Agenda item

Councillors Keith Burrows, Judith Cooper and David Routledge attended as a Ward Councillors. 

Concerns, comments and suggestions raised at the meeting included the following:

• There had been issues with the property being used as a supported unit since last August.
• There was no evidence that a risk assessment had been undertaken.
• Residents had not been consulted about the use.
• The unit was a semi-detached property and as adjoining neighbour had been disturbed on regular occasions both day and night.
• There had been a number of incidents encountered that had been reported and
• Noise disturbance had been reported to the Anti Social Behaviour Team.
• As a result of the incidents one of the residents had been moved from the unit.
• There had been continuing issues in the community even though the resident that was thought to be causing the problems had been moved.
• Noise diaries had been submitted to the Anti Social Behaviour Team.
• Mill House had been contacted about residents concerns but so far no response received.   A letter had now been sent and a reply was awaited.
• Residents fully understand the need for people with mental health issues to live in the community but had concerns that they were being given a higher priority than local residents. 
• Residents felt that their Human Rights were being impacted upon by the use.
• The wider situation had not been taken in to consideration.
• Positive Community Care had a supported housing unit in a property in Hayes, which had caused serious Anti Social Behaviour issues.
• Suggested outcome for the short term was for the person causing the problems to be re-assessed, as it was not felt their needs were being met.
• Suggested long term outcome would be for the unit to be closed.
• The process for supported housing units needed to be looked at to see whether semi-detached properties were suitable for this type of use.

A Ward Councillor spoke and raised the following points:

• Understand the problems that were occurring and could not add too much to what the petitioner had already said.
• Residents had attended the Ward surgery to seek help in resolving the issues they were facing.  
• There needed to be a holistic approach to resolve the problems being encountered by residents.
• There needed to be measures put in place 24 hours a day with emergency contact numbers given to residents to report any issues.
• A monitoring regime needed to be put in place by the Council.
•  A risk assessment was a fundamental part of the process and if not already carried out should be undertaken in the future.
• Residents needed to be provide with constructive help.
• Had received regular e-mails from residents on the noise and disturbance that they were suffering.
• Premises that were to be used as supported housing units should require planning consent, which would mean that neighbours would be consultated.
• There was an urgent need to rectify the problem, as a semi-detached property was not ideal for this type of use.
• Local residents living close to the unit need a quality of life.
• Recognise that people with mental health issues have to adapt to live in the wider community.

Councillor Philip Corthorne listened to the concerns of the petitioners and responded to the points raised:

The Cabinet Member advised that the supported housing unit was run independently of the Council.   The Council did not have the power to close the unit as legal proceedings would need to be instigated and a decision made by the Courts.   At this stage there was insufficient evidence to go down the closure route.   Work had already taken place to resolve the issues being encountered by residents but there was now an opportunity for further work to be undertaken.  It was the responsibility of the organisation to bring the current issues being experienced by residents to a satisfactory resolution.

The Cabinet Member advised the meeting that he was going to defer making a decision until further discussions had been undertaken.    

The Cabinet  added an additional recommendation to request officers, Central North West London NHS Foundation Trust and Positive Community Care to meet and discuss further measures that could be put in place.  Once this had been done a report would be prepared and submitted to the Cabinet Member for his consideration.   The Cabinet member would then discuss the options put forward with Ward Councillors.   Once this had all been completed all parties concerned would be informed of the outcome.

Reasons for recommendation

Council officers have been working with the management company and the lead petitioner since August 2011 with the intention of improving the situation.

Alternative Options Considered

Due to the mental capacity of the residents it was felt that direct action against individual residents, such as issuing a noise abatement notice or building a case for an Anti Social Behaviour Order would not be proportionate or appropriate.

Resolved - That the Cabinet Member:

1. Noted the views of the petitioners
2. Advised that the supported housing unit was run by a company which was independent of the Council
3. Noted that Council Anti-Social Behaviour Investigations Team (ASBIT) officers had advised the management company to investigate improvements or changes to reduce the impact on neighbouring residents
4. Discussed with petitioners whether the improvements made by the management company were sufficient.
5. Listened to petitioners representations with regard to the closure of the premises and advised accordingly.
6. Asked officer’s to meet with Central North West London NHS Foundation Trust and Positive Community Care to discuss what further measures could be put in place to resolve the issues highlighted.
7.  Officers to report back to the Cabinet Member with the outcome of their discussions in 4 weeks to enable Ward Councillors to be consulted on what further steps may be appropriate.