Full Council

Four motions were presented for debate at this full meeting of the Council: Value for Money; 10:10 Climate Change; Council Housing and Concessionary Fares Scheme.

 The First motion to be debated was Value for Money which had been proposed by the Conservative Opposition Group. I was surprised that the opposition persist with their accusations that this Council does not offer value for money which flies in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. As was listed by Councillor John Drage, Executive Member for Resources in his amendment to the motion, this Liberal Democrat run Council has been awarded by the independent body the Audit Commission the highest possible rating of four stars improving strongly for the last two years running and the international accountancy firm PriceWaterhouse Coopers rated Sutton as the best performing borough in London.

In a specific Use of Resources Assessment by an external auditor Sutton achieved the highest possible overall score of 4 with individual assessments for ‘achievement of value for money’ and ‘managing and improving value for money’ both attaining 4s. In 2009 under a tougher assessment arrangement Sutton still achieved a 3 ‘performing well’ assessment both for value for money and overall use of resources.

And that is not all; in its April 2009 review of financial management in local government the Audit Commission uses Sutton as its best practice case study on understanding costs and achieving efficiencies.

I can only suppose that the Opposition believe that if they repeat their mantra often enough people will come to believe it.

I found it amusing that whilst the Tories claimed the credit for our announcement of a council tax freeze for 2010/11 they didn’t appear to be the slightest bit pleased about it. Personally I felt that they only called for a freeze last year because they know the difficulties the council faces eking out its central government grant allocation and felt they could safely assume it would be impossible for the Liberal Democrat administration to achieve it. Fortunately our long term savings plans and determination to minimise the impact of the recession on our residents managed to come to fruition and enable us to maintain the council tax level for the next year. A bonus in the form of a grant refund had also allowed the Liberal Democrat administration to make it possible.

I took a one minute intervention to highlight the ludicracy of the Conservatives’ inclusion in their motion to apply a zero based budget review across the entire council. I quoted from my Chartered Accountancy Exam Revision Guide to set out the inappropriateness and excessive cost of applying zero-based budgeting to an entire organisation, never mind one as complex as a local authority.

The amended motion was passed by a majority vote.

The second motion debated was for the Council to sign up to the 10:10 climate change campaign to cut Britain’s carbon emissions by 10% by the end of 2010. An amendment had been submitted by Councillor Scully, leader of the Conservative opposition basically making some punctuation amendments and removing the reference to the Council’s One Planet Living strategy. Councillor Hall as Executive Member for the Environment had proposed the original motion but in the interests of reaching accord he agreed to support the amendment on the basis that whilst the Council was very much committed to achieving One Planet Living, he accepted that it was unlikely it would be attained by 2010.

The debate consisted of members from both sides talking about the importance of taking measures to reduce our emissions and making practical suggestions. As all the Liberal Democrat members had pledged their commitment as a group some of our members spoke of the personal measures they would be taking to reduce their impact on the planet. Conservative Councillor Graham Witham made a bold speech about how the most important way to reduce our depletion of the Earth’s resources was to tackle population growth. This point was acknowledged, but I noted that it was probably too late for most members of the Council to make any personal pledges on this particular issue, myself included!

The next motion on Council Housing was much more of the usual verbal fisticuffs. Conservative Councillor Barry Russell proposed the motion with much posturing and foaming at the mouth and ended the debate in much the same mode, only redder. The Tories’ righteous indignation at the state of Sutton’s council housing was a strange pantomime and Lib Dem councillors took pains to highlight the lack of any real commitment to the cause shown by the Opposition. The absence of any Conservative representation on the Housing Panel was excused confusingly by the preferred member being ill and on honeymoon, and the lack of any suitably qualified substitute. I presume by that they meant the lack of any Conservative member with experience of living in council housing.

Apparently the absence of Tory support for the tenants at the recent town centre petitioning event was because they were doing their own petitioning elsewhere. And Philippa Strouds’ brief appearance for a photograph with the tenants only to disappear immediately was acceptable to the Tories who then accused us of hijacking the event as a photo opportunity.

London Mayor Boris Johnson was held up as a hero by the Conservatives for promising to unlock the funds previously pledged to Sutton by the Government for investment in Decent Homes only to have my colleagues point out that Boris had no authority over these funding arrangements and so was not in a position to promise anything.

The Lib Dems countered the accusation from the Tories about lack of investment in council housing by pointing out the millions spent on regenerating Roundshaw and Durand Close. They also pointed out how council housing stock had been depleted under the Thatcher implemented right-to-buy policy.

The Council agreed the amendment proposed by Councillor Stears with a majority vote.

There was insufficient time to debate the motion on the Concessionary Fares Scheme but earlier in the meeting we had the hilarious spectacle of every member of the Council being asked to declare whether they could be considered to have a personal interest in this particular item. As the yes replies cut a swathe through the room some of our more modest lady members conceded only a ‘possibly’ to some amusement. Less amusing is the potential effect the proposed changes to funding the concessionary scheme will have on council finances.

This motion was unanimously agreed.

Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee

This agenda continued the scrutiny of mental health services in the borough and in particular looked at the results of the Health and Social Care Advisory Service (HASCAS) safety review of inpatient services at the Sutton site and the recent closure of Chiltern Wing following the Legionella outbreak there.

The meeting began with an update on the transportation of residents detained under s136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This issue had been raised by Police representatives at an earlier meeting who advised that with the closure of the s136 unit at Sutton the longer journey to Tadworth was proving to be a problem tying up police officers excessively and was inappropriate for residents suspected to be suffering from mental health problems to be transported in the secure police vans.

Scrutiny had uncovered that recommended practice was to have such residents transported by ambulance and the committee had recommended that representatives from the police, ambulance and mental health services meet to establish a way forward.

The committee received a report stating that such meetings had taken place and a protocol for the transportation of residents detained under s136 had been agreed. The protocols were established for low, medium and high risk cases and lines of communication established to ensure good management of facilities.

Questions from members established that a training programme to help police officers identify when a resident was likely to be suffering from mental health issues was being set up by the Mental Health Trust.

The HASCAS Review flagged up a number of significant concerns about the provision of inpatient mental health acute services at the Sutton Hospital site. The review found that the desire to have a small local site had led to compromises over the standards of care that should be available to mental health inpatients. Of 89 standards used in the review proforma the Sutton site met only 25. The review stated that whilst no major incidents had occurred at the hospital there was high potential for such an incident to happen.

The report also addressed specific aspects of each of the wards citing some of the wards as offering little in the form of a therapeutic environment or activities. The site itself was also seen to present security issues.

The review recommended a number of specific actions that should be taken to improve the site and patients’ experiences including liaising with police over site security and drafting contingency plans.

During questions I noted that the report mentioned the underinvestment in mental health services and I asked whether this had contributed to the lack of adequate service provision at the site. The response from Bill Gillespie, Chief Executive of the Sutton and Merton PCT was that the report should not be treated like a bible with individual items picked out for particular interpretation.

The report on the closure of the Chiltern Wing due to the discovery of high levels of Legionella during routine testing put a slightly different slant on the HASCAS review. Questions from members were concerned with whether it was the intention of the Trust to make the closure permanent with the chair of the committee stating that he felt the discovery of Legionella following the HASCAS review to be rather convenient.

The committee also received a paper on the changes to commissioning policy for In Vitro Fertilisation Treatment (IVF). The committee agreed that the changes were a matter of offering treatment more effectively and so felt that it was not a significant variation in service requiring consultation.

The committee expressed dissatisfaction with the paper given explaining the recent recall of a number of patients for re-screening under the National Screening Programme for diabetic retinopathy. I sought more information about what actually had gone wrong and received fairly general information about communication issues between services.

Green Paper Care and Support Consultation

This was an exercise organised by the Sutton Adult Social Services department to gather feedback on the Government’s proposals for changes to the social care system.

Professor Ray Jones of Kingston University set out the case for reform: we are living longer and we have higher expectations of what public services will provide for us.  There are more older people, more disabled people and more people with mental health conditions requiring support and many of them will need care for longer.  As a result, the current care and support system will face increasing costs.

The Green Paper contains options for dealing with the rising demand for social care services and as tables we were asked to discuss and then vote on them. The options on paying for these services included a compulsory insurance scheme; raising taxes; and self-payment.

Discussions around our table, which included Paul Burstow MP, local care providers, Sutton officers and care commissioners, were thoughtful. There was a lot of agreement around the need for services to be preventative and for a single assessment process. However views varied about how to make both the service and funding fair and equal.

What did come out of our discussions was the feeling that none of the funding options presented a satisfactory solution to the problem.

The views expressed during the event will be fed into the Government’s ‘Big Care Debate’.

Tender opening

I visited the legal department at Civic Offices to witness a tender opening for applications to repair and maintain the highways under Local Authority control.

Two exhibitions are being held to enable residents to view and discuss proposals for new safety schemes in the Stanley Park Road and STEPS Zones 20 & 21 areas.

 The dates are:

 Wednesday 4th November 2009 – Wallington United Reformed Church (4pm – 8pm)

 Monday 9th November 2009 – Good Shepherd Church (4pm – 8pm)

The proposals were drafted to address issues raised by residents who responded to the informal consultation and known problem areas. The final plans will be subject to your responses to the formal consultation.

Appeal Hearing 52-62a Beddington Gardens

All three Wallington South Ward Councillors: Colin Hall, Richard Bailey and myself attended at least part of this appeal hearing to enable our opposition to the application to be voiced. Tom Brake MP also attended the morning session and there were also a number of interested local residents.

 The Inspector addressed the issues he felt were of most import for the consideration of the application which were the impact on the character of the area and the environmental impact.

During the course of the hearing the councillors were able to contribute to the discussions and Richard was able to use his considerable knowledge of ecological matters to highlight issues affecting wildlife conservation; Colin had in depth knowledge of recent environmental studies; whilst I summarised our objections to the application towards the end of the hearing.

 We await the inspector’s ruling.

UPDATE 2nd November 2009

The appeal was upheld by the Planning Inspector. This means that the development can go ahead despite the refusal by the Council’s planning officers.

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.

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.

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

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.