(Councillors ME Cooper and AE Gray declared personal interests.)

The Committee considered the financing of the first extra care housing provision at Rose Gardens, Hereford following its completion and occupation during 2008/09.

The report had been requested by the Committee in March 2008 in considering the Draft Corporate Plan and the priority of achieving value for money.  Concern was expressed about the scheme’s value for money and a report requested reviewing this and whether there were any lessons to be learned for future schemes.

The Head of Strategic Housing presented the report.  He explained that the report had been produced on the virtual finalisation of the 2008/09 accounts, which had been subject to delay for contractual reasons.

He outlined the strategic rationale for the project, commenting that an inspection by the former Commission for Social Care had described the service as a two star, good service.  The first residents’ satisfaction survey had supported the quality of services, facilities and care provision.  He highlighted the following points:

·         The Department of Health’s (DoH) financial contribution to the scheme had been the highest grant award announced within the first found of funding programmes.  The bid had been assessed under the financial regulations of the then Housing Corporation to ensure that it represented value for money.

·         Subsidy in the form of DoH grant and other private/public subsidy had enabled the development of a high quality scheme with affordable rent levels.

·         The extra care provision represented a significant saving to the Council compared with the costs of residential care.  Residents were also eligible for benefits to which they were not entitled if they were in residential care.

·         A number of residents had reduced their support needs since the Scheme had opened.  At the moment it was hard to quantify the improved health and well-being costs to Adult Social Care and the Primary Care Trust.  However, the Extra Care Charitable Trust had advised that the annual well-being check suggested a 4% improvement across the Scheme.

·         A number of lessons had been learned as described in the report at paragraphs 40-43.  The overall assessment was that the scheme was beneficial to the residents and provided significant financial benefits to the Council compared with the provision of residential care.  However, further work needed to be done to evaluate the comparability of care levels in the extra care scheme to care levels in residential homes.  The view was that further extra care provision should form part of future care provision, the question was to what extent this should be the case.

He commented that the Chairman of the Rose Gardens Residents Association, who was present, had raised some questions relating to management issues to which it had been mutually agreed a written answer would be given.

In discussion the following principal points were made: 

·         The principal concern was that there was a clear need for extra care provision within the County.  However, the cost of the scheme at Rose Gardens, which was recognised as a good quality scheme, was prohibitive.  The cost per unit was higher than the cost of an equivalently sized house.  The state of the public finances was such that similar schemes would be unlikely to be affordable.  It was suggested that the private sector could have completed the building at a substantially lower cost.

A more imaginative approach was therefore required, for example involving the Council identifying sites with input from the Planning Service, with development of the sites then being carried out by the private sector.

The Head of Strategic Housing commented that in seeking to compare the cost per unit with the cost of general housing it was important to recognise the extensive facilities provided at Rose Gardens in what was in effect a village.  The quality of provision at Rose Gardens matched private sector provision for this type of scheme.  However, private sector schemes of that quality were not accessible to many Herefordshire residents.  The Rose Garden Scheme had provided access to extra care for people who would not otherwise have been able to afford it and in so doing freed up affordable housing units in the County.

He acknowledged that the Scheme had been one of the earliest to be developed and reflected the best model at the time.  However, as the sector expanded across the Country it was possible that other models would emerge. 

The Associate Director of Integrated Commissioning added that from a commissioning perspective consideration needed to be given to ensuring that provision could meet the needs of the growing numbers of elderly people with dementia and the increasing numbers of people with learning disabilities who would require such care.

·         The report stated that in the initial allocation 12 of the apartments had been allocated to people who were living outside the County, but had a local connection.  It was requested that clarification be provided on the criteria governing the allocation of units to out of County residents.

·         A question was asked about the PCT’s financial contribution to fund continuing health care in the community. The Associate Director of Integrated Commissioning commented that the eligibility criteria were tightly drawn.  New Regulations had recently been published and the service was exploring these to see what level of nursing care could be provided.  Extra Care provision was a good setting in which to provide such care if it could be financed.

·         It was noted that one resident had rated the experience of living at Rose Gardens as poor and it was requested that further information be circulated to Members of the Committee if it were available.

·         The Head of Strategic Housing agreed to provide a written answer to a question about the contribution of S106 monies to the Scheme.

·         Asked to clarify what issues had been raised by the Residents Association, the Head of Strategic Housing commented that these related principally to car parking management.  He added that whilst the Strategic Housing Service maintained an interest in the scheme, Elgar Housing Association was responsible for its management.

The Chairman of the Residents’ Association was invited to comment on the discussion as a whole and focused on parking provision, clarifying that the nature of the problem was that whilst there were sufficient spaces for those residents with cars there were no designated spaces.  Spaces were being used by the general public who had no connection with the property or reason for visiting it.

It was noted that there were 49 parking spaces and currently 30 residents had cars.  Whilst acknowledging that there were limitations on the amount of parking that could reasonably be provided at developments of this kind it was proposed that officers should give further thought to car parking need through the Local Development Framework process.

RESOLVED:

That       (a)     the success of the Rose Garden extra care scheme was welcomed but in view of the overall cost of the scheme and the uncertainty over the availability of public funding in future it be recommended that alternative models for future cost effective delivery of these much needed developments be investigated; and

               (b)    the appropriate level of parking provision for developments of this type be revisited through the Local Development Framework process.