Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Children and Family Services which provided an update on the progress of the Children’s Innovation Partnership.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes.

The Committee was informed that four properties had initially been identified and although this had now been reduced to three, the ambition was to ultimately have four.  This property was for under 16 year olds and the identified property had a covenant which the local authority had been unable to resolve in a suitable time or at a suitable cost.  Work was currently underway to identify an alternative property.  The other properties included one in Hinckley for over 16s, a Family Assessment Centre (this was a residential building already owned by the County Council which would be converted into three flats) and a new build in Coalville which would comprise two buildings, one being an assessment residential centre and one to incorporate the ART Team.  In terms of timescale, it was the intention to have the buildings for under 16s and over 16s ready for occupation by the end of this year.  The two other builds would take approximately 18 months. 

With regard to financial savings, cumulatively this was expected to be between £800,000 - £1m each year.  This was calculated on both residential costs (which were in house) and on staff savings (by not having to travel out of the county to visit children).  The pay back period for each building was different; for the first two it was expected to be three years and the other two were between two and five years.

Arising from the discussion, the following points were raised:

i)                A member raised a query around how it was decided that a potential property was suitable and whether there was a check list to go through, such as whether there was enough parking on site, enough separation between the building and neighbouring properties, if the internal layout was suitable and whether the bedrooms were big enough and consistent in size.  In response, the Director of Children and Family Services stated that a team of experts made the decisions, including officers from Barnardo’s, operational staff from the County Council and Property Services.  When a property was being considered, the County Council was open to hearing any concerns of local residents and ensured that public consultation took place.  For parking, for example at Highfield, it had been agreed to build into the plan how the car parking spaces would be used and how they would be managed.

ii)               With regard to the suitability of an internal layout of a building, it was reported that architects helped to develop this by using a scope of what would be required in individual rooms.  A scope would also be provided for any communal areas and architects would ensure that there was sufficient space for everything required.  This would also include space to train parents, for example helping them to cook a meal.  Assurance was given that care had been taken with the specification for each individual building.  Another issue was how the homes would be decorated; it was known what furniture was needed but there could be other factors such as choosing appropriate games if it was a younger person’s home, pictures and garden equipment.  Contact had been made with the Corporate Parenting team and young people who had an interest in design would be identified to work as part of a team to inform the decoration of the buildings.

iii)             It was acknowledged that the County Council had previously owned a number of large homes that had been used as residential children’s homes.  Consideration had been given over the past two years to how to develop residential care for young people and the ambition had been to have smaller properties which provided a family environment.

iv)             In response to a query around the advanced life skills programme, it was stated that the six schools involved had been clustered together.  During the Covid-19 pandemic, it had been necessary to stop the programme on a number of occasions and the decision had had to be taken to stop the project entirely and furlough the staff involved.  Discussions were currently taking place with the Department for Education on how the programme could be taken forward and further details would be provided at the next meeting of the Committee.

The Lead Member for Children and Families gave assurance that the County Council was taking an active role in consulting with local residents where it was felt a property may be developed and stated that she would be happy to meet with any elected members who had a property in their division.  The Lead Member also confirmed that these would be very controlled properties and any developments would be very positive.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.