Agenda item

The Chairman invited the following to the table:

·         Mr Eugene Prinsloo – Developments Director, Community Health Partnerships

Mr Prinsloo explained that Community Health Partnerships (CHP) is the freeholder of the land adjacent to Finchley Memorial Hospital. He said that the CHP was working in collaboration with the Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STP), Barnet Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and One Public Estate (OPE) to review the public estate needs and local departmental policies in Barnet.

Mr Prinsloo explained that the new management had commissioned an appraisal to look into alternative uses for the site and to take into account changes in the overall strategy and housing policy agenda. The refreshed appraisal would outline options for ‘Homes for NHS staff’ in-line with the Secretary of State’s announcement around homes for NHS staff and contribute to housing targets and capital receipts. Mr Prinsloo said that a study which had been conducted around a year ago had investigated the mixture of private affordable housing and Extra Care.

Mr Prinsloo said the CHP was currently working through the possibilities of what the site could be used for and how many units it could potentially accommodate. He said there were planning constraints involved and the plans need to be commercially viable and a deliverable project. The appraisal would conclude on 11 December, which would then be taken through an internal governance process, to the Property Committee and finally the CHP Board by the end of January 2019. Mr Prinsloo said he was happy to return to the HOSC meeting on 21 February 2019, following the Board’s decision, to discuss the preferred option and explain the timescales of putting this into action.

The Chairman enquired as to whether the Extra Care Fund stipulated that at least 50 units would be required to make any plans viable. Mr Prinsloo said the Extra Care Fund did not have defined terms, however feedback from the supply chain was that 50 units would be required to make it worthwhile commercially, but the Extra Care spanned a number of different things.

The Committee asked how risks surrounding the lack of key worker demand data had been managed. Mr Prinsloo acknowledged that it had been difficult to get their hands on reliable data surrounding the NHS’s requirements for key worker housing. He said that he had engaged with the workforce people at the Royal Free which had provided a snap shot of housing currently provided. He said the requirements depended on proximity to the acute hospital site and the mix and type of key workers.

The Committee asked if their recommendations would be used to aid the decision made by the Board, if key worker housing was chosen. Mr Prinsloo said CHP as a company was here to serve the wider health interest, and the decision would be taken in collaboration with the STP, if the plans for key worker housing were the chosen option. He said the CHP would need to see how the planning process unfolded before looking at specific commercial arrangements.

The Committee asked if the information surrounding the costs could be shared with the Committee, as key worker housing had higher costs associated with it than residential housing. Mr Prinsloo said that the CHP would like to review the proposal and would then be able to share the massing study results afterwards but were not able to do so at this time due to concerns about what the planning would look like. He said ward councillors would be consulted on what the site was intended to be used for at the end of January after the Board meeting.

Some of the Committee suggested Extra Care was not well defined and asked if relevant people had been consulted and whether the arrangements would be aligned with Barnet Council’s plans. Mr Prinsloo said that throughout the last year discussions had been had with Barnet around Extra Care requirement. He said Barnet had progressed their own plans within Burnt Oak and the One Public Estate Board’s role was to have visibility across owners and users to align interests. Ms Wakeling said that Barnet had two Extra Care schemes and both buildings were owned by a Housing Association, with care provided by a care agency and another currently going through a tender process. Ms Wakeling said that Barnet was in the process of building three new Care Schemes, each with 55 units which would provide care for people with dementia and provision for couples. In addition, a Housing Association was building another scheme of around 50 units. This needed to be considered in CHP’s consideration of the use of the land at FMH.

Ms Wakeling said that 50-55 units were needed for the schemes to be viable and that conversations had been had in the past with CHP. She said the Council did not require CHP to build on its behalf and that an issue with using CHP buildings is that they are tied into service charges with CHP. She said temporary support could be very useful for the NHS in circumstances where patients needed to be moved from acute hospitals quickly. She also said that having lost a significant amount of nursing care beds, 315 in total, more beds were required. Ms Wakeling explained that many people move to Barnet to have their care needs met, which in time then places the responsibility for funding their care on the Local Authority.

Mr Prinsloo agreed to return to the February meeting. He also agreed to notify Ward Councillors of the decision of the board in January.

RESOLVED that the Committee noted the report.