| Open Consultations | Date Closes |
|---|---|
| Leicester Local Plan reference documents | 31 July 2019 |
| Self-Build and Custom Build Register | 30 April 2021 |
| See All Open Consultations | |
| Closed Consultations | Date Closed |
|---|---|
| Recycling banks consultation | 10 June 2019 |
| Childcare Sufficiency Assessment – Parental Survey 2019 | 26 May 2019 |
| Museums and Galleries Service Survey | 19 May 2019 |
| Joint health and wellbeing strategy | 19 May 2019 |
| Selective licensing of privately rented homes | 5 May 2019 |
| See All Closed Consultations | |
Here are some of the issues we have consulted on and their outcomes. See all outcomes
We consulted on a proposal to end the funding that Adult Social Care (ASC) provides to two supported housing providers and develop a new Community Living Network (CLN) provided by the council’s Enablement Team in its place.
The funding is used to provide support services to 82 people living in 13 non-council supported housing schemes. These services support service users who have a learning difficulty and/or a mental health difficulty, who, in most cases, do not meet the council’s threshold for care and support.
As part of the consultation the council wanted to gauge the support for the proposal to end the funding to the support providers and the impact on service users and stakeholders on developing a new CLN in its place.
Council officers ensured that the service users had every opportunity to present their views via seven meetings with support workers or an advocate, completing an online survey on their own or with support and welcoming comments from their carers and anyone connected with their support.
The support providers had four meetings with the council and the five Landlords each had an individual meeting, so their views could be gauged. The meetings were well attended, and we believe that the vast majority of affected service users put forward their views.
We received 72 responses to the survey:
Over half of the respondents were people with disabilities, with 58% identifying as having a mental health difficulty.
86% of respondents disagreed with the proposals. Most people were worried about the detrimental impact that the proposals might have on the service users’ mental health. There was some support for reducing the support hours and looking at other ways of funding the service. A petition was set up on change.org to stop the changes and representations were received from an Elected Member, the local MP and NHS professionals.
Towards the end of the consultation the two support providers offered an alternative proposal to the council. They suggested reducing the number of properties within the schemes and a reduction in the hours of support they provided. They agreed to reduce the communal charges levied on service users in some schemes and to consider the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies for all service users.
The council met with the support providers and considered their new proposals. It was agreed that they were viable. A decision to implement the alternative model of support proposed by the support providers was agreed by the Assistant City Mayor – Adult Social Care and Wellbeing on 8 March 2019, effective from 1 of April 2019
The council will monitor the efficacy of the new proposals through the contract monitoring process.
We asked for your views on the proposed 20mph zone for the Montrose School area.
We received six responses to the online consultation from outside the consultation area. Three responses were for both the proposed 20mph speed limit and the proposed traffic calming and three responses were both against the proposed 20mph speed limit and the proposed traffic calming.
A paper consultation was also delivered directly to local residents. We had 600 responses to this, representing a 25% response rate. Of these responses, 443 people (74%) were in favour of the 20mph speed limit and 340 (57%) were in favour of the proposed traffic calming.
As a result of the support for the proposal, the city mayor has approved implementation of the scheme which is scheduled to come into force in late spring 2019.
We consulted on a proposal to end the funding that Adult Social Care (ASC) provides to six housing associations. The funding is used to provide support services to residents living in 31 non-council sheltered housing schemes. These services support people who, in most cases, do not meet the council’s threshold for care and support.
As part of the consultation the council wanted to understand whether the six housing associations could continue to provide some form of support to these residents without ASC funding.
Council officers worked closely with the six housing associations and their residents to gauge views on the proposal. In total we met with 111 people through 13 meetings. 95 of those people were residents and 16 were housing association staff.
The meetings were held in the day rooms of schemes affected across the city to ensure they were accessible to the residents.
As part of the main consultation we received 207 responses.
Responses were received from a range of stakeholders although 67% of responses received were from the residents of the 31 sheltered schemes.
Comments made through the focus group meetings and responses from consultation surveys indicated residents were concerned about losing the funding for their support service. They were also clear about the value they derived from that service. Where there were clear plans in place from the housing association to mitigate against the impact of the proposal, residents felt reassured.
The main comment in terms of how the service met their needs was that they valued the wellbeing support as a way of helping residents remain independent.
The support, residents felt, also helped to reduce isolation and loneliness. Residents described it as a lifeline in terms of supporting their ability to participate in the community of the scheme/s.
The council has decided to end the funding for the ILS sheltered support service.
Although residents raised valid concerns about the impact of the proposal, the consultation process enabled council officers to understand how residents in these schemes would continue to be supported, without ASC funding.
All six housing associations demonstrated well developed ideas for continuing the support. Some of the proposals may require residents to pay for support in the future but council officers were reassured that residents would be fully consulted on those proposals.
Other forms of support, such as volunteer roles and good neighbour initiatives will also be considered, and this will help mitigate against some of the impact residents raised around loneliness and isolation.