Agenda item

Mr R Brookbank, Mr G Cowan, Mrs T Dean, Mr P J Homewood, Mr R J Lees, Mr J F London, Mrs J Rook, Mr R Tolputt and Mr J N Wedgbury were present for this item as local Members.

 

Mr D Weiss, Head of Public Private Partnerships and Property Team, Mrs C Holden, Project Manager/Better Homes Active Lives PFI Contract Manager, and Ms J Barnes, Head of Provision – Modernisation (Older People – West Kent), were in attendance for this item.

 

During discussion on The Limes in Dartford, Mr Brookbank declared an interest as the Chairman of Darent Valley Age Concern.

 

1.         Mrs Howard introduced the report and the officers who had worked on the modernisation programme and were in attendance at the meeting to respond to Members’ questions. She presented a series of slides which set out the background and rationale for the proposals, listed the services currently provided at each of the eleven premises, summarised the outcomes of the consultation and the recommendation relating to each of the premises, on which the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services would later be taking a decision. 

 

2.         The Chairman invited Members to comment and ask questions of detail on any of the premises. No comments were made about the Dorothy Lucy Centre or Cornfields, but points arising in relation to the other premises were as follows:-

 

WAYFARERS

 

a)         the staff who would transfer when a new provider took on the centre would do so under the TUPE regulations, and would transfer over on their existing terms and conditions and a comparable pension scheme as at present.  The KCC would need to seek assurance that a prospective purchaser would be able to cover these costs, but this commitment does not appear to have been an obstacle for the 14 prospective purchasers who had declared an interest in the Centre. These costs would be set out in the details of the contract between KCC and the new provider.

 

BLACKBURN LODGE

 

a)         the partnership arrangements proposed for this centre would consist of the KCC working closely with a partner provider, to commission from them the range of services at a quality and cost that the KCC requires; and

 

b)         assurances were sought that the new provision proposed would meet the needs of the people of Sheppey, that the new build would be located on Sheppey, that it would provide new services not currently available there, and that no client would be transferred from the existing premises until the new provision was up and running.

 

DOUBLEDAY LODGE

 

a)         the comment that no services would close until there were replacements in place also applies to Doubleday Lodge, so that provision for the people of Swale was not compromised.

 

KILN COURT

 

a)         the comment that no services would close until there were replacements in place would also apply to Kiln Court, so that provision for the people of Swale was not compromised;

 

b)         all the expressions of interest received for all homes had been from UK-based companies; and

 

c)         the aspiration was to re-build the home with partners, and good expressions of interest had been received, but if no partnership could ultimately be established, the plans for the home would be reviewed and an alternative proposal selected.  This new proposal would then be subject to a fresh consultation process.

 

BOWLES LODGE

 

a)         PFI proposals are required to have an outline business case in order to get the support of government and the confidence of bidders, as the latter have to take on a lot of risk upfront.  Working up a new PFI proposal at a particular site took two years, and considering an alternative site suggested in the consultation was not viable at this point;

 

b)         under ‘Excellent Homes for All’, Extra Care Housing (ECH) provision had the potential to accommodate clients with some mix of needs, including mental health and learning disabilities;   and

 

c)         premises nearby which could offer similar services are Westview at Tenterden and Hartley House at Cranbrook, which is planned to be  extended.  These premises might be suitable for some clients who are currently at Bowles Lodge. New day services will also need to be developed locally. Because of the particular circumstances at Bowles Lodge and the range of local replacement services needed, a closure date of January 2012 is recommended  

 

MANORBROOKE

 

a)         assessment of eligibility and allocation of ECH places was the responsibility of the KCC and District Councils, via the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, and both would have to agree on placements. ECH would usually aim to accommodate clients with a range of needs – often about one-third each of high-, medium- and low- dependency. Although the new ECH would not be open until some 18 months after the closure of Manorbrooke, some of the current residents of Manorbrooke might wish to move back to the site to live in ECH.

 

LADESFIELD

 

a)         no resident should experience any financial detriment from the re-provision of services, and KCC was working with residents and their families to address this issue and place residents in homes which best meet their needs at a cost-effective price.  If a dispute were to arise between the KCC and a resident or their family, an independent arbiter would be sought.

 

THE LIMES

 

a)         KCC expected to move ahead with the agreed proposals promptly but taking every care, and Members were assured that the KCC was fully committed to ensuring that suitable alternative services were in place before closing any premises.  Intermediate care beds would be developed at Gravesham Place in early 2011, and day care for those who use it (most for only one or two days a week) could be purchased using personal budgets, as well as utilising other local opportunities;

 

b)         Members were assured that the KCC had thought through its proposals very carefully, to address current issues and prepare for future care needs, making the best use of the resources available.  KCC was confident of being able to purchase suitable respite care from the Private and Voluntary sector; and

 

c)         although one local group, as part of the consultation process, suggested an ongoing alternative use of the site, no more details had been forthcoming during the consultation process.

 

SAMPSON COURT

 

a)         concern was expressed that homes in the proposal had not all been treated equitably, with some being proposed for one course of action and not seeking any alternatives, but officers explained that, although alternatives were not actively sought, those suggested had been evaluated against the four key objectives for the modernisation programme;

 

b)         to bid for a PFI scheme in an area, KCC would need the support of the local District housing department, and  Dover District Council wanted a PFI scheme in Dover rather than in Deal.  The KCC was exploring the possibility of ECH in Deal;

 

c)         Sampson Court had not been built specifically to take emergency admissions from Health and did not plan for this, but any spare beds available at any one time had been used for such emergency admissions;

 

d)         Sampson Court had been refusing any new admissions for permanent placements since the start of the consultation period in June 2010, as the KCC had taken a decision not to place any new resident in a home while the future of that home was uncertain;

 

e)         the KCC had chosen PFI rather than borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) as the costs would be covered by government PFI credits. These were not index-linked, so could not increase during the life of the loan, and, as such, the KCC had secured a good deal.  If the KCC had borrowed from the PWLB it would have had to pay interest on the loan; and

 

f)          the heating and hot water system at Sampson Court had been upgraded in 2009/10 at a cost of £135,000, but this investment had insured that residents had the best quality and most comfortable environment possible.  Planned investment of this sort lessened the chances of needing to make unplanned, emergency investments later, and possibly needing to close a home while urgent work is carried out.

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

 

a)         it was accepted that provision needed to change to meet future demands, but disappointment was expressed by some Members over the consultation process and the apparent lack of consideration given to the alternatives proposed during the consultation;

 

b)         a number of concerns about staffing issues were also expressed, including the implied lack of relief staff employed in the Private and Voluntary sector to cover sickness, and the number of redundancies expected among the staff currently employed at the premises concerned; and

 

c)         Extra Care Housing as a concept is welcomed, but its success depends on where it is placed, and what choices are left for those who are not eligible for it.  Extra Care Housing should be an addition to Residential Care and not an alternative to it.

 

3.         Mr L Christie proposed and Mr S J G Koowaree seconded, that the following recommendation be added; ‘that the Cabinet Member take serious account of the results of the consultation, examine carefully the alleged claim that in-house provision costs the KCC twice as much as Private and Voluntary provision, and look carefully at whether or not serious independent consideration was given to alternative proposals arising from the consultation’.

Agreed without a vote.

 

4.         The Cabinet Member, Mr Gibbens, confirmed that he was happy to accept this suggestion and would respond in writing to Mr Christie.

 

5.         The issue had been called in by the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee, which would be calling witnesses to address it on 19 January about four of the homes – Bowles Lodge, Ladesfield, Wayfarers and The Limes - and any other Member who wished to call a witness to speak on any other of the homes was invited to do so by the Chairman of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee, Mrs Dean. 

 

6.         RESOLVED that:-

 

a)         the information given in the report and in response to Members’ questions be noted, with thanks; and

 

b)         the Cabinet Member take serious account of the results of the consultation, examine carefully the alleged claim that in-house provision costs the KCC twice as much as Private and Voluntary provision, and look carefully at whether or not serious independent consideration was given to alternative proposals arising from the consultation.