| The following is simple regurgitation of section 12 of sense's Proof of Evidence (PoE) submitted to the Planning Inquiry.
The NSE has provided little evidence of its attempts to secure funding elsewhere. Straightforward bank finance is unlikely to be available given the NSE’s fluctuating financial performance rather than there being no value in the NSE’s assets. Once again, the NSE’s inability to balance its books has given rise to adverse consequences. There are, however, funding opportunities available to the NSE and it is surprising they have not listed them.
The NSE asserts it is ‘nationally important.’ sense cannot reasonably comment (nor, probably, can anyone at the Planning Inquiry). It is for the Department of Health to judge and thus far they appear to have chosen to apply their funding elsewhere. Some NHS funding has been forthcoming (Assessment Centre, via PCT’s etc.) but this is mainly running costs rather than new capital. Interestingly, when questioned about government funding in a public open meeting, the NSE claimed they could not press the Government for funds (for this Project) for fear of alienating them.
| It is not clear in what respect the NSE regards themselves as nationally important: |
| (a) |
Is it in providing residential care homes? If it is (and it should be, because that is what the NSE says it needs funding for in their planning application) the Government already mandates that the NSE is supported, this being effected by Local Authorities to the tune of £954 per resident per week. That’s tangible support. However, as the care residents are falling in numbers, one could argue that perhaps any national importance is declining. |
| (b) |
Is it in research, publicity or training? The NSE has obviously made a very valuable contribution in all of these. But even if we argue the case that the NSE is nationally important, then the argument put to the Inquiry of: “We’re nationally important in epilepsy research and training etc., so please provide funding so that we can improve our residential care facilities” doesn’t quite ring true. |
SENSE believes various substantial sources of funding are available. sense proposed a smaller redevelopment in the previous section. That would holistically resolve a number of the NSE’s issues. If executed, this would generate £9.4M. sense also identified that a new-build of the care residents’ accommodation would eliminate capital replacement funding for at least a decade. The Present Value of this is £8.2M. Furthermore, the NSE could choose to apply its net charitable income for more than just a year – worth perhaps £7M over 6 years. Then, of course, there’s £2M-3M cash at bank that the NSE could apply. Finally, a sale and leaseback of some its fixed assets is certainly possible, subject to the NSE’s ability to service the arrangement.
Even without the sale and leaseback arrangement, some £25M of financing is possible. As we noted in ‘Finances‘ above, this is not on ‘Day 1’. It is instead over the next 6 years or so, the period over which the NSE plan to implement their scheme.
In view of the foregoing, sense do not believe that there “is no Plan B” available to the NSE. We have suggested that some of the NSE’s costs are higher than they might be – the kernel of the issue is the care homes and irrespective of whether the required amount is £7M-£9M (sense) or £12M, £14.4M or £17.6M (NSE) there is enough funding available to service that need and have a residue available for other purposes of the NSE’s choosing.
In view of the foregoing sense do not see any rationale for an “enabling development”.
In the event the NSE’s scheme was executed as applied for, the £9.4M sense alternative scheme would not be available. However, loans and/or mortgages would be available on the new buildings (staff accommodation, care residences, other new facilities) which should meet or exceed the £9.4M forgone by not adopting sense’s proposition. The NSE appears to have overlooked this in their deliberations.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the NSE has used Head Projects on aspects of their scheme. On Head’s Website (http://www.headprojects.com/newsletter.htm) they offer the following: “ Head Projects is offering its clients an innovative privately funded plan that will provide significant benefits in terms of cost certainty, deliverability and repeatability to meet the expanding needs of the Social Healthcare Market. Head Projects will design, build and finance the new care home development and agree a long-term lease at a competitive and affordable rent with the operator. Our proposals are meeting significant market interest, particularly from a number of highly respected charitable organisations, and we plan to expand the funding package to widen this appeal .” Taken at face value, one might think such private funding might be of interest to the NSE, both for their own care residents and any external sheltered/nursing/care home. It seems odd that the NSE have apparently not considered it.
|
