1 Summary

The following decisions are sought.

1.1 That the Woodend/Copsehill site is declared surplus to Social Services Operational requirements.

1.2 That further consideration be given to alternative services in the context of the Council's strategy for children's services development.

1.3 That the approval of the Executive Member Policy and Resources be sought to declare Woodend and Copsehill, Shepherds Row, Andover, surplus to County Council requirements and to authorise the retention of 100% of the net sale proceeds to support existing Social Services capital investment objectives.

2 Reason(s)

2.1 The Residential Unit has been empty for over 2½ years, and the Family Centre Unit is used regularly but is not cost effective as a stand alone unit. The needs within the residential service are changing. There are financial pressures in Children's Services and key service developments planned for which there is no funding available, thus there are options as to the alternative use of the budgets available.

2.2 The options support Aim 1 of the Corporate Strategy (Maximising Life Opportunities) and Aim 5 (Improving Services)

3 Other options considered and rejected

3.1 Do nothing is not appropriate. The Woodend building has been empty for 2½ years and is deteriorating.

3.2 Refurbishment and re-opening of Woodend as a 6 bedded Children's Residential Unit. This would incur significant refurbishment costs for which there is no funding available, and also would not reflect the evolving needs of the residential service.

4 Conflicts of Interest declared by the decision-maker or other Executive Member consulted

4.1 None

5 Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee

5.1 None

6 Reason(s) for the matter being dealt with if urgent

6.1 Not applicable

Approved by: Date of decision:

Councillor Felicity Hindson

1. Introduction

1.1 Woodend / Copsehill are two adjacent units in Andover. Woodend is a residential unit for children looked after (a six bedded short term unit under Hampshire's current residential strategy). Copsehill is a family centre which now provides a venue for meetings, group work and direct work with children and carers.

2. The two units have shared access and are in close proximity on a large plot (0.9 acre). A decision with regard to one thus has significant impact on the other.

3. Current Situation

3.1 Woodend was temporarily closed in March 2002. Young people were moved to other units and the staff were temporarily redeployed. Owing to the length of time that has elapsed, the staff have now either left or been redeployed on a permanent basis, and there are no staff remaining who are attached to Woodend.

3.2 The interior of the building at Woodend was in need of significant refurbishments at the time of its temporary closure. It has now further deteriorated at a time when service and inspection standards for children's residential provision have become more exacting. It is estimated that to re-open this building the refurbishment costs would be in the region of £100,000 or more.

3.3 Copsehill staff were reallocated to the Family Support Team during the re-modelling of the service in 2002. The team is now based in the Andover office. There are no staff based permanently at Copsehill.

3.4 The Copsehill budget was reallocated during the remodelling in 2002. In line with all other family centres at that time, the staffing budget was incorporated into the family support service leaving a small revenue budget for the building's running costs.

3.5 Copsehill is now a venue to which staff and users must travel if they are to use the facilities there, and by virtue of its location is of easy access only to a small proportion of the local population. Although it is used very regularly, it is not a cost effective facility as it is not fully utilised during the week.

Hampshire's Residential Service

3.6 There are five other short term units. Each is designed to accommodate six young people on a short term, shared or respite care basis. Of these units, two have been temporarily closed. Cambridge Road was re-opened in February 2004 after extensive refurbishment: Cypress Lodge was closed in April 2003 and refurbishment is due to start soon - the staff team are currently providing an outreach service. In this context decisions regarding the re-opening of Woodend have been deferred to date.

3.7 Andover is part of the South West District. Its residential care needs on a time limited basis can currently be met within the District by Bournemouth Rd, (Eastleigh) or Glendalyn (New Milton) or in the North in Aldershot, although these units are some distance away. However, the pressure on placements for the South West is reflected in demand for fostering placements (leading to an increase in IFA placements) and longer term residential placements both for mainstream children and those with disabilities. With the re-opening of Cypress Lodge in Basingstoke, there will be enhanced capacity in the North of the county for short term residential placements.

3.8 Hampshire's residential care strategy currently offers a mix of short term, long term and respite care (for children with disabilities) provision. Each of the short and long term units have been established to provide for a resident group of 6 young people. This remains the basis of Hampshire's residential service and meets the needs of the majority of young people who need residential care.

3.9 However, there are some young people who present exceptionally risky behaviour. This behaviour includes abuse of other children, fire setting, self harming, and lack of self control. For these young people, care plans and risk assessments have identified on a number of occasions that our "small" residential groups of six are too big and create too difficult/diverse a mix of needs for staff to manage safely. This has been the case with the three highest cost out of county residential placements agreed this year.

4. Proposal

In the light of the above it is therefore proposed that Woodend and Copsehill be declared surplus to requirements.

4.1 The service at Copsehill can be delivered at other premises. The local Service Manager has developed a brief to allow for its facilities to be offered elsewhere and it seems likely that this can be achieved in the area office with a corresponding reduction of overhead costs, such as administrative services, cleaning and heating. Moreover, some improvements can be achieved through shared reception facilities and enhanced security. There would be some implications for the capital budget (as yet unquantified) arising from this option should it be agreed, and an ongoing resource budget commitment for the rental of additional floor space in Chantry House.

4.2 The Woodend/Copsehill site is in a residential area in Andover and is potentially a valuable site since subject to the grant of residential planning consent it appears suitable for redevelopment for new housing.

5. OPTIONS

The rest of this paper outlines options for the capital receipts and revenue budget which would be available should this proposal be agreed, but at this stage it is recommended that the options be subject to further consideration before a final decision is made.

Financial Resources

5.1 The revenue budget for Woodend is currently £417,620 of which £385,000 is currently offsetting the pressures on the sector's bottom line.

5.2 The estimated revenue budget requirement for the re-provision of the Copsehill site facilities within Chantry House is £45,700.

5.3 The site is likely to realise a capital sum in between £500,000 and £1m depending on the nature of the planning consent obtained and, subject to the recommendation being agreed, the Department will be seeking approval to retain up to the full 100% of usable capital receipts, with more detailed proposals to be subject of a future report.

5.4 Hampshire's strategic approach to children's services reflects government priorities and the evolving Children Act Agenda. It is to provide timely family support services to prevent longer term need, to develop its family placement service and enhance services for foster carers, and to provide its own high quality residential care to meet the needs of a particular group of children looked after.

Future options therefore reflect these strategic priorities.

Option One

The residential service budget would be re-designated to fund an additional family support service, which would include the Andover area, but whose remit would be to provide responsive, flexible and intensive services to avoid the need for children and young people to become looked after. This would involve arrangements to provide the service during evenings and weekends which is not the case with the current family support team. In the absence of a fixed residential base, staff in this service could be deployed to areas of greatest need across the county and would offer a flexible, cost effective response to families in crisis.

5.5 Option Two

To pump-prime the development of Hampshire's in-house foster care service. Within 2004/05 £385K of the £418K revenue budget available is already offsetting the sector's bottom line as savings. This option would therefore result in an additional pressure to the sector of £385K in future years.

5.5.1 The proposals for developing Hampshire's foster care service are subject to outline proposals to the Executive Member for Social Care and further work is currently being done on the detail of these proposals. Potential costs of implementing the full range of proposals would be in excess of £2m. Priorities for development would include increasing the rate of allowances to all foster carers to the national recommended rate. Increases in allowances may be introduced by Regulation, for which the Children Act 2004 has paved the way.

5.5.2 Other priorities would be:

5.5.2.1 Funding an out of hours support service requiring recruitment of additional support staff at an annual cost of £163K.

5.5.2.2 Enhancing day time support to foster carers through further development of a foster carer support role at an annual cost of £121K.

5.5.2.3 Establishing an additional skill level or professional salary scheme at an annual cost of £240K for 18 carers.

5.5.3 While increased investment to the fostering service is a high priority for the children's service sector, the issues for this option are that the revenue funding available (£417K) can fund only a part of the package of proposals that have been proposed.

5.6 Option Three

To invest usable capital receipts and revenue budget within in-house residential service by implementing the purchase of 2 x 3 bed units.

5.6.1 This option, as option 4, would allow for the in-house placement of high need young people for whom Hampshire currently purchases external placements with high staff/child ratios. Capital receipts would be required to fund the purchase of 2 x 4 bed houses and the revenue budget would similarly be reallocated. The current budget would not meet in full the costs of two smaller units (revenue deficit £93K) but the return of young people currently in NCP's to the first unit would release money to be linked to the revenue costs of the second.

5.6.2 The rationale for this option is that there should be purchase of domestic sized premises suitable for two or at the most three children. This would create more flexibility and would allow for children to be placed in situations where they could be managed more safely, either as one or two residents or on a one-only basis in cases of extreme risk. In practice, the high staffing levels required by these young people may mean that only three or four beds are provided at any one time, but the in-house provision would be more cost effective than external purchasing, more flexible and could offer better quality provision, linked to our developing CAMHS Service and joint working with Education. At times of lower demand, staff would be used in other residential units in Hampshire, hence the flexibility and efficiencies of this model.

Option 4

To re-provide a residential service along the same model as in Option 3, but to achieve this by obtaining the new premises through a rental agreement or through discussion with Housing Association. There is no information about rental costs presented here, although this would be the key factor in the financial viability of this option.

Race Relations (Amendment) Act - It is confirmed that there will be compliance with the Act in terms of carrying out an impact assessment on the identified option(s).

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

The service at Woodend would require significant investment if it were to re-open and a need for a further element in Hampshire's residential care strategy has been identified. The options outlined in this report serve as a basis for discussion for the competing priorities for the revenue budget and capital receipts should the proposal to declare Woodend/Copsehill surplus to County Council requirements be agreed by the Executive Member for Policy and Resources.

6.1 The following decisions are sought:

6.1.1 That the Woodend/Copsehill site is declared surplus to Social Services operational requirements.

6.1.2 That further consideration be given to alternative services in the context of the Council's strategy for children's services development.

6.2 That the approval of the Executive Member Policy and Resources be sought to declare Woodend and Copsehill, Shepherds Row, Andover, surplus to County Council requirements and to authorise the retention of 100% of the net sale proceeds to support existing Social Services capital investment objectives.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

1. SCE Report December 2004 The Family Placement Investment Plan (Reference Option 2)

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act