Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interests made by Members.

We welcomed contributions from members of the public, during which time the following issues were raised:

Jenny Barnes, Secretary of CARE, addressed the Committee in order to raise concerns regarding the report on Mardy Park Resource Centre that had been issued to the Area Committee.  The report was considered difficult to read and of little content.  The main concerns highlighted were:

·         Access to and around the building – it was felt that there should be a review of access, to be integrated with developments at Mardy Park.

·         The criteria for admittance to the services provided at Mardy Park – there was confusion surrounding the admittance of people with or without Alzheimers, what would happen if the facility was at full capacity and if what people wanted was taken into consideration.

·         A clash of social services and health within Mardy Park – areas of concern related to the care of patients including lifting, catheters, turning, GP cover at Mardy Park, and health and social care in general.

Mr. Alan Jones submitted papers to the Chairman and requested that the issues raised were taken into consideration.  One significant area of concern related to bed spaces being converted into office areas within Mardy Park.

•           Special Meeting of Adults Select Committee held on 16th June 2015.

•           Adults Select Committee held on 30th June 2015

•           Joint Meeting of Adults Select Committee and Strong Communities Select Committee held on 8th July 2015.

•           Special Meeting of Adults Select Committee held on 20th July 2015.

•           Special Meeting of Adults Select Committee held on 31st July 2015.

The Committee resolved to confirm and sign the minutes of the following meetings of Adults Select committee:

• 16^th June 2015
• 30^th June 2015
• 8^th July 2015
• 20^th July 2015
• 31^st July 2015

Context:

Members received a report in order to seek approval for the strategic direction and re-modelling of site and services at Mardy Park Resource Centre (MPRC).

Members were advised that an addendum had been issued following officers’ further consideration of the report.

Key Issues:

The key issues were outlined as:

• All services at MPRC should have proportionate resources in relation to services and outcomes.  The current budget was disproportionate to the services provided at the centre.

• The management levels at MPRC were disproportionate to the services and did not support an approach based on integration.

• The wider community were not sufficiently clear on the role and purpose of the centre.

• Limited accommodation had an impact on the well-being of staff and their ability to undertake all necessary duties.

• Too much emphasis surrounded centre based services and opportunities to engage with the local community were not able to be taken.

• A need for additional car parking to be added to the Cabinet report.

Member scrutiny:

Following the presentation of the report Members were invited to comment, during which time the following points were noted:

A Member raised concerns surrounding £171,000 capital expenditure allocated for the car park development, and the fact that the figure had increased, but the car park seemed smaller.  It was questioned if the work had gone out to tender or had been an internal contract.  In response we heard that the work had gone out to tender following a feasibility study, the car park now being supplied was a result of the feasibility study.  There were concerns regarding the high figure but the Committee were reassured that Property Services had gone through the correct tender processes.

It was confirmed that planning had been approved.

It was confirmed that the Intermediate Care Fund from Welsh Government had been drawn down, £146,000 of which would fund the additional car parking.  The remaining £25,000 would be a contribution from 2015/16 Social Care and Health Revenue Budget.

A Member referred to the comments made during the Public Open Forum regarding access to MPRC and questioned if the issues would be addressed by the new car park.  The Finance Manager advised the Committee that further information would be provided at a later date. (ACTION – TS)

The Cabinet Member expressed, that in accordance with the progress at Mardy Park, the issues surrounding the car park should be addressed to accommodate the greater flow in and out of the building, and would ensure discussions took place with the Team Manager to ensure development of the car park reflected this.

The Chairman confirmed that the Committee would welcome an update regarding the issues surrounding access at Mardy Park.

Following a presentation of the report detailing the re-modelling of the site Members raised the following points:

A Member questioned the strategic direction of Monmouthshire County Council and the over-arching purpose of  Adults Services in helping people live their own lives, and if the public had full understanding the objectives and outcomes.  In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Context:

Members received a report introduced by the Housing and Regeneration Manager and were asked to consider the capital budget provided to support Disabled Facilities grants (DFGs) and Safety at Home grants (SAHs) and the impact in relation to service performance  and on Social Care and Health Services.

Key Issues:

Under the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002, the Council had a statutory duty to provide DFGs within six months of receiving a valid application.  Failure to do so would create the risk of legal challenge.  It also had discretion to provide SAHs.  Since 2006 a capital budget of £600,000 had been provided annually to fund grants. Broadly, the budget was split into £500,000 to support DFGs and £100,000 to support SAHs.  The budget had been affected by the ongoing rate of inflation.

DFGs were available to residents whose need for home adaptations had been assessed by the Council’s Occupational Therapy Service.  Some DFGs were means tested and all were capped at £36,000. The Council had an option, which it had exercised, to offer fast track DFGs where the applicant was on a statutory benefit and the cost of works was below £5,000. This had been beneficial to clients to help reduce DFG turnaround, thereby, positively, impacting upon the statutory PI. 

Extremely positive feedback had been received about adaptations financed by DFG’s with high customer satisfaction scores of 95% regularly being achieved.

SAHs were intended for smaller works such as handrails, half steps and minor alterations often costing less than £500, but would make a dwelling much safer for disabled residents. 

            Both DFGs and SAHs played a key role in facilitating hospital discharge and in preventing the need for admission as homes would be safer.

            In 2014/15 the DFG budget was supplemented by one off additional funding of £100,000 from the Welsh Government’s Intermediate Care Fund but that has not been repeated in the current financial year.

            Member Scrutiny:

We were advised that the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Environment, Public Services and Housing had expressed apologies for absence.

Members noted that the lack of funding was an issue and suggested arranging a cost benefit analysis as a matter of urgency.

A Member suggested that with planning in mind, houses should be developed to accommodate the needs of people, such as downstairs shower rooms.  The Chairman suggested discussions between Planning and Social Care and Health should take place.

A Member suggested that the Authority was failing in its statutory responsibility to provide DFGs.  It was questioned if there was a charge back system against the properties benefitting from DFGs.  A suggestion was made that the Authority looked at prudential borrowing and allocated those funds to DFGs with the hope of recovering in the future when the person moves on.

We were informed that statutory rules stated that there was no claw-back system for grants for children.  With adults, under £5,000 there was no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Context:

We received a report to provide Members with information on the forecast revenue outturn position of the Authority at the end of period 1 which represents month 2 financial information for the 2015/16 financial year. 

Members Scrutiny:

Members noted that the Committee had not received an update for the end of year position.  The Finance Manager would look to reschedule for the next meeting (ACTION – TS).

A request was made to receive a simple update to demonstrate the differences between the current report and the previous year, highlighting any areas of concern.

We were informed that Adult Services showed an underspend of £97,076 after allocating £60,000 to Children’s Services.

We noted an underspend in GWICES of £9,000 following a re-negotiation in how the budget was financed, which would come into effect 2016/17.  However, we had benefitted from advanced stock purchases in 2014/15 by the Intermediate Care Fund.

Concerns were raised regarding the over and underspends, and where there were underspends were the budgets set too high.  The Finance Manager explained that where this was the case, long term reasons would be identified and addressed.

Concerns were raised that three ‘red’ areas for Adult Services were Mardy Park, Severn View and Monnow Vale, with an explanation of the adverse figure for Monnow Vale being due to the PFI and contribution charges being more than budget.  We heard that the impact of PFI in the budget related back to 2005 when Monnow Vale was set up and the budget was not adequately set up to cover the PFI and cash contribution into the running of Monnow Vale.  The Finance Manager reassured Members that as a member of the board all efforts were made to ensure value for money.

Recommendations:

Members were recommended to:

•       Assess whether effective budget monitoring is taking place,

•       Monitor the extent to which budgets are spent in accordance with agreed budget and policy framework,

•       Challenge the reasonableness of projected over or underspends, and

•       Monitor the achievement of predicted efficiency gains or progress in relation to savings proposals.

We noted the Adults Select Committee Work Programme.