Purpose

1.      Award a contract to B & H Services Group Ltd for property adaptations for approximately £650,000. 

2.      Enter into an agreement for associated funding with NHS England and ICB Central East; and

3.      Enter into a nomination agreement with the landlord for rights to nominate eligible occupants to reside at the property after adaptations completed.

Decision

Cabinet unanimously RESOLVED to approve:

1. The award of a contract to B&H Services Group Ltd for property works /

adaptations up to the sum of £609,000 to commence on the 1 July 2026.

1. Delegated authority given to the Executive Director for Adult Services in

consultation with the Cabinet Member for Adult Services to increase the value

of the Contract up to a value of £61,000, being a 10% contingency, in the event

unforeseen circumstances cause the cost of the adaptations / works to increase.

1. The Council entering into an agreement with the Central East Integrated Care

Board (Central East ICB) and Progress Housing Association Limited

(Progress), or any alternative Registered Provider appointed by NHS England,

detailing the roles and responsibilities of each party in furtherance of the works

/ adaptations. This includes apportionment of costs, the responsibilities for

repairs and maintenance, and confirmation of the Council’s nomination rights

to the property.

1. The Council and the Central East ICB being jointly responsible for ongoing

repairs and maintenance, in relation to the works and adaptations, in

accordance with the agreed percentage split in funding responsibility as set

out in the individual’s care plan at any given time (50:50 in June 2026), until

the Council relinquishes its nomination rights or the property is sold.

1. The Council to enter into a licence agreement with Progress, or any alternative Registered Provider appointed by NHS England, to obtain consent to carry out the adaptations.

Alternative options considered

Alternative options considered include:

The young adult to remain in secure health setting – this is not an appropriate

long-term option for any individual, and it is in their best interests to be supported to have an active and fulfilling life in the community. For the Council to meet its Care Act duties, this requires accommodation which has been carefully designed and fitted.  Furthermore, the hospital does not agree to accommodate the young adult any longer.

Engage the market to consider other available care providers / properties which do not require adaptations – the current property, registered social landlord and the care provider were sourced following an extensive nationwide search for suitable partners. It is unlikely that alternative providers could be engaged, or that they would be able to source an alternative property / mobilise a workforce without a considerable delay.

Purchase or adapt an alternate property with Council funds – the purchase of another property would be at considerable cost to the Council. Costs would include: purchase, on-costs and any required adaptations. The current property has already been sourced via NHSE funding and is a suitable space once adapted.  Also, this would delay in the young adult moving into suitable accommodation.

Engage with alternative company to design and complete the adaptations

– As noted in the section above, this would cause considerable delay,

If the decision is not approved, the Council will be required to source an alternative provider to consult and deliver the necessary adaptations to the

property. B&H have already carried out similar projects for the Council and have

demonstrated that they have the necessary expertise.  If we did not appoint B&H we would need to evaluate alternative contractor(s) which would cause a

considerable delay.  This may impact the timescales of around 4 months, causing a detrimental impact on the individual’s move in date.  Meaning the young adult would have to remain in the secure hospital unit.

If the Council had to carry out a procurement exercise, it runs the risk of being

unable to source an alternative developer, especially to find one in the required

timeframe.  If this was the case, the Council would have no option but to consider alternative properties for occupation by the young adult. As noted above, this will require a lengthy search and considerable expense and, noting prior experience, is likely to be unsuccessful.

As the young adult is ready for discharge, and their hospital placement is at

significant risk, it is also likely that the Council would come under challenge from NHS England around its statutory duties.