Agenda Item No: D3
CABINET
10 February 2009
RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE DIRECTOR/ACE:
Corporate Director of Health and Adult Social Services
CABINET MEMBER WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADULT SOCIAL SERVICES:
Councillor Rosemary Bromwich
Subject:
Recommendations:
i)
Learning Disability Campus Reprovision: Affordability and
Spending of Capital Monies
The Cabinet is asked to agree the following recommendations:
i) That it endorses the “In Control” approach to delivering the LD
campus reprovision project described in this report
ii)
iii) ii) That it approves the gifting to Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing
Association
the Obelisk Bungalows, Obelisk Rise,
Kingsthorpe, Northampton and 166 Gladstone Road,
Dallington, Northampton
iii) That it delegates to the Corporate Director of HASS the power
to agree the terms of a grant agreement between NCC and
Northamptonshire Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT) for the
s256 grant by the PCT of £4.244m of capital funds to NCC for
the reprovision project and authorise the execution of such
agreement on behalf of NCC (the PCT Grant)
iv) That in view of the demanding Government deadline, and
taking account of the potentially large number of decisions
required to allot capital sums to Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing
Association, the Corporate Director of HASS in consultation
with the Head of Asset Management is given delegated
authority to:
a) agree the terms on which NCC shall transfer ownership of
the NCC properties described in clause (ii) above to
Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association and, in consultation
with the Assistant Chief Executive Finance and Commercial
Management, disperse the PCT grant and other funding, if
any, obtained by NCC for the reprovision project to
Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association; and
b) enter into an agreement with Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing
Association evidencing such agreed terms, and authorise the
execution of such agreement and any related agreements that
may be required, on behalf of NCC.
1.
Purpose of Report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform members in relation to the Learning Disability
Campus Reprovision Project, and to seek support for proposals to enable work to
continue to achieve the Government deadline for Reprovision of April 2010.
2.
Relevant Corporate Outcome and Corporate Priority
Corporate Outcomes and Corporate Priorities 2008-09
Safer, freer and stronger communities
A cleaner, greener and more prosperous county
A more secure, healthy and independent future for our children, for our young
people, and for our adults
9. We will enable the elderly and people who need care to exercise personal choice and
live more independent and fulfilled lives
A smaller, more enabling council focused on our customers
11. We will provide better access to, and choice of services, targeting our resources on
our customers and communities, improving our efficiency and keeping council tax
increases at or below the rate of inflation, provided that changes in central government
funding to not prevent this.
3. Background
3.1 Two years ago the Government announced its Learning Disability Campus
Reprovision Initiative.
Essentially, following poor Inspection Reports in Cornwall and elsewhere, it required
Local Authorities and PCT’s to ensure that by April 2010 no persons with Learning
Disability continued to live on NHS premises or be cared for by NHS staff. This
transition is broadly described as “Reprovision”.
At that time, in this county there were 96 such persons living in 16 Northamptonshire
Health Trust Homes, and being looked after by approximately 300 NHS staff.
The three Statutory Bodies, Northamptonshire County Council (NCC),
Northamptonshire Healthcare Trust (NHT) and Northamptonshire Teaching Primary
Care Trust (PCT) determined that reprovision should be brought about through an In
Control approach (issuing of funding made directly to the individual by way of a
"Personal Budget” with choice and control being passed to the residents and their
families to make their own care arrangements), and that £7.4m (2007/08 prices) would
be transferred from NHT to the Council to fund Personal Budgets.
Indicative Personal Budgets have been allocated to all of the 92 remaining residents.
Virtually all have costed Support Plans, and have been in discussion with a range of
Providers about what standards of care they can provide, and at what cost.
The reprovision project advertised for and secured a partner for the reprovision project
(Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association), and charged it with finding the
Independent Housing which residents need. It is intended that the Council will grant
capital funds to Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association to facilitate the scheme.
This has resulted in plans to convert 10/11 of the existing Homes to self contained
flats, and the identification of five further sites (3 belonging to NCC) where further
independent living accommodation (mostly flats) can be provided. Both of the NCC’s
Statutory Partners have made significant contributions of capital to the reprovision
project (PCT: £1.6m and Health Trust: gifting of 16 existing residential homes It seems
appropriate therefore for the Council to also consider a contribution. If NCC agrees to
this, it will also aid the bid for Grant monies to the Housing Corporation, which has
indicated it would expect all Statutory Agencies to make a capital contribution. It is
proposed therefore that 2 of the NCC sites referred to above (166 Gladstone Road: a
three bedroom former caretakers house, and the Obelisk Bungalows: 2 x 3 bed
bungalows within the curtilage of an olders persons home) be gifted to the reprovision
project. The value of these properties is: 166 Gladstone Road; £75K-100K and
Obelisk Bungalows; £175K-£225K, which is more than offset by the social provisions
and outcomes that this project provides ie to source other properties would be more
costly.
The third property is Quarry House, Duston, We expect to have shortly an offer from
our Housing Partner Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association for use of the whole
site (part of which would be made available for six properties for reprovision clients)
including an offer to NCC for the land. Cabinet will need to be satisfied that this offer
represents value for money. Assuming that it is, then Cabinet Member approval will
be sought at that point.
Currently, roughly two thirds of the residents have potential future addresses, and, in
the present market, there is sufficient and affordable additional properties to meet the
needs of the remainder. The issue which is currently holding up progress on
reprovision is the question of affordability (see S6.1 and S6.2).
3.2 Deadline
It is clear that if the Government deadline of April 2010 is to be achieved, we must
enable the Project to have funding now to purchase housing/convert properties.
4. Consultation and Scrutiny
4.1 This matter has been subject to consultation with Corporate Legal, Finance and Asset
Management Colleagues.
Whilst the specific issue has not been considered by Scrutiny Councillors, a progress
report about the project overall was considered by the Adult Social Care and Health
Scrutiny Committee (Demands of the Health and Social Care Economy Working
Group) at its meeting on 13/10/08.
Consultation has taken place with PCT and the responsible Cabinet member.
5. Alternative Options Considered
5.1 Delegation of spending decisions to our Housing Partner. This would not be in
accord with the Council’s role and responsibility in relation to this project.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 Capital
The Council’s committed capital programme includes £2.7m of spending for the LD
reprovision project. This is the 2008-09 grant from the Department of Health (DoH)
made to the PCT, which it is proposed is granted by the PCT to NCC. It is anticipated
the PCT will receive a further grant from the DoH to finance capital works for this
project, and again this will be granted to NCC from the PCT. Once this additional
funding is agreed the funding will be incorporated in the Council’s committed capital
programme subject to approval from the Capital Asset and Investment Group (CAIG)
and using the agreed capital governance arrangements.
The estimate of the Total Capital required for the reprovision project is between £9M
and £10M. Funding already available amounts to approximately £7.5m. (£1.6m
granted to NCC from the PCT by way of a s256 grant; £2.644m from DoH Capital
grant passed on to NCC by the PCT by way of a s256 grant; £2.135m from
Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Assocation borrowing; £.100m from the Housing
Corporation; approximately £1m from sale of un-retained Trust Homes).Under Stage 3
of the Department of Health Capital Grant programme, NCC and PCT are bidding for
an additional £4.2m.
It can be seen therefore that the Capital side of reprovision can be considered to be
affordable. The capital costs will be regularly monitored and reported to CAIG.
6.2 Revenue
Until recently the picture here looked very difficult. Against the £7.4m available
funding from the Trust, the projected cost of the Support Plans was £10.2m. However,
intensive and detailed work by Project staff and Corporate Finance produced a fresh
and more reliable estimate of £8.8m for Support Plan costs (the saving is mostly
accounted for by economies associated with a good proportion of residents sharing
accommodation and care costs).
Meanwhile, discussions between the Trust and Officers of the PCT and NCC have
resulted in a figure of £8.2m to be transferred to fund Personal Budgets. Negotiations
are continuing with the objective of securing additional transfer of funding from the
Trust. Currently, therefore, the Revenue Funding gap is an estimated £0.6m.
Clearly the reprovision must be delivered within the funding transferred from the
Health Service and negotiations continue to achieve this goal. Members will be asked
once this has been achieved to finally endorse the scheme.
The revenue and capital spend/funding profiles are summarised below
Capital Investment
Costs
Funded by – funds already
available
Funds”applied for”
Deficit/surplus Capital
Accumulated position
On-going costs (revenue)
Costs: Support care packages
Funded by : income from
Health Trust
Total Costs : revenue deficit
7
Current
year
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
£m
£m
£m
2011-12 &
beyond
£m
1.0
4.2
7.5
0.8
-
7.435
- 0.065
+3.135
- 0.8
+2.335
+3.2
+3.2
Forecast
8.8
8.2
8.8
8.2
-0.6
-0.6
Legal Implications
We expect that the PCT will transfer £4.244m to NCC prior to the end of this financial
year by way of a s256 grant. This grant will be evidenced by a grant agreement
between the PCT and NCC with conditions.
Furthermore, given that work is underway on the reprovision project by Bedfordshire
Pilgrims Housing Association, officers would like to conclude contract negotiations as
swiftly as possible. The agreement with Bedforshire Pilgrims Housing Association is
currently in draft form, and is a grant agreement with conditions, requiring Bedfordshire
Pilgrims Housing Association to repay the grant under certain circumstances, secured
by charges on the property acquired by Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association for
the reprovision project, and giving NCC nomination rights in respect of accommodation
provided.
8
Risk and Business Continuity Management
a) Risk(s) associated with the proposal
Risk
Delegated decisions based on
inadequate / partial information
Capital decisions taken without
reference to overall Council
Capital position
The Housing Partner does not
spend public money wisely in
achieving project outcomes
Mitigation
Well coordinated project
management system
CAIG kept fully informed
Residual Risk
Amber
Amber
We have engaged the Council’s Green
Property
Estate
partners
to
independently verify value for
money re property procurement
b) Risk(s) associated with not undertaking the proposal
Risk
Delay would be caused to the delivery of the accommodation needs for
the 92 clients with subsequent delay in completing their transition to
independent living
Delay would make it very unlikely to meet the Department of Health
target date of 31 March 2010 to complete the project
Potential reputational damage to the Council
Author:
Contact details:
Background Papers:
Is this report proposing a key decision is
taken?
If yes, is the decision in the Forward Plan?
Will further decisions be required? If so,
please outline the timetable here
Is this report proposing an amendment to
the budget and/or policy framework?
Have the financial implications been
cleared by the strategic finance manager
(SFM)?
Have any capital spend implications been
cleared by the Capital Asset Investment
Group (CAIG)
Has the report been cleared by the
relevant Corporate Director or ACE?
Has the relevant Cabinet Member been
consulted?
Has the relevant scrutiny committee been
consulted?
Have any legal implications been cleared
by Legal Services?
Have any communications issues been
cleared by Communications and
Marketing?
Has an Equalities Impact Assessment
been carried out in relation to this report?
Are there any community safety
implications?
Are there any environmental implications:
Are there any human rights implications:
Constituency Interest:
Risk Rating
Red
Red
Amber
Name: Paul Rowley
Team: LD Reprovision Project
Tel: 01604 237223
Email: [email protected]
None
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
Name of SFM: Martin Pettitt
NO – application in process
YES
Name of Director: Charlie MacNally
YES
Cabinet Member: Rosemary Bromwich
YES
Scrutiny Committee: ASCHSC (Demands of
the Health and Social Care Economy
Working Group) at it’s meeting on 13/10/08
YES
Name of solicitor: Penny Osborne
YES
Name of officer: Simon Deacon
Equalities Impact Assessment has been
completed for project, not specifically for this
proposal
NO
NO
NO
NO