Issue - meetings

Purpose of report: To:

i) set out why using a towns footprint is the optimum approach to addressing priorities in individual localities, including reducing health inequalities, improving equality of opportunity and access to services, the delta in life expectancy, community engagement, all of which are known key issues and require a multi-agency, system approach,

ii) update the Committee on the proposed extension of the programme of delivering in partnership in towns and

iii) seek the Committee’s views and contribution to the next phase of the work, including the suggested priority towns for the next phase, and the ongoing engagement with and role of Members in those towns.

Witnesses:

·         Tim Oliver, Leader of the Council

·         Denise Turner-Stewart, Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety

·         Michael Coughlin, Executive Director of Prosperity, Partnerships and Growth

·         Marie Snelling, Executive Director Customer and Communities

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Chairman asked if the National Health Service (NHS) had shown the necessary commitment of time and resources to fulfil their responsibilities as a partner. The Leader of the Council explained that three of the principles outlined in a review commissioned by the Government to determine how the NHS delivered the aims of the recently launched Integrated Care Partnerships (ICS) included collaboration between systems, a limited number of shared priorities and making system working real to provide collaborative working with a collective focus to include all agencies. The Leader of the Council added that the Surrey Heartlands ICS and Frimley ICS were in full support of the programme. The Executive Director of Prosperity, Partnerships and Growth noted that the report also had the support of the ICS executive, the Neighbourhood Board, the Chair of the Primary Care Networks (PCN) across Surrey and highlighted Horley and Ashford St Peters as examples of where the NHS had already contributed to this work.

2.    A Member queried the process for setting up the programme – for example, in Guildford, would local Members for Guilford lead it. The Executive Director of Prosperity, Partnerships and Growth explained that the programme would not conflict with the established processes of local partners, the aim was to bring partners together to represent their towns. He further noted that the crew approach set out in the paper had worked well in Tandridge and Caterham with district and borough councillors, county councillors and officers meeting every few months to discuss progress.

3.    A Member queried if, for example, the whole borough of Guildford would be considered, or was a localised programme to involve more residents expected. The Executive Director of Prosperity, Partnerships and Growth said that Guildford would be included in a prioritisation process based on an assessment of need against a range of socio-economic and health criteria. This prioritisation process identified the ten towns set out in the report to be included in 2023 which it was intended would be followed by a further 10 towns in 2024.

4.    A Member asked if the districts and boroughs had been cooperating in terms of towns selected for the future. The Executive Director of Prosperity, Partnerships and Growth explained that although variable relationships had been experienced depending on the work coming forward, the input had been positive and productive. The Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety suggested a plan on a page approach to illustrate to Members the activity taking place and highlight any gaps.

5.    A Member, in noting the reference to the crew on section 22 of page 29, asked how the crew would work in practice and requested clarification around their constitution, budget, decisions on spending, frequency of meetings, officer support available and how it would be determined  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5