Issue - meetings

Review of Sheltered Housing Management Arrangements.

Meeting: 31/07/2008 - Cabinet (Item 42)

42 Review of Sheltered Housing Management Arrangements PDF 36 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor David Kerr)

Report of Corporate Director (Community Services)

Minutes:

(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.

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

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).

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.

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 ... view the full minutes text for item 42