Separate Minute regarding a debate at the meeting on 8th March 2006 about Queens Court nursing home Old Colwyn, regarding their application for planning permission to allow them to accommodate persons with mental health problems at the home.
The secretary informed the meeting that an invited meeting took place on 28th February with councillors and other interested parties at Queens Court. He and his wife had represented the residents together with Mr and Mrs Morton who live near the home. The secretary had spoken to the manager in the presence of Dr Trevelan the psychiatrist before the meeting, about the lack of a written list of cases which would not be allowed to the home. This was a recommendation of Dr Trevelan at the initial meeting. The manager replied that they were waiting until they had got planning permission before doing it.
The secretary had informed her that the list was the sticking point.
Later during the meeting, the staff had given a senior Planning officer (also present) assurance that the list would be forthcoming and he in turn gave assurances that the Care Standards Inspectorate would inspect the premises and ensure that the correct authorisations were given. The home would only be authorised to take a level of patient that is commensurate with its level of security and staffing he said. The Planning permission changes were minimal he said and did not take into account all the issues which had been thrown into the argument. Those issues were the responsibility of the Care Standards Inspectorate.
The manager also informed the meeting that the staff will only be providing support to patients capable of living a normal life with support and not “treating” them. There would be no dangerously mental ill persons in the home, it is accommodation with support. Members of staff live locally and would not themselves want dangerous people in the community.
This was certainly a move forward in the impasse situation. All the issues were discussed including the elderly persons originally moved out to accommodate a new era of patient support. This is now an issue for the Planners and Care Standards Inspectorate to deal with, the management of the Home are open about their intentions and it is accommodation for persons with mental health problems not treatment of mentally disordered persons who are dangerous to the community.
Neighbours of the property who spoke in the meeting stated that they felt better having attended the meeting with the assurances that were given.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Questions were asked about why it had not been a public meeting; the secretary replied that it had been an invited meeting (mentioned in the minutes of the February meeting of the residents’ association, when the secretary said that he had received 3 tickets and asked if anyone wanted to attend)
Councillor Bob Squire interjected that he had an invitation and took the Chief Executive’s advice about whether to attend because there had been nothing but antagonism between him and Potens. He went on to say that at the meeting itself, he wondered how people had been chosen. He said that he was on his own for the best part of the meeting in taking Potens on because he introduced the issue of the statement of operation in the first place. He reported that he had said in the meeting that he was not happy with any of the issues that he had asked to be included in the statement of operations which he had insisted that the Planning Department took on board. He said that Potens had waffled at some of them, they were, he went on to say more positive than they had been previously but he had left them in no doubt that he did not believe them and did not trust them and he still does not.
He reported that he had been gagged as it was not in his ward and he cannot speak on the issue again.
He explained that he does not believe Potens simply because the answer to the issue of elderly persons lies in the fact that they have gone from £600 to £2500 per resident.
He went on to say that Councillor Glyn Jones was the only other person present at the meeting who was concerned because he sees people going to court with alcohol and drug problems and when they have got a mental problem with it, there is a shortage of places where to put them and he thinks that £2500 would be a temptation to stick them in a facility where there is availability, he said that he may be wrong.
He said that he felt that he was on his own in the meeting as he was being attacked from all sides which made him wonder about the makeup of the people who were there. There were very few who were speaking against it he said.
He said that he had been confronted in the meeting by a Town Councillor who accused him of getting it totally wrong and that she had met nobody who was opposed to Queens Court in the whole of the community and that he was doing it off his own bat. He said that there was a lot of aggression towards him at the meeting and it was very difficult. He said that he had spoken to the manager at the end of the meeting and told her that he was completely opposed to it. He said that he does not share the secretary’s optimism, though hoping that the secretary is right and he is wrong.
Cllr Squire said in reply to a question about where the business would come from that he had asked that one and they had people waiting in Flintshire and Denbighshire to come here.
The Chair interjected that it was his understanding that the clients would be returned to their own areas once their period of supported care had finished.
Councillor Squire replied immediately that Potens would care for them if the money is there that is the point.
The secretary interjected that the money would come from the sending authorities and the other issue which had arisen from what Councillor Squire had said that there will be nobody at the premises on drugs (of Habit). Therefore they will not allow anyone there who is on drugs (of Habit) for treatment. People may go there if they are suffering from mental illness as a result of previously having taken drugs but they will not be under treatment for taking drugs.
Councillor Squire pointed out to the secretary that the pack of information made available to the meeting showed that the people that they will accept includes those suffering schizophrenia.
It became apparent at this point that there was a group of persons present who were particularly opposed to the operation of Queens Court as a care home for mentally ill persons.
The Chair pointed out that the association has done its best to represent the community in this respect.
The secretary interjected that the association is addressing the matter on behalf of local people and Potens are writing to the association and becoming involved with the community.
A proposal was then made by Mrs Cheryl Carlisle that Councillor Cowans and Councillor Cossey are asked to attend the next meeting to explain the situation and their backing for the planning application. She further proposed that we ask for an open meeting as promised at the original meeting.
Councillor Squire corrected her that Councillor Cowans had definitely said in the committee that he believes that Potens are telling the truth but that he will do what the people who elected him want.
Mr Evans said that it is a long time now since the elderly people were ejected from the home and do we know who is now in occupation. He added that he could not believe that Potens are losing money like this.
The secretary replied that they do not have anyone in the accommodation apart from the persons with Korsakovs syndrome.
Mrs Cheryl Carlisle said that there had been an emergency at the home just before Christmas when a fire engine was called to the premises and large numbers of people which she estimated at 40 or 50 were streaming out of the building.
Councillor Squire said that with a meeting as volatile as he was expecting the Queens Court meeting to be he would have thought that the owners would have been present to represent what they are doing
Mr Evans asked “we have heard about this list of the types of treatment that they are going to have, is that going to be supplied in sufficient time for the community to see it before the planning application is considered, otherwise it will be supplied a few days before and people will not be aware”
The secretary replied that having attended the meeting, that information will be supplied direct to the Planning Department. Planning knows what the requirements of the public are but Planning wants to be assured that its all been taken into hand. They do not want to know the finite details. What they do want to know is that there is a statement of operations to go forward to the Care Standards Inspectorate at which time; they will probably get their planning permission.
Cllr Squire said that the problem with that is that it is a cart before the horse situation, they are working on the basis that they are going to get planning permission and the indications were very much that they will. What the public here needs to do is go to the planning committee and show opposition. They promised a public meeting, they promised the statement of operations and they have not been forthcoming. If they get planning permission they are away, Care Standards will set certain performance that they need to comply with and if they go out of that they will be very difficult to stop. They will apologise and say we will get this right, we will put this right and it won’t be.
The Chair interjected to ask Councillor Squire if he was saying that the members should individually write to Planning.
Councillor Squire replied that the association needs to be organised and needs to know what is happening, keep in touch with it because he feels that Potens will get their planning permission. As he cannot speak on it at the next planning meeting, we will have to get someone else. He had not realised that there was a rule preventing him from speaking.
The Chair spoke to the members and said that they should all consider writing to the Planning Department to express any concerns before the planning application is heard. This would back up what we have done as an association.
The secretary repeated the proposal which had previously been made,
It was pointed out by the Chair that this would have to be amended in light of the explanation from Councillor Squire to ask the councillors to speak of their position on the Queens Court issue.
The secretary replied “Their position is going to be what I have described to you tonight. Potens have given assurances which have been basically accepted by the local community, by me, I have got to be honest and open with you and say that I believe that they are trying to put the house in order. The people there before them actually started taking Korsakovs Syndrome patients in and Potens did not know when they took over that they did not have authorisation. I am not saying that they have done it with the best of intentions but what they are doing now is to be open and I think because of all the controversy, I think that they will be held to account.
They have offered to have twice yearly meetings; all your worries and concerns can be put to them and managed properly. I am quite happy to write to them and go and visit with them.
We are not going to get to know everything, I am not blasé, I know that we will hear what they want us to hear but the issues are that the Care Standards Inspectorate, who work for the Welsh Assembly are working for us to make it safe for people to live in Old Colwyn; even next door to Queens Court.
Queens Court is a nursing home now, it’s not what we would like it to be originally which was a hotel. It’s never going to be a hotel again.
Even though we oppose it, I feel that we are not going to stop it getting planning permission because the indication was given by the senior planning officer present at the meeting that it is a foregone conclusion, an issue which does not cause any controversy, the controversy is with the Care Standards Inspectorate.
Planning has its hands tied as long as Potens supply the information they have been asked for.
Concerns were expressed about mentally ill people being treated and a statement was made that schizophrenics who were not on medication were very dangerous to the community. It was pointed out that Councillor Finch-Saunders had spoken about the safety issues at the planning meeting.
The Secretary replied that people will be on medication; they are not being treated at the home, they will not be dangerously ill schizophrenics. He then said that he was aware that he appeared to be talking like a psychiatrist about something that he knows nothing about but added that he was merely repeating what he had been told.
Mr Evans expressed surprise at the Planning Officer making a statement at the Queens Court meeting that he feels that it is going to be approved before he has even heard objections. Even if he gets the information he has asked for.
The secretary replied that he was at the Planning Committee meeting with the people at the back of the room and Councillor Cowans did indeed say that he was basically in favour but that he would represent the people’s wishes. His feelings were that it was a good place etc.
The secretary continued to say that he had always taken the even route and been neither directly for or against, listening to everyone and represented everybody’s opinions at the meetings. If planning permission is continually opposed by the association, he said that he did not believe there would be support for that stance having attended the planning meeting.
Councillor Finch-Saunders had quite rightly addressed the safety issue he said which had echoed his own thoughts about the safety aspect. Potens however has stated categorically that the people coming to the home will be accommodated and not treated. That is written in stone.
A resident asked why they are coming to the home in that case and why they cannot have it in their own house.
The secretary replied that it was because they had not got support in their own home. He continued by repeating a statement made at Queens Court by a person who cared for the mentally ill at a community level in their own homes. She stated that sometimes it is noticed that the person is not taking medication and is getting ill but there is nothing that can be done to section the person until they become dangerous to themselves or the community. She had asked the Queens Court meeting would you rather have the person in accommodation where they are cared for and given support and the ability to talk and communicate with other people or would you rather they lived in his or her own home maybe in your street and become unstable. That is a weighty argument worthy of consideration. The people are given support and apparently they will come from various places in Britain some, from Conwy.
A resident asked if the mentally ill people who are accommodated at Queens Court will be allowed to walk around and freely mix with residents.
The secretary replied that they will have carers who will accompany them. Business people have spoken about their favourable perception of people with Korsakovs, presently at the home when accompanied in the village.
A resident said that he was concerned about Councillor Squire’s comments about the makeup of the meeting at Queens Court. His concerns were that there is not a true cross section of public opinion when only certain people are invited.
The Chair replied that as an association we were involved and were being consulted
Councillor Squire Why was I accused of no one else being concerned about it only me?
The issue of the proposal regarding the councillors was continued, seconded and a show of hands showed a marginal split in favour of the proposal. The proposal was that the councillors be invited to state how they feel about the Queens Court and take forward and represent the feelings of the residents concerned who will make those representations known to the councillors.
Cheryl Carlisle went on to express her concerns that people were not allowed to take part in the meeting although a public meeting was promised. She asked that the secretary ask that Potens hold a public meeting.
The secretary said that he can ask.
The Chair closed the item
#########################################
Mrs Cheryl Carlisle and a number of others then stood up and left the meeting. It was later discovered by examining the register that these people were not from our Residents’ Association area and therefore were not eligible to propose motions or vote on issues which they had in fact done, affecting the outcome in doing so. In view of the fact that this is a rule of our constitution, the resolution was faulted but as other members present also voted it was considered reasonable to continue with the matters contained in the resolution as they were non contentious.
#####################################################
