Agenda item

The Director of Childrens Social Care and Community Safety submits a report to update the commission on the overview of progress in the development of two children’s homes, Holly House and Hillview.

The Children, Young People and Education Scrutiny Commission received a presentation setting out an overview of progress in the development of two children’s homes, Holly House and Hillview.

Slides were presented (attached).

Other points from the presentation included:

• There had been challenges around cost, availability and suitability of externally commissioned homes, as such, it had been thought that the best thing to do was to expand the in-house residential estate. This was part of the Placement Sufficiency Strategy which includes fostering and residential accommodation for children and young people in the care of the Local Authority.
• A report two years ago had shown accelerating costs and as such a plan had been put together to grow the estate by two children’s homes over a two-year period.
• Holly House:
  • This consisted of two semi-detached properties owned by the Council.
  • Work had started in March 2023 after planning permission had been granted (there had been no objections to the application).
  • Work had been undertaken to make two properties into one building, and final check of the construction work would be undertaken shortly.
  • The building was now a proper children’s home with all paperwork registered and the relevant documentation sent to OFSTED. Inspectors to interview managers and inspect the premises were being awaited.
  • A management team had been appointed as well as chef, housekeeper, administrator and a core care team were being recruited.  It was hoped to draw in experienced staff from other parts of the service so that it was not an all-new team. 
  • It was hoped that the children’s home would be fully functional in February 2024.
• Hillview:
  • This property had previously been a children’s home in the 1970s but had since been converted to offices and later fell into dereliction. The site was now planned to be rebuilt as children’s homes.
  • The home would include ‘deprivation of liberty’ provisions, it was clarified that ‘deprivation of liberty’ referred to certain things that some children could not do due to restrictions (i.e. restriction of access to mobile phones or the internet) if the court approved that such restrictions were in a child’s best interest. When this happened, it was usually due to a potential risk to the child from either their own actions or the actions of others.
  • It was clarified that the ‘Staying Close’ principles were an extension of the ‘Staying Put’ principle for foster care, but in this case applied to residential homes and would be included as part of the remit of this children’s home.
  • The possibility of making it a passive build had been explored, which would have made the home self-sufficient in terms of heat and energy.  However, the traditional construction method, but with higher energy efficiency had been chosen, which included features such as having solar panels and heat pumps.
  • The children’s home facility would not take up the entire site and another part was available for development or other purposes.

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• In terms of the suitability of children to the accommodation and subsequent interaction with local residents, assessments were made by the social work teams, including needs assessments to match young people to placements.  It was rare that local residents make complaints about the Local Authority’s children’s homes as they maintained a ‘Good Neighbour Policy’ within their communities. It was further clarified that when complaints were received, they were sometimes about physical features of the site, such as trees, rather than with the residents, and others has been found to be about children in the community rather those in care. Hillview was a stand-alone site and this mitigated noise issues.
• These residences were not specifically for disabled children. Specific homes with specialist designs features already existed within the service to meet these children’s needs. Holly House and Hillview were generally aimed at children with emotional and behavioural support needs.
• In terms of the impact these developments had on the overall residential provision for Looked After Children in Leicester, it was thought that this would be positive as it would bring young people back to be cared for by Council staff rather than being cared for privately. Lots of private homes were away from Leicester and there were benefits in the city as they would be close to their families, local community resources and the Council has strong working partnerships with other agencies to support these children.
• The homes would be mixed-gender.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.