To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of public questions is 12 noon, 3 clear working days before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday the working day before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting.
Minutes:
Cabinet was advised that there had been no petitions submitted but that questions and statements had been received from members of the public in relation to Agenda Item 6 (Climate Progress Report 2022-23), Agenda Item 9 (BCP Council’s Adult Day Opportunities Strategy) and Agenda Item 10 (Our People and Communities: 20mph options appraisal).
Public Questions received from Gillian Worsfold (read out by Democratic Services)
I have looked into this and my findings are:
The minimum wage from April 2024 is £11.44 an hour Based on 6 hours a day and 4 times a week that equates to £274.56
4 x month = £1,098.24
12 months of the year = £13,178.88
So, my 3 questions based on these findings are
1. can BCP council cover that? Bearing in mind this is minimum wage and a lot of care assistance would be higher?
2. can BCP council cover these costs x 50 people as that would equate to £658,944.00 per year?
3. How is this cost effective for the council? Surely in the long run it would cost less to house these vulnerable adults within a building based centre?
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing, Councillor David Brown
Thank you for your question.
Further to our previous email correspondence on this consultation on the Day Opportunities Strategy and the Tricuro Day Services Review, we are aware of the concern and anxiety that the proposed changes and consultation has brought about for many of those using the centres and their families and carers.
At the drop-in sessions which took place as part of the consultation process at all of the Centres during January I was able to attend all except one, speaking with several of those attending the centres and their families / carers, and speaking at a couple of those sessions to answer questions and discuss views, as well meeting with staff working at the Centres.
Relating to the potential cost of alternative one to one care if the Christchurch Connect Day Centre was to close, for not only your daughter but all those attending this centre, and the cost effectiveness of this for BCP Council.
Should a decision be made to close a Day Centre the costs of alternative care and day opportunities provision, or alternative respite for carers is difficult to assess as it would vary from person to person depending on their circumstances. However, the intention is not to close a facility and simply fund one to one care and carer respite as an alternative, the process would be that over a period of up to two years each individual would have their needs assessed and appropriate alternative provision to meet their needs would be provided, whether that be at an alternative Tricuro Day Centre, an independent day centre or a community based day opportunities provision as appropriate.
After detailed consideration of the results of the consultation and lengthy discussions with senior officers in Adult Social Care and councillor colleagues, you will be pleased to see the final report on the Day Opportunities Strategy and Day Centres Review has now been published for decision by Cabinet today.
You will see that following the consultation, the recommendation is for the Christchurch Connect, Boscombe Connect, Parkstone Connect and Moordown Plus Day Centres to remain open, incorporating the Highcliffe Plus, Wallisdown Plus and Westbourne Plus services as they currently do, with the Poole Plus services relocated to Parkstone Connect.
I hope that this reassures you that we are sensitive to the impact on carers as well as the person who is directly receiving the service, and through the public consultation we have listened to those views in reaching the recommendations which are before the Cabinet meeting for decision today.
Public Questions received from Neil Drury (read out by Democratic Services)
1. As my wife and I get older, we need the peace of mind and continuity the present building-based provision affords. Many of the Strategy’s proposed day opportunity providers have ‘open door’ policies. This would be totally unsuitable for the safety of our son.
Independent/private sector providers use of community halls and such buildings, which, from previous experience, often lack reliable services, e.g. adequate heating, hot running water, cleanliness etc., fill my wife and I with anxiety for the health, safety, comfort and mental wellbeing of our son and other clients.
Most of the current clients accessing the building based day centres need continuity in their lives. Without continuity, their anxiety levels will cause distress for them and their carers. Has any consideration been given to the potential damage this will cause to these vulnerable individuals and carers already under extreme daily pressure, 365 days of the year?
2. During the previous O & S Council meeting, Councillor Salmon asked Mr Gillings to explain why there was such a difference between the cost of day opportunity provision by individual community workers, community groups and independently runt private companies, offering day opportunities and the existing Tricuro Connect day centres? This question was not answered during the meeting. My suspicion being that the independent and private sector operates on profit motives and operates with inexperienced and reduced staff levels, meaning corners will be cut along with staff pay and the quality of training, resulting in a service which is not fit for purpose. Can MR. Gillings please answer Mr Councillor Salmons question on this satisfactorily?
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing, Councillor David Brown
Thank you for your question.
1. We recognise the value of day service buildings and are therefore proposing that, following consultation feedback, Christchurch Connect, where we understand your son Peter attends, should remain open.
We acknowledge that for some people a community-based option may not be an appropriate provision depending on their needs.
Following the consultation and drop-in sessions we arranged in January 2024, we have incorporated the concerns of carers and those who access Tricuro day services in the papers provided for Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet. The potential closures of services have been subject to an Equalities Impact Assessment and as per the papers for these meetings have identified the following relevant risk factors:
For people with a Disability – Risk of change for those with dementia, some mental health conditions, learning disability and/or autism. This includes negatively impacting the health and wellbeing of a person, lack of continuity of care, loss of relationships with other people using the service and their staff team and establishing new relationships in an alternative service.
Risk of being unable to meet a person’s needs.
Change and/or increase in travel may be a barrier for those with complex disabilities and/or conditions.
Change could disproportionately negatively impact those who are socially isolated and/or have neurodiverse conditions, such as autism.
For Carers – Risk that being unable to meet a cared for person’s needs may negatively impact the ability for carers to fulfil their role.
Risk of loss of relationships and support networks for carers.
Risk of increase in carer strain.
The recommended proposal for the future of Tricuro Day Services is therefore:
Connect services to remain open and incorporate Highcliffe, Wallisdown and Westbourne Plus services already based there. In addition, Poole Plus to be relocated to Parkstone Connect and Moordown Plus service to remain open. Highcliffe, Wallisdown, Westbourne, and Poole Plus original sites to be closed.
We hope this reassures you that we have listened to people’s concerns and provided an option that continues to meet the needs of people who access Tricuro Day Services and their carers.
2. Following the consultation work and attendance at the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 15th January 2024, we subsequently met with the Day Opportunities co-production group on 24th January, which you kindly attended. Following feedback from this meeting, we met again as a group on 9th February (appreciating you did not attend this meeting) to confirm revisions to the strategy.
We have considered the slide relating to this. As a result, we added into the finalised strategy the following note regarding the cost of building based day services:
Building based Day Services are often more expensive due to a range of factors including managing the needs of a more complex group of people (including personal care and a range of health issues), staffing costs related to this, maintenance and running costs of a building potentially owned by the company and for Tricuro services, having previously employed council staff on different terms and conditions in regard to pay and pensions schemes.
We also added the following definition of community-based provision into the strategy as there was a need to define these services. This is as follows:
Community-based day opportunities are defined as smaller organisations that may or may not use a building in the community to run their services from but are not purpose-built day service buildings. These services tend to provide for a smaller number of people with less complex needs but have paid members of staff and assurances associated with a building-based day service e.g. insurance in place, training for staff, staff checks such as DBS, quality assurance measures, policies etc.
We have successfully commissioned these services for many years from existing providers who are primarily charitable and/or not for profit organisations. Our experience has been that the safety and outcomes for those accessing these services has been positive and the cost implications have been competitive.
The Day Opportunities strategy therefore proposes a mixed model of buildings-based services and the development of community-based day opportunities to meet the needs and wishes of people who access services and their carers now and in the future.
Public Question received from Nicola Badzek (read out by Democratic Services)
1. What do you intend to offer in terms of additional respite for the carers that currently have their loved ones attend the day care facilities if they are shut down?
2. What amount has been set aside in next years budget for adult social care, in particularly the day care facilities?
Public questions relating to Agenda Item 6 Climate Progress Report 2022-23
Public Questions received from Stephen Harper (read out by Democratic Services)
1. What were the quantities of chemicals used by BCP 2023?
2. Why is the BCP council not restricting the use of these chemicals in the listed sensitive public areas in accordance with the Directive 2009/128/EC?
3. How is the BCP council informing the public of the risks to these chemicals in accordance with the Directive 2009/128/EC?
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Climate Response, Environment and Energy, Councillor Andy Hadley
Thank you for your question, Cabinet Members spent a couple of hours hand weeding pavements in Bournemouth Town Centre a week ago, it was instructive in the difficulties that our staff face in attempting to use mechanical methods.
Unfortunately, as part of the recent budget setting, we had to make savings to our ground maintenance operation, and this is reflected in the priority setting for councils across the country.
There have been several news reports recently of other councils that had banned glyco phosphate-based products and have reintroduced them because of concerns over the performance of alternatives.
We have previously provided you with a list of chemical herbicides used by BCP Council and where these are applied. I am grateful for the effort that you then put in to analysing all these products for us. You have also raised alternative products that could be used and in a very recent email acknowledged the significant costs of some of them.
On Monday you sent me the links to an integrated weed management approach a common-sense strategy of designed services better reducing leaf litter and removing plants early in their lifecycle, I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss this with the team. I did note that in an article about a decision by East Sussex Council to continue to use chemical herbicides that Lewes Council had an opt in residents weeding scheme which would lend itself to the integrated weed management approach.
You asked about compliance with the directive 2009/128/EC, this requires national governments to make action plans and it applies to all forms of pesticides, we are seeking to minimise our use of such products and any exposure to the public.
Public questions relating to Agenda Item 10 – Our People and Communities: 20mph options appraisal
Public Question received from Adam Osman (read out by Democratic Services)
The proposal to maintain the default speed limit on residential streets falls short.
The average walk to school is 2km in the UK; a 2km radius of every school in BCP would cover the entire conurbation. Children need protection via 20mph speed limits. A piecemeal approach would merely confuse drivers, half solve the issue and would cost more, with on and off signage.
I question the figure of £300m to retrofit speed limits. I believe this figure is disproportionately large and must be reviewed.
I query the need for enforcement of 20mph limits being a barrier to implementation. This is far from the case as we know 30mph limits aren't enforced. There is no reason we cannot work towards enforcement while implementing 20mph now. Do authorities not allow 20mph without enforcement? If not, so this is a major barrier to progress, and should be tackled.
Response by the Portfolio Holder for Climate Response, Environment and Energy, Councillor Andy Hadley
Adam, thanks for your question and for your interest in the safety of children getting to school.
It is an ambition that the three towns alliance share, reducing speed is one of the measures we are considering, alongside safer crossing points and measures to assist those walking, wheeling or cycling on the more major roads.
The council does not have unlimited funds and we have to balance many transport priorities, I agree with you that implementing zones everywhere seems hugely expensive. The £300million figure in the report is an estimate of the cost to put 20mph zones in on all residential areas across BCP covering all the purple shaded areas in the map at Annexe 2 of the report we are seeing today.
It is important to highlight that 20mph zones have physical humps and build outs to reduce speed and 20mph limit areas just use signs and road markings, these are much cheaper to implement but are not self-policing.
The existing 20mph measures in BCP are a mixture of the two, we have 55 zones and 22 limit schemes. Because we have to date selected treatments that locations with historically high casualty levels, our casualty reduction data shows that limit areas have been affective, this is in contrast to some evidence from elsewhere, including the national studies where the benefits of a signed and markings approach are much less than for zones with physical features. Part of this will be an averaging of the benefits.
Dorset Police are supportive of targeted measures, using an evidence-based approach to reduce speeds and injuries arising from collisions and we recognise their constraints on enforcing against speeding. They are keen to help us support community speed watch schemes.
Public statement relating to Agenda Item 9 – BCP Council’s Adult Day Opportunities Strategy
Public Statement received from Neil Drury
Our adult son Peter has Downs Syndrome and Autism. His care needs are challenging and complex and his vulnerability demands high levels of professional and expert care. Apart from providing a safe and secure environment, the staff and management of existing Day Centres understand Peter’s needs and the importance of continuity and consistency of care. This professionalism allows us to enjoy some essential respite safe in the knowledge that Peter is being well looked after and safeguarded.
We recognise the severe financial pressures on BCP and appreciate that professionally managed Day Centres cost more than other types of day opportunities. That said they are ‘tried and tested, and fit for purpose’, and it is important when comparing alternatives to compare ‘like for like’. I fear that the level of support and care presently provided by our Day Centres is unlikely to be present in many of the alternatives being considered.
Public statements relating to Agenda Item 10 – Our People and Communities: 20mph options appraisal
Public Statement received from Nick Greenwood (read out by Democratic Services)
National Studies on 20 mph speed limits have been inconclusive.
Therefore Cllr Dove’s suggestions for a local comprehensive road safety study should be implemented.
Cllr Earl apparently has no time for such wisdom and has expressed a desire to move directly to a blanket 20 mph limit, seemingly assuming these limits are the panacea of all traffic accidents.
At the most recent O&S meeting Cllr Hadley initially presented false data claiming over 700 traffic accidents occurred in the BCP area during a period of one year. Near the end of proceedings he corrected himself saying that the period was over four years.
Democracy is not served when discussion relies on false data and when a non-quorum of less than 20 out of the 76 Councillors show up to vote.
Concurrently the United Nations flag was flying outside perhaps betraying the World Government 2030 Agenda of many Councillors.
Public Statement received from Elizabeth Glass (read out by Democratic Services)
In the report on the 20 mph options it’s stated that ‘Men, middle-aged groups, people without a disability, white British, heterosexuals and Christians consider freedoms associated with driving are being compromised’. By default therefore it’s suggested that other groups are not concerned about those freedoms.
We are all concerned about freedom as we know that the 20 mph scheme is a Trojan horse to bring in more control and eventually remove cars from our roads altogether.
Councillors, I need to remind you that you work for us and apparently you do not have the mandate for this.
Public Statement recevied from Charles Ross Illingworth (read out by Democratic Services)
I am concerned at the desire by some members of the O&S Committee to push the 20mph agenda without full consultation with the constituents of the BCP area. This agenda will have a profound effect on local people, and the one dimensional approach that speed is the principal determinant of road traffic casualties is controversial, and does not take into account other relevant factors.
The failure of the O&S Committee to call for neither a full consultation, nor a comprehensive local road safety study (as suggested by Cllr Dove) seems cynical and lacking transparency. If the councillors who voted for this proposal felt the public supported their agenda, they will have little concern in fully engaging with the public. Maybe those councillors knew they did not have much local support causing them to avoid full and proper consultation without regard for the views of BCP constituents? How is that reasonable?
Public statement relating to Agenda Item 9 – BCP Council’s Adult Day Opportunities Strategy
Public Statement received from Tom Hayes
I’m Tom Hayes, Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Bournemouth East. I have been working alongside carers and users of Moordown Plus to save this vital service.
We’re thrilled by the recommendations to retain Connect services including Boscombe Connect, and to retain Moordown Plus.
We recognise that the other recommendations will be hard on people. The administration has inherited financial chaos from the previous administration and Government’s cuts.
I want to use this opportunity to represent feedback from carers and service users, and people concerned for its future. Their points are:
1. There’s an incredible team with time to care.
2. It’s a purpose-built community space.
3. It gives carers downtime to look after themselves to better look after relatives.
I want to commend the Leader for meeting me and a carer for two hours and this Cabinet for its decision. Together we can come up with solutions in the public interest.