Agenda item - BRIGHTON GENERAL COMMUNITY HEALTH HUB - OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE

Report of the Health & Wellbeing Development Manager.

44.1                 RESOLVED: That the Board agreed to note this presentation.

44.1                 Mike Jennings, Director of Finance and Estates, Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust, and Geoff Braterman, Head of Health Planning, Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust, presented the report and slide show that outlined the business case propositions for the redevelopment of the Brighton General Hospital site into the Brighton General Community Health Hub. The focus detailed the central proposal of health and wellbeing services, an update on the progress and the engagement thus far.

44.2                 Geoff Braterman stated that there was overwhelming support for the plans of the site facing Elm Grove due to the close proximity to bus services and that it created a civic presence for the area.

44.3                 Mike Jennings stated that the current design was an artist’s impression however the façade may be subject to change and was now going through an engagement process before sign-off. Due to the size of the project approval would be required from the Trust’s regulator (NHS Improvement).It was expected that the detailed planning and full business case would take approximately one year, expected construction set to commence in 2020 with health hub completion expected in 2023. It was noted that these were targets rather than committed timescales given a number of factors not fully in the Trust’s control.

44.4                 The Chief Executive questioned what the business case asked of the HWB, whether this proposal was to note or to seek endorsement to return to the Planning Committee. He added there were many things to like about the proposal including its integrated service delivery model and housing development but would need a clearer vision on how this site would fit in with other services.

44.5                 The Chair responded that the proposal would not receive formal approval from this Board and would just be noted.

44.6                 Mike Jennings stated that the proposal sought recognition of its engagement with other health partners and services and looked to the Board for open dialogue of ideas, praise and qualms. Other discussions from different paths of engagement had previously identified components that had been incorporated to the proposal in order to produce updated preferred options.

44.7                 Geoff Braterman stated that town planning issues would need to be considered through the remit of the Planning Committee and that this Board had a remit in ensuring the proposals aligned with the strategic vision for health and care in the city as well as the wider public health impacts. He added that in terms of the health services planned to be provided there was not a huge change however it was exciting to bring primary care to the site and provided opportunities for collaboration between different services that was currently constrained on the existing site.

44.8                 Councillor Page stated that he welcomed GP led services and a pharmacy to be built on the site because the city had a low number of GPs per capita and few primary care facilities in the Elm Grove/Hanover area in particular. He questioned if the funding for the project was inextricably linked to the sale of the majority of the site to housing developers. The site would contribute to the city’s housing needs to build affordable homes for key workers; however he recognised the concerns of selling public land.

44.9                 Mike Jennings responded that the sale was linked with the funds to build the health hub, as the project needed to be self-funding. The project team was already engaged with the council’s planning team but that formal engagement with the market in terms of specific housing development strategies would take place as part of the Full Business Case Development.

44.10             The Director for Public Health stated this was an opportunity for a development that promoted healthy living, independence and aging. He stated that site should aim to fit in the city’s framework of existing services, for instance the proposed mental health facility and homeless service could link together with the local Morley Street site.

44.11             Geoff Braterman stated that he would welcome Public Health expertise, engagement with the council and other existing services. He stated that the Brighton General Health Hub would be part of a network of services serving the city and East Brighton in particular. Without pre-empting any outcome, it would make sense to consider this perspective and consider any potential changes in the wider configuration of services e.g. to concentrate and integrate homeless services located in central areas. However, the overall building envelope at Brighton General was likely to change substantially from that set out in the Outline Business case.

44.12             Councillor Hyde questioned if the project had engaged with local residents and if they were notified of the proposed housing development. She stated that on many new sites there were always proposals for new GP clinics and this always eased the planning application process, however they were often never delivered.  She added this was a large site and in turn expected a larger health facility to be proposed and asked if there was any further thought in using a greater proportion for the health hub.

44.13             Mike Jennings responded that local residents were informed of the proposed layout of the project and had fully engaged with community groups. He stated that the design was still flexible and had the opportunity for expansion in a future phase if required. He stated that primary care services were a key part of the strategy and the HWB involvement was intended for a health care perspective, as already practiced with other health colleagues and services, not a planning perspective

44.14             Councillor Moonan stated that she welcomed the assurances for the provision of affordable and key worker housing which was important to many key players in the city and these issues would be pushed.

44.15             Councillor Taylor stated that it was right for the NHS to look to surplus land requirement for solutions; services provided on the Brighton General site had significantly changed and community services had to be developed to further integration. Health providers should work with any site that became available without having to lose any services. He asked if any surplus funding from the project would be channelled into any other services.

44.16             Mike Jennings responded that they were not expecting any surplus funds but if there were to be then they would remain within the organisation to enhance other health services, which may not necessarily the Brighton General site but in such case they would invite further engagement

44.17             The Chair stated that the role of the HWB in the wider realm of health needed to be considered and added that it was good to seek endorsement within the sector and the that full business case for the proposal should return to the Board for full backing.

44.18             The Chair asked if the presentation slides could be rectified to ensure they were visible to clarify the format of the tables and their narrative which can be found on the following link to the agenda on pages 211 and 213:

https://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/Published/C00000826/M00008124/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf

44.19             RESOLVED: That the Board agreed to note the report.