Agenda and minutes

Councillor Connolly declared a prejudicial interest in the respect of minute numbers CA.324 (Learning Disability Day Service Modernisation: Replacement of Wheatfields with Alternative bases) and CA.325 (Future Service Options for Social Care Provider Services) for the reason that his partner is employed by Adult Care Services. Councillor Connolly left the meeting room during the consideration of the two items of business.

A period of thirty minutes was allocated for members of the public present at the meeting to ask questions about the work or performance of the Council or Council services.         

Topic: Future Service Options for Social Care Provider Services

Question: Which services are closing down and why?

Response: There are no proposals to close any services at this point.

Topic: Future Service Options for Social Care Provider Services

Question: Bearing in mind that the deadline to introduce an Alternative Delivery Model is 1 April 2015, is there sufficient time to produce a business model from scratch that will meet the needs and expectations of service users and staff of this large service?

Response: The Council believes that a successful business model can be achieved in the time available. This is reinforced by Adult Care Services’ track record of rising to the challenge of continuous change since 2006. The service has capable staff in place who want this proposal to work and are ready for change to happen. 

Topic: Future Service Options for Social Care Provider Services

Question: Will stakeholders have involvement in the process to decide which version of Option 3 will be used as the Alternative Delivery Model.

Response: Yes there will be stakeholder involvement in the process. The Council will also call upon the experience of other local authorities that have taken this route. 

Topic: Learning Disability Day Service Modernisation: Replacement of Wheatfields with Alternative bases.

Question: Why has it taken ten years to move forward to this point regarding the development of Adult Care Services?

Response: Adult Care Services has never stopped moving forward due to the ongoing changes over the years and during this time the service has maintained an ethos of high quality provision. The responses from service users/ family have clearly shown that the Council provides the best level of service compared to other providers in the private sector. 

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2014.

Delegated decision:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2014 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

(Councillor Connolly left the meeting room at this point and Councillor Shori took the Chair.)

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member (Health and Wellbeing) submitted a report seeking approval to:

·         the holding of a consultation over the relocation of services from Wheatfields in 2015;

·         the required capital funding of the alternative facilities.

The proposal forms the final stage of the learning disability day service modernisation. This process has been ongoing for the last ten years and will see the replacement of all large day centres with fit for purpose community core bases and outreaches throughout the Borough.

Delegated decision:

1.   That approval be given to proceed to consult on the relocation of services from Wheatfields in 2015.

2.    That approval be given to capital funding for the provision of alternative facilities.

Reasons for the decision:

The Wheatfields building is no longer fit for purpose. Negotiations on identified sites can proceed and refurbishment work can commence. Customers and families can be consulted and matched to alternative venues. Plans can be made for the disposal of the Wheatfields site. The Wheatfields building can begin to be decommissioned as soon as appropriate to avoid further maintenance costs. Investment in the four alternative bases will generate a further estimated £340k surplus on the capital receipt.

Other option considered and rejected:

To reject the proposals.

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member (Health and Well Being) submitted a report setting out the findings from an options appraisal and stakeholder consultation in respect of a group of adult social care related services.

The options appraisal considered three options from a range of perspectives:

- Financial

- Political/organisational

- Procurement

- Workforce

- Customer

- Assets

The stakeholder engagement involved briefings and feedback from customers, families, staff and groups/individuals and trade unions with an interest in this area.

Delegated decision:

1.   That approval be given to the introduction of an Alternative Delivery Model (social enterprise or local authority traded company). This would involve services being developed into a new organisation separate to the Council. Customers and staff would transfer into this new organisation.

2.   That approval be given to proceed to the next phase of work to establish the business plan for the potential new organisation and the form to be taken to deliver this.

3.   That the engagement and involvement with all stakeholders in respect of development of the model continue.

4.   That officers continue to engage with the Cabinet Office Mutual Support Program in respect of support available to proceed with the introduction of an Alternative Delivery Model.

Reason for the decision:

The decision is based on the results of the options appraisal and stakeholder feedback.

Other option considered and rejected:

1.  Closure of some services

Customers would need to be found alternative provision if the service they use was chosen for closure. Staff would be at risk of redundancy.

2. Externalisation

The service including staff and customers would transfer to a different provider following a competitive tender exercise.

3.  Do nothing

Savings would not be achieved and would have to be met elsewhere within the Council.

               (Councillor Connolly returned to the meeting at this point and took the Chair.)

The Cabinet Member (Resource and Regulation) submitted a report regarding the suspension of the Examination of the Bury Core Strategy, an update on the position and the options available to the Council.

The Core Strategy sets out the framework for the future growth and development in the Borough up to 2029.

Following the submission of the Core Strategy in December 2013 an independent Inspector was appointed to undertake an Examination of the Strategy to determine whether the Strategy had been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Co-operate, legal and procedural requirements and whether it was sound.

Following the consideration of the Strategy, background evidence and verbal evidence and holding Hearing sessions the Inspector decided to suspend the Examination.

Delegated decision:

1.   That before reporting back to Cabinet to set out appropriate options for going forward, consideration be given to:

-      The implications of the Government’s updated household projections for the Core Strategy;

-      The outcomes of consultation on the methodology behind the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.

Reason for the decision:

To ensure that the Council is able to take account of the updated household projections from the Government’s Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) and to determine whether Bury’s housing needs could be accommodated by the submitted Core Strategy’s current approach. Consequently, the Council would be able to make a more informed decision on an appropriate way forward for the Core Strategy.

Other option considered and rejected:

To reject the recommendation.

To consider the minutes of meetings of the AGMA Executive Board and Greater Manchester Combined Authority held on 29 August 2014.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the AGMA Executive Board and Greater Manchester Combined Authority both held on 29 August 2014.

Decision:

That the minutes of the meetings of the AGMA Executive Board and Greater Manchester Combined Authority held on 29 August 2014 be noted.