominate members to join a workshop as part of the consultation process to revise and update the Action Plan for the next 5 years.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

1.         notes the outcomes delivered in the existing Ageing Well Action Plan; and

2.         nominates members to attend a workshop with officers as part of the consultation process to refresh the Action Plan.

18.1     Katie Webb gave a short presentation setting out the three key priorities of the Ageing Well Strategy: Community, Remaining independent at home, and Accessing information and support. The Strategy pre-dated the Health and Wellbeing Strategy, having been adopted in 2016, and was now due for review and updating.

18.2     The Ageing Well Strategy had benefitted initially from £180k of funding over three years from Surrey County Council, under the Personalisation and Prevention Programme. The last year of the funding had been removed by SCC which had impacted on the continuation of some of the actions within the Strategy.  The fact that Waverley was covered by two Clinical Commissioning Groups meant that the same services for older people were not necessarily available right across Waverley. The development of the new Integrated Care Partnerships would be a key issue impacting on the new Strategy and Action Plan.

18.3     Katie outlined the programme for developing and bringing forward the revised Ageing Well Action Plan early in 2020, including a workshop for partners, stakeholders and elected Members in towards the end of 2019. It was hoped that Members of the Community Wellbeing O&S Committee would be able to attend this workshop and contribute to the action plan development.

18.4     In response to a question, Katie Webb explained that the Hoppa Hospital to Home service had started as a pilot project where Hoppa took discharged patients home from hospital. This had developed to a comprehensive service in conjunction with the CCG, that ensured that a patient’s home was safe to return to, and operated seven days a week.

18.5     The Committee welcomed the proposed refresh of the Ageing Well Action Plan, and suggested that a more focussed action plan would be helpful. The Committee looked forward to the stakeholder workshop, and Cllrs Jenny Else, George Wilson, Val Henry and Steve Cosser agreed to attend on behalf of the Committee.

To receive a verbal update on the revised NHS and Integrated Care System and Partnership arrangements.

19.1     Kelvin Mills gave a brief presentation to update the Committee on changes in the organisational arrangements for delivering healthcare in Waverley, through the development of the Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care System (ICS). The Surrey Heartlands ICS was one of ten that had been established across the country, and one two (along with Greater Manchester) that had been given a devolved budget for social and healthcare.

19.2     Within the Surrey Heartlands ICS, Integrated Care Partnerships (ICPs) had been established which brought together local health and care organisations, borough councils, and the voluntary/community sector, working within existing CCG boundaries, e.g. Guildford & Waverley CCG. Each ICP was developing its own priorities, reflecting the different needs of each local population. Themes emerging were an emphasis on wellbeing and prevention and breaking down the barriers between organisations.

19.3     Kelvin was a member of the Guildford & Waverley ICP Board, and was the designated champion for the ‘prevent’ agenda which aimed to provide interventions to avoid visits to the GP. The challenge was ensuring funding was provided to support the ‘prevent’ agenda. Guildford & Waverley CCG had one of the highest A&E admissions in the country across all age groups, and this reflected the lack of alternative options for urgent health care.

19.4     The Committee noted that CCGs still existed for the time being, although there would possibly be mergers to create larger commissioning areas. The Committee welcomed the ‘prevent’ agenda but felt that good intentions would likely be overtaken by the need to address the annual winter hospital crisis.

19.5     The Committee thanked Kelvin for the briefing and asked to be kept updated as the ICP developed over the coming months.

To receive an update on the project milestones of investment for Cranleigh Leisure Centre and the progress of investment in Godalming and Farnham leisure centres.

To consider how often to receive an update on the Leisure Centre Investment programme.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee agrees that progress reports on the Leisure Investment Programme are brought to Overview & Scrutiny regularly as a standing item.

20.1     Tamsin MacLeod, Leisure Contracts Manager, updated the Committee on the commitments made by Council in July 2018 to undertake capital investment in Farnham and Godalming leisure centres, to address current capacity issues and improve leisure centre facilities.

20.2     The Farnham leisure centre project was progressing well, and the new service provision was close to being finalised with Places Leisure. The facility mix for the Godalming leisure centre had been agreed; however, the approval of the Secretary of State would be needed to extend the car park on Broadwater School land. The provision of additional car parking was a key element of the Godalming scheme, and needed to be formalised before progressing further; but this could take 6-12 months to be received.

20.3     With regard to Cranleigh, in 2018 the Council had made a commitment to a ‘multi-million pound investment in leisure facilities in Cranleigh’ that recognised that the current Cranleigh leisure centre had exceeded the life expectancy of the building and was incurring significant costs in repairs and maintenance each year. The original estimates to build a new leisure centre in Cranleigh had been £8-12m. These estimates had been updated as part of the follow-up to the July 2018 Council decision looking at site options, and were now £12-16m. The increased costs would require substantial borrowing, leading to a much longer payback period. Due to the importance of providing leisure facilities in Cranleigh that were appropriate for the scale of housing development that would be happening, it was recognised that the investment was based on more than financial criteria, and work was continuing on reviewing different funding models to understand if a financially viable scheme could be identified.

20.4     Committee members asked how such a big difference in the estimates had arisen. It was noted that the new costs were being challenged, but Cllr David Beaman, Portfolio Holder for Health, Wellbeing and Culture, advised the Committee that the new estimates were not out of line with the costs of leisure centres being built elsewhere, and he did not feel that £12-16m was an unrealistic cost estimate. Cllr Beaman advised the Committee that Cranleigh Parish Council had been kept informed, and every effort would be made to find a funding solution that would enable a new leisure centre for Cranleigh.

20.5     The Committee was disappointed to learn of the funding challenges in relation to Cranleigh, and the likely delay in progressing the improvements at Godalming. The Committee asked to be kept informed of key developments but did not feel the need for a report at each meeting if there was nothing to update.

To receive a verbal update on the work of the Budget Strategy Working Group.

21.1     Cllr Sally Dickson gave a verbal report to the Committee on the work of the cross-O&S committees Budget Strategy Working Group, which was continuing the work begun in 2018/19 to research and make recommendations on how the Council can save £3.5m from the budget over the next three years.

21.2     Since members were reappointed at the previous round of O&S committee meetings, the Group has met five times including two meetings this week. Detailed information on the figures behind the medium term financial plan (MTFP) had been shared with Group members and would inform the work of the Group. Work-stream 2, which was about understanding the public priorities for our services, was progressing with a participatory budgeting exercise due to start later in the month, including an online version available to all residents. Meetings with Heads of Service would be taking place in September and October to understand opportunities for changes to service delivery and efficiency savings. The objective of the Group was to produce a report with recommendations in quarter 4 of this year to help the Executive meet the budget shortfall and inform the medium term financial plan.

21.3    Cllr Cosser noted the high percentage of discretionary services that were part of the review, and the risks of these being cut. Cllr Dickson advised that the voluntary sector funding was very small in proportion to the overall budget, but leveraged huge benefits for the council and residents.

21.4    The Committee welcomed the update and thanked Cllr Dickson and councillor colleagues for the time and effort they were committing to this review. The Committee looked forward to reading the Working Group’s report in due course.

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

The work programme includes items agreed at previous meetings 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.

22.1     The Committee reviewed its forward work programme and noted the items currently scheduled for the November meeting, including scrutiny of the Safer Waverley Partnership. In light of discussion earlier in the evening, the revised Ageing Well Action Plan would likely move back to the March 2020 meeting. Updates on the Integrated Care Partnership and the leisure centre investment projects would be brought to the Committee when there was significant news to report.

22.2     In relation to the discussion earlier in the meeting, Yasmine Makin confirmed that she would draft the scope of the scrutiny review of the day centre health checks; and there would be further discussion about a review youth provision in Waverley after the meeting on the Safer Waverley Partnership in November.

22.3     Cllr Cosser suggested that an annual report from the Portfolio Holder on Executive priorities could be a useful opportunity to ‘hold to account’ and this was something that had worked well at the County Council. Cllr Beaman confirmed that he would be happy to attend committee meetings and report at any time on Executive priorities.