Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 203 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Vicky Hibbert or Anne Gowing 020 8541 9938 Email: anne.gowing@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Mrs Angell, Mr Goodman and Mrs Hammond. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Additional documents: |
|
|
Members' Questions
Additional documents: Decision: Questions were received from Mrs White and Mr Essex. The questions and responses are attached as Appendix 1.
Minutes: Questions from Mrs White and Mr Essex were received. The questions and responses are attached as Appendix 1.
Mrs White asked a supplementary question relating to the possible sale or retention of the properties and questioned why the Council could not make the necessary investment to bring the homes up to the standard required, as had been done by the private providers when homes of a similar nature were transferred some years ago.
The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care responded saying that visits to the care home show that these homes needed considerable work undertaken and that there was no intention to sell the properties in the future.
Mr Essex asked a supplementary question about the cost benefit analysis within the original report on the care homes and queried whether there were plans to update this following the responses to the consultation as it could show that the financial case was not as strong.
The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care responded by stating that this was not a financial case, it was about people and the care that they received.
|
|
|
Public Questions
Additional documents: Minutes: No questions were received from members of the public. |
|
|
Petitions
Additional documents: Decision: That the response to the petitions, as set out in Appendix 2 be noted. Minutes: That the response to the petitions, as set out in Appendix 2 be noted.
Mr Minal presented his petition on the closure of the care homes and asked the Cabinet to consider refurbishing the current care homes. He stated that he felt the homes were viable and valuable assets and that provided good value for money to the tax payer. He referred to the Care Act and asked the Cabinet to support his petition and expressed concern that the Council would face growing pressure on costs levied by private providers in the future.
Mr Couchman presented his petition and said that he was speaking on behalf of almost 4500 people. He asked the Cabinet to reflect on how long it had taken to collect the petition names and that there had been another 150 signatures added since the petition was submitted. He referred to the ‘mums test’ and stated that he felt that the care homes would pass this. He said that he agreed that the homes needed work but that there were other options available and that he did not accept the rational for closure.
The Leader thanked both petitioners for the comments and referred them to the response, as set out in Appendix 2. |
|
|
Surrey County Council Residential Care Homes for older people
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the decision to close residential care provision by Surrey County Council at Brockhurst be approved. 2. That the decision to close residential care provision by Surrey County Council at Cobgates be approved. 3. That the decision to close residential care provision by Surrey County Council at Dormers be approved. 4. That the decision to close residential care provision by Surrey County Council at Longfield be approved. 5. That the decision to close residential care provision by Surrey County Council at Park Hall be approved. 6. That the decision to close residential care provision by Surrey County Council at Pinehurst be approved. 7. That a phased implementation programme to move people to alternative services be undertaken, which must take account of best practice and be guided by individual assessments of those affected, including carers. 8. That suitable alternative services for each affected person in those homes closing be identified. 9. That further work be undertaken for each property to fully evaluate potential alternative use to meet future needs for adult social care. 10. That a full staff consultation begins, with the objective, where possible, of retaining existing staff skills and knowledge. Reasons for Decisions:
After analysing all the consultation responses received and comments made in the individual meetings during the consultation period, and the council’s review of services, the reasons for closure of the provision of in house residential care homes for older people are:
· The physical environment of the homes is not fit for purpose and cannot easily or quickly be made so. The poor quality of the environment impacts on the quality of care that can be offered. · The demand for residential care for older people is changing as is their preference, with support, to continue living at home. Optimum occupancy cannot be achieved in any of Surrey County Council’s six older peoples residential care homes due to the building limitations, which in part leads to low occupancy and higher staffing levels. This makes the continued delivery of services unsustainable. · It will remain difficult to accept the range of referrals and complexity of need being presented unless the current facilities are significantly upgraded to the modern standards identified for dignified care delivery. To complete the required level of works, residents would need to temporarily relocate, potentially meaning two moves at least, if they were to return to the refurbished home. · Residential placements made by the council in the independent sector make up 91% of the total funded placements by the council. Surrey is fortunate in having a diverse independent care sector offering quality services. The council has an ongoing relationship with the sector to ensure responsiveness to commissioning intentions. In the last year the council has placed 263 people in residential care and 857 in nursing care in independent sector provision. It has had high utilisation of its 905 block placement residential care beds. Investment in the council homes refurbishment does not compare favourably with commissioning existing alternative provision in the independent sector. · A phased approach, based ... view the full decision text for item 50/15 Minutes: On 21 October 2014 the Cabinet took a decision to consult on the future of six Surrey County Council residential care homes for older people. This followed a comprehensive review of the services provided, future commissioning requirements, and consideration whether Surrey County Council should continue to operate older people’s residential care homes. The homes under consultation were: · Brockhurst in Ottershaw · Cobgates in Farnham · Domers in Caterham · Longfield in Cranleigh · Park Hall in Reigate · Pinehurst in Camberley
The Leader of the Council opened the debate on this item by inviting non-Cabinet County Councillors that wished to speak on the issue to present their views to the Cabinet.
Mrs Sally Marks, County Councillor for Caterham Valley, began by recognising the good care that existed in the six care homes but she pointed out that the environment needed work. She raised concerns around moving people and whether the re-provided care will be at least as good, if not better, than that should the homes be closed and wanted assurance that friendship groups and locations will be considered when placing people in alternative facilities. She particularly highlighted Dormers in Caterham and a specific concern around the position of the local hospice, St Catherine’s and services they delivered to the community. She urged the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care to ensure that Surrey’s people, friends, neighbours and parents were at the centre of this decision.
Mr John Orrick, County Councillor for Caterham Hill, then spoke on this issue and expressed his sadness to see the recommendations set out in the submitted report. He talked about the Surrey brand and the value and trust within this and asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care to ensure that the reablement provision and the hospice lease are fully considered in the plans for the future of Dormers in Caterham. He said that he would like to see the upmost care taken in re-providing care to residents and that staff are offered redeployment support.
Mr David Munro, County Councillor for Farnham South, spoke on the Cobgates care home and stated that he supported the recommendations reluctantly. He said that the care was excellent and it was a much loved facility that had served well but the building at Cobgates was not fit for the long term. He expressed concern that the site could be sold and care repositioned in the future. He acknowledged the extensive consultation that had taken place and said that there was good will in the town to ensure that Cobgates facilities would be available going forward.
The Leader of the Council thanked Members for their comments and asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care to introduce the report and address the concerns raised by Members.
Mr Few stated that this was the most complex issue he had brought to a Cabinet meeting for decision since becoming a Cabinet Member. He said that the Cabinet needed to consider how best the Council could provide a quality and dignified care service to ... view the full minutes text for item 50/15 |