To receive a verbal update on non-mainstream housing provisions, such as respite accommodation and transition into supported living by Lynne Lidster, Director of Commissioning.

Lynne Lidster, Director of Commissioning, opened the item by explaining that Forum had posed a number of questions that covered adult social care, housing (including disabled facilities grants), and planning policy. Lynne Lidster explained she would address adult social care, while housing questions would be answered by Amanda Gregory, Assistant Director, Housing and Public Protection. It was noted that planning policy colleagues could not attend but had provided some answers.

Lynne Lidster explained that their strategic plan aimed for individuals to lead fulfilling lives at home, within their communities, and with their families. They prioritised support that enabled independent living and strived to minimise the need for specialist accommodation unless necessary. Key principles included prevention, community investment, choice, and treating everyone with compassion, respect, and dignity.

Lynne Lidster noted how a supported housing needs assessment had been conducted, commissioned by adult social care, covering sheltered housing for older adults, Extra Care facilities, residential and nursing homes, and accommodations for individuals with learning disabilities, mental health needs and or autism.

It was explained that the housing needs assessment projected a need for 420 units of retirement accommodation, with none in the affordable and social rented sector but all in the private sector by 2035. It was assumed that 50% of this need could be met through accessible mainstream housing, reflecting the aim for individuals to remain in their communities rather than moving into specialist accommodation unnecessarily. Housing with care or Extra Care housing usually involved onsite carers, such as at Lady Elizabeth House, where dedicated carers were available round the clock. The estimated need for such housing by 2035 was 200 units, catering to both self-funded individuals and those eligible for care from the council.

Lynne Lidster continued that in terms of residential and nursing care provision, they had a significant number of care homes registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in the borough and when comparing to neighbouring boroughs, had double the amount of such facilities. It was noted that the need for additional bed spaces in residential care was minimal, with only five projected to be needed by 2035. Additionally, there was an estimated oversupply of 250 bed spaces in nursing care, with around 250 void spaces at any given time.

It was explained that for people with mental health needs and those with learning disabilities, the estimated need up to 2030 was 100 units and 50 units respectively. Most of these needs could be accommodated in general needs housing that was adapted to provide appropriate support. Lynne Lidster explained that many individuals with learning disabilities in the borough resided in smaller, adapted general needs accommodations where they received24-hour care and support, rather than in specifically purpose-built facilities.

Lynne Lidster noted that respite care offered family or unpaid caregivers a break from their caregiving responsibilities, ranging from a few hours to weeks. It could be provided in various settings, including at home through organisations like Crossroads or day centres like Boyne Grove. Care homes could offer respite stays regulated by the Care Quality Commission, and specialised respite options could be commissioned based on individual needs, either within or outside the borough.

Shared Lives offered accommodation and support, akin to fostering, for individuals with diverse care needs, primarily learning disabilities or autism. Families or individuals provided long-term support in their homes, with access to additional services. The council was aiming to expand Shared Lives provision beyond the identified need of 11 placements by 2030 to reduce reliance on residential care. Lynne Lidster noted that a contract with West Berkshire Council was underway to facilitate this expansion.

Lynne Lidster explained that transitioning to adulthood involved preparing young people supported by Children's Services for adult care and support needs, a process termed "approaching adulthood." This included individuals aged 18 to 25 with an EHCP (Education, Health, and Care Plan) who may remain under Children's Services. Collaboration between adult and children's services aimed to identify and plan for young people's needs earlier, ensuring accessible and affordable provisions closer to home.

Lynne Lidster noted that they were developing a supported accommodation strategy by year-end, focusing on good or outstanding care. Their independent living project reviewed and met care needs, while collaboration with children and adult commissioners was improving planning for young people. They were also exploring building on an Imperial Road site pending a business case. The proposal for the Imperial Road site included two blocks of supported living accommodation for people with learning disabilities. Each block would have 11 lifetime homes, with shared homes on the ground floor and self-contained flats upstairs. Lynne Lidster said they had submitted a pre-planning application and would develop a business case for member approval, followed by procuring a building partner.

Amanda Gregory gave an overview of the Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) which received around £1 million in funding, with approximately 69 grants done this year at an average of £8,000 each. Amanda Gregory explained that the maximum grant was £30,000, available for both adults and children, with means testing for adults but not for those under 19. The new DFG policy, to be implemented later this year, would allow grants to exceed £30,000 for specific cases. It was noted there was a good take up with around 30-40 more grants in the system. Amanda Gregory explained that landlords and tenants could apply for the grant, with landlord permission required if the tenant applied. The new discretionary scheme would also not require means testing for tenants, providing more flexibility.

The Chair said it was important to note that there were young people in the borough with severe physical disabilities who also required sheltered and supported housing. While the focus was on older people during the discussion, it was crucial not to overlook the needs of younger individuals in the community who required similar forms of accommodation and support.

Councillor Price asked for clarification on residential nursing and if there was an oversupply or the need to provide more. Lynne Lidster explained that in the borough, there was an oversupply of nursing care provision, and they would often see people moving into the borough from other areas where nursing care was less available.

Councillor Price said that was the impression she had and that with all the nursing homes, could see how people might encourage their parents to sell up and move nearby so they could give support. Councillor Price said that the overall picture looked positive.

Lynne Lidster said the oversupply of nursing care in the borough did pose challenges because many people move in from outside and later run out of funds and that upon moving into the borough become residents, which leaves strained resources. In an ideal scenario, resources would match the population needs, but currently, there was an excess.

Councillor Price said that with the existing surplus, developers in Windsor were still pursuing new construction projects, including a significant site. Councillor Price raised questions about coordination in the planning process and if already there was excess capacity, why were new planning permissions being granted?

Lynne Lidster said there was a clear need for sheltered accommodation for older people, especially in the private rented market. However, developers' needs assessments often differed from those of local authorities. Developers typically based their assessments on broader geographical areas, which could inflate the perceived need. Additionally, developers may have specific criteria for care homes that may not align with existing facilities in the borough. Lynne Lidster said that local authorities consider various factors beyond just accommodation need when evaluating planning applications for care homes, including broader planning considerations and residents' personal preferences. While developers may conduct their own assessments, these are secondary considerations in the planning process. Ultimately, the choice of care home was often a matter of personal preference for individuals.

Councillor Price asked for clarification on the 250 unfilled spaces as the borough was in desperate need for those sleeping rough because there was not enough accommodation and asked if there were any creative ways to help those that have nowhere to go.

Lynne Lidster clarified that the 250 vacant units were dispersed across various newer care homes in the borough, primarily designated for older individuals. These vacancies were often found in the more expensive facilities. While she acknowledged the limited influence over these vacancies, Lynne Lidster affirmed the awareness of the availability of these accommodations.

Peter Haley asked for clarification over the figures in housing for older people where it was said that there was a net need for 420 units but none in the social and affordable rent sector. Whilst Peter Haley did not dispute the number, he wished to understand the figure better.

Lynne Lidster explained that there were currently 1017 units of that type available for rent in the borough and noted that housing associations had challenges filling them. Lynne said that there was a greater demand for and affordability in the private sector which explained the needs going up.

Lisa Hughes said that were individuals with learning difficulties and autism who were living with or supported by increasingly elderly parents and asked how this is captured in the needs analysis?

Lynne Lidster said the community team for people with learning disabilities was aware of individuals who may require support, whether they were currently under our care or living with family or friends providing assistance and maintained a detailed forward plan for those not formally supported by the borough, including individuals living with aging family members.

Lisa Hughes asked if, in the data, they delineated between people with autism and learning difficulties? Lynne Lidster said they assessed individuals based on their eligibility for adult social care, considering various factors such as Care Act needs, mental health issues, autism, or learning disabilities. The approach was personalised and aimed to determine the appropriate care and support for each individual's preferences and circumstances.

Lisa Hughes asked about the current applications that were discussed for the Disability Facilities Grant and the targets for the timeline of the process. For instance, how long does it typically take from the submission of an application to its completion?

Amanda Gregory explained that the timeline for processing a Disability Facilities Grant can vary depending on the individual's needs and the complexity of the required work. While there was typically a six-month period outlined in legislation, factors such as assessments, type of work needed, and potential need for planning permission could influence the duration. Additionally, since individuals were responsible for finding their own contractors, availability of the building trade could also impact the timeline.