Councillor Tamoor Tariq, Cabinet Member for Adult Health, Health and Wellbeing, presented the report which proposed an innovative support service, providing a transitional home for seven young Bury adults with Learning Disabilities and/or autism, aged 18-25 years. Members voiced their cross-party support for this scheme, and noted that this could be a catalyst for further similar schemes.
Cabinet confirmed commissioning intentions to Merston and Inclusion to proceed with the Crompton Street project, therefore confirming the building can be secured for Bury clients.
Reasons for the decision:
This innovative support scheme offers a transitional living service for young adults with Learning Disability aged 18-25 years. The potential for cost savings/cost avoidance has been demonstrated. The scheme offers seven units towards our corporate and Adult Social Care housing commitments and supports our ‘Let’s Do It’ strategy in offering an opportunity for people to live locally, independently, and with choice.
Alternative options considered and rejected:
Option 1: Not to proceed with the scheme.
The impact of this will mean young adults continue to be placed in more expensive placements. This accommodation and model of care (including follow-up support to prevent escalation of crisis/ challenging behaviour), follows best practice. Not to proceed with the scheme would be a missed opportunity to:
i) pilot a new transitional offer for young adults;
ii) contribute towards our Adult Social Care housing targets, which provide people with learning disabilities the chance to live locally, independently, with choice;
iii) save and prevent costs compared to people living independently/placing young people in more expensive placements.
Option 1 was therefore rejected.
Option 2: To proceed with the scheme using an alternative property/landlord.
This scheme was brought to our attention by the property developer Merston. Adult Social Care operational social work lead and commissioning staff viewed the property for suitability along with providers. All agreed the property as suitable for this type of service. The property developer and vendor have been very supportive in the current fast-paced housing market. Whilst we could pursue the scheme with another property and landlord, time would be lost and the objectives of the scheme (outlined above) not achieved for another 6 months. Option 2 was therefore rejected.