Agenda item

(Report by Angela Slaven, Director of Service Improvement)

(Mr D Weiss and Mrs A Tidmarsh were present for this item)

1.          This report put forward the case for the use of a portion of Supporting People funding to enable the continued procurement of 221 units of new housing for vulnerable people across five districts in Kent.  The housing was for older people, people with mental health problems, and move-on accommodation. Nominations to the accommodation would be managed through the choice based lettings process. Initial nominations would come from the District in which the facility was based, but may also be made available to neighbouring Kent areas.

2.          The requirement for additional funding had been created because the procurement of the project had been delayed by approximately two years largely due to a central government review. Without additional funding to cover the project development costs there was a risk that the procurement may have to be stopped which would result in the loss of £66.8 million funding for housing in Kent, a lack of provision for older and vulnerable people and the potential for legal challenge on the procurement.

3.          The current development budget which had been jointly funded by six Authorities was £907,000. Up to an additional £400,000 was required to complete the procurement and that was the contribution which was being requested from the Supporting People budget.

4.          It was said the project had potential benefits across all Districts in Kent. The Housing would be developed across five districts in Kent and provide new accommodation and services for very vulnerable people. Nominations would be managed through the choice based lettings process, and where a vacancy arose that was not required in the local community it would be offered to residents of neighbouring Kent authorities. Therefore over the 25 year life of the contract and 99 years of the leases for the land vulnerable people from all Districts in Kent would likely benefit from the housing.

5.          A decision on the funding for EHFA was, the report said required quickly in order to ascertain the future of the project and re-assure central government that Kent local authorities were committed to the development of this new accommodation. Without an extension to the development costs the procurement may have to be stopped and there would be a resulting loss of investment and new accommodation in Kent, putting pressure on other sources of funding to replace the capacity which this project was providing.

6.          During the course of discussion some members of the Commissioning Body asked questions as to how the present situation had been reached and why it was thought appropriate to support any shortfall from money within the Supporting People budget. Also there was concern that approving this expenditure could set an unwanted precedent.  

7.          It was also said that the delays could not have been foreseen and were not in any event down to the KCC Team who had been working hard to bring this project to fruition. In addition it had to be recognised that the overall benefits of proceeding with the project where significant, would give long term added value and benefits would spread beyond those districts/boroughs in which building was scheduled to take place. It was also said that the current reserves within the SP budget may not always be available and therefore now was a good time to put them to good use.

8.          In bringing discussion to a conclusion Mr Hill said that as Chairman he did not see that supporting the recommendations in the report would in any way set a precedent and he believed the project would bring many benefits not only to those districts where development was to take place, but across the whole county.

9.          Not withstanding some of the reservations which had been expressed during the course of discussion the unanimous view of the Commissioning Body was that the recommendation to approve a sum of up to £400,000 from the reserves of the SP budget should be approved.  

(10)   Agreed that approval be given to use of up to £400,000 of Supporting People funding to cover the additional development costs required to procure 221 units of specialist housing.