Thursday 11th September 7.30pm

Health and Well Being Scrutiny Committee

The two main issues to be addressed at this meeting were the Elizabeth House regeneration scheme and the Mental Health Trust’s application for Foundation Trust status.

 

I was pleased to find the audience area filled with residents of Elizabeth House and their representatives, as that had been the intention of holding the meeting in Cheam.

 

I had seen the list of twenty questions that had been submitted to the committee by representatives of the residents and it gave me a good insight into what particular issues were most concerning them. I had therefore prepared questions to solicit the information that would address some of those concerns.

 

I was able to determine that the Council would gain nothing financially from the regeneration project; I received clarification that all residents would be given the right to return to the improved housing, and learnt that the temporary re-housing was expected to take between 12 and 18 months, with residents moved to other housing as places suitable to their needs arose.

 

I was saddened to hear that the current wardens would not have any right to return to the site, and I know that many residents will not be happy to hear this either. We were reassured that suitable alternative placements would be found for them.

 

I asked about whether similar regeneration projects had been undertaken by this Council and was told about Belsize Court. I have heard very good things both about the quality of the accommodation here and about the way residents and carers were involved in the project. I recommended that current residents be involved in the design of the new accommodation at the Elizabeth House site and throughout the regeneration programme.

 

Conservative Councillor Cliff Carter wanted assurances that every new accommodation would have emergency Safecall facilities. The response was that each resident would be assessed on their need and Safecall or a similar service provided to those who needed it. Bizarrely during the course of the meeting Cllr. Carter asked the same question at least twice more. He wanted a commitment for every household to have this facility, but as many of the current tenants are neither old nor disabled it seems to me that it would be inappropriate and expensive to provide this service to everyone.

 

The residents were obviously restless, I suspect because they were wondering if they would have the opportunity to speak. However the representative who had submitted the questions on behalf of residents was invited to the table and she read out a prepared speech. She was angry, and received applause from the audience. I was saddened that even though most of the concerns she expressed had been addressed by the committee’s questioning she refused to acknowledge this. Written answers to all of the twenty questions were also distributed to all members of the public, but concern was expressed because in the hurry to photocopy enough copies one of the sheets had been missed out of some copies. One resident appeared to suspect that this was deliberate.

 

I was reassured by the responses to my questions that the project was necessary, and indeed the Council had been criticised for not addressing the problem sooner; and also that the aim was purely to improve the living accommodation of both the current residents and to provide high quality sheltered living accommodation for the future.

 

However I accept that the way the project was first presented to the residents was unhelpful and may have contributed to the distress felt by them. I will be making recommendations for improvements to similar future communications.

 

The questioning of the St George’s Mental Health Trust about its application for Foundation Trust Status ranged from how the membership would be made up, to how the trust would be held to account. I learnt that the cost of making the change in governance structure could cost in the region of £250,000. I also sought reassurances that the quoted ‘improvements to the trusts buildings and estate’ would not mean closure of facilities at the expense of patient services.

Thursday 11th September 6pm

Members Development – Foundation Trusts

I attended a very useful training session presented by Sally Brearley on the nature of NHS Foundation Trusts. This was particularly aimed at Health & Well Being Scrutiny members and served as excellent background information for our scrutiny of the South West London & St George’s Mental Health Trust proposal to become a Foundation Trust later that evening.

Youth Fair Hosted by Metropolitan Police

Local Police Teams are hosting a Youth Fair at Westcroft Leisure Centre on Saturday 27^th September 2008 from 10am to 2pm.

 

The event brings together lots of local organisations and sports clubs who offer activities for young people between 4 to 18 years old. There will be demonstrations, information and people to talk to throughout the day.

 

You will be surprised at the range of clubs and activities in your local area so there is no excuse for being bored.

 

The event is free and you can drop in anytime between 10 and 2pm.

 

There is also useful information for young people on how to stay safe on the Met Police website: http://www.met.police.uk/youngpeople/

 

  

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 9th September 12 noon

Elizabeth House Site Visit

I visited the site of the Elizabeth House redevelopment together with the chair of the Health & Well Being Scrutiny Committee and Malcolm Barker, who is the lead officer for the project.

 

The property is in a quiet corner in Cheam bordered by Cheam Park and within walking distance of the village centre. There is only one road into the site and as it does not provide a shortcut to anywhere the area is light on traffic.

 

From the descriptions of the property in the reports I had seen I had not expected to find such a pleasant collection of dwellings. There were small well tended gardens and a quiet residential feel to the place.

 

Malcolm showed us around Elizabeth House first and the failings of the building became immediately obvious. As a place meant to be for elderly and disabled residents with mobility problems there were barriers to be faced everywhere: uneven floors, stairs at every level, no lifts. A resident of a ‘bedsit’ permitted us to view her property. It consisted of one room in which she had to cook, eat, sleep and relax. She had a separate room with a toilet and sink, and a small storage area. The bed was a single pull-down which was hidden in a cupboard during the day. A separate shower and bath was situated down the corridor from her bedsit, which she shared with others. The resident was not elderly or obviously disabled, and it was apparent that she took great pride in her home as it was immaculately decorated. However she explained that she was unable to have her family visit her here so she always visited them, and she would much prefer a larger flat with a separate bedroom and her own bathroom.

 

It was obvious that anyone with mobility problems would have problems negotiating around the doors into the bedsit and into the toilet. The pull down bed would be too physical for an elderly or frail resident.

 

We inspected two of the bathrooms. There were four bathrooms over two floor shared between the 34 residences in the building.

 

We then went to visit a one bedroom flat in one of the surrounding blocks also included in the regeneration scheme. Despite the purpose of the building to house the elderly & frail, this property, like many others, was not suitable for that purpose and had had to be let to a younger able-bodied tenant. The flat was tiny and the bedroom was an area partitioned off from the main room, it had been built originally as a bedsit. Again any person with mobility problems would have had great problems negotiating the doors and tiny bathroom. The lady living here told us that she loved her flat and the area. She told us what a nice community it was here and how friendly everyone was. She had an area she could garden and she was happy, but admitted that something a little larger but in the same area with the same community would be nice.

 

Finally we visited an elderly lady in a one bedroom maisonette flat. We squeezed past the lady’s mobility scooter to get up the steep flight of stairs to her flat. The flat was small but comfortable and the lady explained that she had been very happy here for many years. The stairs were becoming a problem for her but there was insufficient space to safely install a stair lift. Again the resident spoke of the friendliness of the community and her love of the area. However this lady had a very pragmatic attitude to the proposed changes accepting that it was necessary and quite liked the idea of returning to a new improved site, as long as the sense of community could be retained. For her and others it also proved to be a spur for them to consider whether they should be moving closer to their families now they were getting less mobile.

 

It was obvious from my tour of the site that the flats were not fit for use by elderly and disabled residents, and having to share a bathroom is just not acceptable for any tenant in today’s improved standards of living. Because of this the accommodation was not being used for the type of residents it was intended to house. However the layout of the site, the courtyards around lawns and small gardens did have a lovely feel and obviously fostered a great sense of community.

 

What I feel is essential for the regeneration process is for the developers to try to retain this community feel, this sense of being an individual amongst friends; independence whilst also feeling safe. The worst thing that could be built here is a faceless, functional block. There needs to be character and flair, and involvement of the current residents to try to bring that into the design. I shall make this recommendation to the scrutiny committee on Thursday.

Green Garden Waste Charge – You tell us we got it wrong!

The summary results of the consultation are out and perhaps not unexpectedly the vast majority of responses (71%) stated that the £35 charge for collection of garden waste is not liked. What was surprising was that there were 18% of respondents who said they did agree with it!

 

Part of the consultation form asked what alternative charge should be made, if any. Although 52% were prepared to make some contribution towards collection, there was no consensus as to how much.

 

There was some good news which was that there was strong support for all the other measures we had introduced, and initial reports indicate that there has been a reduction in overall waste produced since the scheme started, with a huge take up of composters (around 14,000), and a big increase in the amount of glass collected for recycling & sale.

 

In the light of the consultation feedback the Liberal Democrat Group decided to bite the bullet and unanimously agreed to recommend the scrapping of the £35 charge for garden waste collection. It was considered that although many residents were prepared to pay something, a smaller charge may not cover the administration costs, so it was not considered worthwhile.

 

Whilst we still believe in the principles of the scheme – to encourage more people to compost and generally reduce the waste they produce, we did need to take the public with us to make the scheme successful, and this is what we failed to do.

 

To maintain the impetus of what has been achieved it was proposed that there is a limit on the number of bags collected ‘free’, but to account for seasonal variations in need and those with larger gardens, additional bags offered at £1 a collection.

 

If approved by the Executive the scheme will end on 31^st October and those who purchased the green sacks will be refunded for the remaining seven months collection they had paid for.

 

The cost of providing the green waste collection service free for the remaining 9 months of the year is expected to be in the region of £400,000. However the group asked for the cost to be met out of existing resources to try to avoid an impact on future council tax rises. There will be some savings too as the Beddington Lane site will no longer be required.

 

No doubt there will be criticism that we did not consult before the scheme was introduced, and with hindsight it might have saved considerable distress. However, personally I believe that sometimes you have to run with a scheme to really test whether it will work or not. Who could have foreseen the handles coming off the green sacks? Would our generally environmentally friendly residents really flytip or was this just a threat? Often people express opposition to proposed changes but then when implemented they can find that it is not as bad or as difficult as they expected. That is what people used to say about recycling. However in the case of the garden waste collection more problems occurred than had been foreseen. One thing particularly that came out of the consultation is that we need to give more thought as to how our policies might impact on our elderly and disabled residents. Whilst home composting may not have proved a barrier for less mobile residents, what was perhaps not considered was the effect if they chose not to use this option and so faced the rigors of dragging sacks up steps at Kimpton Park.

 

The other unforeseen was the credit crunch. The added burden of the charge in the current climate of rising fuel bills and food prices was another persuasive reason for the group’s decision to scrap the charge.

 

I would like to take the opportunity to address one question which I realise I failed to answer in my previous posts. The question was how did the scheme save landfill costs if the green garden waste never previously went to landfill? The answer is that although it was not sent to landfill, because the garden waste was ‘collected’ it was still counted as part of our landfill quota. This means that as landfill charges are introduced the council will still be penalised for the amount of garden waste collected. As the plans to address this have not worked out perhaps we now need to be lobbying central government to end this unfair anomaly.

Thursday 4th September 7pm

Members Training Session – Sutton’s Health and Wellbeing:Patterns and Meeting Needs

I attended this excellent members training session looking at the health patterns in Sutton and discussing the factors that affect people’s health. We were asked to consider what we thought were the main contributory factors to ill health. Whilst the obvious ones such as poor diet & smoking were easily identified, what perhaps was more surprising was the significance of housing on health. This is of particular interest to us as councillors as it is something the Council can have a direct influence on through our social housing stock. We were presented with maps identifying the areas with the most incidences of heart disease, obesity and other health problems. The highest incidences of these health issues coincided quite plainly with the more deprived areas in the borough – most significantly Roundshaw and St. Helier. Whilst we learnt that in general terms the health of people in Sutton is significantly better then the England average, it was still observed that men living in the more deprived areas have a life expectancy six years less than men living in the more affluent areas such as Cheam.

This information was particularly relevant for health scrutiny as we are to consider both the regeneration of substandard sheltered housing stock when we look at the Elizabeth House scheme, and also GP provision across the borough.

Thursday 4th September 10am & Monday 8th September 2pm

Health & Well Being Scrutiny Committee

Chair’s Briefings

We had to split the briefing into two sessions to fit in with the diaries of everyone we needed to speak to about the handling of the meeting on the 11^th.

The Elizabeth House regeneration scheme was of most concern as, having moved the venue to make it easier for affected residents and interested parties to attend, and requested questions be submitted for the committee to consider, we then faced the possibility that residents will expect more input into the meeting than is its remit. Scrutiny committees are made up of non-executive councillors (also called members) from all elected parties with the aim of casting a critical eye on decisions made by the Executive members, and also of the work of various Council departments. The Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee covers the areas of Adult Social Services and Housing, and also has legal responsibilities to look into the work of the local National Health Trusts.

All scrutiny committee meetings are open to the public, but this is about being transparent about the work of the council; members of the public are not generally permitted to take part in the meeting (as they are encouraged to do at  Local Committee Meetings) unless they are specifically invited to as witnesses. To address this problem it was agreed to prepare a note for circulation to residents attending the meeting explaining the role of scrutiny. We had already invited a representative of the residents of Elizabeth House & surrounding houses affected by the scheme to speak at the meeting, and had received a long list of questions from the newly formed action group opposed to the regeneration. It was agreed that officers would provide a written response to all of the questions which would be circulated at the meeting, and scrutiny members would be able to draw out more detail about the scheme with regard to residents’ concerns at the meeting.

Friday 22nd August 12 noon

Carers Partnership Board Agenda Meeting

This was the first of the new style meetings to include more carers’ representatives at the agenda planning stage. As the proposed agenda was rather long, but contained important information for carers, it was agreed to try to circulate as much information in advance of the meeting as possible. This would leave more time for discussion of items.

Thursday 24th July 10am

Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee Agenda Planning Meeting

I met with Stuart Gordon-Bullock the chair and Neil Talbot the new policy officer for this committee to discuss items for future meetings and management of the workplan. It was agreed that in the light of residents’ concerns about the regeneration of Elizabeth House in Cheam that the committee should look into the consultation process and review the procedures for effecting the changes. Stuart suggested that the meeting take place at a venue in Cheam to make it easier for concerned residents to attend.

 

It was also agreed to put GP provision in the borough on the agenda for scrutiny at the next meeting.

Summons Served on Owner of Illegal Building

The owner of 16b Hawthorn Road who erected a large building in his garden without planning permission has finally been served with a summons. The owner has been told he must demolish the building but has failed to do so, and sought to stall the process by submitting new planning applications at the last minute. Colin Richard & I have received complaints from nearby residents about the structure and having become increasingly frustrated by this man’s flouting of the law we urged the planning department to take strong action. The court hearing is set for 11^th September.

 

News Update: the hearing has been adjourned to 25th September to enable the defendants to obtain legal advice.

News Update: The matter went before the court on 25th September 2008 and was again adjourned as the defendants still did not have legal advice and one of the defendants was unable to attend court due to illness. The matter is now due to be heard on 16th October 2008.