Issue - items at meetings - Accommodation for people with learning disabilities

Report of the Director of Adult Social Services/Lead Commissioner People (copy attached).

(1)       That it be agreed to defer consideration of the proposals to a further meeting of the Committee in order to carry out a consultation process with service users. 

(2)       That a revised report should provide the following information.

·        The results of the consultation with service users.

·        Information on the numbers of service users affected, where they will be moving from and to which properties they will be moving. 

·        More information on the properties proposed for closure and how they would be used in future.

7.1       The Committee considered a report of the Director of Adult Social Services/Lead Commissioner People which recommended the re-modelling of the in-house service to contribute to an increase in local services for people with challenging behaviour and other complex needs who are often at risk of being placed out of the City and to improve value for money.  It was proposed to make some changes to the accommodation, further increase staff skills and flexibility, and to focus the in-house service on those with the greatest needs. 

7.2       The Head of Adult Social Care (Provider) set out the report.  She stated that the officers were recommending option 3.  If agreed, officers would work with families, staff and advocates over the next few months to move people to new homes.  Meanwhile, it was anticipated that all staff affected would remain working in Adult Care & Health.  It was likely that they would remain working in Learning Disabilities.  There had been a formal consultation with staff and unions.

7.3       Councillor Marsh asked if service users had been able to participate in the consultation process and understand the options under consideration.  She referred to the risk section at paragraph 4.3 of the report which referred to the closure of three houses.  What would happen to these houses? 

7.4       The Head of Adult Social Care replied that the council had taken advice from a specialist voluntary organisation.  Their advice was that the officers should not talk to service users until a decision was taken as to which homes would close, as it would cause a great deal of unnecessary distress.  The three houses referred to above were;  267 Old Shoreham Road which was part of the housing stock, New Church Road which was owned by a housing association, and Ferndale Road which was owned by Adult Care & Health.  A fourth house, Talbot Crescent was owned by a housing association.

7.5       Councillor Barnett considered the proposals were unfair on vulnerable residents who had lived in the houses for many years in family units.  The proposals would split these units.   She supported Option 1.  The Head of Adult Social Care replied that this point had been made by families, carers and advocates and so the Council was committed to ensure service users moved together to new properties, where their advocates had supported this on their behalf.  The existing staff would also continue to work with them wherever possible. 

7.6       Councillor Mears referred to paragraph 4.3 (Option 3) in relation to benefits.  This stated that “this will potentially provide homes for 29 people within 9 houses, compared with 23 people currently living in 12 houses.”  She asked where the other six people would come from.  She also asked whether properties would be sold and the money re-invested.  Councillor Mears was concerned that there had been no consultation with service users and considered that this was taking away people’s rights.  She made the point that service users had families and carers to help them. 

7.7       Councillor Meadows stated that when she was chair of the Adult Social Care & Health Committee she had been assured that those with learning disabilities did better in smaller family units.  It was now proposed to move people into larger homes.  Councillor Meadows made the point that staff had proposed Option 4 because they considered option 3 would be disruptive to their clients.  She noted that paragraph 4.3 of the report (option 3) referred to three home closures when there were actually four proposed home closures.   Councillor Meadows made the point that the council appeared to be focusing solely on those with highly complex needs. She asked if the personalisation process was robust enough for those with moderate needs.    Councillor Meadows referred to recommendation 2.2 which related to a further business case being brought back to the committee.  Her understanding was that staff wanted either option 4 or option 3 not both.   

7.8       The Head of Adult Social Care stated that as part of the plan people, including young people coming through transition from children’s services who might have otherwise have had to be housed out of the city, would be able to remain in the city within these additional homes.  An EIA was attached at appendix C. Officers had taken professional advice with regard to the consultation process.  With regard to the houses closing, a decision had already been made to move from Talbot Crescent to another more suitable property.  With regard to the personalisation agenda, officers were not forcing people out of properties.  However, if there were opportunities for people to live more independently this could be reviewed.

7.9       Councillor Jones stated that he had worked in residential care and had concerns about the disruption to residents.  However, some of the proposals seemed very reasonable compared to when he worked in the sector.  He was keen to hear about the consultation process and stressed the need to closely monitor the process. 

7.10    Councillor Norman noted the complex issues raised by the proposals.  He suggested a deferral of a decision to further investigate these issues.  Councillor Norman recommended that a modified report should be presented to the next meeting.    The Director of Adult Social Services stressed that a deferral would have implications.  The proposals were now in the public domain and a deferral would cause increased anxiety to service users and staff.  If there was a deferral officers needed clear guidance on what was required. 

7.11    The Senior Lawyer advised the Committee that if there was incomplete information before it to enable fully informed decision making then deferral would be a valid option.

7.12    Councillor Powell asked for more information on Option 4 when the report was brought back to committee.  The Director pointed out that looking at Option 4 would take longer than three months. 

7.13    RESOLVED – (1)     That it be agreed to defer consideration of the proposals to a further meeting of the Committee in order to carry out a consultation process with service users. 

(2)       That a revised report should provide the following information.

·        The results of the consultation with service users.

·        Information on the numbers of service users affected, where they will be moving from and to which properties they will be moving. 

·        More information on the properties proposed for closure and how they would be used in future.