Agenda item

To consider the decisions made by the Cabinet at their meeting held on 3 March 2015 in relation to the above item, which has been called in firstly by Councillors Aspden, Runciman and Waller and secondly by Councillors Doughty, Douglas and Wiseman in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.  A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for the call-in and the remit and powers of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling-In) in relation to the call-in, together with the original report and the decisions of Cabinet.

Members received a report which asked them to consider the decision made by the Cabinet on 3 March 2015, in relation to the Council’s Housing for Older People Programme and proposals for an alternative approach to the provision of accommodation with care for older people, subject to agreement of a detailed business case.

Details of the Cabinet’s decision were attached at Annex A to the report and the original report of the Director of Adult Social Care to the Cabinet, attached at Annex B.

The original decision had firstly been called in by Councillors Aspden, Runciman and Waller on the following grounds:

·        A full assessment of the reasons for the failure of the EPH project, the decision-making timeline, and a detailed analysis of the costs incurred.

·        A comprehensive explanation for why the Lowfield Care Village proposal had been abandoned.

·        A commitment to investigate and publish a report on the governance and management of the overall project, including the suggestion that finances could be “fudged”.

·        A commitment to carry out a full consultation with local residents on the future of the Lowfields site (including the playing fields).

·        Following this, a commitment to present to Members a range of options (with business cases) for the future of the site including an assessment of whether a different provider could deliver a Care Village at Lowfields.

The original decision had secondly been called in by Councillors Doughty, Douglas and Wiseman on the following grounds:

·        More information was needed regarding the business case for the plan, including projections regarding the long-term economic viability of the proposal.

·        Because the previous plans collapsed due to poor governance, poor financial planning and minimal project management arrangements CYC needs to properly understand what went wrong regarding the previous model and what was needed for the new plan to succeed before committing to further borrowing.  As the Chief Executive intends to conduct a full review of the lack of governance on the last proposal it was sensible to wait until this had been reported before a final commitment to a new plan was undertaken.

·        Clarification was needed regarding the sites selected for the new plan and whether these sites represented the best solution in terms of both achieving best value for residents and best use of the proposed sites.

Cllr Waller addressed the meeting on behalf of the first group of Calling In members. He highlighted their key issues regarding the transparency of decision making, confidence in the Council and resources spent so far on the project. He stated that ward residents over the last 5 years had welcomed the proposals for the Lowfields site and suggested that they now felt abandoned without further explanation.

Cllr Doughty also addressed the meeting on behalf of the second group of Calling In members. They had three areas of concern that centred around trust, transparency and accountability. He questioned the Cabinet Members input and why the financial implications were not reported earlier. He confirmed he had raised a series of questions on the EPH project, receiving unsatisfactory answers, but hoped the review conducted by the Chief Executive would provide clarification.

The Cabinet Member for Health and Community Engagement spoke in response to the points made for the call-in of the decision. She responded to questions from the Committee and commented that it appeared the Calling In members had misunderstood the procurement process. She explained it was a commercial process led by an officer Board which required a degree of sensitivity including the negotiations with bidders, which took place in private. She highlighted the financial implications that were detailed in a previous Cabinet report dated 4 June 2013 to confirm that the risks were identified at the start of the process.

Some questions to the Cabinet Member raised issues regarding her priorities, the financial risks and the options available. She confirmed that a range of alternative proposals were available that would deliver high quality options for older residents in the City.

The Director of Adult Social Care and the Older Persons Accommodation Lead provided further information in answer to Members questions and in support of the Cabinet’s decision. Officers explained how the risks highlighted at the start of the project would always change due to the competitive dialogue. They confirmed that the strategic position was set out in the 2011 Older Peoples Housing Strategy and they were still committed to providing the right provision for older people in the City. They highlighted the new proposals for the Lowfields site and the financial implications were discussed.

Following further questions and lengthy debate the options were considered and put to the vote and it was:

Resolved:  That Option A be approved and that the decision of Cabinet be confirmed.

Reason: To enable the called-in matter to be dealt with efficiently and in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution.