SUMMARY/PURPOSE
1.
The
Council is being offered new elderly persons care facilities at the Polars,
Staplers Road, Newport, a Council owned property. A model scheme for specialised residential accommodation and
community resources has been worked up by South Wight Housing Association and
Islecare 97 Limited. To progress the
proposal further both the Association and the care provider have asked for a
firm commitment from the Council. That
commitment is being recommended with delegations to Portfolio Holders and
subject to targets being attained the scheme shall proceed.
BACKGROUND
2.
Earlier,
the Executive authorised that officers enter into discussions with Islecare 97
Limited (part of the Somerset Care Group), South Wight Housing Association and
the Blind Society to progress a feasibility study for the redevelopment of
Polars and the land around the home for care and housing purposes. A summary of the feasibility model provided
by Ark Consultancy is set out below.
South Wight Housing Association and Somerset Care have been invited to
the meeting with their consultant.
FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
3.
Polars
is
a residential care home for elderly people, consisting of 37 single bedrooms
together with ancillary accommodation.
The home combines an original Edwardian house with a substantial
extension built in the early 1950s. The
older building lacks cohesion from a design point of view, being of low stature
and rather rambling, whilst the extension is utilitarian. The whole building became linked as a single
residential care home for elderly people under the ownership and operation of
the local authority and was then transferred to Islecare, along with most of
the Council’s other elderly persons homes.
4.
The lease to Islecare 97 Ltd is
for 30 years with the initial six years rent free. This was to allow for much needed catch-up repairs whilst
maintaining economic prices for residents’ accommodation and care. The building is now in good general repair
and is well decorated, it has not benefited from substantial
refurbishment. New minimum care
standards have been introduced by central government with effect from 1 April
2002. Whilst these are only a
statutory requirement for new homes, existing homes are encouraged to work
towards compliance with these standards.
5.
With a view to achieving a sustainable solution to residential care at
Polars, Somerset Care opened discussion with the Council. Somerset Care also invited South Wight
Housing Association to become involved because both organisations have an
established successful partnership with complementary strengths.
6.
Total redevelopment offers the best way forward with neighbouring users
at Polars joining such a solution. The
design proposal produced reflects model residential care schemes produced in
other parts of the country and aims to
integrate a number of elements of provision within the new scheme.
7.
The working group of representatives recognise that further refinement
of the design proposals will be needed and have now reached the point where
critical approvals and funding needs to be secured. The Council is now being asked to support the scheme by providing
the property on a discounted basis.
THE EXISTING USES
8.
The principal existing use on the site is the residential care
home. There is little scope for
specialism within the operation of this building. Islecare does allocate a small number of the bedrooms to older
people with mental health needs but essentially this is a general purpose care
home. The care home benefits from a
substantial area of garden and open grounds situated to the west of this
building. This area is bounded to the
site frontage by the main highway, Staplers Road, and there is a longer
boundary to a private drive which accesses the plant retail centre and a specialist
care facility for people with learning disabilities. This drive, which is generally in good condition, is owned by the
Health Trust.
9.
The plant retail centre is operated by OSEL, a charity, and this
benefits from a large gravelled car parking area. There is access from this car park to a further area of land
leased to OSEL but not used. This area
of land is directly connected to the grounds of the residential care home with
a fairly indeterminate boundary and offers definite development potential. It, together with the plant retail centre,
is owned by the Council.
10.
Isle of Wight Blind Society operates the bulk of its services from a
single storey building immediately to the East of the care home. Beyond this building is a series of elderly
persons bungalows known as Wallace Court.
The Society provides a range of
services including day care sessions, a shop selling special goods, a recording
studio, a tape library, the ‘talking books’ operation and office accommodation. It has been considering its options for
increasing floor space for some time including the possibility of adding a
further storey to its existing building.
This is an unsatisfactory option for two reasons; i) the building is situated in very close
proximity to the existing care home placing constraints on new construction,
and ii) car parking is very restricted.
11.
Car parking generally is a problem at Polars. Apart from the small number of spaces outside the Blind Society’s
building, the care home itself has only a small parking court at the site
frontage off Staplers Road. Access
from Staplers Road is poor and from a Highway perspective an improved and
rationalised access would be desirable.
THE DESIGN AND RE-DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT
12.
The working group engaged Sheppard and Hale Architects to provide
initial design ideas and guidance. In
arriving at a design brief for the scheme some members of the group, together
with the architect, visited a model ‘care village’ developed by The Joseph
Rowntree Foundation in York and used this as an exemplar for the mix of
facilities, accommodation and design treatment to be offered in the scheme.
13.
Following that visit, a brief was produced for the overall design
concept which included the following:
·
a new residential home for older people with 50 bedrooms with 35 beds
for general customers and 15 beds for people with dementia,
·
a ‘core’ building for care and ancillary services,
·
a new larger facility for the Isle of Wight Blind Society,
·
30+ flats for letting by the Housing Association at affordable
rents. These would be targeted to people
of retirement age and offer access to support services, care, meals and events
run or delivered from the core building.
This type of accommodation, with flexible support and care packages for
older people and situated near to a care establishment, is often described as
‘close care’ or ‘extra care’ housing.
14.
Redevelopment will be phased enabling services to existing residents to
be maintained and minimise disruption.
This also allows The Blind Society to continue operating in its current
premises until its new facilities are completed.
15.
The scheme proposes closure of the existing entrance by focusing all of
the traffic utilising the core building and the care home on the access road
shared with Wallace Court. The flats
and bungalows are shown as accessed from the private drive which is controlled
by the Health Trust. Whilst this is an
improvement overall for managing access to and egress from the site, there
remain some uncertain factors regarding design acceptability, legal rights and
maintenance contributions associated with the private drive. (See plan
appended.)
16.
The breakdown of the elements within the scheme is as follows:
(a) The Care Home Including The Core Building
·
The core building offers; Ground Floor – the entrance and reception
area, a waiting area, a pharmacy, a shop which can include general provisions
for purchase by visitors and residents and specialist goods from The Blind
Society, a coffee shop, a dining room, a lounge and the kitchen and ancillary
office. First Floor - two activity rooms, one with a wet area, a coffee shop
and lounge, a launderette, a training room and offices.
·
There is a link between the core building and the health centre, being
at ground floor level for the core building but at first floor level for the
health centre to take account of levels on the site.
·
The 50 bedded care accommodation
includes 15 beds to be a specialist dementia unit.
·
The care home will exceed the National Minimum Standards for care homes.
(b)
The Health Centre
·
This is located at the site frontage with some 20 car parking spaces.
·
The building is on 2 floors with the reception and surgeries planned on
the ground floor.
·
The Health Centre has a distinct frontage and entrance separate from
that of the core building. However,
both buildings are linked internally giving Health Centre users access to the
pharmacy, the coffee shop and the general shop.
·
The flexible rooms available within the core building can offer the GP
practice scope to run health promotion courses or group sessions in space
adjacent to their health centre.
(c)
The Blind Society Centre
·
The building is set apart from the core building and from other users on
the site, having an alternative frontage and the potential for allocated car
parking.
·
A covered walkway links the Blind Society Centre to the core
building. This is to facilitate safe
and sheltered access for Blind Society clients.
(d)
South Wight Housing Association Flats
·
32 flats in total are provided in 2 blocks, each of 2 storeys. 30 of the flats have one bedroom . The remaining 2 have two bedrooms . These flats are intended for elderly people
who require varying levels of support and care by the staff team based in the
care home.
FUNDING AND OWNERSHIP OPTIONS
17.
The Care Home
There are no obvious sources of capital grant to fund
the new care home nor the core building’s community facilities. It may be possible to secure some charitable
donations but the likelihood of securing sums of any significance is very slim. Consequently, the source of capital funding
for the care home will have to be private borrowing.
At present,
Islecare is about to commence paying rent for the existing building. The freehold of the site is owned by the
Council and the Council is also the key purchaser of residential care and will
no doubt continue to purchase a substantial proportion of the beds within the
new home. The value of the site is
potentially a major additional capital cost for the new care home which would
also have to be funded by borrowing.
This would translate into a debt charge and the charges to residents.
Therefore if the Council were to discount the disposal of the site for the
purpose of developing the new home, the Council will be a beneficiary in the
form of reduced bed charges.
Islecare’s existing lease has 24 years unexpired. Islecare is offering
to surrender this lease to the Council to permit a new disposal to take
place. Even though the Council will be
offering an initial subsidy if it then creates a new lease to enable the scheme
to take place, and that lease is for say 60 years, there will be a value to the
Council in the freehold reversion of the improved asset.
The cost of
building and operating the core building will be high and mean that,
intrinsically, the new care home will be more expensive than a typical
home. However, the core building
creates the possibility of generating additional revenue in the following ways:
an increased range and number of day care sessions; meals to non-residents;
rental income from shop operator; rental income from the pharmacy; hire charges
for rooms used by community groups; income from services charged to
non-residents.
The care home
can also generate additional revenue by offering support and sometimes care on
an outreach basis to the residents of the flats. Although this additional revenue will be an important
contribution to the overall viability of the care home it will give rise to
some additional staff costs as it will have to be demonstrable to the Care
Standards Commission that the commitments to staffing input on the flats will
not damage the quality of care on offer to care home residents.
The preferred
model for structuring the funding and ownership of this element of the new
scheme will be:
·
Council leases lands say 40 years to Housing Association;
·
Association raises capital, constructs new building;
·
Association leases new building to Islecare;
·
Council has service agreement with Islecare.
18.
The Health Centre
As with the care home, there are no obvious sources of
capital grant available to subsidise the provision of this facility. It is often the case that GP practices
themselves will be in a position to invest their own capital in the premises
they occupy. However, in the case of
the practice identified as interested in re-locating to Polars, its
circumstances will not permit a capital investment to be made. The Primary Care Trust itself could be asked
to make some capital investment to improve the feasibility of the project but
this would be unusual and the PCT does not have a specific capital budget for
such an investment.
The typical funding solution for new GP surgeries is for a private
investor to finance the capital work and for the completed building to then be
leased to the GP practice. The PCT will
provide a revenue stream to the GP practice sufficient for it to meet the
commercial rent of its premises based on a rental yield calculated by the
District Valuer (DV). The DV will check
that the building meets the guidance produced by NHS Estates and will calculate
a notional capital cost based on cost limits set by the NHS. This notional capital cost is used to
establish an appropriate rent using a standard formula for calculating the
yield. Based on this approach, provided
the new health centre at Polars costs no more than the NHS limits, it should be
feasible to finance the project on a commercial basis.
One element of
capital cost is the value of the land upon which the health centre is to be
constructed. Clearly the Council could
decide to require this value at the outset.
Alternatively the Council could decide to discount this value. If this approach were adopted at Polars then
this should enable the rent payments agreed with the DV to generate a revenue
surplus which can be used to support the viability of the new care home.
The DV is guided
to limit the period of a lease to a maximum of 15 years, except in exceptional
circumstances. The need to repay
capital borrowed for within this 15 year period, will mean loan charges are
relatively high.
Because the GP
practice interested in relocating to Polars is going through a period of
change, including the loss of a number of partners, it does present a higher
than average risk as a lessee of this sort.
The PCT has indicated that it may be willing directly to underwrite the
lease for the new health centre at Polars.
For the additional security it offers this is an option well worth
pursuing.
The preferred
model for structuring the funding and ownership of this element of the scheme
is:
·
Council grants 15 year lease to Housing Association;
·
Association funds and builds;
·
Association leases to GP’s;
·
GP’s have delivery contract with PCT.
19.
The Blind Society Centre
Because The Blind Society already owns and occupies a
building on the site then it has a capital asset which it can contribute to its
replacement building. The site of the
new Blind Society centre and car parking occupies an area greater than the
existing one. Therefore it could be
argued that there is a net contribution required by the Blind Society for the
acquisition of its new site.
Nonetheless, incorporating The Blind Society’s existing site within the
re-development scheme does enhance the overall design solution even though its
non-inclusion is not a fundamental constraint.
The Blind
Society is understood to have accrued a capital fund to assist with its
re-provision needs. This is only
sufficient to part fund a replacement building. This charitable funding would go further if the value of The
Blind Society’s existing site could be contributed to the new building. In order to effect this, other elements of
the new scheme would pick up appropriate proportions of the value of The Blind
Society’s site as land acquisition costs and the Council would have to
agree to dispose of the new site for The Blind Society at nil value.
Even allowing
for the contribution of charitable funds by The Blind Society and the value of
its existing site, the new building will have a residual financing requirement
which will have to be met by borrowing.
. This will require SWHA to
lease the building to The Blind Society for a rental payment.
The preferred model for
structuring the funding and ownership of this element of the scheme is:
·
Council leases site to Housing Association, 125 years;
·
Association funds and builds;
·
Association leases to Blind Society.
20.
The Elderly Persons Flats
The Council has
previously promoted social housing on its land through disposals of the land at
nil value. This subsidy becomes part of
the overall calculation of SHG and reduces the grant proportionately. It is possible for the Council to charge
full value for its land and to give the subsidy in the form of a cash grant
instead. This is still in the form of
SHG but it counts against the Council’s total agreed capital programme whereas
free land disposals do not count. However, if the Council gives SHG, it will
receive a pound for pound credit from The Housing Corporation which it can use
for debt redemption. Therefore, the
Council should consider carefully its options for helping to subsidise the
elderly persons flats.
The support
services, and occasionally personal care, will be offered to the tenants of the
elderly persons flats by Islecare.
Islecare will enter into an agreement with South Wight HA to cover the
nature and levels of support to be offered.
However, potentially, the more important legal mechanism to underpin the
support service will be a Support Agreement between Islecare and the Council’s
Supporting People team. Supporting
People is a new revenue funding system for support services scheduled to go
live in April 2003. It will transfer
revenue funding from housing benefit and from The Housing Corporation to the
Council and support providers will be directly commissioned by the Council.
The Supporting People ‘pot’ will be cash limited for the time being to
those projects that are in existence at April 2003 or are agreed ‘pipeline’
schemes. A bid has been submitted to
the Supporting People team to identify the support services attaching to the
elderly persons flats as a “pipeline”
scheme. The scheme must be let by
April 2005 to qualify for pipeline
status.
The preferred model for
structuring the funding and ownership of this element of the scheme is:
·
Council disposes of freehold at nil consideration;
·
Association funds and builds new flats;
·
Islecare supporting people contract for assessment and services.
Financial Appraisal of Preferred Scheme Model
21.
The Care Home
The costs shown
above are sourced mainly from a recently produced report entitled ‘Calculating
a Fair Price for Care’ by Laing and Buisson for The Joseph Rowntree
Foundation. The indicative bed price
excludes the extra-over staff costs associated with operating the full range of
facilities in the core building.
The average
charge secured by Islecare for the current Polars scheme is £275 per week and
rates for the Isle of Wight generally are in three bands, being: Band 1 -
£248.64pw; Band 2 - £308.00pw; Band 3 - £373.73pw.
A quality
premium of £8.05 per week can be added for schemes of very high standard and
this would undoubtedly be applicable to the proposed new scheme. Although the indicative bed prices look
competitive for the quality on offer, the price is wholly dependent on
keeping the level of capital debt charges down to £60 per week by securing
additional net revenue from other operations within the core building. If full debt charges were secured from
residents, weekly charges would have to rise to £347. The re-design prior to applying for planning consent will
consider whether some of the core building space would be better and more
economically utilized for further care accommodation.
22.
The Health Centre
New guidance from NHS Estates on target space standards for GP
surgeries, the building should be increased in size to 618m². If this can be achieved within the budget
costing then the price will equate to £980 per m², which looks reasonable.
Based on the NHS
guidance, the maximum build price allowable for rent calculation purposes for
the number of GPs envisaged (on the Isle of Wight) is £647,430 including
on-costs. The proposed scheme will
exceed this but only by about 6%.
Scheme Capital Costs
|
Acquisition (assumes proportion of Blind Society site only but may
need to include the market value) |
£20,000 |
|
Works |
£605,700 |
|
On Costs @ 13% |
£81,340 |
|
Total Scheme Cost |
£707,041 |
Annual Revenue
Costs
|
Loan Charge (repayment within 15 years) |
£71,620 |
|
External Maintenance |
£2,500 |
|
Sinking Fund for cyclical and major works |
£4,000 |
|
Buildings Insurance |
£1,500 |
|
Management of the Lease |
£1,000 |
|
|
£80,620 |
23.
The Blind Society Centre
Consultants
suggest a target costing for this building is £418,000.
Scheme Capital Budget
|
Acquisition |
Nil |
|
Works |
£418,000 |
|
On costs @ 11% (lower interest costs) |
£45,980 |
|
Total Scheme Cost |
£463,980 |
|
Contribution of site
value for existing building |
-£80,000 |
|
Contribution of
charitable capital by Blind Society |
-£200,000 |
|
Residual borrowing
requirement |
£183,980 |
Rental
Costs to Blind Society
|
Loan charge (repayment
over 30 years) |
£13,010 |
|
Routine Maintenance |
£1,500 |
|
Cyclical Maintenance |
£1,000 |
|
Sinking Fund for Major
Repairs |
£3,500 |
|
Building Insurance |
£1,000 |
|
Management |
£800 |
|
Annual rent chargeable to
Blind Society |
£20,810 |
24.
Elderly Persons Flats
A budget costing
for the flatted development was provided by South Wight Housing Association
based on costs incurred by the association on another similar development
adjusted for build cost inflation and for the particular specification of the
scheme in question. The suggested
design and build cost allowing for all external works and contract
preliminaries is £1,811,642, which equates to £895 per m², or an average of
£56,614 per unit.
25.
Scheme Capital Costs
|
Residue of Blind Society
site |
£20,000 |
|
Land value for flats |
£110,813 |
|
Works |
£1,811,642 |
|
On Costs @ 15% |
£291,368 |
|
Total Scheme Cost |
£2,233,823 |
|
Housing Corporation cost
limit for scheme |
£2,203,170 |
At 110% of the
Housing Corporation’s cost limit, this scheme is within the acceptable
tolerance levels for securing grant funding.
However, this depresses the land value to an unrealistically low level
which could only be endorsed if its disposal was conditioned in some way by the
Council, either through the transfer or via a planning agreement.
If the option of
classing this scheme as a conventional mixed funding project is pursued then
the grant entitlement will be around 52% overall, leaving a residual borrowing
requirement of £1,072,235.
Revenue Budget
Excluding Support Costs
|
Rents based on estimated
Housing Corporation target rents: 30 X 1 beds @ £45 pw and
2 x 2 beds @ £52 pw |
£75,608 pa |
|
Revenue costs - Loan Charge |
£75,830 |
|
Management inc. Insurance @ £180 per unit |
£5,760 |
|
Responsive repairs @ £220 per unit |
£7,040 |
|
Cyclical maintenance |
£3,800 |
|
Major repairs provision |
£15,000 |
|
Voids @ 2% |
£1,510 |
|
Total annual review cost |
£108,940 |
|
Year 1 revenue shortfall |
£33,332 |
|
Per unit |
£1,041.62 |
Although the housing scheme incurs a Year 1 revenue deficit, this is
within normal scheme viability parameters for a housing association project of
this type. The costs inflate at less than the income because the Housing
Corporation system predicts rents to rise at RPI + ½% whereas the largest
element of costs is loan repayment and this remains fairly constant. Moreover, the association is unlikely to
start making major repairs provisions at the outset of the scheme but is likely
to ‘step’ the provision to help with cash flow.
A clear
definition of typical resident frailty and support needs will be required in
order to determine the appropriate average level of support to be provided per
resident per week. For this type of
scheme about £70 per week per resident of support costs would be typical and
this equates to an average of 5 hours per week at a unit cost of £14 per hour.
THREE COUNCIL OPTIONS
26.
The Council can authorise its support for the two major partner organisations, to
progress the proposals and themes set out in the feasibility study. To do this both organisations will need to
commit significant resources (£50,000 plus) in developing the details already
outline still further, and will only be prepared to do that with the Council’s
full backing. There are real potential
benefits to the Council that have yet to be quantified, not least the reduced
bed charges described. Additionally,
the allocation of the residential area currently used as nurseries is an
outstanding question.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
·
50
new care beds, an increase of 13 beds.
·
New
community facilities care building.
·
New
health centre.
·
New
facilities for persons with visual disabilities.
·
Nomination
rights to sheltered and affordable housing.
·
Discounting
asset value.
·
Rating of
success – Fair/Good
EVALUATION
Capital Value estimated at £838,000.
27.
The
Council could investigate the idea of selling the entire site (1.29 hectares)
say for residential development subject to planning and use all or part of the
capital receipt to build a new home elsewhere.
Under such a replacement scheme the cost of new build (excluding land)
is estimated at £3m to £3.5m and given a density of some 64 houses the existing
site would have a value in the order of £1.56m.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
·
Simple
project, relatively easy to implement
·
Helps
meet housing targets.
·
Provides
new home for caring and letting.
·
Capital
allocation and initial funding gap.
·
Difference
between loan charges and typical capital servicing cost per bed.
·
Being
able to find a suitable site could cause delay.
·
Interim
care standards strategy/cost.
·
Rating
of success – Fair/Poor
EVALUATION
Potential financial shortfall of £2,000,000.
28.
Another
alternative would be to modernise Polars using the existing structure and
funding by selling off the remainder of the site. Modernising the current facility would reduce the number of bed
spaces by 6/7. A cost for such an exercise
is estimated at £1.1m for alterations, contingencies and fees. Given the retained home would take up 0.5
hectares that would leave 0.79 hectares, say 39 dwelling units (subject to
planning etc) with a site value in the order of £900,000.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
·
Potential
self-funding with a possible surplus.
·
Helps
meet housing targets.
·
Loss
of bed space.
·
No
additional beds for special unit.
·
Disruption
to occupants and staff.
·
Lack
of community facilities.
·
Limited
life expectancy of home.
·
Rating
of success – Poor/Fair
EVALUATION
The sums described are for
guidance and have not been worked up as a feasibility but appear to be
achievable.
29.
Critical Success Factors
|
CSF |
Key Risks |
Impact |
Probability |
Risk Management Strategy |
|
Capital Funding |
Lender is concerned about ratio between
scheme value and level of borrowing. |
High |
High |
·
Link borrowing on care home and health
centre to the borrowing for the flats and the Blind Society Centre. |
|
|
Council insists on receiving full value
for land. |
High |
Low |
·
Check Council’s powers to discount land
for Health Centre and Blind Society Centre. ·
Council gains significant savings on care
costs and improvements in quality and facilities. ·
Wider community benefits are accrued. ·
There is value in the reversion to parts
of the scheme. |
|
|
Social Housing Grant is not secured for
the flats. |
High |
Medium |
·
Obtain support from the Council ·
Scheme meets government policy priorities. ·
Revert to leasehold sales if SHG is not
secured. |
|
Revenue Funding |
Activity levels/usage of core building
does not generate additional revenue. |
High |
Medium |
·
Establish a strong market profile for the
scheme. ·
Agree day-care usage and some other rental
deals in advance of commissioning the building. ·
Develop a clear Business Plan for the core
building. |
|
|
Bed charges/fees are insufficient to meet
the running costs of the care home including capital charges. |
High |
Medium |
·
Offset capital charges by net revenues
from the core building. ·
Agree a block contract with Social
Services. ·
Carry out a detailed comparative analysis
with other care homes available and planned for the area. |
|
|
Support costs for tenants in elderly
persons flats are not fully funded from a Supporting People Grant. |
High |
Low |
·
Ensure that concept is approved by October
and that scheme can become a ‘pipeline’ project. ·
Avoid support being classed as ‘floating
support’ and only entitled to a 50% grant. |
|
Timing |
Elderly persons flats do not become
subject to a bid for Social Housing Grant by October this year, delaying the
whole scheme. |
High |
Low |
·
Finalise the design solution and the
financial feasibility for the flats scheme by September. ·
Resolve the bid strategy by obtaining
detailed guidance from The Housing Corporation on the most suitable scheme
category for this project. ·
Obtain a key approval in support of the
scheme from the Council in September. |
|
|
Elderly persons flats do not secure
‘pipeline’ status for its need for a Supporting People Grant. |
High |
Medium |
·
Obtain a key approval from the Council in
September. ·
Ensure scheme can be completed by March
2005. ·
Resolve the support model for the scheme
ensuring it is not ‘floating support’. |
|
|
The Blind Society identifies suitable
alternative premises elsewhere. |
Medium |
Medium |
·
Ensure that design of new centre within
scheme meets The Blind Society’s reasonable aspirations. ·
Optimise the funding solution, utilising
the value of The Blind Society’s existing site. |
|
|
The GP Practice identifies suitable
alternative premises elsewhere. |
Medium |
Medium |
·
Press for decision ‘in principle’ from the
practice and the PCT. ·
Ensure that the centre is within Phase 1
of new scheme. |
|
|
The Care Standards Commission question
whether Polars can be sustained and meet new standards. |
High |
Low |
·
Obtain key approvals to demonstrate a
clear strategy for re-provision. |
|
Development Constraints |
Planners will not support the proposed
scheme. |
High |
Low |
·
Edwardian building is not listed and not
of high architectural value. ·
Proposed development improves access and
parking and is not over dense development. |
|
|
Access over the private drive proves
problematic. |
High |
Medium |
·
Initial support from Health has been
indicated. ·
Need to obtain feedback from Highways on
use of drive to service new flats. ·
The benefits of new scheme to Health
should influence its views. |
|
|
OSEL will not permit sharing of its car
park. |
High |
Low |
·
Car park is under utilised and would
benefit from an upgraded surface. ·
OSEL will be offered compensating
improvements to access, signage and site frontage. |
|
|
Phasing of re-development cannot be
achieved as proposed. |
High |
Low |
·
More detailed checks on levels and
services are required but site has already been surveyed. ·
Some decanting of residents off site is
possible but only as a last resort. |
STRATEGIC CONTEXT
30.
The
first objective
in the Council’s Corporate Plan is improving health, housing and the quality of
life for all. A principal understanding
within this objective is to “protect and provide for the needs and
interests of vulnerable adults as well as promoting healthy living and improve
the availability of affordable housing”.
These principles tie into the Island Plan for Health and Well-being and
the Social Inclusion Strategy. Flowing
from these strategies are the following action points that clearly link to this
proposal :
·
Provide
targeted and effective care and support services for the most vulnerable and
excluded groups of all ages in our community.
·
Provide
care services that promote good health and help prevent illness and disability.
·
Reduce
levels of homelessness and increase the provision of affordable housing,
particularly through use of the Council’s own land bank and our planning and
housing policies.
·
Create
stronger communities by continuing to develop inclusive neighbourhood networks.
CONSULTATION
31.
Council
Members of both the
Social Services and Resources Select Committees have been consulted widely as have
the Health Trust and the Primary Care Trust.
Broadly there is support to take this proposal forward.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
32.
Establishing
contractual arrangements for this scheme will be complex, the key drivers will
be the financial requirements underpinning funding and minimising risk to the
Council. These issues will lead to
numerous primary and secondary documents defining transfer, service provision
and guarantees. This will also mean the
break up of the existing controlling lease to Islecare.
The Council needs to ensure
‘best consideration’ and fairness in the market as such the ‘Special purchaser’
rules will apply. Equally the rights of
the existing Client group and staff call for protection through discussions and
wide consultation. Timing, both as to
commencement and length of development programme will also need particular
consideration.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
33.
Up
until now the Council has invested Officer time into this emerging proposal,
and is being asked to potentially forgo a future income and redeploy a capital
asset into service improvement. Clearly
this service provision faces the need for a major change or replacement, and
the Council is faced with balancing its enabling role with value for money. A detailed balance sheet is essential to
justify this redeployment of resources and can best be achieved through
independent advice.
NEXT STEPS
34.
The
group of partners investigating the future for Polars have put forward a
serious proposal to the Council seeking Authority-wide support for a complex
scheme. Given Members are willing to
give the clear support requested to achieve the wide-ranging improved elderly
care facilities envisaged, then a contractual undertaking will be appropriate.
Such an undertaking would allow
time for details to be worked up, much as with an option. The exercise of this option could be the
subject of a number of tests/targets being satisfied to the Council by the
developing partners. These targets
proposed include :
|
Resources |
That Council resources are
pegged at Officer time, professional fees and assets. |
|
Funding |
For all funding sources to be
in place that meet an agreed business case. |
|
Planning |
For planning permission and
all necessary statutory consent and legal consents to be obtained. |
|
Housing |
For a nomination agreement to
be in place between the Council as Housing Authority and the Association. |
|
Home |
For a draft agreement to be
in place with the Council for a block bed booking agreement and discount. |
|
Advice |
That the Council has obtained
professional independent advice in terms of both service improvement and best
consideration approving the scheme, this advice is estimated to cost £15,000. |
|
Pipeline/Grants |
The Council is satisfied all
grant sources have been sourced and any conditions can be met. |
|
Housing Corp |
Corporate approval is agreed
with maximum allocation and conditions can be implemented. |
|
Risk |
For the Council’s risk to be
minimal. |
ANALYSIS
35.
From
Government reports new standards and local knowledge, there is a need for
change and new increased Elderly Care provision, but there is little evidence
of investment to meet this need.
Because of this increasing need, rising costs and penalties associated
with ‘bed blocking’, the Council is best considering its enabling role. That role is to recycle resources
fairly. The fact that this project only
aims to raise care provision from 37 beds to 50 beds is unlikely to impact on
the scale of care provision from the Council’s own homes or indeed other home
care provision on the Island.
The best option is the scheme being proposed because
it has potentially the highest level of outputs. This leaves two fall back positions. Partners to the scheme are enthusiastic, having already invested
both financially and through consultation.
They are ready to invest further.
By encouraging and setting targets, the Council is well placed to ensure
value for money and service improvements in a positive way.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS 36.
The scheme as set out in the report be approved and the Portfolio
holders and the relevant officers be authorised to:- (a) negotiate
and agree an option in terms approved by the Chief Finance Officer and the
Portfolio Holder for Resources for the partners to purchase the Polars site
in order to proceed with the Scheme (b) incur expenditure of up to £15,000 on
external specialist professional advice, and (c)
enter into any contractual agreements required to give effect to the
surrender and renewal of leases and disposal of the freehold of part of the
Polars site and the supply of services to the Council by the partners. (d)
Take such further actions as are required, short of committing capital
funds or revenue spending outside of existing budgets to ensure the development of the scheme |
BACKGROUND PAPERS
37.
Executive
31 October 2001.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
38.
A
full copy of the feasibility study is available upon request.
Contact Point : Tony Flower, Head of Property Services, ( 823263,
e-mail: tony.flower@iow.gov.uk and James Lowe,
Acting Head of Adult Services ( 822480, e-mail:[email protected]
|
M J A FISHER Head of Paid Service and Strategic Director of Corporate and Environment Services |
R R BARRY Portfolio Holder for
Resources |
|
|
|
|
GLEN GARROD Strategic Director of Social Services and
Housing |
R MAZILLIUS Portfolio Holder for Social
Services and Housing |
