Decision details

Review of Sheltered Housing Management Arrangements

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Purpose:

The Council currently manages 575 sheltered housing units. The management of these schemes is partially funded via Supporting People (a budget administered by Lancashire County Council). The existing management arrangements are in need of review as they don't currently provide sufficient flexibility to enable the Council to consistantly meet individual tenants' Support Plans.

Decisions:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor David Kerr)

 

The Corporate Director (Community Services) submitted a report identifying weaknesses within the existing arrangements for managing the Council’s Sheltered Housing Schemes and proposing a more flexible approach utilising non resident managers for Category I Schemes.

 

The options and options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

 

(i)                                  Redesignate the Prospect Grove Sheltered Scheme as Non Residential.

 

 

 

PROS

 

CONS

 

Option 1

To continue with existing arrangements

 

Tenants would not see any changes in service and would retain the perceived comfort of having a resident warden

 

The Service would not have sufficient flexibility to meet individual tenants Support Plans.  The Council would not be able to meet the Quality Assessment Framework Service Standards.

 

Option 2

To redesignate Prospect Grove as Non Residential

 

 

There would be increased flexibility to respond to the wider needs of the service and of individual tenants

 

Some residents are concerned about the loss of a Residential Scheme Manager.

 

 

(ii)                                Redesignate the Penhale Gardens and Altham Walk Schemes to become non residential as and when managers posts become vacant.

 

 

PROS

 

CONS

 

Option 1

To redesignate the schemes as posts become vacant

 

This would enable the service to provide even greater levels of flexibility in delivering support to vulnerable tenants

 

There are a minority of tenants who would prefer to retain the services of a Residential Scheme Manager

 

Option 2

To continue with existing arrangements

 

Tenants would not see any changes in the service and would retain the perceived comfort of having a residential scheme manager

 

The Council would not have sufficient flexibility to meet individual support plans or meet the QAF Standards if any Scheme Managers were absent from work

 

(iii)                              Conversion of Scheme Manager’s House, Prospect Grove.

 

 

PROS

 

CONS

 

Option 1

Not to proceed with the conversion

 

There would be a saving of £15,000 conversion costs and the Council would continue to receive rental income

 

The proposals for non residential scheme management would not work efficiently without the provision of an office base.

It is difficult to envisage an alternative use for the house.

 

Option 2

To convert the Scheme Manager’s House

 

 

Conversion would facilitate arrangements for providing an efficient “mobile” non residential service. There would also be an opportunity to provide a guest bedroom for visitors to Prospect Grove

 

The HRA would loose ongoing rental income for the house (currently £3,419pa).

 

(iv)                              Opting Out of the Community Alarm Service – Ground Floor Flats, Ryelands and Vale.

 

 

PROS

 

CONS

 

Option 1

To approve the opt out.

 

Would enable the  better use of the flats to meet the housing needs of applicants.

 

 

There could be a potential loss of income for alarm monitoring (a maximum of £2,027pa).

Option 2

To continue with existing arrangements.

 

 

Would ensure alarm monitoring income is retained.

 

Would result in flats continuing to be allocated inappropriately, as tenants of these flats generally don’t have support needs and the alarm service is of no value to them.

 

The Officer preferred options were set out in the report as follows:-

 

(i). Prospect Grove – Option 2 is the preferred option as redesignation will enable the service to be delivered more flexibly and the Council will be better placed to meet individual tenants’ support needs.

 

(ii). Penhale Gardens and Altham Walk – Option 1 is preferred as this will further progress the principle of non residential managers for Category 1 Schemes. Officers are firmly of the view that providing a more flexible “mobile” service is the best way of ensuring the Council is well placed to meet the demands of the Supporting People Commissioning Body and also those of existing vulnerable tenants.

 

            (iii). Conversion of Scheme Manager’s House – Option 2 is the preferred option as an office base will be an integral part of providing a more comprehensive and flexible service.

 

            (iv). Opting Out of Communal Alarm Service – Option 1 is preferred as it is clear that most tenants currently living in these ground floor flats do not require the Community Alarm Service. Opting out will also ensure that future vacancies can be allocated to those applicants with the greatest housing need.

 

It was moved by Councillor Kerr and seconded by Councillor Burns:-

 

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

 

By way of amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Fletcher and accepted as a friendly amendment by the original proposer and seconder, that recommendations 1-5 and recommendation 7, as set out in the report, be approved before dealing with recommendation 6. Members then voted as follows:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)     That the Prospect Grove Sheltered Housing Scheme be redesignated as having a non residential manager.

 

(2)     That, as and when the Scheme Manager positions at Penhale Gardens and Altham Walk become vacant, the schemes be redesignated as having non residential managers.

 

(3)     That the pooling of the three schemes referred to in (i) and (ii) be approved.

 

(4)     That the Scheme Manager’s house at Prospect Grove be converted into an operational base for all non residential scheme managers and a guest bedroom for visitors to the Scheme.

 

(5)     The cost of the house conversion, estimated at £15,000, be funded by an additional revenue contribution to the Capital Programme, utilising funds approved within the 2007-08 Carry Forward Requests.

 

(6)     That the Revenue Budget and Capital Programme be updated to reflect the above.

 

Members then turned their attention to recommendation 6, as set out in the report.

 

By way of amendment to the original proposition, Councillor Bryning proposed and Cllr Blamire seconded, that the word “personal” be added before the words “community alarm” in recommendation 6. Members then voted as follows:-

 

Resolved:

 

(8 members (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Burns, Charles, Gilbert, Kerr and Mace) voted in favour, and 2 members (Councillors Archer and Fletcher) abstained):

 

(7)     That the tenants of the ground floor flats connected to the personal community alarm service on the Ryelands and Vale estates are given the option to opt out of the community alarm service with a view to phasing out the service in those blocks.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Corporate Director (Community Services)

Head of Council Housing

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The decision provides greater operational flexibility and places the Council in a better position to respond to future external demands.

 

Report author: Steven Milce

Publication date: 04/08/2008

Date of decision: 31/07/2008

Decided at meeting: 31/07/2008 - Cabinet

Effective from: 12/08/2008

Accompanying Documents: