Agenda item

34.1     The Chair introduced the report and outlined that the purpose of the report was to allow the Committee to consider the call-in in relation to the decision by Cabinet regarding the proposal to close the Linden Court Day Service for people with a learning disability and merge it with Beeching Park day service.

34.2     The Committee considered the call-in and the information contained in the report. A summary of the questions raised, and comments made is given below.

• Impact of decision on a future unitary authority Some Members raised concerns about the potential financial impacts of the proposal on a future unitary authority, including a potential increase in residential care costs for individuals who would not be able to access alternative provision. Some Members also expressed concern that this proposal could impact on vulnerable people’s emotional wellbeing which would increase demand for local health services, including specialist provision such as the NHS Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust Learning Disabilities service and, subsequently, increase costs for a future unitary authority. Some Councillors expressed the view that there needed to be more financial assessment of any impacts on a future unitary authority, including increased demand for residential care.

In response, the Director of Adult Social Care and Health (ASCH) recognised the concerns and the impact of all the ASCH savings proposals on clients, carers and families but noted that these were put forward in light of the need for the Council to deliver its statutory duties to meet Care Act eligible needs and to deliver a balanced budget. In relation to the agreement in principle between ESCC and the district and borough councils, there was no formal agreement yet in place and final proposals for a unitary authority would not be submitted until September 2025. He also noted that potential impacts of decisions on a future unitary authority had been considered by the Scrutiny Committee and at Cabinet and confirmed that there were no anticipated impacts of this proposal on any future unitary council. In response to concerns about increased demand for residential care, the Director clarified that there was no anticipated increase to residential care needs as a result of this proposal due to the reprovision of care for those with eligible needs.

• Impact of decision on districts and boroughs - Some Members raised concerns about the potential financial impacts of the proposal on district and borough councils, including a potential increase on demand for Revenue and Benefits services if people needed to pay more for care. Some Members expressed the view that there needed to be more financial assessment of any impacts on district and borough councils. In response, the Director confirmed that there were no anticipated impacts from this proposal on district and brough councils and no anticipated increased costs for clients’ care.
• Use of consultations - Some Members raised concerns about the responses to the public consultation in relation to the proposal, noting that the majority of respondents either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the proposal to close Linden Court Day Service and raised concerns about public engagement in future consultations if residents felt their views had not been heard. In response, the Director noted that the proposal to close Linden Court had been made after extensive consultation and views on all proposals had been considered. In response to these views, a number of adjustments had been made to the original proposals, where it was possible to achieve required savings in an alternative way. This included the updated proposal in relation to Linden Court to provide a satellite service two days a week in Eastbourne.
• Alternative provision - Some Members of the Committee expressed concerns about potential challenges for clients and carers accessing alternative provision, including increased travel times for some, and that this could lead to an increase in people receiving residential care which would be costly, compared with providing existing services at Linden Court, and would not provide the same experience for clients. Some Members therefore felt there should be more financial assessment before a decision could be made on this proposal. Concerns were also raised about the provision of transport to alternative provision, and that this could not be confirmed until individual assessments had been undertaken. Councillor Murphy also commented that this proposal would increase travel emissions which contradicted the Council’s priority to reduce emissions. Councillor Wright commented that some families and carers had expressed doubt that the Council could meet client’s eligible needs with the proposed alternative provision.

In response, the Director clarified that as part of a Care Act Assessment for individuals and their carer/family members, the Department would review transport needs and had already made provision for anticipated additional transport costs. Although the detail could not be worked through until these assessments had been completed, the Director confirmed that that where transport was an identified eligible need, this would be met. Where there was a lack of trust in this process from family/carers, the Department would continue to work with them to build that trust.

The Chair noted that the Committee had considered the locations and anticipated travel times for current clients at its pre-decision scrutiny board in February. The Director also confirmed that this information had been included in the original Cabinet report and had therefore been considered.

• Ongoing costs for Linden Court - Councillor Murphy sought clarification about the ongoing costs to maintain and secure Linden Court and if these had been included in the proposal. The Director clarified that the proposal included the expected costs to maintain a satellite service in Eastbourne for two days a week, the additional staff needed to support Beeching Park and the additional associated costs for the premises and transport, and included costs to support clients who would access alternative services to Beeching Park following their care assessment. 
• Respite provision – Councillor Webb enquired if the Department had considered a potential increase in respite provision. The Director responded that the demand for respite was not expected to increase as result of this proposal.
• Alternative savings – Some Members of the Committee questioned whether required savings could have been identified elsewhere. The Director noted the difficulty in identifying savings in the current financial context, with significant savings delivered in previous years, and outlined the areas the Department had identified to protect as far as possible. He reiterated that the Department would continue to meet Care Act eligible needs and support people to live as independently as possible.

34.3     The Lead Member for Adult Social Care and Health welcomed the Committee’s engagement with the ASCH savings proposals, including at its pre-decision scrutiny board, which had considered the proposals in detail. He commented that these were difficult decisions, but in response to concerns about the impact of these decisions on a future unitary authority, noted that it was currently unclear what form a future authority would take, and the County Council had a current responsibility to set a balanced budget. The Department also had a responsibility, and would continue, to meet Care Act eligible needs on an individual basis.

34.5     Councillor Tutt expressed the view that the proposal would impact on clients’ and carers’ mental health and wellbeing and affect clients’ relationships with other attendees of the service if different alternative provision were required. Councillor Tutt also commented that it was currently unclear what future costs of provision would be, including for transport, potential requirements for residential care, staff redundancy, and ongoing building costs and that more financial analysis was needed. Councillor Tutt also commented on the reduced attendance at Linden Court and suggested that there could be more demand for this service. In response, the Director noted the standardised approach that was used to cost the reprovision of services and that costs for transport included the maximum possible costs of every client attending Beeching Court, which was unlikely. The Director noted the Council’s Employment Stability Policy which aimed to reduce redundancies and clarified that expected redundancy costs for all proposals had been included in the Cabinet report. The Director reiterated the view that this proposal was unlikely to result in an increase in residential care as individuals’ needs would be met through reprovisioned care. The Director also commented that occupancy for all day services had seen a reduction and commented that those who do attend, often attend on a part time basis throughout the week.

34.6     The Lead Member for Education and ISEND, commented that Members had heard that the proposal would not impact on district and borough councils and that it was unclear what form a future unitary authority would take. He also noted that the proposal had been considered in detail by the Committee at its pre-decision scrutiny board and the Committee had noted that in light of the financial context it regretfully accepted the proposal.

34.7     Councillor Cross moved a Motion that the matter be referred to the County Council on the grounds that more financial assessment of the impact on a future unitary council and on district and borough councils was needed, including any additional costs for respite care. Councillor Webb seconded the Motion.

34.8     A recorded vote was taken on the motion moved by Councillor Cross. The motion was CARRIED with the votes being cast as follows:

FOR THE MOTION

Councillors Cross, Murphy, Shing, Swansborough, Webb and Wright

AGAINST THE MOTION

Councillors Belsey, Geary, Howell and Redstone

ABSTENTIONS

None

34.9     The Committee RESOLVED to refer the matter in relation to the decision by Cabinet in relation to the proposal to close the Linden Court Day Service for people with a learning disability and merge it with Beeching Park day service to the County Council.