Agenda and minutes

The HSP Constitution, Section 6 “Membership”, provides for four Harrow Councillors to be members of the Board.

Two of the original appointments have changed since the previous meeting following the resignation of Councillor Foulds as Leader of the Council.

The revised appointments to membership of the Board are:-

Leader of the Council – Councillor Navin Shah

Partnership Portfolio Holder – Councillor Marie Louise Nolan

Geoff Rose (Vice-Chair in the Chair) advised that the HSP constitution provided for four Harrow Councillors to be members of the Board.  Two of the original appointments had changed since the previous meeting following the resignation of Councillor Foulds as Leader of the Council.  The revised appointments to membership of the Board were as follows:

Leader of the Council - Councillor Navin Shah

Partnership Portfolio Holder - Councillor Marie-Louise Nolan

Geoff Rose reminded the Board that there had previously been a suggestion from the Voluntary Sector that the position of Chair should be alternated between the Council and Voluntary Sector.  Joyce Markham suggested that as the resignation of Councillor Foulds, as Leader of the Council, had resulted in the need for the mid year election of a Chair, that the Board might wish to consider this matter at their AGM. 

Councillor Navin Shah was duly nominated and seconded to the office of Board Chair and his appointment was unanimously affirmed by the Board.

AGREED:  That Councillor Navin Shah, Harrow Council, be appointed as Chair of the Harrow Strategic Partnership Board for the remainder of the 2004?2005 year. 

That the minutes of the Board Meeting held on 4 October 2004 be noted.

The minutes of the Board meeting held on 4 October 2004 were formally received and noted. 

The Chair indicated that he wished to vary the order of business to enable the consideration of item 10, an Integrated Healthcare Strategy for Brent and Harrow, to be considered as the first item followed by an item under Any Other Business on the Budget Consultation. 

Paper submitted by Harrow PCT.

The Chief Executive of Harrow PCT introduced the paper entitled “Better Care without Delay” and made a presentation. 

Andrew Morgan emphasised that “Better Care without Delay” was not just about the development of Northwick Park Hospital but was about joining up healthcare services.  He advised that to help deliver the new service model, a strategic outline case for the rebuild of Northwick Park and St Mark’s Hospitals had been approved by the Department of Health in July 2004 to a value of approximately £300m.  PFI would be the source of that capital funding.  He added that these proposals provided an opportunity to re-look at the local health services and that it was necessary to do this in conjunction with both statutory and non statutory partners.

Andrew Morgan outlined the programme structure and advised that the Programme Board, which he chaired, had seats available for local authority colleagues.  A great deal of emphasis had also been placed on the liaison board.  He also outlined the philosophy behind the proposals and the service model.

David Powell, the Programme Director, outlined the details of the buildings, the plans and the aspirations for Northwick Park Hospital.  It was proposed that a new hospital be built at the back of the existing site, whilst keeping the current hospital services in operation.  This rebuild provided the opportunity to position the front door of the hospital facing public transport.  He further reported that there would be development in terms of the Mental Health Trust site but not during the first phase and that possible development of the Maternity Unit, which was currently being refurbished, would also be considered at a later date. 

David Powell outlined the indicative shape of the proposed new hospital and the timeline involved.  He reported that informal consultation and consultation with the Scrutiny Committee would be undertaken in the Spring and advised that there was a need to get planning permission by September 2005.  Once planning permission had been received, the works would be put out to competition.

In response to a question from Councillor Navin Shah in relation to the planning application, David Powell confirmed that the aim was to submit the outline planning application in July 2005.  Councillor Shah emphasised the need for sufficient time for a meaningful consultation process both in Brent and Harrow areas and resources for the planning process and that he would be very concerned if this was not the case.  David Powell confirmed that adequate time and resources were committed for the consultation and planning process and it was intended to start work on site in 2007.

In response to a question in relation to services for the disabled, David Powell confirmed that one possibility was the relocation of services currently provided at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital as there was not currently sufficient room on that site.  He advised the Board that the last stakeholder conference had raised the issue of the difficulty in getting around the NPH site. 

In response to a question in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Nick Bell, the Executive Director (Business Connections), Harrow Council, tabled the report that had been submitted to the Council’s Cabinet on 16 December 2004, and which contained detailed information about the Council’s budget.  He also tabled a summary document, which had been provided to attendees at the recent public meeting and presentation slides detailing the budget headlines.

The Executive Director detailed the content of the presentation and advised the Board that a final report would be submitted to Cabinet on 17 February 2005.  He indicated that if Board members had comments, they should be forwarded to him by 7 February for incorporation in the report to Cabinet.  Councillor Shah added that Board members could also have full access to the Portfolio Holders should they have any queries. 

In response to questions from the Board, the Executive Director (Business Connections) advised

(1)               That he estimated that the Council’s controllable spend was approximately £250m gross but some of this was provided by Government funding.  The Council had no control over the Schools’ funding or the Housing Benefit and Council Tax payments;

(2)               that the Capital Investment Programme was funded from a number of different sources including TfL and capital receipts;

(3)               that the amount of growth from Government was above inflation.  The increase provided to Harrow was approximately the same as other London Boroughs;

(4)               that the Government had indicated that by 2012, Councils needed to equalise rents with RSLs.  If the increase were implemented too quickly, money from central Government would be lost, so the Council was likely to keep the rent increase lower in the next couple of years and then increase to 4.7% increase per annum until 2012.  Whilst it was necessary to hit the Government’s guideline rent, there was discretion how as to how it was reached.

AGREED:  To note that the Board could contact Portfolio Holders and should forward any comments on the budget proposals to the Executive Director (Business Connections) by 7 February 2005.  

Paper submitted by the Policy & Partnership Service, Harrow Council

Paul Najsarek, the Director of Organisational Performance, Harrow Council, introduced the report, which informed the Board of the development of the structure, and content of the 2005 Refresh of the Community Strategy 2004, including the twelve HSP priorities.  The report also provided an update on the development of the HSP Management and Reference Groups.  He drew attention to the supplemental paper which outlined the proposals to update the HSP priorities in light of their consideration by some management group Chairs and reported that the key proposal was that the Annual Summit be used as the final stage of the consultation process.

The Director of Organisational Performance reported that there were new leads in Health and Safer Harrow and that the management groups had made good progress, although, there were still a couple of groups to be established.  He outlined some of the proposals from the management groups to make alterations to the priorities but the Board discussion emphasised the need the maintain fear of crime as one of the priorities. 

In relation to resourcing, the Director of Organisational Performance reported that the Council acknowledged that although some issues were the responsibility of agencies, the Council would be considering one?off items for 2005/6 for pump priming.  The Council was also about to begin negotiation in relation to the 2006/7 LPSA and he advised that the Government wanted to see local communities determining the priorities for improvement locally through local partnership.

Councillor Nolan advised the Board that the Chair of the management groups had met in early January and it had been felt that it would be beneficial to meet three or four times a year to exchange information.  It was suggested that the Chairs of reference groups also be invited to future Chair’s meetings.

Julia Mayo, as Chair of the Community Cohesion Reference Group, requested support and resources. 

AGREED:  That (1) the Board request the Executive Director (Business Connections), Harrow Council, consider Julia Mayo’s request for support and resources for the Community Cohesion Reference Group;

(2)  the structure of the refreshed Community Strategy, including the work done on the twelve HSP priorities, be endorsed;

(3)  the timetable for the development of, and consultation, on the refreshed Community Strategy be noted;

(4)  the development of the HSP Management Groups be noted.    

Paper submitted by the Policy & Partnership Service, Harrow Council

Bindu Arjoon, the Service Manager, Policy and Partnership Section, Harrow Council, introduced the document which identified Harrow Council’s approach to engaging with stakeholders, partners and residents in the Borough.  She advised that the Council was trying to establish whether the direction of travel was correct and that the development of the strategy was running in parallel with the scrutiny review on how the Council engaged.  It was aimed to launch the final strategy in May 2005.

Councillor Nolan emphasised that the list of those individuals / organisations to be consulted on the strategy detailed in Appendix 1 of the paper was indicative only and that she would hope partners would pass on the information. 

Kris Fryer advised that the provision of feedback to participants on the outcome of consultation had been highlighted at a recent sector forum.

AGREED:  (1)  To note that members of the Board could submit comments on the strategy to the Service Manager;

(2)  that the timescales required clarification and circulation to the members of the Board.  

Paper submitted by the Chief Executive, Harrow Council

Paul Najsarek, the Director of Organisational Performance, Harrow Council, introduced the draft Crime and Drugs Strategy 2005/8.  He reported that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 placed a responsibility on local authorities, police, fire service, probation and health authorities to produce a joint strategy to tackle crime, disorder, drugs and anti-social behaviour.  A detailed crime/drugs audit was published in 2004, which had provided information and analysis concerning the levels and patterns of crime in the Borough.  Following extensive consultation with residents and partnership agencies, four key priorities and three cross?cutting themes had been agreed by the Safer Harrow Partnership.

The Director of Organisational Performance reported that the four priorities identified were:-

·                    reduce anti-social behaviour on Harrow residents through the ASB strategy, liveability agenda and improvements in the public realm.

·                    property crime

·                    violence against the person

·                    tackling and preventing youth crime.

The three cross-cutting themes that would be mainstreamed at each group leading on the above priorities were:

·                    implement prolific and priority offender strategy

·                    community involvement and diversity

·                    drugs and alcohol

He reported that the strategy would be launched on 14 April 2005. 

In response to a question in relation to the work around smoking cessation, Andrew Morgan indicated that it might be necessary for the PCT to reconsider its existing approach. 

The Board discussed at length the implications of the Licensing Act and the fear of crime in the Borough.  The Board indicated that they would wish their concerns to be conveyed to Council.  Geoff Rose indicated that the PCT would strongly endorse the sentiments of the Board.

AGREED:  That the concerns of the HSP Board be forwarded to Council in the following terms:-

“That the HSP Board are mindful of the health and anti-social behaviour aspects of excessive drinking and request the Council to have a considered approach to flexible drinking hours.”

and that the  Chief Executive, Harrow Council, circulate a copy of this wording to all members of the Board. 

Paper submitted by the Director of Learning and Community Development, Harrow Council

Javed Khan, the Director of Learning and Community Development, Harrow Council, introduced a paper outlining the proposals for the Harrow Corporate University and highlighted the key ambitions.  The HCU was not going to be a traditional university but would grow learning capacity and enable rapid transfer of learning across the Council.  The Council would, within a three year development plan, work closely with local business partners and the voluntary and community sector.

Joyce Markham advised that, in submitting his apologies for the meeting, Professor Keith Phillips had expressed the view that the term “university” should not be used.  She advised that there had been extensive consultation within the Council on this issue and that Members were keen to use it.  However, Members had emphasised that the word “corporate” should appear in front of the term “university”. 

The views were expressed that there was clearly a vast tranche of work to be done with Education providers and that work with the voluntary community sector needed consideration.

The Director of Learning and Community Development advised that the aim was to achieve a co?ordinated approach and utilisation of existing resources.  The Council did not want to replace the role currently played by other agencies but to complement.  Its primary function was about co-ordination and facilitation.  He added that the Council needed to be smarter about utilising its resources.

AGREED: To note (1) and endorse the concept and overall approach but to recognise that the project was still in its early stages;

(2)  that comments from partners would be welcome on the proposal;

(3)  that members of the Board would be invited to take part in a more detailed consultation event.  

Bindu Arjoon, the Service Manager, Policy and Partnership Section, introduced the reference from the HSP Executive which suggested a number of formal amendments to the HSP Constitution.  In addition, there had been some amendments suggested by the Executive in relation to the Management Groups and the election process.  The report also set out a previously suggested provision for inclusion in the Constitution in relation to the quorum of the Executive.

AGREED:  That the proposed amendments to the HSP Constitution, as set out in Appendix 2 to the paper, be adopted.

Strategic Review of Voluntary Sector Funding

Councillor Shah circulated an email from Mike Coker which requested a report to the next HSPB on the implications of the Grants Review and issues relating to the Grants Panel meeting held on 24 January 2005.

Councillor Shah confirmed that he had met with the relevant officer to discuss the progress on the implementation of the Grants Review.

Councillor Shah suggested that a separate meeting be held with Councillor Nolan, Mike Coker and other interested voluntary organisation representatives, to discuss the issues as soon as possible as there would another Grants meeting in late February.    Mike Coker indicated that he would welcome urgent consideration of the matters raised in his email and hoped that it would make a positive difference.

AGREED:  That the Service Manager, Policy and Partnership, arrange a meeting involving Councillor Marie?Louise Nolan, Councillor Shah and Mike Coker and relevant officers to discuss the issues raised in Mr Coker’s email.  

The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 6 April 2005

The next meeting of the Board was scheduled for 6 April 2005.