Loading
On 12 May 2025 the Committee scrutinised the proposed Cabinet decisions on overcladding Nelson House and Loudoun House and awarding the first phase of the Channel View development to Wates Construction, before Cabinet considers them on 15 May. It also received a briefing on support for unpaid carers. On both items the Committee agreed that the Chair will write to the Cabinet Member with its observations, but the minute does not record what those observations are.
Some sentences of this summary are missing in English, because an older automatic check removed them from the English only. The Welsh version has them.
Apologies were received from Cllr Leonora Thomson (Cabinet Member for Adult Services and Public Health & Equality), and Tegan Griffiths (Youth Council), with Grace Lee attending in her place.
Cllr Lewis declared a personal interest in item 4 as the ward councillor for Butetown, while Cllr Lent declared a personal interest in item 5 as a carer.
The minutes of the 14th April meeting were approved and signed by the Chair.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting at this point during consideration of this item as the Committee discussed exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Lewis: Personal interest on Over-cladding of Nelson House and Loudoun House High Rise Flats & Award of JCT Design & Build Contract to Wates Construction for Block A in Phase 1 of the Channel View Development Scheme
As the ward councillor for Butetown.
Lent: Personal interest on Support for Unpaid Carers
As a carer.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.
Members were advised that the report sought to provide them with background information to enable pre-decision scrutiny of the Cabinet report concerning the overcladding of Nelson House and Loudoun House, and Phase 1 of the Channel View Development Scheme, prior to its consideration by Cabinet on 15th May. The Chair reminded Members that Appendices A to E were exempt by virtue of paragraphs 14 & 21 of Parts 4 and 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and as such any discussion relating to them would have to take place in private session. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Lynda Thorne Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities Jane Thomas Director of Housing & Communities Dave Jaques Assistant Director of Housing & Communities, Housing Development The Cabinet Member was invited to give a statement, explaining that the report gave an update on two procurement projects where changes were needed to the initial Cabinet decisions. Cabinet had approved procurement arrangements for the overcladding of high-rise flats at Nelson House and Loudoun House, but after engagement with contractors failed to demonstrate sufficient interest, they had carried out an open procurement instead. Costs had risen from £25m to £25.7m and there were also small changes to the proposed valuation criteria. At Channel View, 400 new mixed-tenure homes would be delivered over seven phases, with a preferred bidder agreed in September 2023. Design changes were required to the original scheme due to changes in building regulation, in particular regarding fire safety. This allowed the number of units in the first phase to increase from 81 to 126, and while the overall cost had increased, the cost per unit was significantly reduced. Officers gave a presentation providing further detail on the broader context and design changes. They emphasised that each phase of the Channel View development was considered on its own merits and subject to robust viability checks. The design changes resulted in a very similar layout but introduced some additional housing in the early phases, and this greater density enabled an improved mix of units and increased the project’s financial viability. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members queried whether the authority could seek to gain any money back from the previous developers who had cladded the buildings with unsuitable materials. Officers explained that the contractors would have met the standards at the time, as the cladding was done a long time ago and only identified as not up to standard following the Grenfell disaster. Members asked whether leaseholders would be charged for the recladding, and heard that due to the expected Welsh government grant it was not anticipated that any charge would be made to leaseholders. Officers were hopeful that a grant would be made for the full amount, though if not they might have to charge for some of the safety work. Members asked what level of disruption tenants would experience while it was being carried out, and heard that similar works on Lydstep Flats had seen very few complaints as residents could clearly see how it was improving the buildings. The phased approach would enable residents to remain in their homes, and they would be kept informed throughout the process. Members explored the procurement process for Channel View and asked whether the return of only one tender indicated any flaws. Officers did not feel this was the case, noting that it was a difficult and technically complex project to deliver, while there was a nervousness in the market around high-rise developments following changes to legislation. Nelson House and Loudoun House had also been tricky due to the Building Safety Act having been implemented in England but not in Wales, and concerns from providers. It was a difficult market at the moment, and delays led to increased costs. Members asked whether other options had been considered, for example building from scratch rather than retrofitting. Officers explained that a full options appraisal had been undertaken on all the projects, and these were reviewed when costs went up. With Channel View, they were dealing with an estate where many of the properties were beyond repair due to when and how they were built, and with lots of subsidence. Demolition and rebuilding was deemed the most cost-effective solution, in phases to mitigate the impact on those living there. For Nelson House and Loudoun House, demolition and rebuilding would have cost far more, and they would have needed to rehouse 180 families, so recladding was deemed the best option as the building was otherwise sound. Members asked whether it was a risk to rely on the same contractor for multiple major projects, noting that there had been several occasions in recent years where large developers had gone bust. Officers outlined the processes they undertook to ensure due diligence, in particular reviewing the contractor’s financial standing and their capacity to carry out the contract. Wates was a known contractor with whom the council was familiar. Members noted that Nelson House would shift from providing single older people’s accommodation to family homes, and asked where the older people living there would go. Officers explained that they would ideally go to one of the new blocks that were already built, for example in Leckwith, or the block being built in Butetown. RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting at this point during consideration of this item as the Committee discussed exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were advised that the report sought to provide them with background information ahead of a briefing and presentation from officers on Support for Unpaid Carers, a priority topic chosen by the Committee. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Jane Thomas Director of Housing & Communities Claire Gilhooly Independent Living Services Manager Nicola Pitman Lead Library and Strategy Manager Officers gave a presentation outlining the strategic context, noting that Adult Services had published their five-year Ageing Well Strategy in 2022 and made a commitment to support unpaid carers. They subsequently launched the ‘Caring for Carers’ consultation survey to learn more about the lives of unpaid carers, in particular their opportunities to take a break from their responsibilities and where they were going for that. The consultation had received 656 responses and provided a large amount of new information. 69.2% of respondents said they’d never had a break from their routine of looking after a relative or friend, 24.1% reported mental health difficulties, 52.1% said they weren’t aware of any support in place for them, and 44.8% said the person they were looking after didn’t want to be looked after by anyone else. In response, the service had launched Carers Corners in central information points such as Hubs and libraries, and the Care’Diff newsletter, which was available in GP surgeries, hospitals, pharmacies and other community locations. The newsletter had been a success so far, with the sixth edition needing a second print run to meet the demand. Officers were also piloting a project to use AI to translate it into different community languages. Officers highlighted that identification of carers was key, as people often saw themselves as just a spouse and didn’t realise there was support in place as a result. They sought to work with carers to co-produce training for frontline staff, and the training team was starting to roll this out now. They had launched Caring Friends, a volunteer service bringing unpaid carers together with volunteer befrienders, and following a successful pilot there were now 17 active volunteers and 9 more in training. Officers added that the ‘Looking after others’ page on the Age Friendly Cardiff website had been expanded following testing by carers, who requested more content and improved navigation. Around £30k of funding had been received from the Regional Partnership Board to help the service reach out further to carers, in particular via ethnic minority community groups, and all of this had been spent now, with work to be done assessing its impact. Officers also attended the regional Unpaid Carers Board and were working on relaunching the adult and young carer’s charters, and would shortly bring out a communications plan outlining how they would raise awareness of unpaid carers’ rights. Officers outlined the process of a carer’s assessment, which assessed a person’s need for support to ensure they were able to continue caring for someone. It could be requested by any carer in Wales regardless of age or who they cared for, but not everyone knew they were entitled to it. Assessments were provided online, face-to-face or over the phone, and sought to identify what mattered to the carer and what support they needed to maintain their wellbeing, such as respite care or equipment. The Carers Assessment Service had joined the Independent Living Service in 2024, expanding the offer to unpaid carers and seeking to apply a whole system approach. The offer had been reviewed, with feedback taken on board and factsheets produced to guide people through the process. Outreach sessions took place across Cardiff, not only in Hubs but also in supermarkets, GP surgeries and other places. Carers assessment officers were able to prescribe technology to support carers, such as Alexa devices or medication reminders, and could give grants to support time off like gym memberships and Netflix memberships. The Advice Line also offered free practical and emotional support for carers, connecting them to local resources and helping them to navigate their roles Officers added that in terms of next steps, they were doing a lot of work to understand respite provision in Cardiff, and were developing a referral pathway for unpaid carers supporting those diagnosed with dementia to access support. Focus groups with carers continued to try and ensure the service was reflective of their needs, and they had a programme of promotion and engagement sessions with community services to promote the Advice Line. The service had undertaken a satisfaction survey to gather feedback on these changes and found that out of those who had received assessments, 99% felt more supported and 100% felt it had improved their wellbeing. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: Members asked how many unpaid carers there were in total in Cardiff and across the wider region. Officers explained that while the census counted 50,580 in Cardiff and the Vale, that they did not think this was the true figure, as not everyone who was a carer saw themselves as one. There were also different ways of looking at the data, with one figure for those who identified as a carer and one for those who had been assessed as one. Officers were building a more detailed picture over time and would seek to provide a more specific figure for Cardiff, and were putting together a new Unpaid Carer Action Plan which they could bring before the Committee when it was finished. Members welcomed the support provided for carers and emphasised the importance of promotion and engagement to ensure people knew what they were entitled to. Members were pleased that engagement was not limited to Hubs, as these were not in every ward, and suggested that sign-in systems in GP surgeries could be used to gather information about whether people were carers. Officers agreed that being accessible was as important as being proactive, and noted that each GP surgery had a carers’ champion. The service had good relationships with GP clusters and individual surgeries, and operated in supermarkets too. Members asked how cases were reviewed after assessments took place, noting that carers’ individual situations were likely to change over time, especially if the carer themselves was elderly. Officers explained that if someone’s needs were assessed as being met by providing information or advice, then that was considered ‘closed’, but if a support plan was put in place this was reviewed annually. They were looking to put in place more informal support plans over three to six months, especially for those considered to be higher risk, and undertook joint assessments that looked at both the carer and the person they were caring for. Members noted the high number of responses to the satisfaction survey and asked how this was carried out. Officers explained that they had reached around 1,500 people in total, mostly through directly contacting individuals with whom Adult Services were working at the time, but also through paper copies in Hubs and other community locations. Surveys were also sent out immediately following assessments to see if the process met people’s needs. A full consultation report capturing the ethnicity, age, gender and geographic spread of respondents had been produced, which officers were happy to share with the Committee. Members were appreciative of the reduction in the waiting list and asked whether officers were confident they had the capacity to manage the remaining 89, considering that they were also endeavouring to increase awareness of support and entitlements. Officers confirmed that they were, noting that there was a lot of community and third sector support which helped to meet people’s needs. The Advice Line had been brought within the service because they offered a wide range of support and not everyone needed to be passed on elsewhere. Third sector organisations were also able to apply for the funding received through the Regional Partnership Board, and there were various different avenues for this. The Youth Council representative asked about younger carers, and in particular how they were supported to balance it with other responsibilities like exams. Officers explained that this mostly fell within their Regional Partnership Board work, and there was a steering group specifically focusing on younger carers. This group worked with schools to identify who they were and what kinds of support they might need. Children’s Services were also working on initiatives for younger people, with a recent young carers event taking place with the Vale at Eastmoors Youth Centre. Members asked whether the Care’Diff newsletter was available in digital form and heard that it was, and that people could subscribe so they received it every month. Most people tended to prefer a physical copy, likely due to the number of older carers. Members suggested that it could be sent to all councillors so they could help promote it in their wards. Members asked how carers were profiled and heard that this was currently just into two groups: adults and younger carers. Members suggested breaking it down further into groups like younger people caring for a parent, or older people caring for a partner, to allow for more targeted support. Officers explained that they tried to gather information about their health and wellbeing, both related to their caring role and more broadly, and sought to provide contingency planning for carers who might need to go into hospital themselves. These were often complex cases, with 44% of carers saying that the person they were looking after didn’t want to be looked after by anyone else. Members asked whether third sector groups could play a role in the volunteer befriending service by bringing individuals together for peer support, and heard that this was already being done, for example by Let’s Connect at Maes-Y-Coed Community Centre. It could be difficult to bring together significant numbers of unpaid carers as they didn’t get the time off, but focus groups took place regularly to keep them informed and were often online to maximise accessibility. Carer-specific befriending services were relatively new, and sought to take into account individual preferences. Members asked how the service recruited potential volunteers, and heard that it was promoted via the council’s Volunteer Portal and in the Care’Diff newsletter. The pool of volunteers at the moment was quite diverse, but they wanted it to be bigger so it could be more sustainable. Members queried about the Hubs For All locations for groups and heard that these had taken into account the space and facility requirements, and groups were normally run on close days by a small peripatetic team. Members asked whether there was any intention of extending provision, and heard that resources were limited but more promotion could help to bring more people in. It was an evolving, dynamic process that formed only one part of a continuum of care. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
There were none.
The next meeting was provisionally scheduled for Monday 16th June at 4:30pm.