Agenda item

To discuss the petition ‘Petition to stop the Development on the Downs Leisure Centre site. Save our Recreation Grounds, keep Doctors in Seaford Town’ presented by Downs Development Neighbourhood Voice at the last Full Council meeting in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.  The petition statement is attached as an appendix.   

The Chair advised that at the last meeting a petition had been presented by Downs Development Neighbourhood Voice (DDNV) containing over 1,500 signatures and therefore referred to this meeting for discussion, and set out the procedure for the meeting.

Karen Hall representing DDNV spoke first to advise that the petition ‘Save our Recreation Grounds and Keep Doctors in Seaford’ had now received 4,294 signatures.  She outlined the petitioners’ principle objections to the proposals for a single health hub outside the town centre, whilst wishing for the best possible health care in Seaford, in addition to those set out in the petition statement, these included:

·         Concern as to the loss of access to free outdoor sports and recreation space, where there was already a shortfall, and where such access equated to good health equality and outcomes;

·         Concern as to the impact on cafes and other businesses in the town centre from loss of footfall;

·         Concern as to the impact on the local economy of town's largest employer being moved away from the town centre;

·         Concern as to traffic congestion, pollution and parking issues around the Downs site;

·         Concern as to loss of green space as a community asset; and

·         Concern as to the impacts on environment and residents' health.

Dr Daniel Elliot (representing the GP practices and CCG) and Duncan Kerr of Wave Leisure, had been invited by the Chair to provide an alternative view to aid Councillors’ discussions, and addressed the Council.  Dr Elliot advised on why GPs and the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) felt that the development was essential to meeting the health care needs of residents of Seaford today and in the future.  It was intended that the co-location of GPs alongside other services would enable a shared approach to health and wellbeing in line with national policy, would offer the space and facilities for extended hours, additional services, and recruitment and retention of clinical staff, which were unable to be provided at the current locations.  He expressed his concern as to the shape of general practice in Seaford in the future if this did not proceed. Duncan Kerr emphasised the benefits of co-location of GP practices with leisure and other services, to enable effective treatment through participation, peer support for those with similar conditions, preventative care, rehabilitation, and the ability to improve health outcomes and enable people to live healthier lives.

Councillor Brett, as Vice-Chair of the Scrutiny Panel set up to investigate the matter, advised that the panel had met 4 times and had interviewed a wide range of interested individuals and groups, and a copy of the remit of the Panel was tabled at the meeting.  It was anticipated that the Panel would next meet in mid-October, with a view to its final report being reported to Scrutiny Committee for consideration on 28 November 2019, and referred on to Cabinet for a decision on 2 December 2019.

Councillors then discussed the matter and made the following points:

-       All the contributions from the speakers were welcomed, as was the interest from the public.  

-       It was important for the Scrutiny Panel to hear all views, receive professional advice and come to a conclusion as to the best way forward, having considered all options, and the Council commended it for its work to date and looked forward for its final report which would be considered by the Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet.

-       Regardless of the controversies of this particular application it was recognised that the GPs were providing a vital service to Seaford, and it was important that Seaford had appropriate health provision.

-       Concern was expressed as to the way in which funding for health was distributed which meant that such a health project was not possible without the support of the District Council.

-       Assurance was given that Officers had been asked to investigate all alternative sites.

-       It was recognised that there were heightened emotions on all sides, and whatever the outcome, some would be disappointed.

-       It was important that the Scrutiny Panel produced a balanced and evidence- based report and that the Council was transparent in its final decision.

The Chair of the Council thanked the speakers and public for attending.

RESOLVED - That the comments made during the meeting be duly reported back to the Scrutiny Panel and taken into account when the Scrutiny Panel comes to make its final report and recommendations.