Issue - meetings

i)                          Report of the Monitoring Officer (Attached – Pages XX to XX)

i)                          Report of the Director of Adult and Housing Services (Attached – Pages XX to XX)

ii)                        Appendix (For information only):

a)     Copy of the ‘call in’

b)     Draft minute extract of the Cabinet meeting held on 19^th July 2011 (subject to confirmation by the Cabinet)

c)      19^th July 2011 Cabinet Report - Proposed Closure of Three Older People's Residential Care Homes and Learning Disabilities Residential and Respite Care Homes

A decision on the above item was taken by the Cabinet on 19^th July 2011. The decision has been called in, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Constitution, by Councillors Wilson, Strang, Solomon, Whyte and Jenks.

RESOLVED

1a.       That the decision taken by the Cabinet in relation to the closure of residential care and respite care homes on 19^th July 2011 was inside the Council’s policy and budget Framework.

Councillor Christophides MOVED to uphold the Cabinet decision and to not refer it back to the decision maker.  This was not seconded.

Councillor Winskill MOVED that the matter be referred back to the Cabinet for reconsideration including: consideration of the Bindmans submission relating to the legal framework, clarification of the financial implications of the proposals and consideration of more in depth engagement with service users and their families.

This was SECONDED by Councillor Diakides.

A vote was taken and CARRIED.  Cllrs Alexander, Browne, Diakides, Engert and Winskill voted for and Cllrs Bull, Christophides and Waters abstained.

RESOLVED

2a.       That CAB20 – Proposed Closure of three older people’s residential care homes and one learning disabilities residential and respite care homes be referred back to the Cabinet as the decision taker for reconsideration of the decision before taking a final decision.

2b.       That in reconsidering the decision the Cabinet pay particular attention             to:

i.          The points raised within the written submission from Bindmans solicitors and satisfy itself that the Council had fulfilled all legal requirements and had not acted outside of the requirements for consultation and human rights.

ii.         Financial transparency: the Cabinet should consider the full financial implications of the closures; not simply in terms of budget strands for residential care homes but also for Whitehall Street but also take into account the aggregated impact that increased alternative service provision will have on other budgets within the Council.

iii.        Consultation and engagement: the Cabinet should develop a model of services intended to replace the current provision of respite and residential care. It should be based on a comprehensive programme of engagement with service users, their carers and families and other stakeholders.

The Committee received the agenda pack relating to the call-in of Cabinet decision CAB20 – proposed closure of three older people’s residential care homes and learning disabilities residential and respite care homes. 

The Committee also received written representations opposing the proposals from: Yvonne Heath (carer of a service user), Martin Hewitt (Haringey resident), Mary Jarvis (cousin of a service user), Sue Hessel (Haringey Federation of Residents’ Associations (vulnerable groups), Sandra Hayward (cousin of a service user), Lynne Featherstone MP, Bindmans Solicitors (on behalf of campaigners against the closure of 100 Whitehall Street) and UNISON.

NOTED

1.         Introduction to the Call-in

Councillor Richard Wilson introduced the call-in (pages 71-73 of the agenda pack), including the following points:

·        Alternative options should be considered rather than closing the residential and respite care homes.

·        £550,000 invested in 100 Whitehall Street 5 years ago would have been wasted if the Council closed the home.

·        Concerns about whether there was capacity for alternative respite care provision within the borough.

·        The families of service users of 100 Whitehall Street were unclear about what the alternative provision would be.

2.         Representations by interested groups

a.         Barbara Cordwell (Headcorn, Tenterden, Beaufoy and Gretten Road (HTBG) Residents’ Association), opposing the closure of 100 Whitehall Street including:

·        Concerns that the residents’ association were not included in the original consultation on 100 Whitehall Street.

·        If closed, the Council should ensure that the building at 100 Whitehall Street remained secure to avoid any inappropriate use and/or deterioration.

·        The residents’ association should be consulted on any proposals for the future use of the 100 Whitehall Street.

The following was noted in response to questions from the Committee:

·        The residents’ association were unaware of the proposed closure until after the decision had been made by the Cabinet.

·        The residents’ association utilised 100 Whitehall Street for its meetings and had a good relationship with staff.

b.         Celia Webster (Local Resident) opposing the closures, including:

·        The residential and respite care homes were lifelines for the service users and alternative savings should be sought.

·        Personalised budgets would not be sufficient to pay the high cost of private care homes, which would not necessarily provide high levels of care.

·        Consultation with service users about their individual needs was inadequate.

·        Closures should not take place until alternative provision was in place for all service users.

·        The Council was urged to keep 100 Whitehall Street open.

c.         Mark Grainger (Mencap), including:

·        Alternative plans for provision should be in place before any closures were implemented.

·        Families and carers need access to good respite care to avoid reaching breaking point.

·        Questions about whether the Council had considered the long term implications of the closures on the individual.

The following was noted in response to questions from the Committee:

·                    Mencap generally supported the modernisation of services and moves to smaller residential homes if managed well. 

d.         Kayte Brimacombe (Local Resident/ Service User) referred to the written submission from Bindmans Solicitors and claimed that there was no evidence that the Council had met  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33