Meeting documents
Document: | 2003-11-05 SCRUTINY COMMITTEE LEISURE, SAFETY AND HEALTH |
PRESENT: Councillor Mrs Pearce (Chairman); Councillors Mrs Brandis (in place of Bond), Cadd, Mrs Hannelly, Hughes, Isham (in place of Smith), Mrs Myers, Patrick, Mrs Takodra and Miss Walsh. |
|||
APOLOGIES: Councillors Ahmed, Blake, Bond, Smith and Mrs Thorne. |
|||
|
|||
RESOLVED:- |
|||
That the minutes of 25th September, 2003 be approved as a correct record. |
|||
|
|||
The Committee agreed at an earlier meeting that its theme for the year should be “Improving the Health of the Citizens of the Valeâ€Â. |
|||
The Healthy Living Centre (HLC) was a community based approach to achieving local health targets launched by the Government in 1998. The HLC was involved in partnership working across the voluntary, public and private sectors. It's aim was to improve community health by tackling the wider determinants of health, the focus being on health as a positive attribute which helped people to get the most out of life. |
|||
An HLC could take many forms. The Aylesbury HLC was a single site scheme based in a single building. Residents were encouraged to join groups and help with a variety of projects and a member of staff was always on hand to talk with people who called in. |
|||
In view of the unique character of the Aylesbury HLC Members of the Committee had visited the Centre on 21st October, 2003. The Centre Manager attended this meeting to provide more information. |
|||
Mr S Goldensmith, Manager of the Healthy Living Centre (HLC) |
|||
The HLC had been launched in October, 2002. Progress during the first 12 months had been positive. There were approximately 400 HLCs in existence, each of which varied in character. However, the aim of every HLC was to improve the health and well-being of the target community by addressing the causes of health inequality. The Walton Court HLC received national lottery funding of £150,000 per annum, with matched funding received from partners in the form of payments in kind. There were approximately 15 partner organisations involved in service provision at the HLC. |
|||
Members were informed that the HLC had had a significant impact on the community. Although a stable financial foundation would be available for the coming 4 years, the view was expressed that the work of the Centre would need to continue beyond that period. The work of the various partners involved in the HLC was becoming more integrated. Currently, the HLC was considering what options were available to facilitate the movement of activities into a larger premises. Work was ongoing to plan how the HLC could be sustained beyond the lifespan of the national lottery funding. |
|||
The Committee was informed that the District Council could assist the HLC simply by undertaking its duties and responsibilities to a high standard and by making a strategy/policy commitment to health inequality with which the HLC could engage. |
|||
It was vital that HLC projects moved into the community away from the building and that projects were undertaken with a purpose in mind. In relation to that issue the Committee noted that the HLC had achieved its funding by developing a business plan. The business plan identified the Centre's priority areas, which had been addressed through a flexible and responsive approach. Community involvement in the HLC was considered important and it was hoped that over time the community would expand its role in the operation of the Centre. At the end of the period of funding it was hoped that the HLC would have achieved a sense of value, pride, ownership and belonging in the community. It was also hoped that the concept of the HLC would expand in the future to other areas of the Vale. |
|||
Members noted that the HLC was still a developing concept and that a review might be more useful towards the end of its national lottery funding. However, it was important that the HLC consider making itself sustainable without that funding at the earliest opportunity. Consideration should, it was felt, include alternative HLC models. |
|||
The Committee was of the opinion that the longer term sustainability of the HLC should be the responsibility of Central Government rather than the Council Tax payers. It was vital that in achieving sustainability the HLC did not lose sight of its purpose. |
|||
RESOLVED – |
|||
That Members note the need for the HLC to be financially self-sufficient by the end of national lottery funding and Officers report to the Committee at its next meeting on alternative models for delivering the concept of a HLC. |
|||
|
|||
Over recent months the Cabinet had been developing a vision for Aylesbury Vale and had been working on refining the Council's strategic objectives. This work had been triggered by three specific factors: |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
There were a number of key factors which were expected to influence the Vale over the coming years and which should, therefore, inform the Council's vision for the District and its strategic objectives. In addressing these factors, in particular the anticipated level of growth and the consequences of that (e.g. the need for adequate transport infrastructure), the Council had to make a fundamental choice between whether it should respond to the challenges passively or accept them and seek to use them to its advantage and to the advantage of the residents of the Vale. The vision had been based on the premise that the Council should seek to create a vibrant and sustainable community, where people could work, shop and spend leisure time locally. This involved harnessing the future challenges and using them positively. |
|||
The Council's strategic objectives were being reviewed in the context of the emerging vision, the Council's adopted mission and the key factors influencing the Vale over the coming years. It was vital that the Strategic Objectives be driven by these three factors. The new model for the strategic objectives was founded on the powers granted to local authorities in the Local Government Act, 2000, to promote the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of their areas. It was intended that the existing strategic objectives should be replaced with three strategic objectives which reflected the Council's commitment to the economy, communities and the environment. In order to give effect to these strategic objectives, thirteen proposed specific outcomes had been identified, eight of which it was proposed should be the focus for initial investment and improvement. |
|||
Each Scrutiny Committee was being invited to comment on the proposed vision, strategic objectives and outcomes. Public consultation was being carried out specifically on the outcomes. Feedback would be presented to Cabinet which would then determine its final recommendation to Council. |
|||
Reflecting on the key factors that would influence the District in the coming years Members emphasised the importance of ensuring that infrastructure developed at a speed and scale that would satisfy the demands of the growth. This included, in particular, transport (e.g. roads and railway links), utilities (e.g. water and electricity) and leisure facilities. With regard to leisure facilities, the Committee expressed concern about the present condition of public open spaces within the Vale and suggested that these areas needed to be brought up to a suitable standard now if future provision was to be adequate. The Committee noted that Officers were currently in discussion with the relevant bodies/agencies with respect to the issue of the Vale's future infrastructure needs. |
|||
Members expressed the view that the vision and strategic objectives focused too much on Aylesbury Town to the detriment of the needs of the wider Vale. Towns and villages in the rural areas of the District should, it was suggested, be given a higher profile within the proposals and would need to be nurtured as the District grew. It was suggested that each Parish Council within the District should be asked to evaluate and feedback the strengths, weaknesses and aspirations of their area and that this information should also inform the Vision and strategic objectives. |
|||
The following specific points were made in response to the proposed outcomes: |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
RESOLVED – |
|||
That Cabinet be advised of the above comments. |
|||
|
|||
Members noted the informative evidence that had been received at the evidence gathering stage. Recommendations to Cabinet were agreed in response to the main problem areas which had been identified by witnesses. |
|||
RESOLVED – |
|||
That Cabinet be advised:- |
|||
This Committee recognised the pressure on both financial and human resources experienced by AVDC and its partners in the provision of the DFG/adaptations service and that demand for both is likely to always exceed the supply. |
|||
This Committee believed, however, based on the evidence received and Officer's reports, that the waiting list for DFGs/Adaptations might be decreased and the stress to service users reduced by:- |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
RESOLVED – |
|||
That the Work Programme 2003/2004 be noted. |
|||
|