11.45 am
Work has been going on for some time to develop new community hospitals in Henley and Bicester. This has included:
The PCT was going through the process of finding a developer to take on the work of re-developing the hospitals. However, legal advice led to a decision to restart the procurement process.
This item will give the Committee an opportunity to find out how this position was reached and what effect this delay will have on the future development of the hospitals.
Speakers will include:
Catherine Mountford – Director of Strategy & Quality at the PCT;
Councillor Ian Reissman, Chairman of the Townlands Steering Group (TSG). The TSG is the formal advisory Committee to the Henley Town Council. Membership comprises elected members; groups across and beyond Henley, business health groups, charities and church parishes around Henley; and
Dr Michael Curry, Chairman of the Bicester Community Hospital Engagement Forum (CHEF) which was set up by the PCT to enable local people to have their say in the development of the new Bicester Community Hospital.
Minutes:
Work had been ongoing for a considerable time to develop new community hospitals in Henley and Bicester. This had included:
The PCT had been going through the process of finding a developer to take on the work of re-developing the hospitals. However, legal advice had led to a decision to restart the procurement process.
The purpose of this item was to give the Committee an opportunity to find out how this situation had arisen and what effect the delay would have on the future development of the hospitals.
Catherine Mountford, Director of Strategy & Quality, Oxfordshire PCT; Dr Michael Curry, Chairman , Bicester Community Hospital Engagement Forum and Dr Peter Ashby, General Practitioner, attended the meeting in place of Councillor Ian Reissman of the Townlands Steering Group (TSG).
Catherine Mountford expressed disappointment that the process had had to be re-started, but there had been no option but to cease development, given the level of risk involved, as advised by the Legal service. She added that it was deemed important to simplify the process as far as possible, given that a significant amount of work had already been completed on, for example, planning surveys etc. Moreover, there were plans to take to a business case to the September PCT Board involving two locations, which would include a preferred option. It was expected that approval would be received by May 2011, subject to planning permission. She assured the Committee that the PCT were working closely with the local communities.
Dr Michael Curry expressed also expressed regret that the project had been delayed by 6 months, but that a new, revised process was now to be drawn up. In his view, it was not possible to manage it via a committee process, rather it required input from an architect, and GP and nursing input also.
Dr Peter Ashby informed the Committee that the Steering Group, rather than taking a confrontational stance, had preferred to concentrate on working with the PCT to find a solution. He added that the PCT had given a commitment to re-provide the services currently offered by the hospital and the aim of the Group was to ensure that a hospital was kept open for the next 25 years. The Steering Group had asked the PCT to provide sufficient support and advice with which to deliver the Business Case for September.
During the debate, members of the Committee raised the following points:
- It was hoped that there would be no further problems with the legal side, in order to ensure success;
- There had been a lack of communication with the residents of Bicester with regard to the project. It was hoped that the PCT would be more vocal in managing the expectations of the local community;
- It was important to the residents of Bicester that the Hospital be situated within the centre of Bicester and that transport links to it would be considered;
- It was asked what guarantees there were that permission would be granted by the new coalition Government to proceed with the projects; and
- What had been the cost of procurement on the projects to date?
- It was important to avoid the staffing issues relating to TUPE which were experienced with the Chipping Norton development;
- Will revenue funding be ring-fenced?
- How could you guarantee that services will be commissioned which the clinicians may not want to use?
Catherine Mountford responded making the following points:
- With regard to the cost of procurement, most of the work had been undertaken by PCT staff as part of their job;
- A detailed survey had been undertaken at some of the external costs incurred to date and this had revealed that £90k had been spent on surveys, planning and vital information services etc; all of which would be used;
- Expectations were clear that capital was to be provided by the developer and that the NHS would pay the lease cost;
- The press had been notified of various events where the public would have the opportunity to receive information and ask questions, but it is always their prerogative as to whether they wished to attend or not;
- Transport and staffing issues would be picked up;
- Revenue funding was currently ring-fenced. The PCT were working closely with local commissioning groups;
- We are working with the clinical representatives via the PBS Consortia on required services.
The Committee thanked Catherine Mountford, Michael Curry MP and Peter Ashby for their attendance. They AGREED to keep a very close eye on the process.