Notes of Round table Discussion - Greenwood Place,   20th December 2011

In attendance:Councillors - Roger Robinson, Thomas Gardiner, John Bryant, Russell Eagling, Jill Fraser, Paul Braithwaite and Gio Spinella. Chair: Cllr Maya de Souza

Janet Guthrie, Michael Rose, Bob Roberts, Tony Fisher, Jane Clifton, Akin Olukiran, CEO, DISC, and Denise Largin from the Camden Society

Shared Space

1. On the issue of a shared site, the general view was that this would not enhance provision and in fact there was a risk of tensions and problems arising even with separate entrances. An example of a relevant incident was given by an attendee. The group was informed by a representative of one of the organisations that officers had not been able to point to any existing facility in the country formultiple disability service users which included provision for people with advanced dementia. User groups understand that there is at least one multiple use centre in the UK which officers had visited –possibly in Wales - but this didn’t include provision for people with dementia. It was felt by those that attended that dementia was not a disability in the same way as the other conditions referred to in the proposals – it was more an illness than a stable condition.

2. It was felt that the idea of Centre for Independent Living which was to bring together different groups was important but a very different ambition from that of Greenwood Place. The idea behind the CIL was to address the fact that disability is a social condition created by a lack of features that make independent living possible for disabled people, and to create a space in which organisations like DISC, Winvisible could operate with their client community. It had long been considered that such a space should be created for a number of groups and for people with certain physical disabilities - this is a very different idea from that of the current proposal. In any event, dementia was felt to be a markedly different condition that required a different level of support and could not therefore be assisted by the idea of a CIL. Bringing together the Community Investment Programme with the idea of the CIL was felt to have created a confused proposal.

3. A larger site as proposed was considered to be detrimental in terms of making the centre more a part of the community. It could be more off-putting rather than less so. The individual buildings proposed as part of this multiple use site have also been presented as being multi-storey (it would seem 3 or possibly 4 stories). Service users with advanced dementia would therefore have to be escorted from one floor to another which would either require unaffordable staff numbers, or leave these people effectively confined to one floor, with substantially less space and freedom of movement than they currently enjoy for example at Netherwood and Raglan.

4. All the existing sites were considered to provide important and distinctive services, as well as ensure service provision in different parts of the borough for dementia. Attendees felt there was a human cost in losing these services especially for users such as autistic children/people eg at Shoot-up Hill where continuity in relationships and familiarity were important.

Does Camden need to ensure this sort of change to ensure long term financial sustainability?

5. We considered whether we may need this sort of change however unappealing for financial reasons. It was felt that a decision on buildings needed to be made considering costs issues but also issues as to quality of services. So far users and urser groups have not been shown anything to suggest that quality will be protected let alone improved in any way. Issues like impact on quality of life from more travelling should be taken on board. Concern was also expressed about the lack of information provided as to the anticipated financial savings. I suggested we ask very directly whether officers could point to expected improvements such as greater contact with professionals as a result of saving money on buildings, which I will action but others may wish to raise too.

6. Users/user groups felt there were other ways to increase financial viability like greater use of buildings, with some charges making use of personalised budgets. Some centres had already made many costs savings and had/were looking at setting up some social enterprise servcies. These alternatives for ensuring sustainablity/viability deserve full and proper consideration and to date have been discmissed too easily.

Quality of Buildings

7. All of the buildings with the exception of the Raglan Centre and the Camden Society centre (on Greenwood Place) were felt to be of high quality and it was considered unfortunate to demolish them after money had been put into them. There was a degree of surpirse that buildings were considered not fit for purpose.

8. With the Camden Society building, the other solution was to grant the body a lease so it could raise funds through other means. Developing the Greenwoood Place in this way was not considered to be essential for this services for those with learning difficulties.

9. The proposed new building may appear more accessible by public transport but in fact many users did not use public transport.

10. Cabinet Members should be encouraged to visit the buildings in all the centres to see for themselves before they make a decision.

User-led services

11. The views expressed on this idea were that:

- this is a complex issue and the Council should be clearer as to what is meant

- user involvement and leadership is important and there is some potential, but how best to do this and in what circumstances requires much more discussion. In some cases, users really want professional people and not other users providing services.

- this was a separate issue from that of the buildings. The current consultation focusing almost entirely on the buildings was insufficient for this purpose.

Consultation

12. Though it was accepted that there had been a number of meetings this was not considered adequate because of :

- the vague information provided and lack of clarity on issues eg proposed florspace relative to existing floorspace.

- lack of genuine dialogue and exploration of potential solutions

- the manner of consultation created a sense that a decision had been made, and people had been left feeling as if the threat of closure was hanging over them.

Cllr Maya de Souza (Green Party)