Agenda item

Report from the Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services.

Recommendations

That Cabinet:

1.    Note the progress made to deliver the in-house children’s residential development, the positive impact for Children in Care and financial efficiencies that will be achieved.

2.    Approve the Care Leavers addendum to the Looked After Children and Care Leavers Sufficiency Strategy 2023 – 2028.

3.    Agree that the LAC and Care Leavers Sufficiency Strategy Delivery Plan be updated to increase the appropriateness and number of available accommodation options for Care Leavers as per the Care Leaver addendum to the LAC sufficiency strategy (see 2 above).

4.    Note that on 16 October 2023 authority was delegated to the Assistant Director of Housing Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, to acquire up to 100 properties in line with the Housing Acquisitions Policy, which includes scope to acquire properties to meet the accommodation needs of Children and Young Peoples Services.

5.    Authorise the Councils Designated Property Officer, or relevant Strategic Director in their absence, to negotiate any additional accommodation required and complete necessary transactions, in consultation with the Council’s Section 151 Officer, Strategic Director Children’s and Young Peoples Services, the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services and the Assistant Director of Legal Services.

The Chair invited Helen Sweaton, Joint Assistant Director, Commissioning & Performance to introduce the report. James Clarke the Assistant Director for Housing was also in attendance for this item.

The report was both an annual update on the residential development programme, which was keeping the Council in line with Cabinet’s intention to increase the number of children’s homes across the borough to be able to accommodate the children in care.

It also provided an update following a peer review into the Care Leavers service, where it was recommended that the Council review its Looked After Children’s (LAC) Sufficiency Strategy to reflect the needs of care leavers more accurately across the borough.

There were two reasons why it had changed since the LAC Sufficiency Strategy had been written. The first was there had been a significant increase in the number of care leavers and the population had increased. The second was the Ofsted published regulation to that part of the sector, for 16+ provision and consequently the market had changed significantly. The report covered both an update on where the Council was with its residential development and its plans based on the needs analysis that had been undertaken to update the Sufficiency Strategy to increase the provision for care leavers within the borough.

Councillor Blackham noted that permission had been granted to acquire up to 100 properties and sought an overview on the latest position and the plan to address this over the next two-three years. It was clarified that recommendation number 4 was to make members aware that approval had already been granted to increase the housing capacity across the borough, but this was not specifically for children in care or for care leavers. The plan was already in place and a number of care leavers received their permanent accommodation when they turned 18 through that plan to provide accommodation to any member of the Rotherham borough. 

It was noted that good progress had been made since Cabinet agreed the acquisitions policy and that target. This year the Council was on track, forecasting between 50-60 acquisitions, which was a significant improvement. For each property that came to the point of being let, the Council made a decision on whether it was used as general needs social housing or if it was appropriate for use as care leaver accommodation or temporary accommodation for homelessness. Those decisions were made on a case-by-case basis based on this such as need and location.

Councillor Blackham sought clarification on the number of properties that would be needed over the next two to three years for this specific provision. The information within the report considered the trend and the Council knew how many children in care were going to turn 18 over the next couple of years.  It was felt that 70 additional properties would be required.  A number of care leavers may move into their own provision, they may return to live with their parents, they may move outside of the borough. Some accommodation may be provided via the housing allocations policy which was not specifically for care leavers. The Council did have a number of care leavers who were not ready to live independently, who may need additional support. The Council had a duty to support those care leavers up to age 25, if required.

The report was seeking additional authorisation to be able to work with Housing Associations, private landlords, and private providers to develop accommodation so that the Council had accommodation which could be provided to care leavers as accommodation. Then if those care leavers, then needed support either by the Council delivering it through the personal advisors already allocated or through commissioning that support, this would be a more cost-effective option that what was in place currently.

Council Marshall asked if the Council had enough staff experience to meet the needs, rather than using outside providers. Where the Council knew there was a cohort of young people who would need support for a prolonged period, it was more cost efficient to employ staff. Some care leavers did not feel confident to live independently initially but may only need support to three or four months. The Council was therefore balancing, if additional support was needed, how many personal advisors would be needed on a permanent basis.  The Council would then employ them if it was more cost efficient to do so.  It was noted that there was some flexibility and resilience sometime by using commissioned providers however it depended on what type of support was needed and which providers were being used. Some of the charities were affordable in terms of the additional support they provided with additional benefits because they also offered other groups that the care leaver could continue to access after the Council stopped paying for the support. It was clarified that all of that was taken into consideration when determining how support would be provided.

Councillor Yasseen noted that page three of the report mentioned the development of in-house residential provision but did not detail the criteria or protocol to use when a child should be taken into care. It was queried how the Council would be able to demonstrate improvements in wellbeing, education, achievement, and mental health, which were key issues that when a child went into care they actually fell. There was a need to understand how the in-house residential offer would pick those aspects up. It was queried if it was intentional to make it holistic, rather than just providing a roof over a child’s head.

It was noted that the earlier part of the report provided the update on the children’s residential homes. That was slightly different to the care leavers accommodation. Those were children’s homes for children under 16 who predominantly needed that level of support.  The reason the Council developed its own in-house provision was because it received significant challenge in terms of getting external market providers to be able to support the children and to provide all the things previously mentioned. So external market could provide a roof over their head, at a significant cost, however the Council was concerned that there were often children were then out of borough, that the Council’s ability to provide an education, the emotional wellbeing and support and the persistence that children needed, not just children in care but all children needed someone who was committed to them.  Sometimes the Council did not find that the private providers were able to do that as well as the Council could itself.

Consequently, the whole residential programme in-house had been built on that basis, so they had really good links with the Rotherham therapeutic team, with Rotherham’s CAMHS, good links with dental and health checks to make sure the children received that holistic health support, including good links with local education providers. The Council was able to accommodate children with more complex needs in borough with its residential provision.

External placements did cost a lot of money, therefore one of the intended benefits, was that this was more cost efficient. The Council was not just placing children within its in-house provision that were currently located out of the borough but that it was also being used to be able to prevent children with complex needs needing to be place out of the borough. One of the properties was focused on, what’s known as ‘Step-Down’, which was where children should be cared for in a family home rather than a children’s home, so fostering or return to parents.  That provision was not necessarily for children that would have been out of borough, it was for children where the Council wanted a children’s home that would focus their support on returning those children into the family setting instead of staying in a residential. It was for all of those different reasons the Council wanted to create its own provision.

Councillor Tinsley queried if the Council expected any challenges to purchasing those properties. For example, residential care homes had to apply for a change of use. For the in-house under 16, children’s residential homes there were a number of challenges in identifying appropriate properties within the right areas.  Those homes required a change in planning permission because they required a specific regulation because it would be somebody’s place of work. Regarding the care leavers accommodation, as it would be a young adult’s home, there was no requirement for a change to planning permission.

The report did mention exploring some supported group living accommodation, where three or four care leavers would live together, if they required additional support, if they were not ready to maintain their own tenancy or if they didn’t want to stay in Rotherham.  If this was used there were no current requirement for a change of use application for those properties. However, the regulation of those properties had changed for 16+, so if the Council wanted to create one of those properties for young people under 18, it may be that the planning department would recommend seeking a change of use permission. The Council did not know what was needed in terms of how many 16+ or 18+ so it was anticipating that being a barrier or issue in the future.

Councillor Tinsley asked how the Council worked with residents, who may not be supportive of the proposed change in use to try to offer reassurances around potential changes. The Council had made positive progress in terms of the residential children’s homes development and there was only one property outstanding. A lot of engagement with local communities in the areas when a property was identified. The challenge was when that engagement was carried out prior to the planning application was that the residents only wanted to speak about the planning application which made it harder to work with residents positively to help them understand what it would be like following the planning process.  There was continued engagement following the planning process as the Council was aware those people would be the children’s neighbours. It was in the Council’s best interests to continue to work hard to engage with those residents. The Council had some really positive success, even in areas where residents were very anxious about the change use.

Councillor Baggaley asked in terms of acquisitions going forward if the Council had a view of what would open market verses new build. It was clarified that the emphasis was on what was called ‘street’ properties, which meant existing properties, with a focus on right to buy properties, where then Council had a statutory right to buy back the property it the ex-tenant was selling it within ten years of purchasing under that scheme. The figures would be reported to Cabinet shortly, but the majority had come from the source and would largely be semi-detached houses in existing housing estates that were owned by an owner-occupier but were previously council homes.

The Council would also look to do opportunistic acquisitions, which included purchasing from developers where they were struggling to sell new properties or where the Council was already planning to buy some Section 106 properties and had an opportunity to buy more. The focus would always be on second-hand properties, largely because they were cheaper, but the policy allowed new builds to be purchased as well, if needed. Whilst only a small number of properties had made it to the Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS), this was because the Council was being cautious about which properties met those specific needs. It had been a successful programme as the Council had acquired about 30 properties, with another 20 to 30 forecasted for this financial year, meaning the acquisitions target had been exceeded in year one.

In terms of the children’s residential development programme, with 55 properties that were considered to purchase one, it was clarified that there was one remaining outstanding property that needed to be completed.  All other properties had now either been acquired or were being built. It was anticipated that the roof would be added imminently to the property at Rowen. There were no plans to build anything else in terms of the children’s residential programme. The properties and accommodation for the care leavers, beyond the acquisitions previously mentioned, the Council would work with housing associations, with private providers, to look at house existing properties could be utilised. There was a bulge in the Council’s care leavers that would last for the next three years but would then reduce as the number of children in care who were under 16 was reducing, so the Council would not want to acquire long term properties that may not ben needed beyond the next five years.

Councillor Yasseen noted that the Council did not like to carry out consultation alongside the planning application but wanted to know if the Council inputted into the planning process from the specialist perspective of supporting young people in care. For the children’s homes that would be run by the Council, when it was the Council requesting permission for conversion of those homes then CYPS would engage with members of the public, local residents and local members before the planning application is submitted. The Council would not comment if a private provider was to request planning application in that area from a CYPS perspective.

Councillor Blackham notes that recommendation five was to negotiate any additional accommodation required and queried if that was within the 100-property cap or open ended? The Assistant Director for Housing explained he had a delegation to acquire properties in consultation with the Cabinet Member that were added to the Council’s housing revenue account stock. Some of those properties could be used to support this need but that did restrict the Council because there were some properties which the Council may want to acquire or enter into a lease which would not be appropriate to hold as council housing. This provided the Council another means to acquire or enter into a lease for properties that were not covered under the existing delegation.

The report suggested that around 70 additional properties were needed, so that would be the maximum number.  There would be no benefit to acquire accommodation beyond that number.

Councillor Yasseen asked that when the properties were identified in the various locations across Rotherham that the neighbourhood teams and local councillors within those localities be included within those discussions.

Upon a vote, the following was resolved:

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations that Cabinet:

1.    Note the progress made to deliver the in-house children’s residential development, the positive impact for Children in Care and financial efficiencies that will be achieved.

2.    Approve the Care Leavers addendum to the Looked After Children and Care Leavers Sufficiency Strategy 2023 – 2028.

3.    Agree that the LAC and Care Leavers Sufficiency Strategy Delivery Plan be updated to increase the appropriateness and number of available accommodation options for Care Leavers as per the Care Leaver addendum to the LAC sufficiency strategy (see 2 above).

4.    Note that on 16 October 2023 authority was delegated to the Assistant Director of Housing Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, to acquire up to 100 properties in line with the Housing Acquisitions Policy, which includes scope to acquire properties to meet the accommodation needs of Children and Young Peoples Services.

5.    Authorise the Councils Designated Property Officer, or relevant Strategic Director in their absence, to negotiate any additional accommodation required and complete necessary transactions, in consultation with the Council’s Section 151 Officer, Strategic Director Children’s and Young Peoples Services, the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services and the Assistant Director of Legal Services.

6.    Give consideration to ensuring that the local neighbourhood teams and ward members were consulted when identifying properties within their localities.