Issue - meetings

To consider a report of the Executive Councillor (Health)

The Director of Public Health has published his 23^rd Public Health Annual Report and has invited the Executive to provide a formal response to his recommendations. The attached document is the proposed Executive’s response to each recommendation. It was collated from information provided by the relevant Heads of Service in liaison with the appropriate Executive Councillor.

The Executive is asked to approve proposed responses to the 23rd Annual Public Health Report recommendations 1 – 9, 12 – 15, 18 – 21, 23 – 27, 30 & 32 – 35.

Officer contact: Donna Sager, Jovian Smalley, 0161 474 3928 / 0161 474 3589, donna.sager@stockport.gov.uk / jovian.smalley@stockport.gov.uk

The Executive Councillor (Health) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) incorporating the 23^rd Annual Report of the Director of Public Health, and the proposed Executive response to the recommendations addressed to the Council. Although primarily health related, there were recommendations covering a range of Council services and affecting a number of executive portfolios.

The Executive Councillor highlighted the importance of preventative activities, and in particular the hard work of partners in encouraging flu vaccinations that had resulted Stockport being either highest or second highest performers in England.

RESOLVED – That the 23^rd Annual Report of the Director of Public Health be received, and the proposed response to recommendations 1 – 9, 12 – 15, 18 – 21, 23 – 27, 30 & 32 – 35 be approved.

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

The final version of the 23rd Annual Public Health Report by the Director for Public Health is presented for consideration by the Committee. This report contains a series of recommendations. The Executive has responded to each of the recommendations directed towards the Council, either on its own or in partnership with other agencies with whom it shares a Public Health duty. In cases where the recommendation is directed towards another agency or agencies the Executive has noted that the Council is not being expected to respond to that recommendation. In total, the Executive has accepted 26 recommendations for further action to support the aspirations set out in the report.

The report will be reviewed again by the Executive when it meets on 14 March, alongside any comments made by the Scrutiny Committee.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to:

·         Consider the 23rd Annual Public Health Report;  

·         Review the 26 recommendations of this Report which the Executive has accepted in its response, including two which are updates to recommendations made in the previous year’s report;

·         Highlight any significant issues or challenges with the proposed response to be fed back to the Executive; and

·         Highlight areas of good practice in existing work which can be offered in support of the Executive’s response.

Officer contact: Jovian Smalley, 0161 474 3589, jovian.smalley@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Deputy Chief Executive submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the proposed response of the Executive to the recommendations contained in the 23^rd Annual Report of the Director of Public Health, the draft of which was considered by the Scrutiny Committee at its last meeting.

The Director for Public Health was also in attendance to respond to questions.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         The report recognised the importance of greenspace. Was there any response from Public Health Directors to the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF)? In response it was stated that Directors of Public Health were statutory consultees and that colleagues had provided a Greater Manchester response. The response commented on value of greenbelt, and urban greenspace in particular, and stressed the need to ensure any greenbelt development was sympathetic to the surroundings and needs of the public. Public Health leads were also working with Natural Capital to develop indicators that could be used as part of GMSF that were measures of more than simply housing and economic indicators.

·         An effective way of improving character of an area was through tree planting, and replacing dead or diseased trees more promptly. A more effective and systematic approach was needed.

·         It was commented that flu vaccination rates for pregnant women were lower for those attending Wythenshaw Hospital. It was queried whether this was also reflected in higher rates of smoking in pregnancy? In response it was stated that this was monitored, and it highlighted the need for greater standardisation of approach across providers.

·         Concerns were expressed that much of the GMSF allocations in other parts of the conurbation were close to motorways, which would create air quality concerns. In response it was suggested that there was scope for Greater Manchester partners to lobby for improvements in this area.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.