Agenda item

8.2

A question had been received from James Martin of Disability Sheffield.  James Martin did not attend the meeting therefore a written response will be provided and published on the Council’s website, however the question was read out by the Chair as follows:

“The following questions relate to the original health centre hub projects (i.e. separate from the City Centre item later in the agenda). I ask the committee to revisit the response we game on the 10^th of November to the request for input from this committee on this matter. The following questions give a summary of specific points for the ICB which the committee might wish to probe:

1. Whether the ICB contract with the third-party architecture firm working on the new health centres locked in the requirements for the collaborative/co-design approach to cover accessibility and other community input?
2. Whether the selection criteria for appointing the chosen firm included either invited or volunteered commitments to community engagement andaccessibility engagement?
3. What action the ICB has taken to hold their contractor to account (if in contract or the basis of picking one firm over another) or other action taken to influence the outcome?
4. Has the ICB been told either verbally or in writing that community engagement and accessibility engagement are not a requirement of the contract?

Finally, noting the item 8 on your agenda today for which at the time of writing there are no papers: we have had no approach from the ICB or another organisation regarding the City Centre health centre plans. Therefore, I refer to the original concerns, that ICB has lost interest in input that they had stated would happen in both previous papers and answers to the committee.

5.    Has any outreach on accessibility happened at all for the City Centre plans?”

Beyond the question the last contact on the topic was on the 27^th of July and purely mentioned the planning application.

8.2

The report which aimed to inform the Committee about the progress of the Sheffield Primary Care Hubs and informed the Committee about the activity and outputs of a 12-week consultation on the proposals, was presented by Mike Speakman (Programme Manager, South Yorkshire ICB) and Richard Kennedy (Head of Involvement, South Yorkshire ICB)

8.3

Mike Speakman advised the Sub-Committee that since the writing of the report, Page Hall medical practice had confirmed that they would not be proceeding with the proposed relocation, and this would mean that the Foundry 2 scheme would not be able to proceed.

8.4

In response to questions from Members the following additional information was given:

• The ICB was committed to engagement with Disability Sheffield and would write to them formally to this effect.
• The consultation had not been about building designs but about ascertaining patients views on the proposal to move the practices.
• As tenants of Sheffield City Council, the NHS would pay a service charge towards the upkeep of the buildings.
• The Foundry 1 scheme was being paused and taken back to market as it had been felt that the ICB were not getting value for money, but the scheme was not being stood down.
• Patients were being informed of the decision regarding Foundry 2 and stakeholder briefings would be released shortly.  It was too soon to be able to advise whether there could be investment in the practice’s existing infrastructure instead, but this would be considered.

8.5

RESOLVED: That the Sub Committee

(a)  Notes the update on progress of the Sheffield Primary Care hubs; and

(b)  Notes the consultation activity undertaken to inform the decision to proceed with proposals to develop a City Centre hub and for two GP practices to relocate into.