Decision details

A written report was received.

Ms Matthews reported that FMH had been under-utilised since it was built and, a year ago, it was operating at 73% capacity. ‘Adam’s Ward’ had been opened in December 2017, increasing use to 89%. The Breast Screening Unit would be moved inside the building around the end of July and also a CT scanner had been placed in FMH as part of a London-wide University College London Hospital (UCLH) research project on lung cancers, increasing usage of the building to 92%.

Plans were still underway for a GP Practice to be brought into the building – the CCG had received three expressions of interest which would be evaluated the following week. The remaining free capacity following this would be 5%, which would remain as ‘bookable space’.

The Vice Chairman enquired how GP Practices had been incentivised to move their Practices into FMH. Ms Matthews responded that the use of the building was complex since the CCG picks up any void costs (£1.5million last year) and this would reduce to £200k when a General Practice was in place. It was worth the CCG incentivising GP Practices to set up in FMH. Also, service charges were substantially higher than in any other Healthcare Centre. Benchmarking with other Practices had shown that this was the case and so the CCG had offered to pick up this difference. GP Practices had not wanted to move to FMH without this incentive as the costs were higher than elsewhere. Ms Matthews was asked to provide void costs up to August 2018 and she would follow this up.

Action: Ms Matthews

A Member congratulated the team and asked about the sort of activities that could be carried out in the ‘bookable space’. Ms Matthews responded that health-related services could use the space, e.g. the Dementia Café. There was flexibility in how the space could be used and the CCG was keen to collaborate with the Local Authority on this.

A Member enquired about making a better case for improved public transport to the site given the projected higher footfall. Ms Matthews agreed that this would be a good idea, adding that the footfall should rise from the current 200,000 to 300,000 a year. A Member enquired whether the CCG or the NHS was currently liaising with TfL about public transport access. Ms Matthews noted that this had not yet been revisited as there would be a stronger argument when the final footfall had been arrived at. It was anticipated that a GP Practice would be on site by the end of December. She would update the Committee on the situation in either October or November, depending on the information available.

Action: Ms Matthews

A Member enquired whether the chosen GP Practice would have preferential access to the facilities within the FMH compared to other GPs in the area. Ms Matthews stated that she would prefer not to answer the question at this stage in the process but she would respond when the situation became clearer in the near future. It depended to an extent on the bids submitted.

Action: Ms Matthews

A Member enquired whether the CT scanner would be used generally for diagnosis and treatment, rather than purely for the research programme. Dr Frost responded that the CT scanner was needed for patients at higher risk of lung cancer. University College London Hospital (UCLH) would be screening smokers or ex-smokers over 55 for early diagnosis. The facility could be used by others when not in use for the research project as it was part of a national lung cancer project. GPs typically had limited access to CT scanning in any case as the radiation was fairly high. UCLH Partners would pay full rent and the full cost of setting up the facilities.

A Member asked for an update on the land around FMH as he was aware that Barnet Council was in a partnership arrangement with national government to provide extra key worker housing as part of One Public Estate. Ms Wakeling noted that Barnet Council had been awarded funding by the Cabinet Office to run a number of ‘One Public Estate’ projects, including the land development at FMH. This funding had been provided for feasibility and development work in relation to finding ways of using public sector land that crossed organisational boundaries for housing and also the creation of jobs. The One Public Estate project developed a planning feasibility study for the pocket of land at the FMH site to be developed into either housing or a care facility. The developer, Community Health Partnerships (CHP) – one of the two national NHS property companies – is the owner of the land and building. It is CHP’s responsibility to develop the land and secure any planning permission from Barnet Council. 

Ms Wakeling said that she would enquire whether, from a Governance perspective, she could invite CHP to a meeting of the HOSC to discuss the land development plans given that this was in relation to a building project.  As the land is around a health-related building it may be that it would be relevant for HOSC to invite CHP to discuss this. If appropriate, she would invite CHP to the meeting to update on their plans for FMH.

Action: Ms Wakeling

A Member noted that residents would be keen to know how/whether the site would be developed and requested an update as this situation had been ongoing for some time.

A Member reported that residents had expressed concerns about the area that was being prepared for playing fields and how this area would be managed. A Management Committee had recently been set up regarding this, involving residents a local school representative and local Councillors. There was concern that the playing fields would be chargeable and hired out to external users, which would increase traffic and parking in the area.

Another Member added that more information was required from a community health rather than a commercial point of view.

RESOLVED that the Committee noted both the verbal and written reports.