Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED: That Councillor Smith be appointed Vice Chairman for the meeting.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bower, Fraser, Hopkins and Sampson.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

Councillor Moriarty stated that he was disappointed with the level of detail contained in the previous meetings minutes relating to Norfolk Waste Partnership Work Streams.  The Chairman explained that the format of Minutes had changed and often Councillors were not quoted, she acknowledged the concerns raised by Councillor Moriarty.

RESOLVED: The minutes from the meeting held on 31^st August 2016 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Please indicate if there are any interests which should be declared.  A declaration of an interest should indicate the nature of the interest (if not already declared on the Register of Interests) and the agenda item to which it relates.  If a disclosable pecuniary interest is declared, the Member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed.

Those declarations apply to all Members present, whether the Member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local Member on an item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.

Councillor Smith declared an interest in EC43: Access to Rural Health Services Scrutiny as he worked for a Doctors Practice in the Borough.  However it was not a Practice which was covered in the information provided by the Clinical Commissioning Group.

To consider any business which, by reason of special circumstances, the Chairman proposed to accept as urgent under Section 100(b)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act, 1972.

There was none.

Members wishing to speak pursuant to Standing Order 34 should inform the Chairman of their intention to do so and on what items they wish to be heard before the meeting commences.  Any Member attending the meeting under Standing Order 34 will only be permitted to speak on those items which have been previously notified to the Chairman.

There was none.

If any.

There was none.

The Council have been invited by the Rural Services Network to take part in scrutinising issues surrounding rural health and rural access to health services.  The CCG have been invited to attend the Meeting.

The project aims to produce a report which can be used to campaign on behalf of rural communities and can also be presented to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Rural Services.  It will also be shared at the Rural Assembly meeting of the Rural Services Network.

The project brief is attached.

The Chairman welcomed Dr Ian Mack and Chris Humphries to the meeting.

The Panel was informed that the Council had been invited, by the Rural Services Network, to take part in scrutinising issues surrounding rural health and rural access to Health Services.  The aim of the project was to produce a report which could be used to campaign on behalf of rural communities and could also be presented to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Rural Services.  It would also be shared at the Rural Assembly meeting of the Rural Services Network.

A response from the West Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), to the set questions provided by the Rural Services Network had been circulated to Members of the Panel in advance of the Meeting and is attached.  Members of the Panel were invited to comment upon the responses and ask additional questions.

Chris Humphries provided the Panel with a summary of the response sent by the CCG.  He highlighted the following points:

·         Almost 98% of Local Authority residents had to travel less than five miles to access their local GP and all residents had access to a GP within ten miles.

·         There were some staff vacancies, mainly nurses as there was a competitive pool in the area.  It was difficult to recruit and retain nurses nationally.

·         A wide range of services were available in the Borough, but occasionally specialist services would have to be accessed out of the Borough.  Transport Services were available.

·         Ambulance response times were set by the East of England Ambulance Service Trust and there was no difference in response time targets for rural and urban areas, however response times would obviously be longer in rural areas.

·         Work was ongoing to encourage and support training of staff to assist with recruitment and retention.

The Chairman thanked the representatives from the CCG for attending the meeting and invited questions and comments from the Panel, as summarised below:

·         In response to a question, Dr Ian Mack explained that there were two ways in which medicines were available to patients, either through a pharmacy or dispensary.  Usually rural practices had a dispensary attached to a Surgery.  The dispensary could dispense medication under the authorisation of the GP.  Therefore it was unlikely that patients would have a problem obtaining the correct medication as a GP would most likely be available for authorisation.  In a Pharmacy a Pharmacist had to be present to authorise the medication.

·         In response to a question regarding the growth of villages and if Practices could cope with the growth, it was explained that up until recently the CCG worked closely with a Public Health Consultant from Norfolk County Council and these arrangements had worked well.  The post had now been withdrawn and the CCG was looking at ways to bring back dialogue between organisations.  The Sustainability and Transformation Plan, when available would show ways that organisations could work together.

·         The Panel was informed that the Clinical Quality Commission (CQC) was responsible for scrutinising Practices, and following  ...  view the full minutes text for item EC43:

The Panel received a report which reviewed the implementation of the new grass cutting regime and included detail on recent survey responses, complaints received and options and recommendations for a new change of regime.

The Operations Manager explained that for the 2016 season a reduced cuts trial had been carried out, however, feedback and the result of surveys and complaints received had indicated dissatisfaction in the changes and a balance needed to be made between what the public wanted and cost implications.

The Operations Manager requested that the Panel consider the following options and identify their preferred option:

            Option 1 – Continue with current schedule

Option 2 – Increase frequency to 12 cuts

Option 3 – Increase frequency to 8 cuts

Option 4 – Increase to either 8 or 12 cuts, and keep NCC to 5 cuts.

The Operations Manager explained that there was also the opportunity for Parishes to take on grounds maintenance themselves, but the Council would no longer be responsible for grass cutting, play areas or trees in the Parish where its option was taken up.

The Panel was informed that Option 2, which was to increase the frequency to 12 cuts, would increase special expenses.  With the biggest increase being £1.93 and the smallest being 1p.

Currently the Borough Council was paid for five cuts for Norfolk County Council areas, however currently the Borough Council cut areas on a more frequent basis.  It was explained that different ways to recoup costs could be looked at.

The Panel was informed that high profile areas would still have 18 cuts a season.

The Chairman thanked the Operations Manager for her report and invited questions and comments from the Panel, as summarised below:

·         It was suggested that the opportunity be presented to Parish Councils for them to take on responsibility of their area before a decision was made.  Information needed to be available to them that it was an option to take on the area themselves and add a local charge to Council Tax. 

·         It was asked if complaints had been received just because it was the first year of the changed regime and if the Operations Manager felt that complaints would decrease if the new arrangements were continued for another year.  The Public Open Space Manager explained that it was not just the public who had complained about the new regime, it had also had an effect on the Operatives, who took pride in their work and did not like leaving areas untidy or uncut.  He informed the Panel that one Operative had left the Authority as he was unhappy with the new regime and felt that he was working to a low standard.

·         The Operations Manager explained that there was no such thing as an ‘average cutting season’ as each year was different.  She felt that it would be difficult to offer a ‘reactive’ service as the Operatives had a set schedule and limited flexibility.  The Operations Manager informed those present that the Grounds Maintenance Team had  ...  view the full minutes text for item EC44:

Members of the Panel were reminded that an eform was available on the Intranet which could be completed and submitted if Members had items which they would like to be considered for addition to the Work Programme.

RESOLVED: The Panel’s Work Programme was noted.

To note that the next meeting of the Environment and Community Panel is scheduled to take place on 23^rd November 2016 at 6.00pm in the Committee Suite, King’s Court, Chapel Street, King’s Lynn, PE30 1EX.

The next meeting of the Environment and Community Panel would be held on Wednesday 23^rd November 2016 at 6.00pm in the Committee Suite, King’s Court, Chapel Street, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 1EX.