Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Dr William Campbell-Taylor, Deputy Stephen Haines, Alderman Paul Judge, Deputy Joyce Nash, Emma Price, Chris Punter, James de Sausmarez, Philip Woodhouse and Laura Jorgensen.

Mr Gareth Moore declared an interest in all housing matters as he was a tenant on the Golden Lane Estate.

To agree the minutes of the previous Committee meeting.

Resolved – that the minutes were agreed as an accurate record.

Matters Arising

London Small Business Centre Approval.

The Assistant Director informed Members that the London Small Business Centre had been asked to consider whether they would be prepared to increase their rental offer from £23,750 (50% subsidy) to £33,250 (30% subsidy) and reminded them that the rent free period in the lease should also be of assistance to them. This was agreed to and the cost of subsidising the rent had been reduced to the following levels:-

Period          Commercial valuation      LSBC 30% proposal         Subsidy

Year 1                    £ 23,750                           £16,625                  £7,125

Year 2                    £ 47,500                           £33,250                  £14,250

Year 3                    £ 47,500                           £33,250                  £14,250

Total            £118,750                          £83,125                  £35,625

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk notifying Members of two changes to the Committee’s terms of reference. The Committee agreed to take responsibility for allocating grants from the Combined Relief of Policy Charity. The Committee also agreed to review with the Education Board the most appropriate governance arrangements for the Combined Education Charity and City Educational Trust.  It was recommended that the Committees take joint responsibility for allocating grants from these funds. A similar addition will be considered by the Education Board when that Board reviews its Terms of Reference on 14 January 2016.

A query was raised regarding the list of Committee Members included in the Terms of Reference. The Town Clerk was requested to ensure that the current list accurately reflected the membership of the Community and Children’s Services Committee.

Resolved – that the additional terms be agreed with the deletion of reference to priorities being agreed by Resources Allocation Sub Committee at item F in the terms of reference.

Director of Community and Children’s Services.

The annual report has been sent to Members via e-mail and hard copies are available upon request.

The Committee welcomed Dr Adi Cooper, Independent Chair of the City and Hackney Safeguarding Adults Board, who presented the Board’s annual report for 2014/15.

Dr Cooper reported that this year was the first time safeguarding adults had been put on a statutory footing, and key responsibilities had been set out for Boards. Dr Cooper advised that training and development opportunities were offered to all staff, as well as to the voluntary sector and partner agencies. The Board was currently mapping the training being offered, the intention was for a mechanism to be put in place to assess whether training needs were being met, before outcomes could be evaluated.

Officers advised that the City met the criteria of the Winterbourne review, and the outcomes of that review had been applied to the service in general. Officers also advised that this would be included in future annual reports, and that they would also be clearer in drawing out City-specific information.

Members noted that the City and Hackney Safeguarding Adults Board was involved with the development of national policy and guidance and, although there was no strategic ‘quick fix’, the gap could be mitigated on an operational basis. Officers agreed, advising that, at the City, the same officers oversaw both areas and, as such, the structural arrangements in place significantly limited the risk of gaps occurring in the transition process between children and adults services.

Officers confirmed that issues concerning capacity and old age had recently come to the forefront, with a lot of nervousness about the continuation of care in light of cuts to budgets nationally, but advised that there were four fully qualified social workers who could assess all adults in the City with mental health needs, in addition to a locum social worker.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Director of Community and Children’s Services.

The annual report has been sent to Members via e-mail and hard copies are available upon request.

The Committee welcomed Jim Gamble, Independent Chair of the City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Board, who presented the Board’s annual report for 2014/15.

It was reported that this was a statutory report offering a transparent assessment of performance. The Director of Community & Children’s Services at the City of London Corporation had initiated a review of the services offered, which had resulted in worthwhile areas of work for the City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Board in terms of sharpening its focus. The intention was to make the document as accessible as possible, and included case studies and examples to evidence impact. Members noted that previous reports had been remiss in drawing out City-specific issues, which had been addressed in this year’s report.

Members noted that, although numbers had increased over the past year, the Board was not satisfied with City take-up of LSCB multi agency training; this was a multi-agency issue not limited to Corporation staff. Members were advised that the Board was intending to push on this in the coming year, and, in response to a Member’s request, undertook to forward a list of those responsible for advertising training events. It was noted that staff may be attending single agency training but it was important to emphasise the benefits available from the LSCB multi agency training.

Members noted the three priorities for the Board for the coming year:

The Local Safeguarding Context – this included Child Sexual Exploitation; Children Missing from Care, Home and Education; Preventing Radicalisation; Female Genital Mutilation; Neglect; and Domestic Violence. Members noted that the latter two were key to linking all these areas and implementing intervention strategies and support to address them all.

Early Help & Early Intervention – by front-loading resources, people could receive help earlier, reducing need later in life and theoretically reducing demand and

Report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services.

The Committee received a report of the Director of Community and Children’s Services informing Members that in November 2014, the Committee approved a number of recommendations arising from the Sheltered Housing Review Phase 1.  These included the adoption of a strategy to build ‘lifetime homes’ on all estates so that tenants can remain in their homes as they grow older.  They also included a detailed study of Mais House, the City’s sheltered housing scheme in Lewisham.  This report presents the work done so far to consider options for the future of Mais House. 

The Sheltered Housing Review identified a drop in demand for traditional sheltered housing and a strong preference for people to be enabled to stay in their own homes and communities in the future.  Mais House had been in particularly low demand and requires a significant amount of work to be done to bring it up to a reasonable standard. 

Some ideas for the Mais House site had been identified in a report commissioned from a firm of consultants.  However, before these could be worked up in more detail, there was a fundamental decision to be made about whether, in the future, Mais House remained a sheltered scheme for older people only, or whether it becomes a general needs development, open to residents of mixed ages.

Members noted that the City’s Housing Strategy, as approved by Members, identified a demand for more general needs homes. Initial discussions with the London Borough of Lewisham suggest that this was also the case there, particularly as the borough already has an over-supply of homes for older people with low support needs.  There was, then, a strong case for refurbishing or redeveloping Mais House as a lifetime homes scheme, providing accommodation suitable for people of all ages. 

Discussions ensued regarding the options

There were no questions.

There was no urgent business.

MOTION - That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act as follows:-

RESOLVED - That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

To agree the non-public minutes of the previous Committee meeting.

Resolved – that the minutes be agreed as an accurate record.

There were no questions.

There was no urgent business.