Communities across the East Riding face months of anxious waiting before crucial decisions are made on the future of health services.

Campaigners had wanted the East Riding of Yorkshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) to give reassurances about the region's community hospitals in Beverley, Driffield, Hornsea and Withernsea.

But, at a PCT board meeting, they heard a final decision may not be reached until later this year.

This is because future plans could depend on the outcome of a funding bid for refurbishing community facilities.

Dr Duncan Ross, director of commissioning and procurement for the PCT, said: "Because we have to wait for the outcome of the funding application it is actually very difficult to say which services we will need in which areas.

"I can understand it is very frustrating for people, but we really won't be able to get to a final answer until nearer the autumn.

"The important thing is we are listening to people and we're responding to their views."

Yesterday's meeting also heard how the PCT has just five weeks to apply for its share of a £750m pot of money put aside by the Department of Health.

The department recently asked for all applications for funding to be submitted by the end of June.

The PCT's original proposals included moving beds from hospitals in Withernsea, Driffield, Beverley and Hornsea, into new units and private care homes.

As first reported on the Mail's website yesterday, a new document presented to board members indicated the PCT may keep some beds on one or more of the existing hospital sites.

Campaigners today said the uncertainty over the future of health-care was frustrating for residents.

Barbara Jefferson, of the Hornsea Hospital Action Group, said: "I feel slightly depressed by these events.

"I believed I would find out which options the board would be looking at.

"But I don't believe they are very much further on than they were before. There is still a long way to go."

The Hull Daily Mail has been running its Hands Off Our Hospitals campaign in a bid to prevent cuts in the NHS.

The PCT's next board meeting will be held on; Wednesday 27th June 2007

Mick Pilling chairmen Save Bridlington Hospital Campaign Action Group (Writes)

I would sincerely like to know what the PCT are up to; how much is this costing the NHS; all these meetings; all these consultations and all the changes due to be imposed, this money would have been better put to better use and the hospitals named left alone to run as they have always run up to now without these so called PCT's pocking there noise in. 

Don't Trust the Trust! Elaine, John, Rachel, Kate and I from the Beverley group went to this meeting at Brough, yesterday, and many from other town groups.  Graham Stuart could not come, H of C emergency, I guess the vote of no confidence in Sec. of State for Health  (alas she survived, but surely will not make it into Brown's cabinet). You may have seen some account of the Board meeting on Look North, Calendar, Radio H, ER Mail, Yorks Post.  For those who couldn't be there, it is difficult to say what decisions, if any, were being made.  The PCT certainly ruled out the options of only Brid and/or only Goole, separately or together.  But every other option left on the table included Brid and Goole ( I have never seen why this is so, except that some other PCT maintains them, or  in the case of Brid, does not).

From the statistics the PCT had (finally) gathered, only a tiny proportion of the population could easily reach Brid and Goole.  But if Beverley was added, then 75% of the population would be catered for - according to the PCT figures.  So that is now their preferred option (Brid Goole and Bev), but they still might keep beds at all the hospitals.  When questioned (see Bev. Guard. this week) Duncan Ross said that could be the Westwood Hospital, or new build.  Nothing was ruled out, he said.

So I think we have established that there must be a hospital in/for Beverley, and that must be a relief for the Beverley group, but certainly not what we wanted, as all of us want to save all the community hospitals.  I told the Bev. G. that Castle Hill would never be accepted as a 'Beverley' hospital, and I hope the PCT will drop that idea.  The Ambulance station site has problems - it is in walking distance for no-one, it is all green field, it is as far from Hull RI or Castle Hill as you could get and still be in Beverley, and there is virtually no public transport at present which would serve it (that could be fixed).  The Clariant site has today lodged its planning application, on which of course the hospital does not feature. Grovehill might be a possibility?  But the traffic around there is not solved.  And the PCT could change its mind when, finally, it makes a business plan - 'Don't Trust the Trust', a brilliant motto.

The PCT papers said they had asked in vain for a road across Westwood to the old Hospital!  How desperate and how ignorant they are.

The bombshell was that instead of 4 years to apply for capital funding to a particular lump of money, the Govt have told all PCTs the bids have to be lodged by 30 June - and of course the PCT does not have a plan on which to bid.  Graham Perry pointed out that a half cooked bid would certainly be binned, as every PCT would be applying.  So there may be no money at all.

The press reports have I think all been hostile, as they pointed out that the Board did not know what it was doing. Staff contradicted each other, and the non exec. members seemed to be as ill informed as we were - we were presented with 100 or so detailed pages on arrival, and they had not had them for more than a couple of  days.  I felt the chair was worried that the recommendations would not pass, she took them out of order, slowly, confusingly, and in one case with altered wording. The Board was badly run, as the management restricted the number of people coming, had too small a hall, went through their incredibly boring agenda for 2 hours plus before they got to the public's contribution, then the chair allowed 3 people who were all officials and had official links to the PCT to ask their questions first, which were answered very slowly and at length, leaving about 12 minutes for the 50 or so furious and hot people who had spent the morning listening to papers on obesity policy and management structures and so on, or trying to listen, as much was inaudible to us - no mikes, they all sat facing each other and muttered.  We were spared power point, but not much else.  The chairwoman, when she finally opened the discussion up, tried to limit questions to one from each locality - some groups were not represented.  She then closed the 'discussion' Some good points were made from the floor, but it was far too restricted a time.  The response to the consultation, even if slightly cooked on analysis, showed overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly, that people wanted their local hospitals, they wanted NHS beds and not private beds, and they wanted Minor Injuries Units.  The idea beloved of the Board that we all wanted A&E to come to our homes or workplaces, was shown to be quite unrealistic by Stuart Woodruff. The idea of virtual wards with matrons was less trumpeted than before.

There are dangers.  The next Board in June will make a decision (they say) and there will be no more consultation.  Barbara Jefferson said this might be illegal.

We could write to the Board before the next meeting, asking for better arrangements for the meeting.  We could construct a reasoned reply to the papers showered on us yesterday.  What do you think?  Are some town groups already doing this?