Agenda item

In accordance with 8a of part 4 of the Constitution – Scrutiny procedure rules, Councillors Brett and Adeniji have requested that the Seaford Health Hub be included as an item in the Scrutiny Committee agenda.

Following the introduction of this item, Councillor Denis joined the meeting and took over the Chair of the meeting.

The Chairman introduced the item and asked Councillor Adeniji to provide a summary of the request for the item to be considered by the Committee. Councillor Adeniji explained that, as a Member for Seaford, he was campaigning for health improvements in the town and the key issues were the potential loss of green space as a result of the proposals, whether other sites had been explored, and concerns that the development would be subsidising the NHS. Councillor Adeniji requested that a task and finish group be appointed to look at the issues raised.

Prior to discussion on the item, Officers provided a presentation. Phil Abbot and Dr Dan Elliot, representing Seaford Medical Practice and Seaford Old School Surgery, also presented to the Committee. The main points highlighted were:

·       National Health Service Property Services (NHSPS) had ownership of the Seaford Medical Practice site and had been approached in the past to provide improved facilities and more recently, to identify potential sites for relocation. The NHSPS had not engaged with the process at any point. The practices had engaged a property consultant who concluded that the Downs site was the only viable option to bring healthcare, leisure and community services in one space.

·       The current facilities at the practices were not fit to meet the demand and range of medical needs in Seaford. Services such as ultrasound, memory assessment and social prescriber, could only be provided on a limited basis. The Eastbourne, Hailsham and Seaford Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) confirmed that the sites were not large enough to provide the facilities to meet future demand for primary health care.

·       The proposals for relocation of the two surgeries to one site included an improved leisure offer (run by Wave Leisure Trust) and would provide an increased parking provision, and new facilities for the 60+ Club. The new facilities were needed to ensure the recruitment and retention of medical and healthcare staff.

·       The two satellite surgeries for the Old School Surgery, in Alfriston and East Dean would be retained within the proposals.

·       A communications programme had been undertaken including two public exhibitions attended by 1240 people and a public survey which received 569 responses (a summary of the survey responses was available on the Council’s website).

During discussion by Members the following points were highlighted:

·       Members recognised that there was a present need to improve primary healthcare in Seaford. However, there were concerns over the re-providing of green space. Officers confirmed that, as part of the process, the Council’s playing field strategy across Seaford would be considered - the Council was not looking to decrease the leisure space currently available in Seaford.

·       Members wanted assurance that an undertaking would be sought if the current sites were released, as they provided amenities for the community. Officers advised that, although the NHSPS was a private company, the NHSPS and the Council’s officers would need to work alongside each other should a site become available. It was confirmed that the Old School Surgery site was privately owned but that any future plans would need to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·       The Committee asked how the two existing practices would function within the proposals. The Practice representatives advised that they would look to work together as effectively as possible and would share the administrative work with, for example, one reception area freeing up as much space as possible for clinical space.

·       Members enquired about the borrowing period for the scheme and officers confirmed that the proposals included a 40 year borrowing strategy. Officers also confirmed that the scheme proposals included a food outlet, a pharmacy and 8 X two bedroom residential units, with an affordable housing element (possibly social housing – subject to income offset against construction costs). It was added that the financial element had some commercial sensitivities and an update could be provided outside of the meeting. The Practice representatives confirmed that under a decade’s old national agreement, NHS England was responsible for rent reimbursements to medical practices, to cover rental costs.

·       The Committee asked if the sale of the existing site could be offset against the cost of the scheme and what the percentage of income for each stakeholder would be. Officers said they were working through the lease arrangements to identify opportunities to reduce the rent (possible through grants). The Practice representatives confirmed that, occupancy of the proposed new site by each stakeholder would be two thirds by the GP practices and community services, and one third by East Sussex HealthCare Trust.

·       Members asked about the ability to attract and retain key medical staff and the Practice representatives confirmed that, although there were issues nationally with staff recruitment/retention in the medical sector, a lot of work had gone into ensuring that staff stayed in Seaford, and it was important that the town remained as an attractive place for GPs and nurses to work and live.

·       Members asked for clarity on what was termed as outside/green space. Officers explained that the existing 3G pitch would be upgraded to 4G and that a smaller junior pitch would be re-provided in another area. Officers added that the Council would want good architecture that was sympathetic to green areas. Members noted that there was an evidenced need for an increase in sports pitches in Seaford.

·       The Committee expressed concern that two practices becoming one, would involve a wide geographical area. The practice representatives confirmed that the two sites in Seaford were less than a mile apart.

·       The Committee asked what consideration had been given to the impact on the local economy and employment. Officers said this was an element included in previous consultation and that it was being looked at by the Head of Regeneration. The Practice representatives said that, in terms of the impact on the pharmacies in the town, 80 percent of subscriptions were repeats and the majority of customers used a pharmacy of their choice, therefore the impact would be minimal.

·       The Committee asked if the provision of health/community services by third party organisations had been considered. The Practice representatives advised that they were approached on a regular basis with requests from other organisations but did not have the capacity within the existing sites to accommodate them.

·       Members noted that the issue was a significant one and agreed that a task and finish group should be appointed to look further at the issues discussed. The Members cautioned however, that there was a pressing need for the provision of a fit-for-purpose, primary healthcare network in Seaford and any scrutiny of the issues should be expedited. It was suggested that the work being done already on the scheme did not have to be delayed and the two pieces of work could be done in tandem. Members agreed to discuss the membership of the task and finish group and the scope of the work under item 9. the Scrutiny Committee Work Programme.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the presentation be noted; and

2.     That a task and finish group be appointed to look at the issues raised.