Agenda item

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

A deputation was received by the Panel on the subject of Osborne Grove Nursing Home. This was presented by Mary Langan, chair of the severe complex autism and learning disabilities reference group, Gordon Peters from the Haringey over 50s forum, Ann Gray from the older people’s reference group and the Haringey over 50s forum, Sharon Grant, chair of Healthwatch Haringey and a co-Chair of the Joint Partnership Board and Vida Black, chair of the Carers forum.

Gordon Peters set out the key points, stating that:

• A vision for Osborne Grove, as a home of health and well-being integrated into local community life, had been produced in 2017 with several Councillors and others in an early example of co-production. Details of this vision are available online at: https://osbornegrovenursinghome.commonplace.is/
• There had been an established co-production steering group that had worked together on the design and plans for over five years, with due consideration of scale, environmental impact, community interaction and neighbourhood integrity, as well as creating a multifunction facility appropriate to the needs of vulnerable people and a meeting place for local residents and visitors all on one site.
• The project would have provided at least 70 places for elderly people in need of nursing care and people with learning disabilities who would otherwise be placed outside of the borough. This would reduce the long-term financial burden to the Council of making placements elsewhere.
• The project design had been reduced in size to take into account resident and service need feedback and was ready to seek planning permission for building completion within two years when the project was paused in 2023. They were concerned that the project would not recommence for some time or could be deprioritised altogether.
• Communications from the Council had been reduced in 2023 compared with previous years and details such as cost-benefit studies and current working assumptions had not been shared with the co-production steering group.
• The deputation therefore had four requests:

o   That Osborne Grove be made a priority within the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS)

o   The full cost-benefit analysis of the redesigned facility should be provided to stakeholders, including capital costs, revenue costs and the income potential of the facility compared to doing nothing.

o   The co-production steering group should be reconvened before the end of the 2023/24 cycle with an updated timetable for the implementation of the project.

o   The Council should issue a statement specifying that Osborne Grove remained a part of its strategy for health and social care in the Borough and recognised the importance of co-production with local partners.

Mary Langan then emphasised the commitments in the Haringey Labour manifesto for locally delivered care and to empower communities by working with them. She expressed disappointment that the members of the co-production group that had worked on this project for five years, as part of what had been a positive and productive relationship with the Council, were now at this meeting as petitioners. She felt that the recent handling of the project, and the lack of information provided to them, had cast some doubt on the Council’s commitment to co-production.

The members of the deputation then responded to questions from the Panel:

• Asked by Cllr Brennan about the decline in communications from the Council, Gordon Peters pointed out that Cllr das Neves had been in contact to explain that there needed to be a pause in the full meetings but offered a one-hour meeting with Vicky Murphy in January. Prior to this meeting, there had been no meetings between approximately February and November 2023. Mary Langan added that, prior to the last year or so, most information on factors such as likely future demand for placements was shared with the co-production steering group. However, this information was now only available in percentage form, or for North Central London as a whole, rather than as hard numbers.
• Asked by Cllr Mason about the financial viability of the project given the Council’s current budget difficulties, Gordon Peters responded that at least a medium-term perspective was required as the demand for nursing home placements and also the level of need would increase and so a new nursing home opening by 2025/26 would bring 70 or more residents and the income that would come with them. This was why the details of the cost-benefit analysis were important to see. He also noted that local authorities had preferential capital borrowing rates and could also partner with the NHS who were keen for this project to go ahead.
• In response to a query from Cllr Mason about the importance of bringing services back into the Borough, Gordon Peters said that sending someone to a private placement elsewhere in the country involved a cost that the Council could not control and could not be cost effective compared to in-house provision.
• Asked by Cllr Peacock how many other local authorities in London ran a nursing home, Gordon Peters said that Osborne Grove was the only one in the country which was all the more reason to preserve a unique facility.
• Cllr O’Donovan queried whether the co-production steering group would be part of the review process for capital projects after they had recently been paused. Gordon Peters added that the Council should issue a statement to clarify that the capital financing for Osborne Grove would remain in the budget as part of its medium/long-term strategy.
• Cllr O’Donovan noted that the Osborne Grove site was currently being temporarily used to provide accommodation for vulnerable people suffering from homelessness. Gordon Peters agreed that there was a need for homeless accommodation across the Borough and that the Council must find ways of providing this, but that this should not be the long-term use for the Osborne Grove site. 
• Helena Kania expressed concern about the potential impact of the steering group’s experience over Osborne Grove on the future relationships with other community stakeholders who might be involved in co-production work.

Cllr das Neves, Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Wellbeing, provided a formal response to the concerns raised, expressing disappointment that the future plans for Osborne Grove had been put on hold. The key points of the response were that:

·         The aim of the project had been to enable more Haringey residents to be able to access high quality care in the Borough, to reduce reliance on the private sector and the amount of public money spent on placements.

·         The Council had worked in good faith to deliver on these shared aims and Cllr das Neves placed on record her thanks for the time and expertise given by the members of the co-production steering group and Council staff. She acknowledged that there were some things that could have been done differently but said that no kind of joint work could have negated the current economic circumstances.

·         However, the economy and the costs of care, construction and borrowing had all risen significantly while the structures and priorities of local health partners had also changed.

·         The Council had spent months looking at how to keep the project going but this was not possible and so the co-production steering group was informed of this in December.

·         During the pause period, the space would continue to be used for the important function of providing accommodation for homeless residents.

Cllr das Neves then responded to specific points raised by the deputation:

·         A significant sum remained in the Council’s capital programme for the future development of Osborne Grove nursing home. Resources were available from 2027/28 subject to a business case.

·         The Council would be happy to share the financial analysis which set out the changes in costs since the original business case from 2019 including the increased cost of borrowing and construction. (ACTION)

·         While the Council was planning to keep the co-production steering group informed and updated, they were not in a position to continue the co-production work as the project had been paused.

·         With regards to the request for a statement, Cllr das Neves said that she was happy to place on record that the Council remained committed to the shared vision of a local care system providing high quality services to residents, maximum value for money and, where possible, provided by the public sector.

Cllr Connor commented that a co-production group that had committed time and effort to a project would expect to be an equal partner at a point where there were problems as well as at times when things were working well. While acknowledging that there was a pause and that decision making on the future of the project was for the Cabinet, she also emphasised the importance of communication with the co-production group so that there they understood clearly what this meant for them. She suggested that a meeting with the co-production group should take place shortly and that this should include details about the financial position.

Cllr Brennan added that the co-production group should also have direct input to the decision-making process over what would happen to the project after the pause. Cllr Mason concurred that a co-production strategy should be maintained throughout the ups and downs of a project and suggested that there should be a statement from the Council on the approach to co-production on Osborne Grove. She added that the priorities should include transparency, particularly on finances and open debate.

Cllr Connor concluded that, after the proposed meeting with the co-production group, the Panel would welcome feedback from the Cabinet Member/officers on the agreed future relationship with the group so that the structure is clear going forward. Details on the financial position should also be provided. (ACTION)