Agenda, decisions and minutes

Please note: This meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council's internet site - at the start of the meeting the Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the Council.

Generally the public seating areas are not filmed. However, by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.

If you have any queries regarding this, please contact the Committee Clerk

at the meeting.

NOTED that the meeting was recorded for broadcasting on the Council’s website.

Apologies for absence were received from Yvonne Denny (Church Representative) and Councillor Ejiofor, who was substituted for by Councillor Waters.

This being a special meeting - under the Council’s Constitution (Part 4, Section B, paragraph 17) no other business shall be considered.

It being a special meeting; no urgent items were permitted.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

NOTED that, as the Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Services, Councillor Dogus had a prejudicial interest.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, paragraph 29 of the Council’s constitution.

The presentations by interested groups were recorded under minute number 33.

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.

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.