Agenda item

1.         “Chairman

 

Many areas of our district including the highly populated centres of Market Rasen and Gainsborough are becoming increasingly marginalised amid money saving practices of the police, the NHS and the ambulance services, in favour of the city centre of Lincoln.

I hope that this council shares my deep concerns that the latest episode in this catalogue of neglect comes with the news that only one ambulance unit will be stationed in Gainsborough and most of the time will not even be there but could be anywhere in the East Midlands, potentially many miles away from life threatening situations.

Given that we are already half an hour from the nearest trauma unit even when the emergency services get on the scene - then it could be anything to an hour or more before an emergency is treated with the same quality of care that you would expect to receive anywhere else in this United Kingdom.

Why should our residents be at serious risk of losing their lives when in other places risk is minimised.

I call on this Council to support my motion condemning East Midlands ambulance service management for taking a step too far in withdrawing local ambulances to the Lincoln station and thus compromising public safety in West Lindsey. I ask that all Councillors sign a document condemning this decision and ask the ambulance service for its immediate reconsideration.

I know that Members from all parties are equally worried and therefore will be prepared to stand up and be counted by supporting my motion at this critical time.

I so move. “

Cllr Matthew Boles
Gainsborough

 

 

2.         “Chairman

 

Councilnotesthat:

 

·         In October 2015 aPeer review was undertakenof thePlanning service with the aimofidentifying longrunning issues and a meansto addressthem.

 

·         A follow-upreview wasundertaken after six monthsandthat goodprogresswasindicated,neverthelessthere were areasto addressand actions to be implemented

 

·         In the previouscivic year the Governance and Audit Committee formally requested that an auditbe undertaken, however thiswasdelayed pending the appointment of a permanentmanager for the department, neverthelessin January 2017 the Committee resolvedthat the audit be undertaken

 

·         That atthe meeting of theGovernance and Audit Committee on Tuesday, 7th November the internal auditreport regarding ofDevelopmentManagementwasconsidered

 

Councilresolvesto:

 

·         Welcome theoutcomesofthe internal audit ofDevelopment Management. Particularly the positive ‘substantial’ assurancesgiven to thePlanning Service (Development Control) and the Monitoring of Section 106Agreements

 

·         Acceptthe outcome of the internal auditof Development Management.Noting the‘limited’assurance given to PlanningEnforcementand to commit to supporting the actionsidentifiedin the report particularly with continued additional resources.

 

Iso move “

Cllr.GilesMcNeill

 

 

Councillor Matthew Boles had submitted the following motion:-

 

“Chairman

 

Many areas of our district including the highly populated centres of Market Rasen and Gainsborough are becoming increasingly marginalised amid money saving practices of the police, the NHS and the ambulance services, in favour of the city centre of Lincoln.

 

I hope that this Council shares my deep concerns that the latest episode in this catalogue of neglect comes with the news that only one ambulance unit will be stationed in Gainsborough and most of the time will not even be there but could be anywhere in the East Midlands, potentially many miles away from life threatening situations.

 

Given that we are already half an hour from the nearest trauma unit even when the emergency services get on the scene - then it could be anything to an hour or more before an emergency is treated with the same quality of care that you would expect to receive anywhere else in this United Kingdom.

 

Why should our residents be at serious risk of losing their lives when in other places risk is minimised.

 

I call on this Council to support my motion condemning East Midlands Ambulance Service management for taking a step too far in withdrawing local ambulances to the Lincoln station and thus compromising public safety in West Lindsey. I ask that all Councillors sign a document condemning this decision and ask the ambulance service for its immediate reconsideration.

 

I know that Members from all parties are equally worried and therefore will be prepared to stand up and be counted by supporting my motion at this critical time.

I so move.

Cllr Matthew Boles
Gainsborough

 

The Leader responded to the Motion as follows: -

 

“Thank you for bringing this concerning matter to our attention. The challenge of rural disparity and accessibility of health services in this area has, for some time, been of concern and consideration for this Council and a keen focus of the Health Commission.

 

It is important that we explore the evidence and information available about the proposals being considered by EMAS, and that we understand the specific considerations made about this area and the local impact.

 

Enquiries made with EMAS have shown that staff consultation is currently underway in respect of the proposed changes.

 

We have contacted EMAS with specific questions:

 

·         What is the reasoning behind the proposals to withdraw one of the two ambulances from Gainsborough?

·         What geographical area do they currently cover?

·         Will the coverage be affected by the new arrangements?

·         Has the rural nature of West Lindsey been adequately considered when this decision was taken?

·         Who was consulted about it?

·         How is it envisaged that the new arrangement is going to improve things for our residents?

·         Are there any alternatives?

A Gainsborough specific response has not been provided by EMAS at this stage. I agree that the East Midlands Ambulance Service should be asked to provide this further information and also evidence of the relevant equality impact assessments and safety assessments that informed the decision.

 

In summary, without a clear response or evidence base on the questions above, I support the development of a response to EMAS setting out this Councils concerns about changes to ambulance provision in this area and request for assurance that patient safety and experience will not be adversely affected by the proposed changes.

 

I propose that the Council’s Health Commission submits this formal response to EMAS on behalf of the Council which should provide us with a clear understanding of their written strategy and a full opportunity to respond professionally”

 

The Opposition sought the Chairman’s permission for the matter to be debated fully as it was considered all Members would have a view on the matter as it raised issues of risk for our communities.  He went on to express concern at the approach adopted by EMAS, this was not a matter for public consultation, but a staff consultation. Staff were been asked whether they thought ambulances should be removed from West Lindsey before the local authority and therefore he was of the view that the Council needed to express their views on this matter during the meeting.  The nature of the Leader’s amendment was of concern to the Opposition as they considered the Council needed to make a strong robust response as a matter of urgency to the position, as they were of the view that EMAS were a good way on to making a decision.  With respect to the Health Commission it was anticipated a response would not be hastily received and therefore the urgency of the matter would be lost.  It was important this matter was not dismissed.

 

The Deputy Leader of the Council responded and whilst not in disagreement with the statement made by the Opposition, he outlined his reasons as to why he felt it important for the Council and EMAS to work together constructively to resolve any concerns rather than create an adverse reaction.  He considered given the sparsity of the District, the Council had a proven track record of delivery schemes to supplement the statutory services, offering examples.  The Health Commission was starting to make a real impact.  The general sentiment of Councillor Boles motion was supported, with the ambulance service being an East Midlands wide service, it was likely ambulances would be located in more highly populated areas and therefore it was important service provision and access to services was safeguarded for rural communities.  However the Deputy Leader was supportive of the Leaders approach and understanding of the rationale, indicating the Authority was not at a point of condemning the organisation, which would only create an adverse reaction and not be conducive to open dialogue.  He was of the view that it was important to be fully aware of the facts and use the influence of the Council and its Health Commission to work together to resolve the concerns expressed.  He therefore moved the Leader’s amendment.

 

The Leader responded to the comments expressed by the Opposition and refuted claims that he wished to dismiss this matter, concurring that it was vital to the whole District and of concern.  He re-iterated that he had already contacted EMAS with a number of specific questions, referenced earlier, which he considered the Authority required answers to in order to understand the proposals and once this information had been provided the Council could respond.  All wanted to ensure the District had the appropriate level of cover.

 

Debate ensued with Members offering a number of differing views as to how best this matter should be addressed and their reasons for this.   Many spoke in support of the approach put forward by Councillor Boles, as they considered:-

·         that a quick response was required,

·         this was a front line service which the District should fight for as a risk to life was posed

·         it was important to represent the communities rather than be concerned with the reasons for the proposals

·         this was a cut too far, with ambulances already having already been reduced in recent years

·         diplomatic approaches had not worked historically with the town losing it’s A and E service in the 1990s

·         the Council needed to be proactive not reactive

·         EMAS needed to be held to account and at the very least should be requested to attend a Full Council Meeting.

·         There was strong public feeling with an on-line petition having received over 2000 signatures in just a few weeks

·         Previous inspections had confirmed EMAS to be a failing service

Whilst having empathy and concern at the situation which appeared to be arising, others spoke in support of the Leader’s suggested approach, as they considered: -

·         it was important to explore and exhaust all diplomatic avenues

·         it was important to make an informed decision, based on evidence

·         it would not be positive to marginalise EMAS

·         the council had a good relationship with EMAS at a scrutiny level and as such the Council’s representative on the Lincolnshire Health Scrutiny committee had already raised this matter with them, with EMAS due to attend in December.

·         The Health Commission had been communicating with EMAS all week and did not want to put this continued dialogue at risk

·         Condemning in a public arena was considered an act of blame and would create a negative reaction.

·         Use of the FOI Mechanism may be of assistance.

·         Partnership working would deliver the best conclusion

There was however much support for the suggestion that EMAS should be requested to address Councillors regarding this, as a matter of urgency and before Christmas

 

Clarification was sought from a Member as to whether Council had the power to mandate individuals to undertake an action as suggested in Councillor Bole’s motion as he considered this not to be the case.  The Monitoring Officer confirmed this and was of the view the motion asked Members to consider signing but could not compel them to do so. Alternatively the Council could authorise the Chairman for example to respond on behalf of the Authority should it be the majority wish.

 

Again there was support expressed for EMAS to attend and address Councillors. Councillor Boles who had brought this matter to the Council’s attention indicated that he would be happy to support a motion to also undertake this action but felt it important the Council fought for what its residents wanted, Councillor Shore was happy to support this amendment.

 

It was noted that only one amendment could be considered at any one time as per the rules of debate and further amendments would need to be considered once the first amendment had been dealt with.

 

The Leader’s amendment having being proposed and seconded was then put to the vote and CARRIED

 

Following procedural clarification, a further amendment was then proposed namely that EMAS and the relevant CCG be invited to address Councillors regarding the concerns expressed, having being seconded and put to the vote this was CARRIED ALSO.

 

On that basis it was RESOLVED that: -

 

(a)          a response to EMAS be developed setting out this Council’s concerns about changes to ambulance provision in the area and requesting assurance that patient safety and experience will not be adversely affected by the proposed changes.

 

(b)          The Council’s Health Commission be requested to submit this formal response to EMAS on behalf of the Council.

(c)          EMAS and the relevant CCG be invited to address Councillors as matter of urgency and ideally before Christmas regarding their proposals and the concerns expressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Giles McNeill had submitted the following motion:-

 

“Chairman

 

Council notes that:

• In October 2015 a Peer review was undertaken of the Planning service with the aim of identifying long running issues and a means to address them.
• A follow-up review was undertaken after six months and that good progress was indicated, nevertheless there were areas to address and actions to be implemented
• In the previous civic year the Governance and Audit Committee formally requested that an audit be undertaken, however this was delayed pending the appointment of a permanent manager for the department, nevertheless in January 2017 the Committee resolved that the audit be undertaken
• That at the meeting of the Governance and Audit Committee on Tuesday, 7th November the internal audit report regarding of Development Management was considered

Council resolves to:

• Welcome the outcomes of the internal audit of Development Management. Particularly the positive ‘substantial’ assurances given to the Planning Service (Development Control) and the Monitoring of Section 106 Agreements
• Accept the outcome of the internal audit of Development Management. Noting the ‘limited’ assurance given to Planning Enforcement and to commit to supporting the actions identified in the report particularly with continued additional resources.

I so move
Cllr. Giles McNeill

 

Councillor Ian Fleetwood, as Chairman of Planning Committee responded as follows: -

 

“Cllr McNeil, I would like to second your motion and I would like to thank you and your Governance and Audit Committee for ensuring thatthe scope and coverage of this audit was robust. In addition I am grateful to you for bringing these positive and reassuring findings to full council.

The Development Management function is vital to the success of West Lindsey. As always our internal auditors have been thorough and professional in their work. We have to recognise that there is room for improvement and we need to accept and implement all of the recommendations.”

 

Having being moved and seconded, with no debate on being put to the vote the Motion was declared CARRIED.