Meeting documents

Also present at the invitation of the Chairman

Dr Julian Fester (GP, Egton Surgery) – for Item 4

Members are reminded of the need to consider whether they have a personal or prejudicial interest to declare in any of the items on this agenda.  If so, the nature of the interest must be declared at the start or as soon as the interest becomes apparent, of the meeting.  In addition, the attached form must be completed and passed to the Committee Administrator.  The Officers will be pleased to advise, if necessary, and any request for assistance should be made, in the first instance, to the Committee Administrator whose name appears at the end of this agenda.  Ideally, such advice should be sought before the day of the meeting so that time is available to consider any uncertainty that might arise.

No declarations of interest were received.

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of (i) the meeting held on 16 April 2013 and (ii) the special joint meeting of the Health and Wellbeing and Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny Committees held on 7 June 2013 (Minutes attached)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of (i) the meeting held on 16 April 2013 and (ii) the special joint meeting of the Health and Wellbeing and Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny Committees held on 7 June 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Public questions of which due notice has been given and which are relevant to the business of the Scrutiny Committee.

The Chairman reported that no public questions had been submitted.

To receive a presentation by Dr Julian Fester, Egton Surgery

The Committee received a presentation by Dr Julian Fester, of Egton Surgery, on the potential impact of the Government’s proposals to phase out Minimum Practice Income Guarantee (MPIG) on GP practices in the Esk Valley.  Members were advised that MPIG was introduced in 2004 to compensate surgeries for the loss of income resulting from new GP contracts.  Practices with low footfall in sparsely populated areas benefited particularly from MPIG.  Egton Surgery received £70k per year, and Danby Surgery, £60k per year.  However, the Government was now proposing to phase out MPIG over a seven year period and redistribute the funding around the country, with the aim of ‘equalising’ funding for GP practices.  The consequence for Egton and Danby surgeries would be a combined loss of £130k p.a. in seven years time, amounting to between one quarter and one third of their NHS income.  This would have a significant impact on the services they delivered, entailing in all likelihood a reduction in staff and doctor numbers.  Currently, both practices had two doctors.  Single doctor surgeries were not viable, so merger or federation of practices may be the only option.  One large surgery would not be able to deliver the same level of service as several in the dale. Their practices covered a huge geographical area, providing services to vulnerable and isolated people, and crucially ensuring that patients did not have to travel long distances to the nearest hospitals.  Dr Fester cited the example of home visits which may well take upto half a day to see three patients given the sparsity of the population.  He also gave the examples of two procedures he had performed that morning – removing sutures and removing a foreign body from a patient’s eye.  Without this service, the patients would have had to travel to hospital.  He added that the loss of MPIG and its impact on rural GP surgeries was completely at odds with the NHS commissioning strategy to transfer health services from secondary care into the community, and would threaten the plans of the local Clinical Commissioning Group.  He noted that Whitby Hospital was closing a ward and losing seven beds.  Without the local services the MPIG supported, there would more hospital referrals and more emergency admissions.  Members then discussed Dr Fester’s presentation and asked him questions.  Councillor Abbott asked Dr Fester about Botton Village – a community of 120 people with learning disabilities of varying severity to which Danby practice provided a special surgery.  Without MPIG this service would be put in jeopardy.  Councillor Billing referred to a recent letter from the Head of Primary Care of the local NHS Commissioning Board, Geoff Day, to Rt Hon William Hague MP which gave assurance that remote rural practices would be consulted in the forthcoming review of the funding formula and such issues as rurality would be taken into account; however, he reiterated Dr Fester’s concerns that the Government’s current proposals in respect of MPIG did not make sense in the context of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider a report by the Director of Business Support (Reference 13/276) submitted to the Cabinet on 16 July 2013 and to determine whether to recommend to the Cabinet that it amends its decision to:

(i)                 note that the operation of the Futurist Theatre has been under the spotlight for a number of years;

(ii)        accept that the process, including a Task Group review and several consultants reports, has been robust and transparent;

(iii)       accept that this process has now concluded and the continued operation of the Futurist Theatre in the current site is unsustainable;

(iv)       authorise Officers, in conjunction with partners, to undertake soft market testing on the redevelopment of the Town Hall and Wider Development Site;

(v)                delegate authority to the Director of Business Support in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Regeneration to re-negotiate with the Homes and Communities Agency in respect of the Joint Venture Agreement for the Town Hall and Wider Development site (to retain the HCA as a key development and investment partner).

(vi)              instruct Officers to present a further report to Cabinet outlining the revised terms of the Joint Venture with the Homes and Community Agency;

(vii)      continue to work with Public Sector Partnerships (PSP) regarding the outline options for the Town Hall and Wider Development site, accepting that a future decision will be required by Cabinet as to PSPs long term involvement in this project;

(viii)    instruct Officers to enter into negotiations with the present Operator of the Futurist Theatre acknowledging that redevelopment of the Town Hall and Wider Development site is the preferred option (accepting that terms may not be agreed);

(ix)       if recommendation (viii) above cannot be agreed then instruct Officers to seek alternate, interim solutions to operate the Theatre or failing that to close the Theatre;

(x)                delegate authority to the Director of Business Support to resolve any title issues that may arise related to the Town Hall and Wider Development site.

(Call-In form, Cabinet report, and extract Minute of the Cabinet meeting attached)

The Committee reviewed the Cabinet’s decision dated 16 July 2013 in respect of the Town Hall and wider development site, in particular, resolution (iii) that ‘the continued operation of the Futurist Theatre in the current site is unsustainable’.  The decision had been called in for scrutiny pursuant to the Additional Overview and Scrutiny Committee Procedure Rules (4.6) set out in the Constitution.  Members had before them, for reference, the Cabinet report (Reference 13/276), the extract minute, and the call-in form.

Councillor Jefferson addressed the Committee in support of the call-in.  She contended that the Wafer Hadley report presented to the Cabinet on 18 June 2013 about the Futurist Theatre was flawed in that it did not take into account the theatre’s impact on day and weekly visitor numbers to the town, nor the considerable economic benefits the theatre brought to Scarborough.  Moreover, she believed the continued public subsidy of the theatre was justified in light of these substantial economic benefits, not only during the summer season but throughout the year.  The second aspect of her call-in was a request in respect of resolution (v) of the Cabinet’s decision that Council officers meet with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) to negotiate the use of some of the £3m in the Joint Venture Agreement to establish a restoration fund for the Futurist Theatre.  She maintained that the development of apartments and other features of the wider site could also contribute to the theatre’s restoration.  In respect of the Cabinet’s resolution (iii), she felt that it was too early to signal the end of the Futurist Theatre, and that instead full consideration should be given to the restoration of the theatre as part of the regeneration of the wider site.

The Chairman then invited a series of public speakers to address the Committee.  Adam Flynn maintained that the sheer size of the Futurist Theatre (2150 seats) gave it the potential to become an ‘A Tour’ venue comparable with the Palace Theatre in Manchester, provided logistical and access problems in respect of the backstage area could be overcome.   ‘A Tour’ venues attracted the larger, very lucrative productions such as The Lion King, which would quickly recoup the capital investment required in the theatre.  Diana Tasker extolled the significant architectural merits of the theatre – that many of the original features including the fine feature window at the front were in fact still intact – but that the theatre supporters had run out of time to respond to the decision to confirm the refusal of listed building status.  She contended that based on expert advice the cost to restore the front façade would not exceed the cost of recladding.  Daphne Barr claimed that the Futurist Theatre had an important part to play in the town’s overall year round entertainment offer, but had been deliberately neglected by the Council which had failed to maintain and publicise it properly.  She called on the Council to make use of the wealth of experience and expertise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider a briefing note by the Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager (attached)

The Committee considered a report by the Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager in respect of the Council’s progress in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children, following a scrutiny review in 2010.  Members were advised that in addition to the ongoing work delivering awareness training to community groups, holiday parks, licensees and taxi operators, the Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager, Sandra Rees had been working with Human Resources to ensure the Council’s recruitment policies and procedures took account of new responsibilities under the new Disclosure and Barring Service.  Ms Rees had also been trained to Home Office standard to deliver workshops to raise awareness about Prevent which aimed to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism, as part of the UK’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy.  In January, the Council’s Vulnerable Adults, Children and Young People Safeguarding Policy had been reviewed in line with new legislation and the Munro Review of Child Protection.  The Committee was disappointed at the poor level of attendance by Members at two awareness raising sessions in February 2013 and recommended that this training be made mandatory for councillors.

RESOLVED that the Committee:

(i)                 receive the report; and

(ii)               recommend that safeguarding training be made mandatory for Borough councillors.

To consider a report by the Director of Democratic and Legal Services (Reference 13/217 attached)

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Democratic and Legal Services (Reference 13/217) in respect of the Committee’s work programme for the current year.  Members’ attention was drawn to three items which had been added to the new work programme as a result of the recent survey of councillors: support for local health related voluntary groups to embrace the new public health agenda; SBC support for looked after children; and evaluation and plans for Castle Health Centre, Scarborough.  Councillor Abbott raised the issue of the uncertain future of Scarborough Hospital’s Midwife-Led Unit following a story in the Scarborough News.  The Chairman suggested that the Committee question Mike Proctor of York Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust about this when he came to address the Committee in October about the Trust’s acquisition of Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare Trust.

RESOLVED that the report be received.