Agenda item

A Member of the Public stated that she wished to ask a question in relation to the Windsor Street Development in relation to the savings proposals in the Council 2018/19 Budget report as follows –

Windsor Street, a supported living scheme for 11 people with learning disabilities, forms part of the Housing and Adult Social Services capital project scheme. Council officers and senior Councillors, have made statements that this scheme ‘will form part of the changes to the social care system that will save millions’. Please will the Committee scrutinise how Windsor Street will achieve cost savings that it is supposed to do, especially in the light of its spiralling capital costs, which have risen form below £2.2million to over £4.2million and are still growing. The CCQ regulations will not permit 11 learning disabled people to be accommodated in single person and shared units in a single building on a single site, and with regard to the rules on supported living as this would make block bookings for care provision less achievable.

Members were informed in response that,whilst exact savings are difficult to predict, due to the differing nature of support services and the changing levels of support people may require over time, Supported Living provides better value than equivalent residential services. Currently, supported living in Islington is operating at or close to capacity, and the Council continues to place people in residential care outside the borough as a result of this. Financial modelling, through the nationally recognised fair price tool, the Care Funding Calculator, indicates that Windsor Street, as a supported living service, will offer significantly better value than its alternatives. For example, the Care Fund Calculator, shows that the expected cost of a placement in residential care, for 11 people with learning disabilities, with a moderate to high level of support, is likely to cost approximately £1900-£2000 per week, whilst the equivalent level of support in an 11 person Supported Living service is just over £40,000 per year for one person. Whilst it would not be wise to extrapolate this across the whole service, as each person will have different needs and circumstances, benchmarking such as this can give confidence that Windsor Street will offer better value than the available alternatives, and reduce the overall costs to social care budgets.

It was added that there have been increases of £1,398,000 in total scheme costs and £1,018,000 on build costs. These figures are taken from the financial viability reports, provided to finance, in 2015, for feasibility stage and in 2017, for pre-planning purposes. The view of Finance is that this scheme has increased in costs since the first appraisal, but this increase was acceptable and that the programme could bear the additional cost, and a strong political will, for the scheme to progress. In discussion with the Council’s agent, on the subject of tender price increases in  this period, it is estimated that between have d increased roughly to £2,807,000. The additional costs are as a result of design development, and the Chair outlined some of the changes. In addition to the above, there has been some other consultant costs, as a result of reports being out of date, and no longer appropriate for submission to Planning, due to the length of time taken to get the application into Planning. These reports include daylight sunlight reports, rights to light issues, a valuation report, a heritage statement, and of course the costs of taking verified views. Whilst the above mentioned design changes, and additional costs, are not specifically quantified, they do go some way to justify the increase in costs.

The Chair stated that with regard to the CQC regulations, that the CQC is not relevant to this development, but will be relevant to the provider that supports the residents that move in, as only the care element of this scheme will be registered. The residents will have their own personal tenancy agreements, so their accommodation will be separate from their personal care. It is the personal care element that will be registered with the CQC. Reference was made in the question to the fact that the questioner felt that the building will be unsuitable, because it runs contrary to the advice of the CQC on the maximum number of clients, where the language around numbers was ‘softened’ following consultation. The new guidance states that the CQC will not adopt ‘six as a rigid rule’, for providers of any service in the building, and there is sufficient flexibility to allow the ground floor, where there are 4 residents, to operate independently, of the two upper floors, where there is a capacity of 7 residents. The CQC has stated that ‘it may register providers who have services that are small scale, but accommodate more than 6 people, where providers are able to demonstrate that they follow all the principles and values in the Building the Right Support Guidance, and meet the fundamental standards and other relevant regulations. The amended guidance acknowledges the provision of care to people with learning disabilities and autism is complex. The Chair also added that the CQC will not consider size in location from other factors, such as the effectiveness of management and the evidence base for given service models.

The Chair further stated that, with regard to the issue of possible rent arrears and Universal Credit, following Government consultation with the supported housing sector in 2017, the issue in relation to benefits is no longer relevant, as the Local Housing Allowance will no longer be applied to supported housing and rent for supported housing will continue to be paid by housing benefit.

In relation to an additional question it was stated that it was felt that the scheme was financially viable and would not only improve the lives of service users would provide cost benefits to the Council.

The Chair added that a detailed response would be sent to the questioner in writing