1

QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL – 18 MARCH 2020

(1) PUBLIC QUESTIONS

(a) Question from Mr Peter Watkins to Councillor J Wharmby, Cabinet Member for Adult Care

The rationale document for the proposed closure of Beechcroft Residential home and the cabinet paper concerning the revised strategy for adult care refer to the independent surveys giving rise to consternation about the state of the buildings and quotes figures of £1,321,458 over 5 years and £3,693,093 over 25 years. However the independent survey supports that there is some urgent work to be done but the VAST majority of the facet survey reports that Beechcroft is mainly Condition A ( Good) and B(Satisfactory) and the total estimated costs included in the survey report are £645,426 over 5 years (48% of your estimate) £2,277,629 over 25 years (61% of your estimate). Can you advise where the vastly greater figures in the cabinet paper originated and what they are for over and above the survey report? Response: The facet survey reports enabled the Council to assess the relative merit and condition of the existing buildings and provided an estimate of the potential cost of repair and refurbishment based on the independent facet survey data. The information was used by Officers in Property Services and Adult Care in consultation with Faithful and Gould to formulate a project based approach to undertaking works on each establishment with a view to undertaking the most urgent work, and any associated refurbishment, as soon as it was required. Property Services detailed knowledge of the condition of the buildings and the need for maintenance and refurbishment was considered as part of this process. The final figure in the Cabinet report reflects the prioritisation and programming of the work.

(b) Question from Dorothy Mellors to Councillor J Wharmby, Cabinet

Member for Adult Care

Sadly my mother passed away in February. She had been a resident of Holmlea Care Home in Tibshelf for approx. 4 1/2 years. I am not asking for your condolences or sympathy since you did not know my mother. I do not claim that the proposed closure contributed to her demise, but it brought unneeded stress in her last few weeks. Mum was registered blind, and although bright as a button even into her 93rd year needed carers available 24 hours /day as her physical health deteriorated. I would like to thank Derbyshire County Council and especially their staff at Holmlea for the

PUBLIC

2

excellent care afforded to mum, and to ask you to explain to me how DCC expect to provide the same level of 24 hour care to others in our villages, now and in future years? Response: Firstly I’d like to express my condolences to you on the loss of your mother even though I did not know her. We understand how difficult this situation is for those affected and we regret being in the position of having to consult on proposals to consult on the closure of seven homes. I am pleased to hear that she experienced excellent care, I have seen this in my many visits to our homes. Unfortunately, the buildings we have are no longer fit for the purpose and need significant work to bring them up to modern care standards. I’d like to reiterate that no decisions have been made yet and we’re asking people for their views as part of our consultation. Our Older People’s Housing, Accommodation and Support Strategy projects that there will be less demand for residential care in the long term. Older people are also telling us that they would prefer to live at home, with support if needed. In the future, the emphasis will be on providing alternatives to residential care, working with partners and developers to create community-based services, care-ready housing, Extra care and providing extra support to help older people to lead more independent lives. We need to plan so that we can offer older people the support they need to live more independently and this includes prioritising which care homes we may need in the future. With this in mind, the council has to consider whether it’s right to commit public money to refurbish homes we will not need in the long term and which we believe aren’t fit for purpose.

(c) Question from Rebecca Gough to Councillor J Wharmby, Cabinet

Member for Adult Care

Your rationale for proposing to close seven residential homes for the elderly includes such items as ‘condition of the buildings, rewiring, fire alarms, emergency lighting’ etc. The facet survey report for BEECHCROFT does NOT support this conclusion. The vast majority of facets are reported as Condition A and B. Those assessed as Condition D (Failed) and some as Condition C (Poor) have already been rectified. There is no mention of rewiring in the report. Quote from the report ‘the incoming utility supply and switchgear are relatively modern and can be retained with the exception of the kitchen distribution board which should be replaced’ (Estimated cost £500). If Beechcroft were built today it would be wired to different standards – but that does NOT mean it is unsafe or

3

needs rewiring immediately. Your own cabinet papers agreed that the home does NOT breach regulations. Can you confirm that the Electricity supply and installations were fully checked in 2018 and that all the required certificates under BS7671 are in place? (eg after the installation of the Kitchen ventilation system.) Response: We commissioned a well-respected company Faithful and Gould to carry out an independent assessment of all of our older care homes, including Beechcroft. These surveys looked at the structure, roofing, wiring, fire safety measures, heating systems and kitchens and estimated and prioritised the potential cost of any maintenance on the buildings. As part of this the electrical services were visually inspected. A full electrical test and inspection for Beechcroft was carried out in September 2018. As well as this, our property team carried out routine testing and repair as and when electrical works were required and so have a detailed knowledge of the condition of the electrical system at Beechcroft. This, coupled with the independent surveys, have helped us to work out a prioritised programme of work needed in each home. Detailed knowledge of the condition of the buildings and the need for maintenance and refurbishment was considered as part of this process. Due to the age of the existing wiring at Beechcroft, a full rewire is required. At the same time the emergency lighting can be upgraded to current standards. (d) Question from Anne Clarke to Councillor J Wharmby, Cabinet

Member for Adult Care

At the public consultation session in New Mills I asked ‘Why has DCC consistently underspent its budget on care year on year and where has this money gone?’ I also verbally requested a comprehensive breakdown of the underspends. The reply received was, ‘The £30m which is set aside to support the programme of work described in the Cabinet report is made up of underspends from previous years.’ The answer from the Project Officer does not answer the question why there have been repeated underspends, or give a breakdown of them.

Neither does it give a clear indication of where the money will go. If the £30m is made up from underspends I cannot see why DCC would have any complaint spending this on the seven care homes. Especially as some of the identified work appears ‘desirable,’ rather than ‘essential’. I ask again for a comprehensive breakdown of the year on year underspends

4

within the care budget with an explanation of the reasons for those underspends. I also request clearer identification of exactly where this money will go. Response:

A summary of the under spend for Adult Care is as follows:

SUMMARY OF UNDERSPENDS £million

(See below for detailed analysis)

2018/19 (9.483)

2017/18 (8.346)

2016/17 0.095

2015/16 (5.338)

2014/15 (0.573)

Total Underspend 2014/15 to 2018/19

(23.645)

Additional One-Off Saving in 2017/18 (8.131)

Adjusted Underspend 2014/15 to 2018/19 (31.776)

In 2018/19 the reasons for the underspends included demand management and a successful reclaim of costs from another local authority, savings made on the Integrated Community Equipment Service pooled budget, high level of vacancies due to difficulty in recruiting staff, savings on various schemes including Commissioned Carer Services, Healthwatch, Dementia Services and Direct Payment Employment Support, vacancy management and efficiency measures and under-utilisation on a number of spot contracts. Detailed information on the reason for the under spends for each year can be provided to the questioner in writing after the meeting if required. The £30m outlined in the Cabinet report is based on the following estimated costs of the overall programme:

£16.70m capital costs which includes estimated costs of refurbishment works, fire door and fire alarm replacement, plus a contingency.

£13.30m revenue costs which includes additional night staff, costs of placements in other homes if closures proceed and any potential redundancy costs.

5

If, following consultation it is decided to close any of the homes, the revenue costs would then be offset by savings enabling us to balance the books on an ongoing basis.

(e) Question from Dean Stevenson to Councillor J Wharmby,

Cabinet Member for Adult Care

There is an online petition on the Derbyshire County Council Website calling for an objection to the proposal to close seven care homes for the elderly in Derbyshire. Throughout Derbyshire there are petitions to ‘Save our care home’ All with the same purpose to ask Derbyshire County Council to think again about the proposals to close these 7 homes. The GMB Union Midland & East Coast region are working with local groups to ensure local people have their say. But too many people at the consultation meetings and around the care homes are expressing concern about the proposals and asking questions which have not been fully answered. Many of you will have received letters emails postcards and seen protesters outside today. This issue demands the scrutiny and accountability of a full council debate. Will you respond positively to these petitions and allow signatories of local petitions and campaigns to be added to the online petition to allow a debate by the full council on this issue? Response: The proposal relating to the Council’s care homes is on the agenda for debate today. All of the points raised at meetings and through submission of written evidence and questionnaires are being collected and will form part of the report on the outcome of the consultation which will be considered by Cabinet in due course.

(f) Question from Anne Thoday to Councillor Lewis, Leader of the

Council and Cabinet Member for Strategic Leadership, Culture and Tourism

Does the Council see any conflict between its climate manifesto commitments and its continued investment in climate wrecking fossil fuel companies? Given the mounting evidence that fossil fuel companies are in danger of being left with trillions of dollars of worthless 'stranded' assets and that investors that ignore the global climate risk and fail to divest from these companies in time will suffer serious losses, does the Council not accept that it is the Pension Fund’s fiduciary duty to divest from fossil fuel companies? Response:

6

Derbyshire County Council administers Derbyshire Pension Fund on behalf of over 300 participating employers. The Pension Fund is exposed to a large number of risks including: demographic risks; regulatory risks; governance risks; administration risks; and financial risks, including investment risks. Within investment risk, the Fund is exposed to risks related to: performance; volatility, concentration; liquidity; macroeconomics, currency and transition (transitioning from one investment to another)– and many of those risks have been amply demonstrated in the last few weeks. Recognising the magnitude of potential climate-risk risks and opportunities, the Fund is currently developing a detailed strategy for integrating climate risk into investment decisions. At the last meeting of the Pensions and Investments Committee (4 March 2020), the Fund presented its newly developed Climate-Related Disclosures report which describes the way in which climate-related risks are currently managed by the Fund and includes the results of climate scenario analysis and carbon risk metrics analysis undertaken on the Fund’s assets. This analysis provides an evidence base for the development of a detailed climate strategy. The Disclosures report also includes information on the Fund’s climate-related stewardship activities and highlights the Fund’s approach to being a responsible investor. The Fund is able to engage with the companies it invests in to encourage the adoption of business models that are aligned to a low carbon economy. As an example, the Fund co-filed a Climate Action 100+ shareholder resolution to BP Plc for consideration at the Company’s AGM in May 2019. The resolution called on the company to set out a business strategy consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The resolution received the support of the board of BP and was passed overwhelmingly. Fossil fuels are expected to remain an important part of the energy mix during the transition to a low carbon economy and some of the largest UK companies with fossil fuels reserves are amongst the most progressive in terms of developing renewable energy solutions and factoring climate risk into their long term strategy. The management of climate change risk is undoubtedly a fiduciary duty for the Pension Fund, however, climate risks are likely to affect all of the sectors, asset classes and regions that the Pension Fund needs the ability to invest to achieve a diversified portfolio. The Fund’s Strategic Asset Allocation Benchmark includes a specific allocation to Sustainable Equities and the Fund has investments in on-shore and off-shore wind and solar whilst actively carrying out due diligence on potential new renewable energy investments and

7

investigating the investment opportunities in energy storage and transmission systems. There is considerable uncertainty in the crystallisation of the pathway to a low carbon economy; the Pension Fund’s Climate Strategy will seek to minimise the adverse financial impacts of climate change on the Fund’s assets and maximise the long term opportunities for returns on the assets of the Pension Fund.

(g) Question from Jackie Hopkinson to Councillor King, Cabinet

Member for Clean Growth and Regeneration

Why does the Council’s Climate Manifesto not include any actions that involve the community? What has the council done to engage the community on climate change since it signed the Manifesto in May 2019? Response: The Council’s Climate Manifesto (May 2019) does include several pledges to engage communities (often implicitly rather than explicitly):

o Work with Derbyshire businesses… to reduce carbon emissions in

business and tourism activities o Support renewable energy generation, both large scale and

microgeneration, on the Council’s land and buildings and in our communities working alongside partners such as D2N2 and the Midlands Energy Hub

o Promote energy efficiency, including reducing energy use in older buildings and through the use of smart technology

o Support low carbon businesses to establish and flourish in Derbyshire, creating new jobs across the county

o Foster green energy entrepreneurs to develop renewable or zero carbon energy production

o Attract companies into Derbyshire who will carry out research and development and upskill the workforce in partnership with universities and

training providers

The Manifesto was expanded on by the development and approval in November 2019 of the Derbyshire Environment and Climate Change Framework. In Section 10: Delivery of the Framework, there is a summary of the process of engagement which will be undertaken to enable the Framework to be implemented and emissions to be reduced. Section 10 is given below:

An on-going process of community engagement will be developed. Conversations within the boroughs and districts and across the county are needed to ensure that all communities, be they commerce, industry, agricultural, village, town or

8

educational, are engaged with the process. This needs to be a two-way process to ensure:

A mutual understanding of climate change and how it affects

Derbyshire and elsewhere A shared knowledge of what could be done in Derbyshire to

tackle climate change and the barriers faced The opportunity, to shape strategies and priorities, is available to

everyone Agreement on the role individuals, communities and

organisations have in tackling climate change Appropriate support is in place to enable work to be undertaken

across the county to tackle climate change

Considerable work is already being undertaken through a range of channels as set out below:

Channel Description

‘Everybody’s Talking about Climate Change’ web-site

A web-site funded by the Local Authority Energy Partnership where residents and community groups can find out more about climate change action in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire (Click on the link here)

Community Climate Action Network

A monthly newsletter funded by the Local Authority Energy Partnership

Carbon Literacy and Carbon Pathways training

Full and half-day training provided through the Local Authority Energy Partnership

Social media campaigns A campaign run by Derbyshire County Council: #fightingclimatechange and #gogreenDerbyshire

Eco-schools programme An education programme for schools provided by Derbyshire County Council which provides access to learning about sustainable living (click here)

Liaison with a range of climate change interest groups

Informal talks and discussions between local authorities and climate change interest groups

Further cross-county and local engagement will take place to enable the two-way process of communication and action, outlined above, to take place. This will demonstrate how local action is linked to delivery of the key strategies.

There was widespread engagement with Derbyshire (business) communities at the ‘Tackling Climate Change Together’ event on 3rd

9

March 2020. At this event Cllr Lewis pledged to deliver a series of Roadshows across the county which are currently being planned.

(h) Question from Mary Reape to Councillor King, Cabinet Member

for Clean Growth and Regeneration

The Tyndall Centre carbon budgets for Derbyshire borough and district councils indicate that these areas need to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by between 13% and 16% year on year. Many reduction activities are coordinated across Derbyshire by the County Council. Can the County Council demonstrate the progress that has been made by disclosing how many tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reduction have been achieved in Derbyshire in the last 12 months and how that compares to the twelve-month period before that. Response: Derbyshire County Council is directly responsible for around 1% of emissions across the county of Derbyshire. The rest of the emissions are from business, transport, our homes, the education sector and so on, over which the Council may have some influence (e.g. transport).

The Council records emissions from Council property, street-lighting, grey fleet (vehicles owned by employees but used on Council business) and core fleet (vehicles owned by the Council). Detail of these emissions is given in the report below.

County-wide emissions data are gathered by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and can be found at the following government web-site which is available for anyone to view:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-local-authority-and-regional-carbon-dioxide-emissions-national-statistics-2005-to-2017

The latest data available from BEIS is from 2017. The CO2 emissions in Derbyshire have fallen from 9,534.9Kt CO2 in 2005 to 7,384.7Kt CO2 in 2017. This equates to 12.7 tonnes CO2 per person in 2005 to 9.3 tonnes CO2 per person in 2017. Therefore, progress made in the last 12 months to reduce these emissions are not shown. However, in the last 12 months the following has been achieved:

May 2019: Launch of the Derbyshire Climate and Carbon Reduction Manifesto

November 2019: Approval of the Derbyshire County Council Carbon Reduction Plan

10

November 2019: Approval of the Derbyshire Environment and Climate Change Framework (and working with districts and boroughs to develop this)

March 2020: Taken receipt of eight electric vehicles as part of a wider programme to reduce emissions from our grey and core fleets

March 2020: Held the ‘Tackling Climate Change Together’ event attended by over 200 people and local businesses to explore the challenge of Derbyshire becoming a net zero carbon county

Derbyshire County Council

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Report 2018-19

Introduction This report summarises the progress made in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions produced from the estate and operations of Derbyshire County Council. The Council is committed to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in accordance with its corporate Environment Policy. In November 2019, Cabinet Members approved a new Carbon Reduction Plan which details how the Council will take action to reduce emissions from its own estate and operations with a target to have net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2032. What do we Measure? Emissions are recorded as tonnes of carbon dioxide and equivalent greenhouse gases (CO2e). Emissions from four sources are currently included in the data. These are:

Property: council-owned property and buildings

Street and road lighting

Grey fleet: any personal vehicle driven by a member of staff for council business

Core fleet: council-owned vehicles, for example, heavy goods vehicles used for gritting roads. The graph below shows the overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2009-10 to 2018-19.

11

Detail of greenhouse gas emissions from the Council’s estate and operations for successive years is provided below:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2009-10 to 2018-19 (tonnes CO2e)

Year

Property (excl. schools)

Street & road lights

Core Fleet

Grey Fleet

Total (excl.

schools)

2009-10 15,666 18,121 4,590 4,590 42,966

2010-11 15,989 17,918 4,413 4,331 42,652

2011-12 15,180 16,865 4,508 4,147 40,700

2012-13 17,215 17,162 4,090 3,466 41,933

2013-14 15,500 16,307 4,462 3,408 39,678

2014-15 15,642 17,325 3,746 3,281 39,994

2015-16 14,744 15,685 3,388 3,175 36,992

2016-17 12,942 13,687 3,172 3,166 32,967

2017-18 12,322 10,239 2,662 2,863 28,087

2018-19 10,023 6,617 2,564 2,861 22,066

Emissions from school buildings are recorded separately in order to keep the data consistent. Including schools would lead to inconsistent results. This is because the local authority school portfolio continues to reduce in size as more schools become academies, thus artificially reducing emissions. Work to reduce emissions from other sources, which we currently do not quantify, such as waste, water and procurement, continues to be undertaken. Analysis

The data highlights a continuing decline in the amount of greenhouse gas emitted by Derbyshire County Council since the baseline year of

12

2009-10. Emissions have fallen from 42,966 tonnes of CO2e in 2009-10, to 22,066 tonnes of CO2e in 2018-19, a reduction of 48.6%.

The majority of the Council’s emissions in 2018-19 were generated from Council property (45%), followed by street lighting (30%), whilst core fleet (12%) and grey fleets (13%) account for the remainder of the emissions.

The most significant reduction in emissions occurred in street lighting with a reduction of 3,622 (35.4%) tonnes of CO2e since 2018. This is mainly due to the Council’s continuing programme of work to install new energy-efficient LED street lighting across the county. As of October 2019, 71,000 LED lights had been installed. Other approaches such as part-night lighting and night-dimming, as well as an increase in renewable energy generation in the national grid, have also contributed to the reduction.

There has also been is a 19.1% reduction of CO2e (2,362 tonnes) emitted from Council properties since 2018. This is mainly due to the disposal of surplus and unused buildings coupled with increased UK green electricity generation.

CO2e emissions from the Council’s core and grey fleets continue to gradually decline. This trend is expected to continue as the Council supports the introduction of low emission vehicles and associated infrastructure combined with technological and behaviour change programmes.

Emissions Projections The Council has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by March 2022 compared to the 2009-10 baseline, with the ultimate goal of becoming net zero carbon by 2032.

Year

Council emissions (tonnes CO2e)

Emissions reduction target (against a 2009-10 baseline)

2009-10 42,965 -

2021-22 18,944 55%

2026-27 8,056 81%

2031-32 2,760 93%

As shown in the table above, current projections suggest that by 2031-32 the Councils CO2e emissions could be reduced to 2,760 tonnes. Other factors such as ever advancing technological solutions and changes in behaviour could further reduce this amount. However, should this not be possible, then the utilisation of carbon sequestration (uptake and storage of carbon dioxide, notably by trees) would enable the offsetting of any remaining emissions. The Council will achieve the projected greenhouse gas emissions as follows:

13

Property: Reduce current CO2e emissions to 9,800 tonnes by 2021-22 and to 664 tonnes by 2031-32 through continued property rationalisation, deep retrofit, micro-generation and large scale generation of renewable energy and the purchase of renewable gas and electricity.

Street lighting: Reduce current CO2e emissions to 4,035 tonnes by 2021-22 and to zero by 2031-32. This will be achieved by the continuation of LED, part-night and dimming programmes concluding in March 2022. After this, further reductions will be achieved through procurement of renewable electricity.

Core fleet: Reduce current CO2e emissions to 2,595 tonnes by 2021-22 and to 1,487 tonnes by 2031-32. This will be achieved through the use of electric pool cars, smarter navigation, the electrification of vans and decarbonisation of HGV’s will make this target achievable.

Grey fleet: Reduce current CO2e emission levels to 2,514 tonnes by 2021/22 and to 609 tonnes by 2031-32. This will be achieved by reducing mileage through a behaviour change programme, increased use of electric pool cars and the electrification of grey fleet vehicles as a growing number of staff make the switch to electric vehicles. By 2022-23 it is anticipated that at least 5% of mileage year on year will switch from fossil fuelled engines to electric vehicles.

Conclusion The challenge of global climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions has never been so great and the Council continues to make excellent progress towards its target of a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 18,944 tonnes of CO2e by 2022 and to net zero.

(i) Question from Robert Purcell to Councillor King, Cabinet

Member for Clean Growth and Regeneration One of the commitments in the Council’s Climate Manifesto was “Work with borough and district councils, utilities and property developers to champion eco-homes fit for the future and to help communities and businesses become less dependent on energy”. Despite this, two local low carbon housing developers have reported they are not receiving the support they need to access building land from either this council or the district council. This does not demonstrate a commitment to championing eco-homes. Please can the council release a list of how much council (district and county) land has been released over the last 3 financial years for

14

housing and what proportion of houses on this land are eco-homes, and what specific measures are proposed to support development of eco homes in the coming financial year?" Response: This council is not a Local Planning Authority and it is for those authorities who are to determine the housing needs and environmental priorities within their Local Plan. To answer the question the Council has over the last 3 years sold or agreed sales of 14.93 hectares (36.89 acres) of land that has been identified, within local plans or via developer consultation with the LPA, as being suitable for housing development. These land sales will potentially realise 312 new homes.

This Council is not naïve to the difficulties faced by SME’s when trying to secure suitable land for housing development encompassing innovative or energy efficient solutions. The council is currently refocussing its approach to the utilisation and disposal of its surplus land on which there are multiple demands. One of these is delivering on its carbon reduction plan. In this regard the Council has over recent months engaged with low emission housing developers to understand how it can best support SME’s committed to MMC and the building of low and net zero carbon homes. Developers direct responses have been positive and the council for its part is seeking to be proactive in such developments over the next year.

(j) Question from Barbara Streeter to Councillor J Wharmby,

Cabinet Member for Adult Care CQC policy statement from May 2019 regarding care homes states that “residents must be able to maintain their personal identity, contact with their family and their community." What strategies have the DCC put in place to ensure that this CQC policy will be applied to all the residents in their care? Response: All of the residents in the Council’s own care homes have an individual Personal Service Plan which details the information relating to the resident and sets out how the residents care and support will be provided. This includes how the resident’s independence will be promoted as far as possible, how their hobbies and interests will be maintained and developed in later life, and how contact with family, friends and the local community will be enhanced. This includes but is

15

not restricted to social events, visits from local churches, schools and volunteers. (k) Question from Ann Keeton to Councillor J Wharmby, Cabinet

Member for Adult Care Why are DCC considering putting all these old people under the stress of moving out of their homes at the age they are? Some will not survive the move. Response: We fully appreciate this will be a worrying time for everyone affected by these proposals. We will do everything we can to support our residents and their relatives and carers during this time and would like to reassure them that their care will not be compromised in any way. Depending on the outcome of the consultation, we’d carry out a full assessment of all our residents’ needs, including any health issues, and ensure they and their relatives are fully supported to make the best choices for their future. Our staff will fully support our residents to minimise disruption and ensure any moves went as smoothly as possible.

It is will not be safe for people to stay in the homes long term without the wiring being fixed.

(l) Question from Joan Shelton (to be read by Lynne Thornley) to

Councillor J Wharmby, Cabinet Member for Adult Care Beechcroft is my home. And I am very content here – I am very well looked after – the facilities are good – it is a very good care home. Why is Beechcroft Home being advertised as FULL on the Derbyshire County Council Adult Care website page of current vacancies? It is NOT full and should be so why are you not admitting more residents, particularly as there are people in hospital waiting for such vacancies. Response:

Thank you for your question it is gratifying to note that you are happy living in Beechcroft. When we identified that there were concerns about the electrical systems in some of the homes we had to take the regrettable decision to suspend long term placements in the homes which need rewiring. This was one of the measures we have taken to

16

ensure residents remain safe. We have also deployed additional night staff, replaced fire alarms and are in the process of replacing some fire doors. Unfortunately until such time as the homes are rewired we have been advised that there is an increased risk of fire in the homes so the suspension of long term placements will need to remain in place. (m) Question from Freda Siewko (to be read by Lynne Thornley) to

Councillor J Wharmby, Cabinet Member for Adult Care

I live in Beechcroft – it is a very good hoe – I receive excellent care – the premises are in good condition, well decorate, bright and clean, the food is good the staff are excellent. The survey covered 114 facets of which: 44 were assessed as Condition A – Good 41 were assessed as Condition B – Satisfactory 22 were assessed as Condition C – Poor 7 were assessed as Condition D – Failed A lot of work has been done to put most of the Conditions D right and some of Condition C which therefore would convert them to Condition A (and the cost to put these rights is nowhere near the figure of 1.3 million that you say is needed). So my home is fully fit for purpose with only a few Cs remaining – there is no mention of rewiring or boiler repairs in the survey. Why in light of this evidence are you proposing to close my home? Response: Thank you for this question and again it is very pleasing to note how happy you are living at Beechcroft. Our staff work incredibly hard to ensure our residents get high-quality care which helps them to lead dignified, fulfilled lives. However some of the buildings they have to do this in are far from ideal and don’t match up to modern day care standards that people expect and deserve. While our older homes are compliant with care regulations as they were built before the current regulations came in to force the fact remains they have small bedrooms, narrow doors and corridors and don’t have en-suite toilets which impacts on residents and the staff trying to support them. Furniture has to be removed from bedrooms so that moving and handling equipment can be used and often residents have to wait longer

17

to use an accessible toilet as several residents will have to share the bathroom facilities. When our older care homes were designed and built, our residents’ needs were not as complex and they were more able to look after themselves. These days older people going into residential care have significantly higher needs and our older buildings do not help us to meet these. (n) Question from Catherine Atkinson to Councillor J Wharmby,

Cabinet Member for Adult Care The rationale for closing the seven care homes includes predicting a decline in demand and the assertion that there will be less need for residential care beds long term. This is in spite of the fact that the statistics in the report ‘Older People’s Housing, Accommodation and Support. A commissioning strategy for Derbyshire 2019 to 2035' reveal that in every borough and district in Derbyshire the need for residential care will actually increase for at least the next five years from 3,522 in 2020 to 3753 in 2025. Likewise, it is well known that the requirement for residential places will reduce only when alternative measures for care of the elderly are in place, investment in which we have seen very little of from the Council.

Why is the council ignoring the information it its own reports and on what basis was this predicted decline in demand reached? Response: Our Older People’s Housing, Accommodation and Support Commissioning Strategy 2019-2035 projects there will be less demand for residential care in the long term. Instead the emphasis will be on providing alternatives to residential care, working with partners and developers to create community-based services, care-ready housing, Extra care and providing extra support to help older people to lead more independent lives. The report sets out what we think the priorities are for the Council’s own care homes and Community Care Centres, and which homes we think we need to retain in order to meet these priorities in future. If we do nothing, there will be an increasing number of older people who may need residential care in future so our plan is to offer alternatives to this so that people are supported to live more independently. With this in mind the Council has to consider whether it’s right to commit public money to refurbish homes we will not need in the long term and which aren’t fit for purpose now.

18

(o) Question from Helen Colly to Councillor J Wharmby, Cabinet

Member for Adult Care Why have staff, many of us who have worked in care in Derbyshire for many years and know more about our care homes and their residents and staff than anyone, not been asked for our input into how best to run the service, have been excluded from consultation meetings and threatened for seeking to speak out about the very services and older people we know and care about? Response: The consultation meetings at the homes are primarily intended for residents and their friends and families. Staff are welcome to attend and contribute at the public sessions which are being held in various libraries across the County. They can also complete the questionnaire, which is available at libraries or online, or simply write into the Stakeholder Engagement team either individually or via their trade union representatives. Formal consultation with staff would only take place if a decision is made to close any of the homes. (p) Question from Chrissy Grocutt to Councillor S A Spencer,

Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Infrastructure

The government have declared a Climate Emergency which calls for joined up thinking and joined up actions to radically reduce carbon emissions as soon as possible. From Monday 16 March a re-scheduling of bus services 216 and 217 from Matlock to Bonsall and Chatsworth takes place. This will allow only 3 minutes for passengers arriving at Matlock Railway station to walk to the bus stop to catch the 217 service to Chatsworth. If the bus is missed (which is extremely likely) there will be an hour to wait outside Marks and Spencers on Bakewell Road. This is a busy road and an unhealthy place to wait. People need every encouragement to use public transport and leave cars at home. Can the rescheduling of the service please be re-worked in order to give a few more minutes to make the connection at Bakewell Road? Response: Local bus services 216 and 217 are operated by Stagecoach under contract to the Council. Service 216 operates between Matlock and Bonsall and service 217 between Matlock and Chatsworth. Each offers an hourly frequency Monday to Saturday daytime.

19

Based on operational experience, Stagecoach notified the Council that there was insufficient time allowed in either timetable to operate these services reliably. In order to address this problem, alternative ways of improving reliability were considered. The best solution, although not ideal, was to shorten the route by omitting Matlock Interchange and the rail station from 16 March 2020. An alternative option could have been to reduce the frequency of the service to every 90 minutes for example, but that would have reduced the number of journey opportunities for all service users, as well as moving to a timetable that would be less easy to remember. Analysis of data showed that in the four month period between October 2019 and January 2020 a total of just 472 passengers boarded these services at Matlock Interchange. This equates to an average of fewer than 5 passengers for each operating day, or 0.35 passengers for each departure from Matlock Interchange. Whilst we recognise that these changes will make the services less convenient for those few who did board at Matlock Interchange, this option does otherwise retain the same journeys opportunities for the vast majority of passengers, who will also benefit from a more punctual service. As the buses used on these services are interworked, any adjustment to the timetable to delay the departure from the Marks and Spencer stop on Bakewell Road would require the remainder of the timetables for both services to be amended too. This would therefore also result in a later arrival time in Matlock, which would impact on the ability to make an outbound train connection. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to ensure good timetable connectivity exists between bus and train services and there is very limited demand for the connection requested, however we will continue to monitor the position to see if any improvements could subsequently be made.

(2) COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS

(a) Question from Councillor E Atkins to Councillor J Wharmby,

Cabinet Member for Adult Care

I am interested to hear what plans the Adult Care Service has made to meet the crucial demands for care - whether short or long term in duration - which Goyt Valley House currently offers and which will still be a critically important requirement for the community if it is shut down. In the event of closure, I would like to know what continuity of contact can be sustained with relatives who may also be elderly and frail and who may not be able to drive or easily get to a local railway or bus station to travel to a new care centre some miles away to visit their loved ones, let alone travel at the other end from the nearest rail or bus

20

station to the new care home. Taxis might be an alternative, but with frequent, possibly daily, visits this would very soon prove prohibitively expensive. The relationships that develop during intimate contact and care between staff and patients is another factor for consideration - the wrong pairing could be felt as an invasion of privacy by the resident. These are important considerations. If the local carers - some of whom have been working for years at the home - are no longer working with, and caring for the residents, some of the residents may be less easy to work with, when faced with strangers. If you upset the routines of the residents you may suddenly find that you have a group of confused and more difficult people to look after, care for and work with. Is it fair to treat the residents to this disruption and is it fair to the staff who have worked with some residents for a long time and have built strong relationships. Care work is not exactly a highly paid occupation. Many of the dedicated staff will not be able to afford to travel to work to a home elsewhere and will be lost to a profession. Getting dedicated staff is not easy. Can the Cabinet Member for Adult Care give an assurance that all these fundamental problems will be satisfactorily resolved before any irreversible decisions on possible care home closures have been taken? Response: I can assure Councillor Atkins that the issues she raises are very important and will be fully considered before any decision is made. A full Equality Impact Assessment will be undertaken and the specific issues for each home, including Goyt Valley House, will be taken into account. The Equality Impact Assessment will be considered alongside the report on the outcome of the consultation which will be presented to Cabinet in due course. (o) Question from Councillor R George to Councillor Barry Lewis,

Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Strategic Leadership, Culture and Tourism

I call upon this Council to recognise the huge level of essential work that needs to be undertaken by our volunteer services to support the thousands of vulnerable people across Derbyshire who are at serious risk from COVID 19 and will need to self-isolate for 13 to 14 weeks, which both this Council and the NHS will be relying on to support our response to this national emergency, and to applaud the excellent preparation work done by the 4 volunteer organisations across High

21

Peak - The Bureau in Glossop, Connex, the CVS and New Mills Volunteer Centre - and agree to give this Council’s full support to all voluntary sector organisations across the county to protect our vulnerable citizens through this time of national emergency. Will this Council therefore resolve to delay the proposed cuts to some voluntary services, including those in High Peak scheduled to lose over 40% of their essential organisational funding, and pause the on-going consultation at least until after this national emergency is ended, in order not to distract from or reduce the essential work our voluntary services are undertaking. Response:

I can assure all members that during these extraordinary times, when every sinew of community effort needs to be stretched to ensure our communities, residents and vulnerable people need support they will get that support. Voluntary organisations should be reassured that whilst these efforts are required all necessary resources will be made available to deal with the Covid-19 Pandemic and its impacts on local society. Civil society and voluntary organisations are central to this effort to ensure residents are supported. This is a wartime-type effort to ensure residents are kept safe, healthy and supported where we can. Close working with Derbyshire Labour via their Leader has been excellent and should absolutely be the way political parties work when facing a crisis of this nature - together but with real challenge and real support to direct the efforts the county council. I absolutely will continue to work this way with the opposition during these challenging times. The attempt, by Cllr George, in this instance, to conflate peacetime efforts to ensure the voluntary sector commissioning that takes place across Derbyshire is geared towards delivering services more equitably and in better alignment with the strategic commissioning needs of the county council and all the efforts being made to tackle Covid-19 is disingenuous. I am disappointed that Cllr George has chosen this time and used this pandemic in this way. This pandemic should not be used to score political points and divert time and resources at a time when they are precious commodities. (b) Question from Councillor K Gillott to Councillor S A Spencer,

Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Infrastructure On the 26th February 2020, the Derby and Derbyshire Primary Care Commissioning Committee ratified a request to close the doctors surgery in Pilsley on the grounds that a national shortage of GP doctors

22

meant there was a “crisis in general practise…which was now problematic in Derbyshire”. That crisis meant that Pilsley’s GP surgery has been unable to recruit new GPs, leaving it in the invidious position of having to put patients’ health at risk either by closing a surgery and requiring ill patients to travel, or spreading what GPs it does have too thinly.

From April 2021, the 2,500 patients of the surgery will have to travel to neighbouring villages to see their GP. Many of those people are without transport of their own and will have to rely on public transport or use a taxi. This means that patients who cannot drive will find themselves waiting in all weathers for a once-an-hour service that is far from reliable. That or they will have to pay for a return taxi that will cost about £20 per visit.

Will the Cabinet Member recognise that this is not acceptable and give a commitment to improve the bus service between the communities Lower Pilsley, Pilsley village and Tibshelf? Will he also ensure that all main bus stops on that route have a bus shelter so that all patients of the surgery are able to access their GP? Response: The communities of Lower Pilsley and Pilsley are served by bus services 55 and 56, which combined provide two buses an hour to Chesterfield and Alfreton and one bus an hour to Clay Cross. Tibshelf is served by bus services 1 and 56, which combined provide two buses an hour to Alfreton and one bus an hour to Chesterfield. These are commercial bus services provided by bus company Stagecoach, with the frequency of service set by the company in response to the prevailing passenger demand. The Council has limited funds to spend on subsidised bus services and must focus this funding on areas of the county and at times of day where commercial services are not viable. If there is an increase in passenger demand for bus travel arising from these changes then Stagecoach will no doubt seek to improve its existing commercial offering. Bus shelters are provided through either the district or parish council, and any requests for these should in the first instance be addressed to the relevant local council. If the local council considers a shelter is justified, the County Council would then consider grant funding of up to 50% of the cost of new or replacement shelters subject to the availability of funding and site suitability. In addition to the 55 and 56 bus services the Derbyshire Connect Active Travel service also provides a door to door transport link for medical

23

related appointments. The service operates from 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday and whilst a fare is charged it is cheaper than that charged by a taxi. For more details and to book the service please call active travel response on 01709 323123. (c) Question from Councillor M Wall to Councillor A Dale, Cabinet

Member for Young People It has been brought to my attention that an issue exists relating to a need for a bus to service Chinley School.

What action will the Council take to ensure that all the children of Chinley can travel safely to Chapel-en-le-Frith High School, given the evidence from traffic surveys, from video evidence, from parents’ appeals and from the new Member for Whaley Bridge that the 2.7 mile walking route is unsafe and that a school bus therefore needs to be provided? Response: The Council contracts a high capacity vehicle with 70 seats to transport students from the Bridgemont, Buxworth and Chinley areas to and from Chapel-en-le-Frith High School. There are approximately 50 students who travel on this service who are entitled to assistance from the Council and they are issued with a free bus pass. Spare capacity on this service is available to students who do not meet the criteria for free school transport – as set out in section 508B of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 - but there is no legal duty for the Council to provide this and transport arrangements and costs remain a parental responsibility. The transport situation at Chinley has been complicated by legislative changes (relating to PSVAR) from 1 January 2020, but it is clear that demand for transport from students who are not entitled to assistance from the Council is high, and is in excess of 50. The Council has signposted these students to other bus options in the area, which include service 190 and 61B, and families have also been encouraged to car share where possible. With regard to the safety of the walking route from Chinley to Chapel-en-le-Frith High School, this was assessed in 2009 against the Council’s assessment criteria but was deemed not hazardous for the purposes of school transport. However, the Council recently heard two second-stage transport appeals from parents from Chinley who cited that the route to

24

school is hazardous and video footage was presented. After due consideration, the appeal panel concluded that the route should be re-assessed given the volume of traffic in the area. The Council will, therefore, conduct a further route assessment in the near future. This process involves a number of steps and the route assessment panel – which consists of County Councillors – will notify the local elected member and appellants of the date so they can attend the inspection if they wish. (d) Question from Councillor P Smith to Councillor B Lewis,

Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Strategic Leadership, Culture and Tourism

The people of Whaley Bridge appreciate the support given by this Council and by the Emergency and military services during the Toddbrook Dam crisis which was most welcome. The community now needs to know there has been a full and proper investigation into the causes of the crisis and that action will be taken to repair the dam as was promised by the Prime Minister and to learn the lessons of the crisis. The people of Whaley Bridge are therefore very concerned that the two reports on the dam, promised before the end of last year, are still not forthcoming and are reportedly delayed further, causing more anxiety and frustration for the whole community. Will the Leader of the Council therefore join with the new Member for Whaley Bridge and with opposition members in calling on the government to publish their report on Toddbrook Dam in full without further delay and to make sure that the recommendations are put in place as soon as possible to ensure the long-term safety and security of the town and people of Whaley Bridge? Response: I thank Cllr Smith for his question. Two key reports were published regarding the Toddbrook Dam incident just prior to the cancelled Full Council and are now in the public domain. However, with all that has happened since then, and with local and national Government resources being focused on other matters, targeted implementation and action against the recommendations has been somewhat overlooked. I hope that when the current pandemic is behind us we can refocus constructively on this issue.

Independent report commissioned by Defra - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/toddbrook-reservoir-incident-2019-independent-review

25

Independent review commissioned by the Canals and Rivers Trust - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/41505-report-on-toddbrook-reservoir-by-dy-andrew-hughes.pdf

We will reflect on any suggestions or recommendations and report to councillors in due course.