Minutes:
Question
At the Planning Committee I voted against Toutley East as putting people who have no say in their placement next to noisy polluting motorways is quite wrong. Dementia patients or their relatives have no say where they live if they are occupants of a Council run care home.
The business case makes no reference to other Council owned land away from motorways such as Farley Hill’s closed Primary School.
Would a better business case be the location of the care home at the closed Farley Hill School site and use the Councils own Housing Companies to build even more desperately needed affordable houses at Toutley East.
Answer
We were pleased that the Planning Committee accepted that this is a suitable location for a care home. Mitigation against road noise will of course need to be taken into account in the design of the building and I am confident that the Council can deliver a high-quality care home on this site to the standards that our residents both expect and deserve.
With regards to the decision-making process for dementia patients, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 protects vulnerable people over the age of 16 around decision-making. Adult Social Care will support residents to make their own decisions if they can; we want to uphold their rights while living in care homes.
If a person is assessed to lack capacity to consent to living in a care home, the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards mandate a set of assessments that are undertaken by two assessors independent of those commissioning the placement, to consider what is in the persons Best Interest and the less restrictive option.
In making this Best Interests decision the assessor is required to consult with a variety of people including the adult concerned (who will still have views, wishes and feelings even if lacking capacity) and ‘relevant others’ (including friends/family/advocates).
With respect to your subsequent points, it is true that the Council owns other land and that other such sites might also be suitable for new care home provision. However, having established that the Toutley East site is acceptable under planning, this site is the quickest route to deliver the facility and thus start addressing the increasing revenue spend pressures that the Council is facing from having to fund placements in private care homes. Failure to proceed on this site will lead to a delay in the delivery programme of approximately 18-24 months; whilst an alternative site is identified, survey work undertaken, designs worked up and planning secured. A two-year delay in delivery will only act to exacerbate financial pressures on Adult Social Care, especially in light of the impending Social Care reforms.
In terms of the residential delivery, please note that the business case for the residential delivery is not being presented in the Executive report. Rather the Executive is being asked to note the delivery options. As is set out in the report, the full business case will be prepared and reported back to Executive and potentially full Council in due course.
Supplementary question
Thank you for that answer. In yesterday’s Daily Mail headline is new evidence that in a landmark report by a committee of government advisors stating that air pollution, not just noise, contributes to the decline in mental ability and vascular dementia, and I believe the Council should not disregard the committee of government advisors who will be much more informed than our Borough Council Council Officers. With the availability now of a government landmark report on air pollution as a cause of dementia, it is now for the Executive to decide if Toutley is still a good option or should they look elsewhere for a more suitable site.
I raised the suitability of Toutley and other sites with planning Officers but they simply stated that they were not material considerations. That view was supported by the Council’s Legal department. I would point out that planning regulations clause nine of schedule 12a of the Town Country Planning Act of 1992 on exempt information states, and I quote: “Information is not exempt information if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission. To withhold information from a Member is in breach of the Act and it is as reprehensible as withholding information from the public about the expenditure of the public monies on projects.” Where the Borough Council is effectively the judge and jury as is the case with Toutley East. An independent enquiry into the role of the planning department would not go amiss here either, as I am sure our residents would appreciate it and it would give greater public confidence in that department.
So, really if you see the Daily Mail headline yesterday which is that it would suggest that air pollution is a very serious issue and to take a decision based on the limited information you’ve got now, I think it would be inappropriate.
Supplementary answer
Thank you Gary, yes I did see reference to that issue and report of the committee that was in the papers yesterday, and I think we will need to take due reference to that from that. On the other point that you raised, can I suggest that obviously you were, felt uncomfortable as to what happened on this issue, that you feel so much, there is a complaints process through Andrew Moulton, to do that. And I would also recommend that you write to me with some of your concerns so that I can look at them as well.