Dr Michelle Brennan and Dan Leveson have been invited to present a report providing an update on the ongoing work to develop a Neighbourhood Health Plan for Oxfordshire.
The Committee is invited to consider the report, raise any questions and AGREE any recommendations arising it may wish to make before this plan is presented to the Oxfordshire Health and Wellbeing Board for approval on 4 December 2025.
Minutes:
With the agreement of the Committee, the Chair varied the
agenda and took item 10 before item 9.
Oxfordshire’s system partners were invited to present a
report providing an update on the ongoing work to develop a Neighbourhood
Health Plan for Oxfordshire. The Committee invited the following Officers to
answer questions:
The Committee received an update on the development of
Oxfordshire’s neighbourhood health plan. The deadline for submitting the final
plan had been extended beyond December 2025, allowing more time for partners to
refine the plan. The Chair emphasised that this extension would help avoid a
rushed process and enable a more robust outcome. The meeting provided an
opportunity for scrutiny and recommendations.
Discussion began with concerns about implementing strategic
changes, such as shifting care from hospitals to the community, prioritising
prevention, and increasing digitalisation, without additional funding. The Head
of Joint Commissioning -Age Well explained that aligning the neighbourhood
health plan with the Better Care Fund (BCF) would be essential, as many
services supported by the BCF would underpin the neighbourhood agenda. Despite
financial challenges, partners were expected to coordinate creatively and
maximise the impact of existing resources.
Efficient use of the BCF was identified as a key lever for
cross-sector collaboration and resource allocation. The adoption of population
health management approaches was also emphasised, enabling collective use of
data for targeted prevention and addressing unmet needs. Integrating services
at the neighbourhood level and building strong relationships were considered
vital. The Committee expressed confidence that partnership working
and resource alignment could drive the required changes.
The value of community projects and lessons from
co-production and voluntary sector involvement were discussed, with the Wantage
Community Hospital project cited as an example of transformation from a
hospital-based to a community-focused initiative. The importance of engaging
the voluntary sector and leveraging local assets was highlighted, alongside the
need to map community activity and integrate voluntary sector knowledge.
Co-production and voluntary sector engagement were deemed essential for effective
prevention and holistic neighbourhood planning.
The governance structure for the neighbourhood health plan
was examined, particularly regarding the involvement of voluntary, community,
faith, and social enterprise sectors. A dedicated stakeholder event had been
held to discuss engagement methods, with approaches tailored to suit different
organisations’ capacities. Ongoing collaboration with infrastructure
organisations, regular meetings with the voluntary sector, and offers for
representation on key boards were noted, aiming for
both information sharing and genuine influence over decision-making.
The role of overarching organisations in representing the
voluntary sector within the plan’s governance was considered. While
organisations such as Healthwatch sat on the Place-Based Partnership Board, it
was acknowledged that no single organisation could represent the entire
voluntary sector due to its diversity and limited resources. Regular
interactions and flexible participation, allowing topic-specific groups to join
relevant board discussions, were suggested to ensure broader representation.
Patient Participation Groups were also identified as a means
to enhance engagement.
Cllr Garnett left the meeting at this stage.
The Committee explored whether the construction of
neighbourhood geographies for the health plan took into
account potential local government reorganisation (LGR), particularly to
ensure alignment with broader determinants of health such as housing, planning,
and transport. It was confirmed that discussions had taken place with district
councils and that the planning process was mindful of possible LGR changes. The
current neighbourhood plan would serve as a transition plan, with a more formal
version to follow once LGR details were clearer, to avoid creating
neighbourhoods that might later conflict with new boundaries.
The role of the Health and Wellbeing Board in the
neighbourhood health plan, mechanisms for public accountability, and governance
sign-off were discussed. The Board would have overall accountability and
leadership for the plan, with regular updates provided to the Joint HOSC. The
plan would be developed with input from a wide range of stakeholders, including
lived experience representatives and district councillors, and would be
socialised with all relevant organisations for sign-off. The Board’s membership
might be reviewed to ensure broad stakeholder involvement.
Parish council involvement in the development of
neighbourhood health plans was raised. Parish councils had not yet been engaged
but would be included as the process moved to the individual neighbourhood
level, recognising their valuable local insight. Collaboration would likely be
coordinated with guidance from County and District Councils, and it was
recommended that the Oxfordshire Association of Local Councils be used as a key
communication channel.
The Committee sought clarification on the practical
advantages the neighbourhood health plan would offer to ordinary residents,
particularly those in rural villages with limited access to transport and
healthcare. The plan aimed to provide more care closer to home, reducing the
need for hospital visits unless absolutely necessary.
It was acknowledged that rural neighbourhood plans would differ from urban
ones, but the overall goal was to address local needs within communities and
build on existing assets.
Mechanisms for influencing the neighbourhood health plan,
especially regarding the involvement of local members and parish councils, were
outlined. Engagement could occur through relevant officers, the Health and
Wellbeing Board, local authority members, the HOSC committee, and the
place-based partnership. Local members played a key role as frontline
representatives in their communities and at parish meetings, ensuring that
local voices could influence the development and implementation of the plan.
The criteria for determining what constituted a
neighbourhood within the plan, and ensuring coherence across Oxfordshire,
especially with possible future changes to local government boundaries, were
clarified. Four planning units: North, City, South, and West, had been
established to facilitate local stakeholder engagement, not to set fixed
boundaries. Neighbourhoods would likely range from 30,000 to 50,000 people,
with further and continuous evaluation to ensure boundaries reflected natural
community movements and local service use.
Concerns regarding upcoming contracts for neighbourhood
health, particularly the impact on general practice and the definition of a
“core offer” at different population levels, were acknowledged. Significant
anxiety existed among GPs due to uncertainty about new provider contracts,
which had not yet been detailed. It was explained that most people would
continue to receive care through existing primary and community services, with
neighbourhoods initially focusing on those with complex needs. Further information
and engagement would follow once contract details became available.
Lessons learnt from previous neighbourhood and integrated
care projects were discussed. Oxfordshire had already implemented several
successful programmes, such as hospital at home, virtual wards, and integrated
neighbourhood teams, with ongoing evaluation in specific areas. The
neighbourhood health plan aimed to coordinate and scale up effective approaches
across the county, balancing both service reorganisation and preventative work
tailored to local needs.
The Committee AGREED to issue the following
recommendations, subject to any necessary minor amendments offline:
D/Cllr Poskitt left the meeting at this stage.
Supporting documents: