Invitees:

Councillor P White – Cabinet Member Adult Social Care, Health and Wellbeing

Susan Cooper – Corporate Director Social Services & Wellbeing

Ian Oliver – Group Manager Commissioning and Transformation

The Corporate Director – Social Services and Wellbeing submitted a report, the purpose of which was to provide the Committee with an update on the work being undertaken to develop new models of service for older people, through the transformation of traditional forms of residential care into Extra Care Schemes for the future.

She confirmed that this latest update report confirmed the present situation regarding progress made to date, and concentrated in particular, in respect of land issues ie where there were suitable areas upon which to provide an Extracare Housing facility; discussions with Registered Landlords and market values etc, in terms of any potential land sales.

She referred to the report, where details were outlined as to preferable areas of the County Borough where new Extracare Housing facilities could be provided, including suitable areas of land that could adequately accommodate these facilities.

She explained that timescales previously set had now slipped, as the Authority had planned to appoint an RSL by January 2015. The original timescales were shown in paragraph 4.14 of the report.

There was a proposal, the Corporate Director – Social Services and Wellbeing explained, to provide two Extracare facilities that would replace three Care Homes that currently existed. She emphasised to Members that there was no intention to close any of these three existing homes, until such time that the two new facilities had been fully completed and were ready for occupation.

The Corporate Director – Social Services and Housing added that a considerable amount of thought had been given to where the new facilities should be built, and it had been agreed that one would be constructed in the north of the County Borough in the Maesteg area, though a location for the second facility had not as yet been decided upon, though the site of the Archbishop McGrath school had been discussed as a possible option. There was an obvious need to ensure that there was a geographical split in terms of the placing of the facilities after considering that there was already an existing facility in Kenfig Hill.

In terms of the facility being placed at Maesteg, an option had been discussed to place this upon the Lower Comprehensive school at Maesteg, though advice was being sought from Counsel on this, as there were procurement and state aid issues to overcome. Discussions on matters such as this, were going to pursued tomorrow with Legal and Finance Officers. If the state aid problem could be resolved, then this would in all probability assist the timetabling programme for the provision of the facilities to advance and be more on target in terms of the scheduling of the developments.

The Corporate Director – Social Services and Wellbeing added that there was a third option as to the location of one of the new facilities, namely within the Ogmore Valley, and discussions were ongoing with Linc Cymru regarding this.

The Group Manager Commissioning and Transformation explained that an attraction of placing a facility at the Archbishop McGrath site, was that this would facilitate extra income for the development from monies relating to Section 106 Agreements.

A Member asked if interest from Registered Social Landlords had increased from that which was being shown previously.

The Corporate Director – Social Services and Wellbeing confirmed that there was, but that they were still seeking further information regarding certain legal implications regarding the provision of the facilities. A couple of RSL’s however had shown a very keen interest she added.

A Member enquired if Officers had linked in with other Authorities had gone down the route of the provision of Extracare facilities as the Council were pursuing, and looked at the pitfalls that the Council were presently encountering.

The Corporate Director – Social Services and Wellbeing confirmed that Wrexham County Borough Council had looked at the provision of such facilities, including design changes of facilities, such as to cater for different categories of service users needs and requirements, for example sufferers of dementia.

A Member voiced some concern regarding the slippage of the schemes, and also asked if any lessons had been learnt, from any disadvantages that had arisen from the provision of the Llys Ton facility.

The Corporate Director – Social Services and Wellbeing agreed that there were concerns associated with delays in proceeding with the schemes, as this to a degree, did impact upon savings that needed to be met under the MTFS.

In terms of the Llys Ton facility, the Council’s hands were tied to a degree in the design of that facility and what could be provided there, by virtue of the terms of Social Housing Grant funding. There would be more flexibility with the proposed new facilities, in that these were being funded through different sources to the above.

Issues raised by the Member in terms of insufficient car parking availability at Llys Ton, would obviously be looked at when developing the new facilities, as would the proximity of the developments in relation to public transport accessibility also. In order for Extracare facilities to save the Authority money, this has to be successfully seen as an alternative to residential Care facilities.

The Group Manager Commissioning and Transformation added that care provision and the cost for individuals to reside there, were less expensive in facilities such as Llys Ton when compared to Independent Domiciliary Care provision. Also, residents there were in less of an institutional environment, in that they had their own individual accommodation as opposed to sharing a home. He further added that there was a need to provide a more varied type of care in these new facilities, than was being provided in more residential and domiciliary care facilities.

In response to a further Members question with regard to developing discussions further with Linc to explore the opportunity to upgrade the current sheltered housing model in Ogmore Vale, work was currently ongoing regarding this he added.

A Member referred to paragraph 4.6 of the report and the land options being considered upon which to place the facilities. He explained that he was happy to note that Maesteg was being considered, but urged Invitees to undertake a consultation process with local residents should this proposal be firmed-up in the future, particularly in respect of access and egress into the site in question.

The Corporate Director – Social Services and Wellbeing advised that a consultation exercise would take place with interested parties including residents in the vicinity of where an Extracare facility is to be provided.

As this concluded the debate on both the above two items, the Chairperson thanked the Invitees for attending and responding to questions, following which they left the meeting.

Conclusions

The Committee noted the report, which provided an update on the development of new models of service for older people.

• Members were concerned that timescales planned for the development of Extracare housing have slipped and that only one Registered Social Landlord is currently engaged in helping to determine options for the provision of the service.   The Officer replied that the RSLs are finding the current financial situation challenging and that they have needed more information from the Authority. 

• Members are concerned about the potential impact of the slippage in timescales and lack of interest from RSLs on the ability to fulfil the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

• Members queried the land options currently being considered for Extracare housing provision within the borough and were particularly concerned that options should address the needs of Valleys communities. The Officer confirmed that the Arch Bishop McGrath and Lower Maesteg Comp sites are being considered as an option.  The Officer also said that the Authority is currently in the process of establishing the amount of Extracare provision to be provided by the developer of the Sunnyside site.

• Members queried the current situation regarding the housing association known as Linc and noted that they may require financial support in order to upgrade existing buildings. Members asked how much financial support they require.  The Officer replied they were still waiting for a response from Linc to enable them to establish how much funding is being sought and what it is needed for.

• Members were concerned that the community have not engaged as expected with the Llys Ton facility and queried whether experience from this project has been used to inform current and future developments. The Officer advised that, since Llys Ton was built, financial modelling and standards required for the provision of such facilities and services have changed, lessons have been learned and that issues such as parking and transport issues are being addressed. 

• Members felt that the report lacked information on outcomes and feedback from service users and requested that this information in included in reports coming to the Committee in future.

Further information requested

• Members requested further information on the new timescales for the developments and on the impact of the slippage on achievement of MTFS.

• Members requested projected figures for demand and provision of care throughout the Authority.

• Members requested more information on the coverage for service provision for Valleys communities.

• Members requested information on plans for consultation with residents, staff and other stakeholders on the development and provision of Extracare housing, to include information on specific consultation on access and egress.