PAPER D

NOTES OF AN INFORMAL MEETING OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES AND RESOURCES SELECT COMMITTEES HELD ON THURSDAY, 23 MAY 2002 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER COMMENCING AT 10.00 AM

Present :- Miss H Humby (Chairman), Mr A Bartlett, Mrs B Clough, Mr M Cunningham, Mrs D Gardiner, Mr C Hancock, Mr P Joyce, Mr G Kendall, Mrs M Lloyd, Mr V Morey, Mr A Mundy, Mrs E Oulton, Mr R Richards, Mr I Stephens, Mr A Tiltman, Mr D Williams, Mr D Yates

Executive Members :- Mr P Harris, Mr R Mazilliius

The Chairman welcomed everyone and it was explained that the meeting of Members of the Resources Select Committee and Social Services, Housing and Benefits Select Committee was to discuss the proposed terms of lease of Inver House, Bembrige to Islecare 97.

Members were advised that the meeting had been arranged on a informal basis and was not therefore open to the public and press. It was advised that an informal meeting had been called so to enable Members to talk openly about confidential matters contained in the proposed lease of Inver House Bembridge. After debate the majority of Members voted that the public and press should be excluded.

The member of the press thereon left the meeting room

Members were then invited to consider presentations from the Head of Property Services, the Strategic Director of Social Services and Housing and Mr Larpent - Chief Executive of Islecare ‘97 Ltd.

(a)       HEAD OF PROPERTY SERVICES

In addition to the background papers Members had received, the Head of Property Services circulated a further report that addressed questions which had been asked at the Social Services, Housing and Benefits Select Committee on 1 May 2002.

He explained the background to the proposal to grant a 125 year lease to Islecare 97 Ltd. Mr Flower outlined arrangements included in the lease, the calculations of the relevant values and the independent advice received from the Council’s Consultants.

(b)       STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

The Strategic Director advised Members that it was likely that demand for basic residential care would reduce gradually over the next five years as people wished to retain greater independence. In view of the changing market the Director believed it was sensible to include a sub letting clause within the lease which allowed the company to take into account the changing trend of care provision.

Members were reminded that in return for the125 year lease, Islecare was proposing to increase the size of the home to 40 beds and upgrade its facilities in order to comply with the new National Care Standards requirements. Currently the home failed to meet these requirements and would be forced to close. Members were informed that in the Director’s view the proposals were not contrary to the Councils’ Strategy for Residential Care of the Elderly.

The Director also referred to the possibility of the Council entering into block contracts for residential care home placements. The matter would be furthre investigated, with the Portfolio Holder.

(c)       ISLECARE ‘97 LTD

Members were reminded that Islecare ’97 Ltd were part of the Somerset Care Group and was not ‘for a profit’ organisation. The Company were offering a significant investment and commitment to Inver House by means of refurbishment and the extension of the existing building. Any profits made were reinvested in the business and the company worked in partnership with the Council.

Members were then given the opportunity to ask questions of the Officers and Mr Larpent.

A number of issues were clarified, particularly in relation to the conditions that were proposed with the lease arrangements. These would also have a revenue saving as Islecare ‘97 Ltd would take over responsibility for the maintenance of the building. It was noted that the Council did not have sufficient capital to undertake a new build.

A range of options had been considered for Inver House but officers had concluded that the lease of Inver House on the basis proposed would be the most beneficial to the Council. All relevant figures had been checked by the Council’s Independent Consultants.

A number of key issues still however required further examination :-

(i)        The length of the Lease being 125 years - could this be for a shorter term

(ii)       The six month break clause contained in the existing lease meant if Islecare ‘97 Ltd proved Inver House was not economically viable they could give six months notice and opt out of the lease.

(iii)       The feasibility of any ‘not for profit’ surplus will be reinvested not in the whole group but ring fenced on the Island.

(iv)      To examine how the block contract for residential accommodation can provide best value.