Is Housing running when it should walk?

AT FIRST glance, there is plenty to like about Housing's plans for Longue Rue House and Maison Maritaine.

With an ageing population requiring different ways of living than was the norm when these care homes were built in 1963 and 1971 respectively, and high maintenance costs at these ageing properties, there is a need for change.

The department, headed by Dave Jones, plans to spend between £20m. and £25m. creating extra-care housing on both the sites, with the rest of the money for the £35m. development coming from the Guernsey Housing Association.

Housing asked and was told by older people that they wanted to maintain their independence - too many were being placed in care homes before they needed to be.

So it plans to create self-contained apartments with one or two bedrooms, a lounge, a kitchen and a bathroom, with good access and on-site support 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

But it does not come without pain - nearby States tenants, some in their 70s and 80s, will be moved on from their homes because of the plans.

And it also comes in something of a vacuum.

Good decision-making is based on having all the information on the table when it comes to crunch time.

The States will debate the plans in April.

But there is a key report that should feed into the debate that will not be considered until the end of the year.

There is a hint of what the Older People's Housing, Care and Support Strategy for the Island will say in the Extra Care - Fit for the Future pamphlet released by Housing to explain its plans.

It states that the strategy 'will make it clear that historic models of accommodation and care need to change to meet the demands of the future'.

So deputies know there is change being proposed, they just do not know what yet.

They just have to take it on trust that Housing's project fits in with it.

And we also know that Health and Social Services has a major forward-looking report in the pipeline too.

Is this really showing good governance and joined-up thinking or a case of rushing into a project, however worthy it might be, without the full picture available?

It appears Housing has put the cart firmly before the horse.

It leaves the department open to a delaying motion when it comes to the Assembly.

Questions can also be asked about the amount of States money going into the project - the pamphlet available to download makes no mention of the cost, or the split between private and public money.

The GHA, which will be responsible for the build and management, has a large loan facility available to it and there has always been a drive to decrease the extent of public money pumped into its projects.

Is the balance right in this case?

The GHA is a major player in social housing in the island.

The not-for-profit association has control of 308 homes being rented or leased to local people and another 92 being built.

This all appears to be ushering in the end of the department itself - something often mooted by reformist deputies - and if the States goes ahead with the plans in the population management regime to have a statutory official making the decisions on licence applications and not politicians, Housing could be essentially neutered.