Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Adults and Communities which invited the Committee to comments on the findings and recommendations following a recent review of the Council’s Social Care Investment Programme (SCIP) and set out how the outcome of the review would impact on the focus of the Programme going forward. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion the following points were made:

i.          In response to a Member’s query, the Director reported that 78 individual placements had been supported and savings of £480,000 (£6,000 per person) had been made through the SCIP. On average around £1,500 per week was spent on a residential care placement for clients. Supported Living could potentially be provided at around £100 to £200 cheaper with some exceptions. The Director added that it was better to use capital money to invest where a revenue saving could be made, whilst improving the quality of life for people.

ii.          Members questioned if there was still a demand for the places that would be developed, and asked how, with the current cost of living, the people being targeted to live in them would be able to afford to do so. The Director replied that there were largely two elements to the programme; firstly supported living for people of working age, and extra care for people aged 55years plus. With the former, there were people known to the Council who wanted to move into independent living, with over 300 people living in 24-hour care who no longer needed to be there, and with another 70 properties available over the next two years for which there was no doubt would be fully utilised.

iii.          With regards to extra care provision, Leicestershire had fewer beds than other areas, and was not really seen as a real alternative to long-term care in Leicestershire, whereas in other authority areas it was. The Director reported that work with the wider population and staff internally was needed, to ensure people knew about the benefits extra care could bring. With regards to costs, it was noted people living in extra care might receive enhanced levels of Housing Benefit to cover some of the extra elements of care received, whilst also having a better quality of life. However, there were pros and cons to each way of living, whether residential or extra care, and it was an individual decision with each person assessed on an individual basis as to what would suit them best.

iv.          Members saw the positivity of developing extra care facilities but questioned the feasibility of being able to deliver I the SCIP in the current economic climate, such as, increased cost of materials. The Director reported there would be a refresh of the investment prospectus in consultation with district councils who had control of local plans.  This set out the supply and demand needs of what was required across Leicestershire over the next five to 20 years with regarding to extra care housing. It was noted that a new piece of legislation was expected to come into force which required district and county councils to have a duty to cooperate in assessing the need for supported accommodation in each district, and this would have to feature within local plans.

v.          Members were informed that whilst there were some very good modern facilities in Leicestershire, there was some older provision which was not quite so good, and some areas where there was little or no supply of extra care accommodation. The Director informed Members that there were three sites currently being considered for development; two sites were in North West Leicestershire and Hinckley and Bosworth which were Council owned, and one in Melton where a site had been sold to a private developer. It was noted that most developers sought contributions from the Council towards costs (land / capital), as this helped them to secure additional funding from Homes England and other organisations or lenders. In return the Council would seek to secure the right to nominate people to go into such accommodations. 

vi.          In response to a Member’s query, it was noted that one Strategic Landlord was commissioned to look after developments delivered by SCIP (Nottingham Community Housing Association (NHCA)), but moving forward would be open to different developers. It was noted the NCHA was used as strategic landlord which acted on behalf of the County Council (which was not a housing authority), to manage the Council’s properties on its behalf. The Director reported the Council would invite bids from developers wanting to develop extra care services and would be chosen on best business case. With the increase in housing development, it was expected with some of the bigger developments part of the Section 106 monies or part of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for social housing that extra care would be seen as part of that.

vii.          Members welcomed the report, and commented that as a two-tier authority, in order to have collaborative working, the setting up of a housing group, including the planning authorities responsible for local plans, might be key to moving forward. Working in partnership was necessary to get the right housing in the right place, and to leverage Section 106 and CIL monies where possible. Members requested that the Director consider as part of the review the inclusion of an additional recommendation to reflect this.

RESOLVED:

a)    That the report on the Review of the Social Care Investment Programme (SCIP) be noted and welcomed.

b)    That the Director of Adults and Communities be requested to consider as part of the review the inclusion of an additional recommendation to work in partnership with district councils as the local planning authorities, to ensure appropriate housing was being delivered in the right locations, and Section 106 developer contributions were being secured to support delivery of the Programme.