Agenda and minutes

Councillor Miller declared a non pecuniary interest in item 5 on the agenda by virtue of being employed by a mental health charity.

Councillor Kelcher introduced himself as the new chair of the Scrutiny Committee.

He referred to the decisions taken at the Cabinet meeting on 16 November 2015 on parking charges.  He stated that he would be writing to express his concerns over aspects of the decisions taken and setting out the questions he wanted answered.  He would report back on the outcome of his enquiries.

The Chair stated that because there were a number of people present to hear the discussion on item 7 – South Kilburn regeneration programme – he intended to bring forward consideration of this item to take place after considering Matters arising.

Mr Firmin, Chair of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association addressed the committee. See minute 7 below.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 5 November 2015 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting, subject to minute 7 – Scrutiny task group on CCTV -.resolution (i) being amended to make it clear that it was agreed that an additional recommendation from the task group was to call for a piece of work to be undertaken on compiling a central record of all CCTV in the borough.

None.

This report provides an update to Members of the Scrutiny Committee of the progress of the South Kilburn Regeneration Programme.  It sets out the main aims, achievements to date and ambition of the programme.

The Chair invited Pete Firmin, Chair of the Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association to address the committee.  He referred to the circulated report and stated that whilst it updated the committee there was no reference to some of the problems that had arisen from the redevelopment of the area.  There was a need to critically appraise the project, review the balance between the provision of private and social housing and the implications of the delays to the project.  He stated that the experience of contractors working with local people had not been all good.  A new health centre was being provided but this was needed for the existing population before it increased from the new housing being provided.  Pete Firmin also referred to a lack of consultation on the changes resulting from HS2.  He felt that as the regeneration project moved forward there needed to be a new commitment to work with local residents.  In response Richard Barrett (Operational Director, Property and Projects) replied that the report before the committee provided a broad outline of activity.  He acknowledged that there was now a need to engage local people in the review of the South Kilburn masterplan.  Councillor McLennan (Lead Member for Housing and Development) reminded the committee that the remit of the South Kilburn regeneration programme was to provide new housing with every secure tenant being offered housing within the redeveloped scheme.  She responded to the suggestion that there was a lack of consultation and assured the committee that there was engagement with the local community and the regeneration scheme was giving hope to people that things would get better. 

Questions were asked regarding how many units of social housing were being provided as compared to private housing.  Councillor McLennan undertook to provide this figure.  It was pointed out that successive schemes within the project appeared to result in the provision of less social housing. Concern was expressed that as budgets got tighter less social housing would be provided.  Richard Barrett clarified that the target was to provide 50% social housing within the regeneration scheme overall. 

Members enquired about the slippage to the programme and how local residents were informed of this.  Richard Barrett stated that he attended a tenants steering group every 2-3 months to keep them up to date.  He agreed that the delays were unwelcome and led to longer periods of disruption for local people.  However, the scheme still offered local people the best opportunity for moving into better accommodation.   

Reference was made to complaints received from residents about the behaviour of some contractors.  It was explained that it was the responsibility of Brent Housing Partnership or the housing associations to work with the contractors. It was recognised that the Catalyst scheme had been the worst managed scheme and this had been raised with the developer and lessons learnt from it. 

Questions were asked about employment opportunities within the area created by the regeneration programme.  In answer to a question about Coventry Close,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This paper is to provide the Scrutiny Committee with a briefing and update on the processes being undertaken by NHS England to procure contracts to continue services for patients of five practices across Brent.

Julie Sands (Head of Primary Care NW London, NHS England) introduced the report before the committee which provided an update on the processes being undertaken by NHS England to procure contracts to continue services for patients of five practices across the borough.  She stated that the period of engagement had now ended and the outcomes were being compiled.  However, the proposal to bring together under one contract the Acton Lane surgery with Harness Harlesden needed more time for work to be undertaken on the proposed premises and further engagement activity which would have the effect of delaying the  procurement process outlined in paragraph 6.1.

In answer to questions from members about the consultation process, Julie Sands explained that the original timetable had envisaged decisions being made in August, plans being finalised in September and consultation taking place in October.  However it had been discovered that letters had not been delivered and this had added a delay to the process by two weeks.  She re-assured the committee that existing staff would have the opportunity to transfer to the new provider and that restrictions written into the contract would ensure a certain number of GPs being engaged.  Julie Sands explained that the procurement process was part of the QIPP programme which sought to ensure quality and value for money but there was no intention to reduce the amount of resource going into this service specifically.

Members discussed the provision of PMS contracts and what they saw as the unannounced phasing out of some contracts.  The committee asked for details of any existing PMS contract holders that had a role in the CCG.  It also asked for information on the performance issues with the Sudbury surgery.

With regard to the standard service provision including remote access for appointments, it was explained that this was included in the specification because it was desirable to encourage such provision.  The current capacity for this provision varied within each practice.  The committee emphasised the importance of engaging with patients over how to use on-line appointment facilities.

Councillor Mitchell Murray addressed the committee as a patient of one of the practices.  She criticised the public consultation carried out by NHS England.  She questioned the opening hours under the new contracts.  The practice she used also ran a blood service and it was not clear within the proposals if this would continue.  Councillor Mitchell Murray questioned exactly who within the list of those engaged shown in paragraph 5.1 of the report had been contacted and criticised the fact that the procurement timetable did not include time for feedback on the results of the consultation.  She expressed support for her existing practice which had been built up by the two GPs working there who now faced an uncertain future.  In response, Julie Sands explained that NHS England was legally obliged to seek new contracts because it could only extend existing contracts for a limited time.  She added that there was no intention to reduce opening hours.  Sarah Mansuralli (Chief Operating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The report provides a summary of the commissioning intentions and the processes and engagement that has supported their development.

Opening the discussion, the Chair asked how it was intended that the CCG would move from a deficit position to a surplus with no reduction in service.  Sarah Mansurali (Chief Operating Officer, Brent CCG) explained that the CCG had inherited a surplus position from the PCG but an unprecedented growth in hospital activity over what had been planned for meant the CCG was now facing an in year deficit position.  There was therefore a need to look at how services could be provided more efficiently with no impact on their delivery whilst addressing the overspend.  She could not guarantee that similar challenges would not arise in the future. 

Councillor Tatler expressed concern at the change of approach to post-discharge advice and education for mental illness shown in paragraph 8.13.a of the report.  She stated that this would lead to patients seeing different doctors.  She felt there was a need to improve the service provided for people with mental health issues and their carers.  Councillor Tatler felt GPs needed more training on treating mental health issues. Dr Sarah Basham (Brent CCG) sought to re-assure the committee that continuing care would still be provided and that a similar approach had been trialled in Hounslow.  The need for continuity and consistency of care was acknowledged and efforts to achieve this were being made.  More had been invested in mental health services year on year so there was no question that this area had received cuts and a programme of training for doctors had taken place. Members felt that more work was needed on looking into mental health services and undertook to discuss this outside the meeting.

Reassurances were sought that the views of Patient Voice would be taken into account and that public access to the services provided was incorporated.

Noted.

The Chair reported that two new task groups would be established to look at housing associations operating in Brent and the use of Section 106/Community Infrastructure Levy payments so the work programme would be updated to reflect the forthcoming approval of the terms of reference.  He added that related to the item on South Kilburn discussed at the meeting, the S106/CIL task group would be considering South Kilburn as a live example.  

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Head of Executive and Member Services or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64.

None.