To consider the following motions:

-  No 1 Ledbury Road – short breaks and respite care

-  Chinese Lanterns

Notice of Motion 1 – No 1 Ledbury Road, short breaks and respite care

Councillor Lloyd Hayes proposed the motion.  She made the following principal points:

·         She expressed concern that parents and carers had heard of service changes through rumour.  This had created general fear and insecurity. Some parents had recently been refused provision at Ledbury Road. 

·         She was concerned that Wye Valley Trust, the Herefordshire Clinical Commissioning Group and Social Services were closing the facility.  One way of closing a service was by running it down.  This created a situation where staff were encouraged to seek other jobs.  She noted that the chef at Ledbury road had been redeployed and not replaced.

·         The Health and Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Task and Finish Group had already gathered useful evidence and would bring forward some useful recommendations.  She questioned whether it was in accordance with the Constitution for any decisions to be taken on Ledbury Road before the Task and Finish Group had reported.

·         There had been a lack of strategic planning and no consultation with regard to changes to the service at Ledbury road and no contingency plan.  The Council was not fulfilling its duty of care.

·         There were many opportunities to increase use of the facility and generate income, for example offering day care there, that had not been adequately explored.

·         The facility was an excellent resource and there was no alternative in the City.  She commented on a number of providers that it had been suggested to her could provide an alternative, asserting that they could not provide an adequate replacement for the current provision at Ledbury Road.

Recommendation (a) in the Notice of Motion requested the executive to commit to the retention of the option for families and young people to access professionally staffed respite care in Herefordshire.  Councillor Lloyd-Hayes indicated that she was willing to add the words “and beyond” to the end of that request.

Councillor Lester, cabinet member – young people and children’s wellbeing, explained that this amendment would permit use of respite carers just across the county’s border.

Some concern was expressed that the wording of the amendment to read “Herefordshire and beyond” was too wide and did not reflect the qualification offered by the cabinet member.

A motion that recommendation (a) be amended was carried with 43 votes in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

Councillor Harvey seconded the motion.  She highlighted the specialist nature of respite care, and its importance to families.  She considered that there had been insufficient communication between the partner organisations themselves, and between the partner organisations and the parents, to ensure that respite care remained available at Ledbury Road while a broader range of other options were being developed. 

Ledbury Road remained the only option for a number of families.  There was an impression that the service was being dismantled.  The council needed to bear in mind that if families fell apart as a consequence of the withdrawal of the service at Ledbury Road the council would be responsible for providing them with support.

Councillor Lester commented that he had met Wye Valley Trust and the Clinical Commissioning Group to explore options.  No1 Ledbury Road would remain open beyond March 2016 subject to staffing and financial resources.  It had never been the intention to remove residential respite care at Ledbury Road.  The aim was to increase the range of care options.  Core assessments identified the needs and therefore the options that could be considered. 

He added that he could support recommendation (a) as amended and recommendation (b).  However, he requested that recommendation (c)  “that the executive consider the recommendations from the task & finish group before any decision is made on any changes to the respite care service provision in Herefordshire”, be amended, ending it after the word “group”.   Whilst he would welcome the recommendations of the task and finish group he would not wish a requirement to await its findings to delay the ongoing work on alternatives to meet needs.  In conclusion he noted that the council did not itself provide respite care; it secured it from providers.  Wye Valley Trust and others were the providers, commissioned by the Clinical Commissioning Group.

A motion that recommendation (c) be amended was carried (There were 40 votes for the motion, 9 against and no abstentions.)

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·         A number of Members praised the benefits offered by No1 Ledbury Road and the support it provided to some of the most vulnerable people.

·         The pressures faced by parents and their concerns about the situation were acknowledged.

·         There was a concern that the cabinet member had referred to the facility remaining open subject to staffing and resources.  It was suggested that a lack of qualified staff might lead to closure at short notice and it was asked what contingencies were in place.  The cabinet member commented that options were being considered and council and parents would be advised as soon as possible.

·         It was important that note was taken of the roles of the Wye Valley Trust and the Clinical Commissioning Group and that they were held accountable for their decisions.

·         The cabinet member acknowledged that consultation on the future of No1 Ledbury Road had not engaged parents as fully as it should have done.  The key organisations responsible had made clear that this was regrettable and had apologised to parents.  The Children and Young People’s Plan which Council was being asked to ratify in a later agenda item sought to ensure that such a situation would not occur again.

·         The council could and should have exercised greater leadership.

·         It was suggested that it would have been preferable for council to have awaited the findings of the task and finish group before debating the issue.  Councillor Stone, as chairman of the group, informed Council that the group had heard evidence from a number of people and was drawing up its recommendations which he did not wish to pre-empt.

·         The Leader of the Council commented that the council was doing its best to seek to resolve a situation that was not entirely within its control.  The best course was for the council to continue to explore options in parallel with the ongoing work of the task and finish group whose recommendations could be considered when published.

The motion was carried with 45 votes for it none against and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That in view of the vision contained within the children and young people’s plan that our children and young people grow up healthy, happy and safe within supportive families and carers, this Council resolves that:

The executive be asked to:

a)         commit to the retention of the option for families and young people to access professionally staffed respite care in Herefordshire and beyond;

b)         honour its obligations to actively involve parents/carers and children at all stages of any change programme; and

c)         consider the recommendations from the task & finish group.

Notice of Motion 2 – Chinese Lanterns

Councillor Baker proposed the motion.  He circulated an example of a Chinese lantern and highlighted the risk they posed to animals and the fire risk to property.  He noted that the Chief Fire Officer supported the motion.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·         The lanterns did present a significant risk.

·         Some doubt was expressed about the Council’s power to enforce restrictions but it was suggested that a measure of control could be achieved through the licensing regime.

·         A publicity campaign to raise awareness of the risks posed by the lanterns could only be beneficial.

Councillor Swinglehurst seconded the motion commenting that this was a matter where the council could act and it should do what it could to address the risk the lanterns presented.

The motion was carried with 48 votes for it, no votes against it and no abstentions.

RESOLVED: That the executive consider imposing restrictions on the use of Chinese lanterns on council owned land or at events licensed by the council, and consider implementing a publicity campaign to inform residents of the risks associated with the use of such lanterns.