Agenda, decisions and minutes

Cabinet
Tuesday, 10 March 2015 2.00 pm

Venue: 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

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

45/15

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

46/15

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.

     

    Notes:

    ·        In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.

    ·        Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.

    ·        Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.

    ·        Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

47/15

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

47/15a

Members' Questions

    (i)    The deadline for Member’s questions is 12pm four working days before the meeting 4 March 2015.

     

    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.

     

     

48/15

Public Questions

49/15

Petitions

    Petition 1:

     

    It states: ‘We the undersigned agree with the following statement.

     

    Save the Surrey 6 care homes and re-develop them to provide the best care for the elderly community in Surrey’

     

    Submitted by Mr Frank Minal on behalf of GMB

     

    Signatures: 130

     

     

    Petition 2:

    It states: ‘We call on Surrey County Council to invest in the redevelopment and refurbishment (or rebuilding) of its six remaining in-house elderly care homes. Brockhurst in Ottershaw, Cobgates in Farnham, Longfield in Cranleigh, Dormers in Caterham, Park Hall in Reigate and Pinehurst in Camberley. We do not accept the rationale for closure of any of these homes. The quality and level of care in these homes is outstanding. What is needed is the political will to invest in their modernisation - not to close them.’

    Submitted by Mr Paul Couchman on behalf of Save Our Services

    Signatures: 4373

     

    Responses will be tabled at the meeting.

    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.  

50/15

Surrey County Council Residential Care Homes for older people pdf icon PDF 229 KB

    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 operating older people’s residential care homes.

    The homes under consultation are:

    ·        Brockhurst in Ottershaw

    ·        Cobgates in Farnham

    ·        Dormers in Caterham

    ·        Longfield in Cranleigh

    ·        Park Hall in Reigate

    ·        Pinehurst in Camberley

     

    Between them the homes currently provide a range of services including residential care, respite, day care and reablement services (see glossary of terms, Annex 1).

    When the homes were constructed people referred were required to be fully mobile and continent. The infrastructure of these homes was not designed to meet the current and future needs of the elderly who continue to present with complex needs requiring more specialist modern facilities. As a responsible provider, the council needs to consider how it can deliver a quality dignified care service, meeting current and future needs. 

    The numbers of people across the six homes using these services include: 133 permanent residents, 28 current day care users (varying frequency use), an average of 36 temporary/respite beds occupied, and an average of 13 people commencing a period of bed based reablement per month (Annex 2, as at January 2015).

    The public consultation took place from 30 October 2014 and was extended to 31 January 2015. Views were sought from current users of the services provided by the homes, relatives, staff, stakeholders and any other affected people.

    Many residents and their families took advantage of face to face meetings where their concerns were aired and discussed. In addition visits were undertaken to relatives living out of the county.

    Recognising that the recommendations are likely to lead to disruption of persons using the services and their family members, the needs and wellbeing of those affected are paramount. Careful planning taking account of best practice will mitigate the impact on the users through individual assessment and planning of alternative services, which are available in the independent sector.

    It is recognised that refurbishment and upgrading of these homes as laid out in option 2 would cause significant upheaval to the residents through multiple moves which would not be best practice.

    The council is determined to ensure future adult social care needs are met appropriately, and working with other partners, will start further work on the potential alternative use of the properties for future services, which could include facilities for extra care, dementia care, and support for carers (such as short breaks). 

    The Cabinet is asked to consider the summary consultation report, and decide on the recommendations for each of the homes under consideration.

     

    [Decisions on this item can be called in by the Adult Social Care Select Committee]

    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