Tuesday 6th October 2009 7.30pm

Tier 4 Personality Disorders Joint Scrutiny Committee

This joint committee had been set up in response to the proposed closure of the Henderson Hospital in Sutton which provided a specialist residential treatment programme for people with complex and severe personality disorder. People with this kind of personality disorder fall within the Tier 4 level of service provided by the mental health service.

This level is highly specialised with treatment provided to a small number of users from a large geographical area, covered by 62 Primary Care Trusts. Because of this degree of specialisation the service was overseen by a Joint Commissioning Group headed up by Jo Scott Associate Director South East Coast Specialised Commissioning Group. The inpatient treatment at the Henderson was one of a range of treatments able to be offered at Tier 4 level and was a unique option at this level.

 As the result of a number of Local Authorities in the areas covered by the 62 Primary Care Trusts agreeing that the closure of the Henderson represented a significant variation of service the Joint Commissioning Group was legally obliged to consult on the change.

The role of our Joint Scrutiny Committee tonight, chaired by myself as the Henderson Hospital was located in Sutton, was to review the consultation to determine whether it was conducted in an satisfactory fashion, and to consider whether the proposals agreed by the Joint Primary Care Trust Board following the consultation would be in the best interests of our residents as potential service users. Representing other Local Authorities who had expressed concerns over the impact of the closure of the Henderson Hospital were Councillor Alex Jacob from London Borough of Wandsworth and Councillor Sheila Knight from London Borough of Merton.

The committee had received an independent summary of the consultation results and we had been kept well informed of progress throughout the consultation period.

 Brief presentations and information on the consultation process were provided by Jo Scott Associate Director South East Coast Specialised Commissioning Group; Dr Diana Menzies Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy (previously at the Henderson) and Kath Lovell of the London Personality Disorder User Network. Both Dr Menzies and Ms Lovell had been closely involved with the consultation process as members of the Consultation Advisory Group.

Also present were representatives of an ex-Henderson service users group. There was inclusive discussion about the consultation and generally satisfaction with the process and its inclusiveness were expressed.

 Dr Menzies and Ms Lovell expressed concern about the expansion of the consultation to Tier 4 services rather than just being about the Henderson, and the fact that the results of the consultation went no way towards safeguarding the Henderson model due to its broad scope.

The committee also took evidence from Eric Karas Head of Psychological Therapies Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust and Professor Anthony Bateman, a specialist in the field of personality disorders. Mr Karas and Professor Bateman expressed concern about the narrowness of the proposed models used in the consultation and felt that insufficient consideration had been given to alternative treatment models. Professor Bateman gave a short presentation setting out an alternative service specification. It was established from questions that the Joint Commissioning Group had not gone outside of their area to consult with other professionals in the field such as Professor Bateman.

 Jo Scott advised that the consultation summary had been circulated to all 62 Primary Care Trusts requesting their recommendations and these would be collated and a final proposal put to the Joint Primary Care Trust Board on 11^th November. As most of the Primary Care Trusts had yet to reply she was unable to say as yet what the final proposal would be. The committee requested to view the final proposal and have an opportunity to comment on it before it went to the Joint PCT board. This was agreed.

 The committee also requested updates on progress on the implementation of the final proposal and agreed to meet again in one year.

 In the meantime the committee would prepare a letter for the Joint Commissioning Board with its conclusions from this meeting.

Monday 5th October 2009 10am

Transforming Social Care Workshop

This workshop took place at the Sutton Centre for Independent Living and Learning (SCILL). The workshop pulled together people connected with Social Services in a variety of capacities from users to social workers to care providers to carers to Sutton council officers responsible for buying in social services. I was there in my capacity as Carers Champion and as a member of the Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, which looks at social services provision overseen by the council, amongst other things.

The aim of this workshop was to explore how the change of emphasis in the provision of social services from a set of options set by the council to be much more focussed on the services that users wanted – a personalised choice, could work in practice. This change in focus presented problems in a number of ways both from being able to provide the range of services required in a cost efficient way, to calculating the individual budgets for each person eligible for services, to communicating the changes to both users and service personnel.

 One of the exercises we were asked to do was to review the assessment booklet. My views were that the proposed booklet was far too complex and not easy to follow through.

 The comments from the workshop will be compiled and used to help shape the future of the service.

Thursday 17th September 7pm

Wallington South Safer Neighbourhood Team Ward Panel Meeting

I arrived late to this meeting as I had a personal engagement earlier the same evening. I was still able to provide our usual update from the councillors on issues in the area.

Sergeant Peter LeShirley reported back on progress on the previous three month’s priorities and promised good news shortly on the priority to address drugs and related crime in the Shirley Road area. This appeared in the Local Guardian recently as the team had located a cannabis plant factory in a residence in the road and had made the appropriate arrests. This success was the result of the Safer Neighbourhood Team acting on local information so well done to the Wallington South Team.

The priorities for the next three months were set as follows:

• Address the use of drugs and associated crime in and around the Shirley Road area (to enable completion of the operation) 
• Target ASB, especially by youths, in and around the ‘High Street’ – to the west: the area formed by Woodcote Road, Beddington Gardens, Shotfield and Stanley Park Road – to the east the rectangle formed by Ross Road, Clyde Road, Carew Road and Demesne Road
• Target theft of, theft from, and damage to motor vehicles within the ‘eastern rectangle’ of roads as above, viz. Ross, Clyde, Carew and Demesne Roads

 Some of the residents attending the meeting raised some casework with me which I have followed up.

You can come and meet the Team yourself at the Police drop in Surgeries. Next dates are:

• 22/10/2009 – 16:00 – 22:00 – Mobile police station – Old Town Hall Woodcote Road
• 10/11/2009 – 08:00 – 11:00 – Drop-in surgery – Wallington Halls
• 23/11/2009 – 12:00 – 15:00 – Street briefing – Ross Rd J/W Demesne RD

Wednesday 16th September 7.30pm

Development Control Committee

Country Skips, 79-83 Beddington Lane, Beddington: The planning department had been working with the developers of this site for a number of years to achieve the right facilities and minimise the potential impact on the area. The application planned to enable the facility to expand its operations to deal with more waste, but the operations would now be housed within buildings. The plans for the site showed a much improved aspect. There was a question over the designation of a piece of the land which had been concreted over but which had originally been designated part of a conservation area. As this land now had little conservation value and the application included contributions to nearby conservation projects it was felt acceptable to permit industrial use of this land. Questioning drew out the fact that there was likely to be minimal impact on traffic volumes and I ascertained that work was ongoing to reduce any impact on air pollution. I voted for this application and it was granted by the committee.

Sutherland House, 29 Brighton Road, Sutton: This was an application to transform an empty high rise office block close to Sutton Railway Station into a taller facility with retail and housing units together with a hotel and top storey bar and restaurant. The design was modern with the exterior able to be lit up at night in a variety of colour schemes. There had been some objections to the plans from neighbouring residences on the basis of reduced daylight and impact on parking. The opposition members concentrated on these objections to the scheme and we heard from local residents concerned about the impact the building would have on their homes. The report noted that efforts had been made to mitigate any negative effects of the building on its neighbours within the design and the effect on daylight was felt to be minimal as the building was already tall. I made the point that we had to balance the potential effects on the small number of local residences with the benefits that the conversion would bring. These benefits were additional housing, including affordable housing where there was currently none; employment opportunities for local residents; the improvement to an area which was run down and suffering from graffiti and other anti-social behaviour; and the fact that it was a gateway building that marked the start of the rejuvenation of Sutton town centre. As the existing building was empty and ugly I felt that the benefits outweighed the negatives and voted for the application. It was granted with a majority vote.

49-67 and land at rear Fellowes Road, Carshalton: This application was to demolish ten pre-cast Orlit houses and build thirty three-bedroomed and four four-bedroomed houses on the same site and on the overgrown & derelict land to the rear of the site. Having visited the site I felt that this was a much needed improvement and I was pleased to see three and four bedroomed houses being planned rather than flats. The development was in keeping with the area. As each house would have its own parking space the impact on residential parking was likely to be minimal & the gardens were of a good size & likely to improve the green attributes of the area rather than detract from them. I therefore voted to grant the application and it was approved by the committee.

48-50 Benhill Avenue, Sutton: This application was for the demolition of the Conservative Club building and its replacement with two blocks of flats. The development was within a controlled parking zone and had just two parking spaces provided on the grounds that as a town centre building residents would be able to use public transport. There were no objections to the loss of the Conservative club and it was not seen as a loss to the community because it was a private members club & therefore not open to the general public. Local residents made an impassioned plea about the effect the development would have on an already congested area in terms of parking. The resident next door to the development was extremely reasonable and only requested that the fencing separating the two properties should be more robust to prevent access from the flats to her property. It was proposed to make it a condition that residents occupying the flats would not be allowed to apply for a local parking permit. I was very concerned about the lack of parking spaces and pointed out that whilst it may not be necessary for the occupiers to have a car the reality was that many residents may still want to have one, and with or without a parking permit that would impact on the existing problems in the area. I therefore voted against the application, however the application was granted with a mixture of votes in favour from both sides of the political divide.

We had run out of time by this point so the remaining items were postponed with the exception of those applications from the Council which had been granted en masse earlier in the evening.

Tuesday 15th September 11.30am

Carers Partnership Board

The main topics for discussion at this meeting were a review of Carers Funding; the Carers Strategy and the impact of the recession on vulnerable adults and their carers.

Carers Funding

Members of the Board including myself had formed a working group to review the current spending in more detail than a board meeting allowed. My notes of the working group had been circulated and were discussed. It was highlighted that the existing funding was not a ringfenced allocation, and that the amount spent on carers was generous when compared to other local authorities. It was understood that any spending had to meet the criteria of providing good value for carers and met their expressed needs. The practical difficulties of needing to commission a broader range of services under the move towards personal budgets was discussed.

Carers Strategy

The Sutton Carers Strategy was due to be refreshed. Julie Wilson explained how the original strategy had come into being. Penny Thomas suggested she highlights the need for a joint strategic needs assessment on carers at the next Public Health Strategy Group meeting. It was agreed that a draft revised strategy be prepared for discussion at the November meeting.

Impact of the recession on carers

A request had been made by the Sutton Adults Partnership Board for us to provide information about the impact of the recession on vulnerable adults and their carers. Data on increase in people getting jobseekers allowance was provided for discussion. Further evidence was requested of any increase in carers referrals. Any additional evidence was to be passed to Rachael MacLeod

Monday 14th September 9am

Day with Planning Officers

As a relative newcomer to the Development Control Committee I was invited with fellow newbies to spend a day in the Planning Department. We received information on the work of the department and had the opportunity to ask questions or delve more deeply into any specific areas of interest we might have. We were able to accompany officers on a site visit or talk to specific departments within planning. It proved a very informative day and as I didn’t get time to find out more information about the appeals process I intend to set aside another day to visit again.

Tuesday 8th September 7.30pm

Beddington & Wallington Local Committee

The main items discussed at this meeting were road safety schemes for Steps zones 20 & 21 & Stanley Park Road; pedestrian crossing trial at Wallington Sainsbury’s junction; locking of St Mary’s Field gates; Wallington Integrated Transport package & changes to Neighbourhood Recycling facilities.

First up for discussion was the road safety schemes item. Residents from the areas in question had been specifically invited to the meeting to take part in the discussion. Around 50 people attended. Rupert Townsend the Senior Engineer overseeing the project explained how a set of safety proposals for the area had been drawn up following the initial informal consultation with residents and interested parties, such as the police and emergency services. The measures proposed were based on the issues highlighted by residents and also aimed to address known accident spots.

Mr Townsend also explained the formal consultation process that would take place on the proposals.

There was a lot of input from the residents from the area, some highlighting problem areas or commenting on specific proposals. A number of residents indicated that they did not want to see any traffic calming at all, whereas others who lived close to particular problem areas were equally keen to see measures introduced. Residents were advised that the scheme did not need to be implemented in its entirety, and if the overall feedback from the consultation was that no calming should be implemented then that would be taken into account. Areas of individual concern could be addressed on their own if there was sufficient local support for them.

Paul Blunt, Transport Planning and Development Manager advised that the linking of traffic signals along Woodcote Road was currently underway. It was hoped that this would improve the flow of traffic through Wallington Town Centre. There has been a long standing request from residents and councillors for a pedestrian crossing to be put in at the junction of Woodcote Road with Stafford Road near Sainsbury’s. Transport for London were reluctant to do this because of the potential effect of slowing down traffic. Mr Blunt’s report showed that the pedestrian accident rate at this junction was higher than elsewhere and a study by consultants JMP felt that pedestrian facilities could be introduced on two arms of this junction without significant impact on traffic. As the actual effect of introducing a pedestrian phase into the signals could not be accurately predicted it was proposed to introduce the pedestrian crossings on a 12 month trial basis. During that time the effect on traffic flow would be assessed. The committee agreed to go ahead with the trial and the results would be reported back to the committee at the end of the period.

Under the Public Realm item it was agreed to allocate any remaining funds from the current allocation to purchase further barbeques in Beddington Park, and renew stretches of pathway within the grounds. Until the costs of Elms Pond had been determined it was not certain how much of the public realm budget would remain available but it was felt important to have projects agreed ready to absorb the balance in the meantime.

The locking of St Mary’s Field gates was also discussed under this item. Children’s playground equipment had been installed in this small play area using funds from Viridor and match funded by public realm funding. At the time the funds were agreed there had been some concerns expressed about the possibility of an increase in anti-social behaviour in the park and the need to lock the gates at night. It had been agreed to see how the situation developed and bring the item back to this committee after a year. A year had passed and the police had noted an increase in calls about anti-social behaviour by older youths in the park at night. A number of residents from the area attended the meeting and talked about the problems they were experiencing. The small park is surrounded on three sides by domestic buildings and is slightly hidden from the main residential road by a long mound at the front of the field. Parks and Police had indicated that they did not have resources to lock and unlock the gates morning and evening, but the police had found a resident willing to take on this responsibility. Discussions ranged from whether locking the gates would solve the problem, with the inadequate fencing at the rear of the park being considered a problem; some residents and councillors raised concerns over the safety of a resident being responsible for locking the gates and the hazards that might present. There was also uncertainty over which department was officially responsible for locking park gates. The Parks Dept. said that they were of the understanding that the Police Parks Safety Teams were responsible where it had been requested but the police were not undertaking this. It was agreed that the Executive should be asked to clarify the responsibility and a request be put in for these park gates to be locked each evening. The committee also suggested that the planting of spiky shrubs around the fencing areas be considered as a deterrent.

Lee Parker and Ben Hawkins from the Smarter Travel Sutton project team talked about the Wallington Integrated Transport Package and outlined the opportunities for residents to input into the plan.

Next we had Matt Clubb, Head of Waste Management and Fleet Services explaining some changes to the neighbourhood recycling facilities. Within the area new facilities were being provided to recycle foil, batteries and textiles, with glass recycling facilities being removed from some areas due to the reduction in use due to doorstep collection of glass.