Councillor Gerald
Vincent, the Lead Member of the Living and Working Select
Committee, introduced the report on the in-depth review on
Supported Housing for Older People in the Borough.
He referred to the
amendments made to the wording of recommendation eight and
explained that at the Executive on 16 March 2010, Councillor Rush
pointed out that the original wording of the recommendation was
ambiguous with regard to Gascoigne Road. In light of her comments
the recommendation had been re-worded and circulated to the
Assembly.
He offered his
thanks to the Members and Officers who contributed to the review
and hoped that the recommendations in the report would complement
the new Older People Strategy and help achieve the vision of a
‘fair and respectful’ and ‘healthy’
Borough.
The Assembly
therefore agreed the following recommendations,
including the amendment made to recommendation eight:
- That a detailed demographic and needs analysis for older people
be undertaken so that a single set of data is produced. This data
source should be freely available for use by any services and
agencies in the Borough involved in older people’s
provision.
-
That the maintenance priorities for sheltered and
extra care schemes are addressed, following a detailed stock
options appraisal of the portfolio.
-
That plans are drawn up (including
consultation, reports, Executive agreement) to deal with the
following six schemes as follows:
1)
Church Elm Lane (re-designation)
2)
Fews Lodge (re-development for extra care sheltered
housing)
3)
Limbourne
Avenue (re-designation)
4)
Lovelace Gardens
(re-designation)
5)
Maud Gardens
(re-designation)
6)
Rectory Road (re-designation)
Each
site would be subject to a detailed analysis outlining the
preferred re-development options in line with (predicted) future
need and demand requirements. Where
re-designation is not the best option the Committee recommends
disposal of that site. However, should
any site need to be disposed of, it is recommended that any
receipts generated are ring-fenced for the re-provision of
sheltered, extra-care and/or affordable housing.
The
remainder of the sheltered stock will then be subjected to a stock
options review in 2010 as part of the development of the Housing
Strategy for Older People. The review
will undertake a holistic assessment including the options for
significant modernisation and re-modelling into mixed use core and
cluster models against predicted future needs. The review will consider how LBBD can continue to
support the growing population of older people through new models
of supported housing (mixed core and cluster developments,
telecare, floating support
etc).
- That the Council completes the implementation of a choice-based
lettings system for sheltered accommodation applicants.
- That the future older people’s
accommodation is designed with the wider community in mind and
communal space is used creatively and, where appropriate, allocates
space for the Primary Care Trust and third sector.
- That extra care housing is subjected to a
stock options review in 2010 as part of the development of the
Housing Strategy for Older People. As
with sheltered housing, the review will undertake a holistic
assessment including the options for significant modernization and
re-modeling against predicted future needs.
- That the Council provides a specific
extra care dementia scheme. A
feasibility study should be undertaken in 2010 to establish
detailed options.
- That vulnerable people and those with
learning difficulties are placed in the most appropriate type of
accommodation. People with learning difficulties should be given
the chance to live independently with support in the home and
residential placements should only be considered as a last resort.
The Select Committee commends the work done so far to de-commission
residential placements for people with learning difficulties.
Gascoigne Road should come under review in order to see whether a
more personalized approach can be used to provide the same level of
support at this site.
- That Barking and Dagenham conducts a survey to assess the impact
of telecare both in terms of cost
savings and to the ability of service users to remain living
independently in their own home. The research should also aim
to find out the opinion users have of telecare and their satisfaction levels with the
service. It is hoped the results of this study will help to
build an evidence base to support the development of the service in
the future.