Testun llawn:
1. New Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation
Preferred Option 6 (PO6)
Mixed Communities &am...
1. New Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation
Preferred Option 6 (PO6)
Mixed Communities & Wide Choice of Homes
7.5.3.
C. Homes for Older People needs to be expanded to include homes, which effectively cater for the housing, care and support needs of local older people, adults and children with disabilities and other local vulnerable people. This includes extra care housing and supported living accommodation suitable for adults/children with disabilities.
7.5.8.
The consultation needs to address the C2 vs C3 Usage Class issue once and for all. All too often we are seeing the C2 Usage Class applied to individual dwellings, which seem to become institutional if they are providing independent living solutions to vulnerable adults, e.g. McCarthy Stone development in Southbank Road, Kenilworth.
Extra care housing can struggle when reaching planning and enabling stages as it becomes embroiled in local policies, whereas care home applications seem to get an easier ride as planning guidance for institutional developments (C2) - as opposed to individual dwellings (C3) - is far more straightforward and is likely to see applications approved at the first time of asking. The one advantage/windfall opportunity is that where an application is for the delivery of specialist res care, e.g. dementia and nursing, providers are more likely to commit to a number of much-needed beds at County Council banded rates for a specific number of years, if the County Council is prepared to support the application. .
The issue here is care home vs. extra care housing - both offer long term care solutions - but the preferred model (and this is the view of older people) is independent living (C3?) with access to 24/7 care rather than admission to residential care (C2), but we are in real danger of seeing residential care homes delivered ahead of extra care housing. If the number of residential care beds introduced to the market hits the predicted number of overall required care places (extra care housing and residential care), planners are likely to argue that there is little need for extra care if the residential care market has already delivered the required/reported numbers.
2. Draft Infrastructure Plan
4.4.1.
The first sentence could be re-written to read as "Adult Social Services are mainly concerned with adults and older people with physical and/or learning disabilities and/or mental health problems"
4.4.4.
The last sentence should read as "Residential care accommodation is..."
4.4.5.
May be better to refer to "older people and adults" rather than "...elderly and non-elderly people..."
4.4.6.
This needs to reflect the current 50/50 service model promoted by the County Council, i.e. a model where 50% of people who would normally go into residential care are diverted into extra care housing.
4.4.13.
The suggestion that "Housing accommodation...for people with learning or physical disabilities will be met as the need arises" needs to be clearer.
We need to bear in mind that only a limited number of people with learning disabilities are afforded the opportunity to live independent and meaningful lives with choice and control over where and who they live with. Instead, many have their lives constrained by having to live in residential care where individual outcomes do not generally improve. With approx. 300 people with learning disabilities currently living in residential care in Warwickshire, the overall programme intention is to deliver no less than 200, 1 and 2-bedroomed apartments that are suitable for adults with learning disabilities, including an initial short term target of an average of 25 apartments per annum between 2011 and 2015 in line with the County Council's Transformation agenda.
Looking at the 227 people with learning disabilities in the Warwick District, those who would be first approached re: move to extra care housing would be the 26 living in residential care (and the County Council is seeking to phase out all residential care) and the 63 customers (of the remaining 201) currently living with their main carer (this could be parents or partner). The next stage would be to look at those already living independently in the community, who may want to consider extra care as a more appropriate housing with care option, which has not previously been available - for example those are living in hard to let properties, are the victims of abuse, e.g. hate/mate crime etc.
General comments:
The District Council needs to include both anecdotal and specific needs analyses from a range of partners, such as local GPs, CCG, NHS Warwickshire and WCC. All these partners directly support and commission services for vulnerable people with a range of health and social care requirements, and these factors need to be considered when looking at overall housing provision.
Consideration of an SPD that could include say either a moratorium on C2 applications or the introduction of a two-stage process, i.e. a preliminary panel at Pre-Application stage. This could be made up of WDC, WCC, CCG (inc. local GPs) and NHS to consider any specialised accommodation, particularly as the District continues to attract interest from private developers who are seeking to provide specialised accommodation clearly geared to attracting the private pound and/or an imported population. This has implications for both Health and Social Care as follows:
1. NHS Continuing Health Care budgets are being used to fund services for an imported population rather than local residents. These new (and expensive) care homes or housing developments provide an attractive solution to meeting the needs of the private funder, however, we are still seeing those who cannot afford these prices being moved away from their local communities to where services are available. There will also be a drain on local GP and Nursing resources as these new and sizeable care homes come on stream.
2. Extra Care Housing continues to struggle when reaching planning and enabling stages as it becomes embroiled in local policies, whereas care home applications seem to get an easier ride as planning guidance for institutional developments (C2) - as opposed to individual dwellings (C3) - is far more straightforward and is likely to see applications approved at the first time of asking.
Subject to panel approval, a development proposal could then progress to formal application for planning consent. Consideration for the Appeal process will also need to be built into this process.
[dangos mwy]
