|
Left: Director of Adult Social Care and Deputy Chief Executive
Jenny Wood |
Centre: Leader of the Council and Lead Member for Business & the Economy
Ian Courts |
Right: Director of Public Health, Education & Inclusion
Ruth Tennant |
|
Lease Renewal March 2024 for 10 Years
Rent £84,000 per annum
Business Rates Liability £35,000
New Lease Liability £1.2 Million +
For the Purpose of What Exactly?
|
|
Unit 4 Elmdon Trading Estate Solihull - Former Better Living Centre
7500 Sq Ft
The Better Living Centre has been closed since at least 2020
7500 Sq Ft
The Better Living Centre has been closed since at least 2020
6 September 2024
"We are also in the process of repurposing additional space within the Better
Living Centre to ensure it is used to its full potential"
Living Centre to ensure it is used to its full potential"
Jenny Wood Director - Solihull Social Services
Details -
|
Use as a conference venue was very limited and has not generated any income since 2020. In 2019 any charities/ community organisations that have utilised space were not charged for their use there are no records suggesting the venue was provided to any other organisation. Since 2020 and the first Covid lockdown the venue has not been available as a conference venue.
Response to FoI request 7 October 2024 |
Thank you for your response to my email. I hope this further information will clarify the situation. The Better Living Centre was the name used for a service whereby the public could ,without appointment, visit our Solihull Community Equipment Services for advice and demonstrations of community equipment, located in a building which provided Solihull Community Equipment Services and Solihull Wheelchair Services.
Due to very low demand, the option for members of the public to visit without appointment is no longer available (this was publicised as the ‘Better Living Centre’). However, the Solihull Community Equipment Services continue to be provided from the same site, delivering equipment to people across Solihull on behalf of the Council and the NHS. As part of this, the provision of Occupational Therapy assessments by appointment continues to be active and has at no time been closed. So, as outlined to you in my first email, the primary service change was the removal of the rarely-used drop-in service.
I did not mention Wheelchair Services in my initial update to you as they were a separate service, albeit at the same site. Wheelchair Services are a health responsibility which we (the Council) used to deliver on behalf of the local NHS as a contracted arrangement. However, we (the Council) do not do that any more. The Wheelchair Services have been recommissioned by Birmingham and Solihull NHS Integrated Care Board (the NHS) from a new provider, Ross Care, who have their own facilities in Solihull. I’m sorry I didn’t include this information in my original response to you as this might have made it easier to understand the situation. This change happened in November, 2022.
You’ll have heard that the voicemail in the number you mentioned in your email went on to describe how to access the ongoing OT assessment services, as outlined above. However, this is an old number and should have been removed from all our current information. I have just done an internet search and found that a few charities still have the old number mentioned in their information, so I will ask the relevant Head of Service to double-check information is updated, although we are not in control of the content of Charity webpages. If you found the phone number you referred to on a council webpage, I’d be pleased if you would kindly share with me where this was and I can make sure it is updated.
The reference to using the site to its full potential means making some changes to allow vital community equipment to be available for timely delivery to people across Solihull, rebranding the site as the Solihull Community Equipment Service, while ensuring the Occupational Therapy have the best space for assessment and demonstration of equipment in their clinics, in line with Karen Murphy’s previous statement.
I hope this clarifies the matters for you and please let me know if you have any further questions on this.
Dear Ms Woods
Thank you for responding to my enquiry regarding the Better Living Centre and the use of Unit 4, Elmdon Trading Estate. However, your response does not accurately reflect the situation.
To that end, I suggest, with respect, that the members of the Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Board. visit the building for themselves to form their own opinion. In the meantime, I would be grateful if members would kindly take note of the following.
The origins of the enquiry, as you may recall, lay with Cllr Macenzie's question to Ms Murphy regarding disabled equipment. Ms Murphy's response, for whatever reason, was inaccurate and misleading, as evidenced by the video recording. This discrepancy underscores the necessity for a site visit by the Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Board.
The Better Living Centre has been closed since at least 2020.
In past years, my wife and I have visited the building with our two disabled daughters for wheelchair mould fittings. On the last visit, aside from the two visiting technicians from Specialised Orthopaedic Services Ltd, I noticed only one other person in the entire building, and occasionally, someone came through from the separate Equipment Stores.
Even pre-pandemic, I considered the facility, some seven thousand square feet, to be a White Elephant, and a pretty hefty one at that. Our last visit confirmed my view that the building is a dreadful waste of resources. (The Attached graphic refers to this.)
From experience, large pieces of equipment are purchased after a demonstration in the home environment. The vendor is invited to the home to demonstrate and asked to submit quotations, etc. Again, regarding this building's usage for Occupational Therapy Assessments, I have no recollection of a purposeful OT assessment – ever in nearly forty years - outside of the home environment.
As proven by the White Elephant, no serious buyer is ever likely to visit a place that even SatNavs struggle to find, where they can't park but can be befuddled to find a piece of equipment that is not out of production, never mind out of date covered in dust and not a soul with any know-how in the building.
Following a Freedom of Information Request, I have been advised that the annual rent paid by Adult Social Services for the use (or rather no use) of Unit 4 is £84,000 per annum (copy invoice attached), rates payable (conversely lost council revenue) would be in the region of £35,000 per annum, plus of course various other utilities, insurance etc.
A conservative estimate of the annual cost of the facility to Adult Social Services is, say, £120,000 a year, the proportion of which, of course, can be offset against the CES until a suitable building for that operation is found.
However, despite these concerns, in March this year, Adult Social Services entered into a new lease agreement – FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS – a commitment of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS – (Please See Attached). This significant financial commitment raises the question: for what appears to me as an unspecified, indiscernible, pie in the sky no purpose facility, why was this lease renewed?
Also attached is a confirmation of the parties involved in the lease renewal – which appears to include, as instructing - lo and behold Ms Murphy - and information relating to the use ( or lack of) the building as a Conference Centre. I believe that transparency in these matters is crucial for our collective understanding and decision-making.
Directors and other senior representatives of those responsible for delivering an essential service nationally are too often at the front of the melee with a sorry story that they need more money.
In some cases that may be true. In other circumstances, the problem is rank inefficiency or worse. Worse in that, those entrusted to provide the services are collectively more concerned with their self-serving inward-facing culture and spend more time covering up for each other’s cock ups than concentrating on those who need to be served and protected.
We may all hope there is some Best Value that can be derived from the facility at Unit 4 and I look forward to hearing some good news about it.
Thank you for responding to my enquiry regarding the Better Living Centre and the use of Unit 4, Elmdon Trading Estate. However, your response does not accurately reflect the situation.
To that end, I suggest, with respect, that the members of the Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Board. visit the building for themselves to form their own opinion. In the meantime, I would be grateful if members would kindly take note of the following.
The origins of the enquiry, as you may recall, lay with Cllr Macenzie's question to Ms Murphy regarding disabled equipment. Ms Murphy's response, for whatever reason, was inaccurate and misleading, as evidenced by the video recording. This discrepancy underscores the necessity for a site visit by the Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Board.
The Better Living Centre has been closed since at least 2020.
In past years, my wife and I have visited the building with our two disabled daughters for wheelchair mould fittings. On the last visit, aside from the two visiting technicians from Specialised Orthopaedic Services Ltd, I noticed only one other person in the entire building, and occasionally, someone came through from the separate Equipment Stores.
Even pre-pandemic, I considered the facility, some seven thousand square feet, to be a White Elephant, and a pretty hefty one at that. Our last visit confirmed my view that the building is a dreadful waste of resources. (The Attached graphic refers to this.)
From experience, large pieces of equipment are purchased after a demonstration in the home environment. The vendor is invited to the home to demonstrate and asked to submit quotations, etc. Again, regarding this building's usage for Occupational Therapy Assessments, I have no recollection of a purposeful OT assessment – ever in nearly forty years - outside of the home environment.
As proven by the White Elephant, no serious buyer is ever likely to visit a place that even SatNavs struggle to find, where they can't park but can be befuddled to find a piece of equipment that is not out of production, never mind out of date covered in dust and not a soul with any know-how in the building.
Following a Freedom of Information Request, I have been advised that the annual rent paid by Adult Social Services for the use (or rather no use) of Unit 4 is £84,000 per annum (copy invoice attached), rates payable (conversely lost council revenue) would be in the region of £35,000 per annum, plus of course various other utilities, insurance etc.
A conservative estimate of the annual cost of the facility to Adult Social Services is, say, £120,000 a year, the proportion of which, of course, can be offset against the CES until a suitable building for that operation is found.
However, despite these concerns, in March this year, Adult Social Services entered into a new lease agreement – FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS – a commitment of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS – (Please See Attached). This significant financial commitment raises the question: for what appears to me as an unspecified, indiscernible, pie in the sky no purpose facility, why was this lease renewed?
Also attached is a confirmation of the parties involved in the lease renewal – which appears to include, as instructing - lo and behold Ms Murphy - and information relating to the use ( or lack of) the building as a Conference Centre. I believe that transparency in these matters is crucial for our collective understanding and decision-making.
Directors and other senior representatives of those responsible for delivering an essential service nationally are too often at the front of the melee with a sorry story that they need more money.
In some cases that may be true. In other circumstances, the problem is rank inefficiency or worse. Worse in that, those entrusted to provide the services are collectively more concerned with their self-serving inward-facing culture and spend more time covering up for each other’s cock ups than concentrating on those who need to be served and protected.
We may all hope there is some Best Value that can be derived from the facility at Unit 4 and I look forward to hearing some good news about it.