Agenda item

(Mr D Weiss, Head of Public Private Partnership and Property, was in attendance for this item)

1)         Mr Weiss introduced the report and explained that KASS was in the forefront of providing good quality homes for vulnerable people, in partnership with District Councils and the private and voluntary sectors.  There were two current projects – Better Homes Active Lives and Excellent Homes for All - which between them catered for elderly clients and those with a range of different needs; mental health, learning disability, physical disability, etc.  The latest housing provision was being developed and phased in, with some opening very soon, and all were planned to finish and open by 2012. Government funding of £130 million PFI credits for vulnerable people had contributed towards the latest development.  Mr Leidecker added that PFI was part of the wider modernisation agenda which aimed to provide optimum choice and independence for those no longer able to live in their own homes.

2)         In discussion, and in Mr Weiss’s and Mr Leidecker’s responses to Members’ questions, the following points were highlighted:-

(a)   Members welcomed the range of housing provision being developed and were pleased to hear about Kent’s success in this field;

(b)   Local press coverage and publicity would accompany the opening of each new phase of development, and over the next two months, those who had put their names on a waiting list would be assessed and invited to sign up for accommodation as it became available;

(c)   Members referred to and praised housing developments in Dartford and Wilmington, the latter having a particularly good relationship with the local community, with local schools providing art work for the communal areas;

(d)   Clients moving into any development who later felt that they needed to access Extra Care services would apply to KASS in a similar way as they would if they were still living in their own homes.  The ultimate aim was that residents would be able to access this service via the 24 hour on-site team.  Extra Care was not included in the main rent for a unit but still worked out much cheaper than residential care for most people;

(e)   Mr Weiss estimated that, given the national demographic pattern for the next 20 years or so, 4 schemes of varying types would be needed in each district to meet the growing need.  PFI projects were only part of a bigger picture and other choices of provision would also be needed, provided by housing grants or Section 106 developers’ contributions.  Members supported the need to have a range of provision to give optimum choice.  Mr Leidecker added that the JSNA had shown a 12% reduction in KCC care home places against the demographic pattern of increasing need.  Flexible provision could mean moving away from permanent placements to make use of respite and recuperative care, delivered jointly with Health;

(f)     Kent was currently at the stage of providing further details on its outline business case for the Excellent Homes For All Project; and

(g)   District Councils shared KCC’s legal and project development costs in a partnership arrangement which worked well.  PFI made affordable much more than one local authority on its own could possibly hope to achieve.

3)         RESOLVED that the information in the report and given in response to Members’ questions be noted, with thanks.