Cabinet – 8 November 2011 Closure of Feltham, Heston and Chiswick

Contact: Mary Harpley Tel: 020 8583 2012 E-Mail: mary.harpley@hounslow.gov.uk

Cabinet – 8th November 2011

Closure of Feltham, Heston and Chiswick local offices and the vacation of three other premises (representing the first recommendations from the Asset Workstream)

Report by: Cllr Corinna Smart, Lead Member for Environment and Member lead for the Asset Workstream

Cllr Theo Dennison, Lead Member for Performance and Customer Care

1. Recommendations

Cabinet is recommended to agree that:

1.1 We vacate our three area offices at Chiswick, Heston and Feltham by the 31 st March 2012 and that the Director of Environment is authorised to dispose of the Feltham office property.

1.2 We declare the former Brentford Children and Families Centre at 1 The Butts, Brentford surplus to requirements and that the Director of Environment is authorised to dispose of the property.

1.3 We surrender the lease of 3 rd Floor, Ashley House, 86 – 94 High Street, Hounslow by 31 st January 2012.

1.4 In principle, we dispose of 78-80 St Johns Road, Isleworth, and that, subject to the conclusion of the current consultation with all occupiers and the agreement of the Lead Member for Environment and the Lead Member for Performance and Customer Care, the Director of Environment be authorised to dispose of the property.

Summary

The asset workstream was established in April 2011 as one of the Council’s first ten transformational workstreams. It is co-chaired by the Lead Member for Environment and the Chief Executive. Its objective is to reduce substantially the Council’s occupational costs of property, while maintaining service performance and minimising the impact on service users.

The workstream is pursuing a number of strands of work. The recommendations laid out in this paper – to vacate our three local area offices and three further premises – represent the outcome of the first strand of work to be completed. Further recommendations will come to the Cabinet over the next few months.

Our three local offices in Feltham, Heston and Chiswick provide a range of borough-wide services related to the safeguarding of vulnerable children and adults, including children in need of protection. The majority of referrals received at these offices are made by telephone and letter/email and the services delivered from them are delivered in part from the offices themselves, but also elsewhere, including in residents’ homes. The number of residents who actually visit these offices is low. In light of the outcome of the consultation we have conducted with service users, staff and partners, we propose to re-locate our staff from these offices in the most part to the Civic Centre, but in some instances to partners’ or other premises, depending on the particular needs of our service users. We are not proposing any cuts to service levels, only a relocation of services. Recognising that there are some very local users of our current offices who could not be visited in their homes but would find it difficult to travel to the new locations on account of their disability we are discussing with health and other partners the potential for using their premises for our appointments with these service users. We propose that we vacate all three local offices by 31 March 2012 and let the Chiswick and Heston offices and sell the Feltham office.

The former Brentford Children and Families Centre, 1 The Butts, Brentford is already surplus to our requirements and we propose to sell it in early 2012. We also propose to surrender our lease for 3 rd Floor, Ashley House, High Street, Hounslow and relocate our staff to the Civic Centre.

We are also considering the vacation and sale of 78-80 St John’s Road, Isleworth. While consultation with Council staff and the West London Mental Health Trust, located at 78 St John’s Road, has concluded, our consultation with our tenants at 80 St John’s Road – the St John’s & Spring Grove Community Association – and the thirty-five organisations which use the location continues until 30 November. Subject to the outcome of this consultation we are considering disposing of this property and the final decision will be taken during December by the Director of Environment in consultation with the Lead Member for Environment and the Lead Member for Performance and Customer Care.

This paper also lays out our plans to check the accuracy of the rateable values assigned to the Council’s property portfolio as part of the national rating recalculation in 2010. We are procuring the specialist support we need for this jointly with some other local authorities.

2. Background

2.1 In the current economic climate the Council must ensure that it operates from the minimum number of buildings required to deliver its services effectively and that it lets or sells those buildings it does not require. The Asset Workstream’s objective is to reduce significantly the Council’s occupational costs of property, while maintaining service performance and minimising the impact on service users.

2.2 To deliver its objective the Asset Workstream is reviewing all the building and land assets that the Council owns or occupies (except schools and housing) on an area-by-area basis and assessing the opportunities we have to use our assets more efficiently. We are undertaking these reviews in collaboration with Hounslow Homes and Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare Trust and in the knowledge of the premises used by NHS Hounslow and the Metropolitan Police. Recommendations for changes to the use of assets and disposals from these area reviews (starting with West Area) will be brought to Cabinet members from February 2012.

2.3 In advance of completing these area-by-area reviews the Asset Workstream has considered the early vacation of a number of buildings with the objectives of reducing operational costs, maximizing the use of the Civic Centre complex as the primary base for the Council for the foreseeable future, reducing the Council’s carbon footprint and producing capital receipts. This paper sets out the business case for the vacation of four buildings (and the disposal of two of these) and the surrender of our lease for one building. It also sets out our intention to vacate and sell 78-80 St John’s Road, subject to the conclusion on 30 November of our consultation with the occupiers of No 80 and the re-location of these occupiers.

2.4 The Asset Workstream has developed a new ‘asset release matrix’ to ensure a consistent approach to our decision making when we are considering the release or retention of any building or land asset. Any asset which is put forward for potential release is now assessed using the asset release matrix to ensure that all the options are reviewed and challenged. The following questions are asked for each asset: • Is the asset no longer needed for its current purpose? • Can the asset meet other service needs of LBH or partners? • Is it a suitable site to deliver any of the Council’s other priorities? • Can its release bring about savings? • Can its release produce a capital receipt? • Is there an opportunity for enhancing the value of the capital receipt before it is sold?

2.5 We have assessed each of the six buildings proposed for vacation in this paper against the matrix. The populated matrix is attached at Appendix A.

3. Closure of the Feltham, Heston and Chiswick Local Offices

3.1 We propose to close and vacate:

• Chiswick Local Office, Ashburnham House, Horticultural place, Chiswick • Feltham Local Office, 11-13 Hanworth Road, Feltham • Heston Local Office, 41 New Heston Road (including mobile office)

3.2 The following services are delivered from each of our current local offices:

Chiswick Local Office

The Chiswick office is a modern purpose-built facility for social care, located adjacent to Chiswick Town Hall. Services currently based at the Chiswick office serve the east of the borough for: • Older Peoples Assessment & Care Management • Occupational Therapy • Children’s Intake Team • Children’s Safeguarding & Support Team

Total staff numbers 76 social work and support staff Average number of customer referrals 1,387 Children’s Services per year 1,165 Adult Services Average number of customers calling 40 Children’s Services into the office each week 47 Adult Services

Feltham Local Office

The Feltham office is located a short walking distance from the Feltham overland station. Services currently based at the Feltham Office serve the west of the borough for:

• Older Peoples Assessment & Care Management • Occupational Therapy • Children’s Intake Team • Children’s Safeguarding & Support Team

Total staff numbers 68 social work and support staff Average number of customer referrals 1,266 Children’s Services per year 1,193 Adult Services Average number of customers calling 45 Children’s Services into the office each week 47 Adult Services

Heston Local Office (including Heston Mobile Office)

The Heston office is a modern purpose-built facility for social care adjacent to the Heston leisure complex. Services currently based at the Heston office serve the whole borough for:

• Adult Social Care Access Service

• Community Team for Learning Disabilities • Independent Living Team

Total staff numbers 80 Average number of customer referrals 417 per year Average number of customers calling 55 into the office each week

In addition, there are 10 safeguarding and review adult social care staff based at the Heston mobile office. It is not a public access point.

3.3 Our three local offices provide a range of borough-wide services related to the safeguarding of vulnerable children and adults, including children in need of protection. The majority of referrals received at these offices are made by telephone and letter/email and the services delivered from them are delivered in part from the offices themselves, but also elsewhere, including in residents’ homes. The number of residents who actually visit these offices is low. In light of the outcome of the consultation we have conducted with service users, staff and partners, we propose to re-locate our staff from these offices in the most part to the Civic Centre, but in some instances to partners’ or other premises, depending on the particular needs of our service users. We are not proposing any cuts to service levels, only a relocation of services which do not need to be provided locally.

3.4 Many adult social care customers (and their carers) who call into our local offices do so to collect welfare payments. We are introducing pre-payment cards to remove the need to call into the offices and to avoid the risks of having to collect cash.

3.5 As a result of the closure of these three local offices we intend to relocate 230 staff to the Civic Centre. We know that the Civic Centre can accommodate about 500 further people. Bringing in this full 500 will require significant reconfiguration of the building, but we can accommodate approximately 250 staff without making radical changes to the Civic Centre, meaning we can relatively easily accommodate the staff from the three Local Offices we propose to close, as well as staff from the other three premises under consideration. The costs of the required moves have been factored into the business case. At the same time we are seeking opportunities to co-locate partners in the Civic Centre where this supports the Council’s aim to achieve revenue savings, helps deliver better services to residents or supports partners in achieving their own savings.

3.6 With the exception of the Learning Disabilities Team, currently located in the Heston Local Office, we intend to re-locate all the staff from our Feltham, Heston and Chiswick Offices to the Civic Centre. None of the services we currently deliver from these offices need to be based locally and the same level of service could be offered from the Civic Centre, where the necessary conference, family rooms and multi-agency meeting spaces will be provided for service users and staff in a reconfigured 88 Lampton Road. The Civic Centre also has good transport links.

3.7 We recognise that adults with learning disabilities are likely to find the Civic Centre a confusing and daunting place to visit. We are currently seeking an alternative to the team’s current location in the Heston Local Office and hope to reach agreement with NHS Hounslow for use of the Heart of Hounslow for this service. We will not vacate the Heston Local Office until a suitable alternative is found.

3.8 Recognising that there are some very local users of our current offices who could not be visited in their homes but would find it difficult to travel to the new locations on account of their disability we are discussing with health and other partners the potential for using their premises for our appointments with these service users.

3.9 There are ICT implications of these proposed moves. For example, the Feltham Local Office hosts a hub for our ICT services which will have to be relocated. An ICT plan has been put in place to ensure that ICT services can continue to be delivered if the recommendations are approved. The ICT-related costs have been included in the business case.

3.10 We recommend the following actions for each of the current local offices:

Chiswick Local Office

Vacate the office by 31 st March 2012 and move all staff to the Civic Centre. Retain the building and let it on the open market, rather than break up the Council’s total landholding which includes Chiswick Town Hall.

Feltham Local Office

Vacate the office by 31 st March 2012 and move all staff to the Civic Centre. Secure a planning consent for residential development and sell the building on the open market.

The planning policy framework would support a change of use from offices to residential accommodation. Following an assessment of the current floor space it is considered likely that the site would readily convert into a mix of flats and houses or an entirely flatted development.

Given the existing access points it is likely that the western and northern edges of the building would be most suitably converted to houses, with flats around the central core. Alternatively two flats could be provided instead of each house. As such, the site is likely to be able to accommodate up to either two three-bedroom houses and six flats (mix of one and two-bedroom) or ten flats.

Given the potential for up to 10 units there may be a need for affordable housing and the normal S106 conditions.

Heston Local Office (including Heston mobile office)

Vacate the office by 31 st March 2012 and move all staff other than those in the Learning Disability team to the Civic Centre. Given the Council’s aspiration to re-

provide a fit-for-purpose leisure pool with associated facilities in Heston and to upgrade the Heston park experience, retain the office and try and secure a short- term let, leaving the building available for future disposal as part of the package of Council land which would support the redevelopment of the leisure facility.

Relocate the learning disabilities team to a location yet to be identified, but ideally a health-related location such as Heart of Hounslow. Options are being discussed with NHS Hounslow. Once site options for the learning disability service are identified an Equalities Impact Assessment will need to be completed to inform our decision making. There is some risk we may not be able to relocate this service by March 2012 and in recognition of this the business case assumes no rental income from the Heston office at this stage.

We will seek to re-provide a ‘changing places’ facility for personal care in Hounslow town centre.

Summary of Service Impact and Risks of Closure of Feltham, Heston and Chiswick Local Offices

3.11 This table provides a summary of the service impacts and risks, and the activity we plan to mitigate these.

Service impact and risk assessment Actions to mitigate summary • Loss of discreet and confidential • Re-provide dedicated social care public access facilities. public access point at 88 Lampton Road within the Civic Centre complex • Loss of social care meeting • Re-provide conference facilities at facilities including multi agency the dedicated social care access safeguarding independent review point at 88 Lampton Road. meetings; court directed ‘child Negotiate with health partners and friendly’ family contact sessions with our own children’s centres for and case conferences for use of their facilities to meet the children at risk and children need of local users who cannot be looked after. seen in their homes and, for reasons of disability, cannot get to the Civic Centre.

• Loss of team rooms for • Identify suitable locations in the confidential and quiet working pavilions for social care and 1-2-1 rooms for providing practitioner staff to reduce risks to professional supervision – a the management of information regulatory requirement to and to provide a quiet environment support good practice. for report writing – a core function for social workers. Sufficient rooms for 1-2-1 supervisions can be provided by maintaining as many of the cellular offices for

meeting use as possible. • Callers to the office would need • Footfall to the local offices is low. to travel further to see their The majority of callers for adult social worker or to access services come in to collect welfare services. payments. The use of prepayment cards will be introduced to mitigate this impact. Some children’s meetings will be held in partner accommodation within locality. • Risks to vulnerable customers in • Dedicated, secure access point at using mainstream access 88 Lampton Road and customer facilities at Civic Centre. Includes facilities to reduce risks. Provision confidentiality of information; of panic buttons. volatile behaviour; & small numbers of violent incidences currently managed well through dedicated site provision. • Increased risk to existing users • Dedicated, secure access point at of Civic Centre that some of the 88 Lampton Road and customer social care clients pose. facilities to reduce risks. Provision of panic buttons.

• Lack of storage for case files • Children’s archiving and storage which are needed by front line project required to minimise Children’s staff. storage needs. The new social care IT system including electronic records due to be implemented in the summer of 2013 will in the longer-term reduce hard storage needs. In interim, sufficient storage for client files required. Solution for the safe and secure long term storage for adoption records still to be identified. • Impact on the strategy to • The location of the Older People’s remodel the Older People’s care Teams in one location supports the pathway. implementation of the new model.

4. Vacation of Brentford Children and Families Centre, 1 The Butts, Brentford and Surrender of Lease at Ashley House, Hounslow High Street

4.1 Former Brentford Children and Families Centre, 1 The Butts, Brentford

The Specialist Intensive Support Service for Children in Care has already been moved from 1 The Butts to the Civic Centre. The service’s need for therapeutic facilities will be met at Da Spot in Lampton Road.

Recommendation

Declare the former Brentford Children and Families Centre at 1 The Butts, Brentford surplus to requirements and dispose of the property on the open market.

The revenue savings from the closure of the building have already been taken as savings. However, the sale could return a capital receipt of approximately £1.2m.

4.2 3rd Floor, Ashley House

The following services are currently based in Ashley House which is let by the Council:

• Connexions – 28 staff • Children’s Centre Admin – 2 staff

Recommendation

To serve the required notice of surrender of lease on the landlord and vacate by 31 st January 2012, moving all staff to the Civic Centre.

5. 78 – 80 St Johns Road

The following Council and partner services are currently based at 78 St John’s Road:

• Community Mental Health services (integrated services with West London Mental Health Trust; 13 LBH staff and 17 West London Mental Health Trust staff) • Hounslow Youth Counselling service – providing a free confidential service for young people living, working or studying in Hounslow between the ages of 11-25 (5 LBH staff)

St John’s & Spring Grove Community Association, our tenant, is currently based at 80 St John’s Road and thirty-five community organisations use the building.

The mental health services need a base within the east of the borough. The Civic Centre is not considered to be a suitable alternative as people requiring mental health services are likely to find it confusing and daunting. If an alternative, suitable location is identified there would be no impact on the level of mental health services. An options appraisal has been undertaken and discussions are continuing with the West London Mental Health Trust. There is a risk that a suitable alternative location for the mental health service may not be identified by March 2012. An Equalities Impact Assessment will need to be undertaken to support our decision making once site options for the relocation for the mental health service have been identified.

The Youth Counselling service requires suitable office accommodation with access to counselling rooms for work with 11-25 year olds. Staff and service users are being consulted.

Recommendation

Re-locate the mental health and youth counselling teams during 2012 to locations yet to be identified.

Continue until 30 November consultation and discussions with the St John’s & Spring Grove Community Association and the resident community groups about their relocation from 80 St John’s Road to Isleworth Public Hall. The Lead Member for Environment and the Lead Member for Customer Care and Performance will take the final decision.

Secure outline planning consent for residential use of 78-80 St John’s Road and dispose of it on the open market in 2012/13. The property could possibly be let/re-let but it is in poor condition and requires investment of about £500k beforehand. What is more, the letting market for that type of property in this area is likely to be poor.

6. Other Property Issues

a) Corporate maintenance If the above properties are vacated and sold/let the Council’s maintenance liabilities will reduce. In recognition of this, it is proposed that the Responsive Capital Maintenance budget be reduced by £50k in 2012/13 from £522k to £472k.

b) Rating revaluation The rateable value of the Council’s property portfolio was assessed as part of the national rating recalculation in 2010. It is necessary to assess the accuracy of these recalculations and, as in the past, lodge appeals where appropriate.

Our current contract with specialist rating consultants has been in place for some time. A decision was made in September 2011 to retender the contract jointly with a number of other local authorities in order to achieve a lower performance-related fee for the work and to enhance the net savings to the Council. We estimate our total savings to be £1.3m over the next 4 years. The timing of any refunds will depend on the length of the appeals process but an initial assessment has been made in this paper.

c) Carbon reduction If the above properties are vacated and let or sold, we will reduce the Council’s carbon footprint by over 1000 tonnes.

d) Staffing The reduction in the number of offices will provide operational services with opportunities to make further efficiencies by remodelling back office services.

e) Office capacity The remodelling will enable approximately 230 operational staff to relocate to the Civic Centre, including the social care access point and duty services operating from 88 Lampton Road.

Summary of Service Impact of Closure of 1 The Butts, Brentford and the Surrender of our Lease at Ashley House. Hounslow High Street

There is no service imperative to remain in either of these locations.

The services provided from 1 The Butts, Brentford and Ashley House, Hounslow High Street can all be relocated to the Civic Centre.

7. Consultation Process and Results of Consultation

All the stakeholders who were likely to be affected by the proposal to close offices were consulted. Consultation letters were sent to 74 schools, 6 statutory organisations, 156 voluntary groups and community organisations, 20 colleges and training bodies, 408 services users and 11 staff teams, unions and 60 councillors. The overall total consulted was 736. The consultation started on 28 September and closed on 26 October.

The overall response rate was approximately 14% (101) of all consulted stakeholders (736) suggesting low levels of concern overall. In addition 3 residents expressed views.

Key points to note are

• The largest proportion of respondents was service users who comprised just over 4/5 ths (83) of all respondents (104). • 18 responses were received from all the other stakeholder groups consulted. Nine of the 18 were from staff teams who deliver services from locations that would be affected by the proposals. • Of the 83 service users who responded 71% (59) were against closure and the rest were in favour or had no opinion either way. • The main concerns of service users were related to having to travel to new and unfamiliar locations and worries about being able to cope in new environments. • Several common themes were identified across all stakeholder groups. These were : o It could be harder to access services that were not local because journey times would be longer and the costs of travel would be higher. o Vulnerable adults, young people and children as well as their parents and carers would find it difficult to cope with a new location if it did not have the right facilities to meet their needs. o Making savings on property and running costs was acceptable to protect frontline services provided that safeguards to reduce the impact on service users and staff were put in place. o The Civic Centre was perceived as a large and impersonal environment which would not be suitable for delivering some services.

o It was perceived that collocating services could help communication and provide other benefits. o The closure of some buildings could mean the loss of a valued local resource and a focal point for local services.

A fuller description of the consultation process, feedback from stakeholders and the Council’s response is set out in Appendix 2.

The consultation on 80 St John’s Road does not close until 30 November and is therefore not included in this summary.

8. Equalities Impact Assessment

The Council has to give due regard to its Equalities Duties, in particular with respect to its general duties arising pursuant to the Equality Act 2010, to eliminate discrimination; advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between equalities groups. Having due regard to equality involves the need to take steps to remove or minimise disadvantage suffered by equalities groups and to meet the needs of disabled persons that are different from the needs of persons who are not disabled.

The proposal to vacate local offices in Feltham, Heston and Chiswick and the vacation of three other premises 78-80 St John’s Road, 1 The Butts, Brentford and Ashley House, Hounslow High Street and relocate staff from these offices for the most part to the civic centre but in some instances to partners or other premises is likely to affect vulnerable adults and/or disabled users who have severe mobility problems and sensory disabilities. The proposal relating to 80 St Johns Road Isleworth site is at this stage an in principal decision and is subject to the conclusion of the current consultation with all occupiers.

To assess the specific impact for equalities groups of these proposals, the consultation included e-mail communication to a total of 63 voluntary and community organisations who provide targeted services to equalities groups. They included 33 disability groups, 4 gender groups, 14 older peoples groups, 11 ethnic groups, 1 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and transgender stakeholder groups. Of these, a total of 2 responses were received one from Diabetes UK and one from the Hounslow Young Carers project.

In addition, service teams consulted a number of service users who may potentially be affected by the proposal. The responses from these services are set out below:

Mental health – 50 consulted - 23 responses received Learning Disability – 140 consulted -18 responses received Physical and Sensory disability – 8 consulted - 5 responses received Older people – 20 consulted - 4 responses received Children and Families – 90 consulted -25 responses received

The main equalities issues raised in the feedback is acknowledged in the body of this report. They relate to concerns about:

• travelling further to access services, • coping in an impersonal, confusing and large public environment because of their learning disability/mental health or sensory disability

• having to queue and the lack of privacy to share confidential information

In mitigation the council plans to offer a home service or suitable local meeting place to those whose disability related needs make it difficult to travel to the civic centre. Pre- payments cards will be offered to reduce the need for people to visit offices to receive payments. There will be a dedicated social care access and duty facility in a discreet location which is separate to the main civic centre reception and this should help to minimise the concerns relating to confusion and anxiety of queuing.

The proposal recognises that learning disability services will require suitable alternative location to the civic centre site and in response the ‘Heart of Hounslow’ is being assessed to determine the suitability of the location for learning disability users . Stakeholders also raised similar concerns that the civic centre is not a suitable location for Mental Health Services. In response to this feedback, the council is in discussion with the West London Mental Health Trust to identify a suitable alternative location. Due regard to equality will be given once site options for the relocation for the mental health service have been identified.

Subject to this, the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) has concluded that the impact of this proposal is likely not to be significant because generally the footfall to the local offices has been low and because mitigating actions has been identified to minimise the disadvantage to equality groups and users. There have been no specific concerns raised by stakeholders relating to the following equality characteristics: sexual orientation, sex, gender reassignment, religion/belief, race, maternity and pregnancy. There is also no other information to suggest that these equalities groups are affected and therefore the equalities duty is not considered to be engaged with regard to them. The detailed EIA is available on the Hounslow website at http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/council_and_democracy/equality/eias.htm .

9. De Brome

9.1 This business case also includes some of the benefits of the previous Cabinet decision to lease the De Brome site to West Thames College. With the exception of the Music Service, the Children’s services operations have moved to the Hounslow Educational Centre which produced a net saving of £10k per annum after deduction of costs of moving and a full year saving of £36k. The Youth Service previously based at De Brome and the Early Intervention Service previously based at the Civic Centre have both been relocated to the Hounslow Education Centre. This has enabled the implementation of the new Early Intervention Service structure by bringing together staff from a number of sites. Children and families will benefit through the co-location and consolidation of these services.

At the same time, we vacated the Feltham children and family centre at Danesbury Road to enable the expansion of pupil places at Linden Bennett Special School for children with profound needs.

10 Financial Summary

10.1 Revenue Savings by Individual Building

The revenue savings from each building closure are in the table below. The costs of vacating each building are shown set aside the released budgets for 2012/13, with the full year effects of the building closures in 2013/14.

Revenue savings by building

1 2 3 4 5 2012/13 2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 Revenue Costs of Net Saving Savings Vacating saving £000 £000 £000 £000 (2-3) 1. Chiswick 101 26 75 101 2 Feltham 66 113 -47 66 3. Heston offices 75 36 39 64 4. 78/80 St John's 41 60 -19 41 5. Ashley House 42 15 27 42

TOTAL 325 250 75 314

10.2 Total Revenue Savings

The summary revenue savings from this report are in the table below. The savings are against the 2011/12 baseline.

Forecast savings compared to 2011/12 budget

1 2 3 4 5 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £000 £000 £000 £000 1 Area Offices - 75 314 314 revenue savings from above 2 Rental income- 61 122 122 Chiswick 3 Corporate 50 Maintenance 4 Rating revaluations 100 800 400 5 De Brome (pre phase 10 36 36 36 1)

TOTAL 10 322 1,272 872

10.3 Capital receipts

In addition to the revenue savings above the Council will also generate capital receipts. These are estimated as below.

Forecast capital receipts

1 2 3 2011/12 2012/13 £000 £000 2 The Butts 1,200 3 Feltham 1,000 4 78/80 St John's 1,000 Road

Gross receipts 1,200 2,000

The capital receipts could be used either to reduce the authority's debt which would produce a revenue saving of both the interest costs and the repayment of principle. The total estimated capital receipts of £3.2m could therefore generate revenue savings of £200k per annum if used to reduce debt. The Medium Term Financial Strategy has determined that capital receipts should be used to finance capital investment priorities.

10.4 Further costs to realise assets

In addition to the costs of £250k in paragraph 10.1 which are associated with vacating the identified buildings, there is also a need to invest £458k in 88 Lampton Road and the Civic Centre. This will include funds for:

• reconfiguring 88 Lampton Road • works to the ICT network • purchasing furniture

This is to be funded from the authority’s Performance Improvement Fund.

11 Risk Assessment

11.1 The following risks and mitigations have been identified for the programme as a whole. The risks will vary between premises and detailed approaches for each building has been developed in detail as part of the service impact for each asset.

Risk Mitigation

Service impacts Initial equality impact assessments have been undertaken and mitigation measures put in place. Service users and staff are being consulted.

Reduction in locality Impact on locality presence has been reviewed as presence and resident part of the decisions on each building and contact and involvement information has been included in the business case.

Costs of moves are Move costs have been carefully monitored and more significant than existing budgets identified to offset additional costs estimated to programme savings and are set out in the business case. A risk assessment of the potential for unforeseen costs to be undertaken (e.g. Asbestos in Civic Centre, limitations on ICT support and changes has been undertaken – see ICT impact below.

Property market There is a risk that assumed rental or capital unpredictability reducing income may not be achieved as it will depend on or delaying the market conditions at the time of letting or sale. opportunities for rental There is also a risk that the estimated Rates income and/or sales Savings will be achieved to the level assumed or in the timeframe assumed. The recommendation as to whether to let or sell has been arrived at by using the matrix at Appendix A.

ICT Impact Several of the properties proposed for disposal act as key hubs or as links in the chain of the delivery of IT services between buildings. The plan and costs of the charges have been included within the business cases.

• Any requirement for wayleaves for new provision (those building affected by the closure of a tranche 1 site) will have a high risk of not meeting the timescales. • A detailed project plan and sufficient resources will be in place. An impact on these resources may cause the risk of delay or additional cost. • All detailed plans for staff moves must be signed off at least 4 weeks in advance so that all the preparation work can be carried out. Any unplanned changes have a high risk of delay and extra costs. • Timings of adding any new circuits to remaining buildings needs to fit in with the ICT Wide Area Network contract tender or may cause a risk of additional costs

12 Comments of the Chief Financial Officer

12.1 Generating the revenue savings indicated in this report will be an important contribution to achieving the Council's overall savings target. The anticipated capital receipts will help to reduce the funding gap identified in the capital Medium Term Financial Strategy. 12.2 To ensure the savings identified are achieved it is important that action is taken on a timely basis. Delays to the disposal or letting of buildings will reduce the revenue savings as the council will still be liable for the ongoing overheads until these are completed.

12.3 The risks regarding uncertainty about the cost of moves must be carefully monitored and action taken to confirm actual costs as soon as possible. Any costs which exceed the estimates here should be managed within existing departmental budgets.

13 Comments of the Assistant Director for Corporate Governance

13.1 The comments of the Assistant Director for Corporate Governance have been incorporated into this report.

Background Papers: Asset Workstream working papers This report has been or is due to be considered by: Cabinet This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: All This report has been cleared by: CLT

APPENDIX 1 Asset Release Matrix

Can the land meet Rental value other corporate Response to C & D Response to E & F Is it a Can it Revenue Is there a needs? suitable deliver Saving Location corporate If yes, If yes, If no, education affordable If no, FYE* Current Potential need? reconsider reconsider LBH Partners move on site housing? move on £000 Rental FYE options options in matrix in matrix £000 £000 for site for site

Chiswick Local Office NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 100 0 122

Feltham Local Office NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 66 0 69

Heston Local Office NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 75 0 76

1 The Butts NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

78-80 St John's NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 41 NO NO

Ashley House NO NO NO N/A N/A 42 N/A N/A

Danesbury SEE Road NO YES NOTES

SEE De Brome NO NO YES NOTES

APPENDIX 1 Asset Release Matrix

Revenue saving if Receipt if Receipt available capital used to reduce Investment Costs Exit sale at Open Opportunity ICT costs from sale debt (4% MRP + 2% needed for associated costs for reduced market for for Interest) Location potential with individual price to value* enhanced relocation With use planning property Straight further With £000 value £000 planning Straight £000 permission £000 sale corporate planning permission sale £000 priorities permission £000

Chiswick Local Office 0 1,300 NO YES 14 12 1,300 1,300 N/A 78 78

Feltham Local Office 1,000 YES YES 13 100 1,000 1,000 N/A 60 60

Heston Local Office 800 YES YES 21 15 800 TBA N/A 48

1 The Butts NO 1,200 NO NO NO NO 1,200 TBA N0 72

78-80 St John's 300 1,000 NO NO 10 50 1,000 TBA N/A 60

Ashley House N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Danesbury Road

De Brome

19 APPENDIX 1

Asset Release Matrix

Location

Other issues Recommendation

Chiswick Local Office 50% income assumed 2012/13 Vacate by 31/03/12 and let for rent Possible redevelopment for residential Feltham Local Office use Vacate by 31/03/12 and sell Site could possibly be part of Heston Vacate by 31/03/12 - review future use in Heston Local Office Leisure redevelopment November 2011 Still partially occupied - possible 1 The Butts redevelopment for future residential use Vacate by 31/03/12 and sell Need to relocate current occupiers - possible redevelopment for residential Await conclusion of consultation on 30 78-80 St John's use November 2011

Ashley House Leased property Surrender lease and vacate by 31.01.12. The Feltham Children and Family services have vacated the site to enable the expansion of pupil places at Linden Danesbury Road Bennett Special School. Vacated Children's Services, Youth Service and Early Intervention Services decanted to HEC to enable better co-location and the release of De Brome to West Thames Vacated and leased to West Thames De Brome College. College

APPENDIX 2 Consultation Summary This consultation was undertaken to assess the specific impact of the proposals to close Feltham, Heston and Chiswick local offices and the vacation of three other premises 78-80 St John’s Road, 1 The Butts, Brentford and Ashley House, Hounslow High Street. The consultation was conducted by e-mail communication and letter. It was sent to over 400 service users as well as voluntary and community organisation including those who provide targeted services to equalities groups. In addition local schools, statutory stakeholders, staff and councillors were consulted. The consultation started on 28 September and closed on 26 October 2011.

The table below set outs the number of stakeholders who were consulted and the number who responded to the consultation. Stakeholders consulted Stakeholders responded 74 Schools 3 6 Statutory Organisations 1 – children’s safeguarding Met police WLMHT Hounslow & Richmond Community Hounslow PCT Metropolitan Police - Safeguarding – adults - Safeguarding – children 156 Voluntary Groups, community organisations and other 2 – Hounslow Young carers project local stakeholders, of which 63 were equality groups. - Diabetes UK

20 Colleges and training bodies 0

408 Service Users 83 11 staff teams 9 Union 0 60 Councillors 3 Total stakeholders consul ted: 736 Total stakeholders responded: 101 Additional responses from residents 3 The consultation on 80 St John’s Road does not close until 30 November and is therefore not included in this summary.

Consultation Summary APPENDIX 2

Key points • The overall response rate was approximately 14% (101) of all consulted stakeholders (736). • The largest proportion of respondents was service users who comprised just over 4/5 ths (83) of all respondents (104). • 18 responses were received from all the other stakeholder groups consulted. Nine of the 18 were from staff teams who deliver services from locations that would be affected by the proposals.

Common Themes

The table below identifies common issues that were raised by most or all stakeholder groups and sets out the Council’s response.

Issue raised Council Response 1. It could be harder to access and/or deliver services that were not 1. The majority of visits to local offices are pre-planned by local because journey times would be longer and the costs of travel appointment. The Council is planning is reduce the need to visit would be higher for service users and staff. People with disabilities offices by offering a home service or appointments at local health would experience the greatest impact. centres, children’s centres or other suitable locations for users who have disabilities or cannot travel to the Civic Centre. Most unplanned callers to adult social services come in to collect payments and these will be reduced through the introduction of pre-payment cards. 2. Vulnerable adults, young people and children as well as their 2. The Council’s service impact assessment for these proposals parents and carers would find it difficult to cope with a new location if identified many of these issues. It proposes to provide a Social Care it did not have the right facilities to meet their needs. Service users Access and Duty facility within the Civic Centre complex at 88 and other stakeholders raised concerns in relation to Lampton Road which will have a dedicated reception and other • Children and families who need confidential and comfortable facilities outside of the main Civic building. places for contact visits. It also proposes to arrange with health partners and our own • Learning disabled , older people and mental health service children’s centres for local facilities to be made available for users who could be confused in large, complex and children’s and families social care and ideally to re-locate learning impersonal reception areas and buildings disabilities to a health-related location such as Heart of Hounslow. • Youth counselling services which require confidential, 1-2-1 The Civic Centre is not considered to be a suitable location for meetings places. Mental Health Services and options are being explored in discussion with the West London Mental Health Trust.

22 APPENDIX 2

The Youth Counselling Service requires suitable offices and counselling rooms and options and being identified.

3. Making savings on property and running costs was acceptable to 3. The Council has conducted a service impact assessment to protect frontline services provided that safeguards to reduce the identify the implications of change on service users, staff and other impact on service users and staff were put in place. stakeholders. In the light of this assessment it is proposing steps as outlined above to minimise the impact. An initial equalities impact assessment has also been undertaken to consider specifically the impact on equalities protected groups. An action plan addressing the issues for these groups has been published on the Council’s website. In addition the Council will consider what further action might be taken in the light of responses to this consultation.

4. The Civic Centre was perceived as a large and impersonal 4. The Council accepts that the Civic Centre is not suitable for environment which would not be suitable for delivering some delivering all services and is proposing to work with partners services. Staff also had concerns about relocating to the Civic throughout the borough to identify suitable facilities that will maintain Centre in relation to parking, conference facilities and confidential file the quality of existing services. storage. In relation to staff concerns it is intended to identify space within the building for social practitioner staff to reduce the risks to the management of information and to provide suitable meeting spaces and a quiet environment for report writing. Staff parking facilities will be prioritised for essential car users. The long term solution for file storage is the implementation of a new social care IT system from 2013. Safe and secure storage for case files in the short term is being identified. 5. It was perceived that collocating services could help 5. The Council recognises that co-locating services can bring communication and provide other benefits. benefits in improved communication, information sharing and services especially when local partner organisations share the same buildings and facilities. 6. The closure of some buildings could mean the loss of a valued 6. In the current economic climate the Council is seeking to balance local resource and a focal point for local services. the costs of owning and maintaining its property portfolio with protecting frontline services. It does however recognise the value

23 APPENDIX 2 that local communities put on local resources as recent decisions in relation to the library service show. The Council is adopting a consistent and more joined up approach to our decision making in relation to assets. This includes reviewing the proximity of other council or partners buildings in the area when we are considering the release of any building.

24 APPENDIX 2

RESPONSES BY STAKEHOLDER GROUP Service Users – 408 consulted /83 responded

General comments • It will be harder to access services, it will be further to travel and more costly • Concern no adequate meeting, play or contact area for children looked after seeing parents on contact visits • Will only provide you with a one off saving – you need to put more money into prevention to reduce demand if you want to truly save • Would rather pay more council tax then lose local service • I will suffer, where will I collect my money • I need to go somewhere local to get my injections • It might take a little longer to get to and I might have to wait a little longer which I understand. • Provide more home visits • Give enough notice of change • Make sure new location is easily accessible with a nice reception area (MH) • Choose a place I am familiar with and convenient for me to go to. • Consider WMUH for my treatment • Pay for my transport • Find an office in my local area • Make transition of services seamless • Good information needed • Make site inviting • More flexible opening hours

Site specific comments 78-80 St John’s Road • Like the size of Community Mental Health at 78 St John’s Road, used to the building and staff, please don’t sell. • If you sell 78/80 St John’s – keep site local – don’t put service into hospital Heston Local Office • Please don’t sell the Heston office, it will be too difficult for me to travel anywhere • It would be unfortunate if you close Heston, such a nice atmosphere and my carer gives me a shower every fortnight

25 APPENDIX 2

Feltham Local Office • If you remove site in Feltham you remove local point for services – need easy access to services • Will need to find another contact centre as good as Feltham’s children’s facility. Change will be disruptive to my daughter.

Service Specific comments Hounslow Youth Counselling • Moving the service will affect my timings when I finish college, which may mean waiting longer to see my counsellor. • Don’t move youth counselling, my problems mean that I have to avoid crowds. The counselling service is well positioned near a bus stop – no people hanging around making me feel vulnerable. If you move it to the Civic Centre, I will feel very vulnerable. • It is private and quiet, no-one knows why I am going in there. It makes me feel safe • Putting Youth Counselling anywhere else will make me feel vulnerable • Having my counselling somewhere that is not local may impact on my attending counselling • I don’t want to stop coming to youth counselling but I need to feel safe – this building makes me feel safe • I need to be able to get to youth counselling in my lunch hour and at the moment it is easy to get to • Here is best as it is near my school, so I can come on way home and still have time to do homework when I get home. It is also private and no- one sees me arriving or leaving • This is a dedicated building and provides a quiet environment with relative anonymity • The building is near the train station and bus stop so easy to get to. The building has good security. The only people I see are my counsellors. The room is great, completely confidential and secure. • Depending on where the new building is I may or may not be able to get to it as I can’t afford the transport costs. I have just started counselling and would hate to think it would end because of this. • I feel annoyed that I don’t know where the new place will be and how far I will have to travel. It is convenient here. • As long as I don’t have to pay anything for my travel and I have memorised where the building is, I should be ok with a new building.

Equality comments • Vulnerable adults identified the hospital or the Heart of Hounslow as a suitable alternative • Concern that vulnerable adults would not cope in a Civic Centre environment – too confusing, too large, too impersonal • The change could cause anxiety, paranoia and relapses in mental health conditions • Open up better services for the vulnerable, especially the elderly. • Provide transport

26 APPENDIX 2

• Choose a place I am familiar with that is local to where I live • Provide somewhere small and discreet with free parking • Change = anxiety • I get stressed if I have to travel • This will seriously affect me as I cant walk long distances

27 APPENDIX 2

Voluntary Groups, Community Or ganisations and other local stakeholders including residents

156 consulted / 5 responded (Diabetes UK, Hounslow Young Carers and 3 residents) General comments • Parents and carers unlikely to walk into Civic Centre to ask for help –too large and not enough confidentiality. • Concerned that the council did not have meaningful discussions with service and stakeholders grou0ps before coming up with proposals • Does the Civic have adequate meeting and playroom facilities? • Limited and expensive parking will put people off coming to the Civic Centre. • Disagree in principle to any proposal which locates ALL services at the Civic Centre which is not well served by public transport and has inadequate and expensive parking space. • Site specific comments

78-80 St John’s Road • The facilities provided by the Community Mental Health team are much valued by local people - particularly the drop-in services . I cannot comment in detail on the Hounslow Youth Counselling Service but I have worked there in the past and the space was well-used and very accessible for local students. • I understand that economies must be made and can see that two centres in Heston, when one might do, and the additional location of Ashley House in Hounslow town centre might be a luxury but please, please do not take away the much-valued and well-used site in Isleworth. It cannot be replaced and many people would suffer as a result.

Equality Comments

• The Social Care team serves vulnerable people who are likely to find the journey to the busy town centre difficult and frightening. • Vulnerable people will not cope with queuing and sharing confidential information in a Civic Centre setting • 80 St John’s road hosts a thriving community centre which pays rent to the Council. Many local groups including those supporting older people rely on it

28 APPENDIX 2

Statutory Organisation (Police & Health) 6 Consulted/ 1 response (Met police Children’s Safeguarding)

General comments

• Agree in principle, savings need to be made without reducing frontline services • Having all services in one place may improve communication between police and social care services • Major issue for locating all teams at the Civic Centre is lack of parking • Residents living closest to the offices proposed for closure will be most affected • Provide free parking for certain visitors/provide a number of visitor permits

Site specific comments

None Equality Comments

• Civic Centre can be chaotic – difficult for vulnerable customers

Councillors 60 consulted/ 3 responses General Comments • Agree with the closures • Could be clearer & more up front with the reasons for closure - unclear on the roles and activities that take place in the local offices from the information provided • Inadequate questionnaire and there are more effective methods to capture the information electronically. Site Specific Comments • None Equality Comments • Will older people and those with disabilities be able to travel to the Civic Centre from Chiswick?

APPENDIX 2

Schools 74 consulted /3 responses General Comment • 2 schools were not in favour of Feltham and Chiswick office closures • Concerned about distance & cost for parents having to travel to see their social workers • Parents wont cope if they don’t get easy access to their social workers when needed – children will suffer and the impact on schools will be considerable • This is a purely cost cutting exercise • Civic Centre not appropriate – impersonal, confidentiality is put at significant risk, inadequate facilities for conferences and contact for children • Parking at Civic Centre for customers is poor • Not having offices locally will mean Social Workers having to travel around the borough to visit schools. If they don’t drive this will mean public transport - taking up considerable time. • Closure is least bad of undesirable options • Communication, staff cover and transfer of expertise may be better if all under one roof • Consider paying transport costs for the most vulnerable who wont engage if they have to travel • Consider outreach work in temples or other public buildings • Consider in the new arrangement being more creative ensuring better access to services with skilled staff at the front to speak to on safeguarding issues Site specific comment • None Equality comment

Adults with SEN will be impacted by the decision to close

30 APPENDIX 2

Staff Teams 11 consulted/ 9 responses General Comments

• Central location – 1 point of access, shared knowledge, closer working with other teams • Closures may mean protecting frontline services • May mean better communication and less duplication for customers as part of assessment process • Working in the building with other teams would be advantageous and promote information sharing/close working partnerships. • Service Users will be able to access canteen services while waiting for appointments. • Service users will have a greater access to advice, information and support from the front display boards. • Communication and transfer of clients to other departments will be easier. • Some clients will find it easier to get to Civic than the Feltham office (the minority as the bulk are from Hanworth/Lower Feltham/Bedfont and Feltham. • Close proximity to the homeless/ housing department and other child care depts • This is a money saving decision surrounding the £42 million that needs to be saved by the local authority over the next 3 years. It is a finance based decision rather than a customer service based one. • Client base not the most articulate and have trouble with knowledge of the service being moved. • Shortage of meeting rooms at civic centre for confidential discussions. • Limited and expensive parking for service users.

Site Specific Comments

Feltham Office • Some clients will find it easier to get to Civic than the Feltham office (the minority) as the bulk are from Hanworth/Lower Feltham/Bedfont and Feltham • Will lose the family/child friendly atmosphere of the Feltham office i.e. the family room and garden. • Proximity of the Feltham office to many local schools make it difficult for visiting parents/carers who have to collect their children if at Civic • Historically the Feltham office is well known in the community as place for guidance and information. • Access to Hounslow homes, the police station and magistrate’s court will be lost when moving to civic from Feltham. • Parking at the local office in Feltham is much easier for all client groups.

31 APPENDIX 2

• Impact on local area, shops, services if Feltham and Chiswick and other offices close as staff do spend locally and use the local services. Civic Centre • Shortage of meeting rooms at civic centre for confidential discussions. • Limited and expensive parking for service users. • There may be logistical issues surrounding families with young children getting to the civic centre. • Working in an open plan office will affect productivity, performance, effectiveness, etc. • Over-crowded workspace • Hot desking troublesome in terms of keeping files safe and secure. • Capacity to do parts of the work as effectively without the use of a ring fenced area. particularly with rooms for interviews/ supervision and the spontaneous requirements when family present unannounced in open allocated cases • Increased cost to staff that drive to work caused by additional fuel costs and the parking expenses.

Equality comments • Concern vulnerable adults wont cope in such a large and impersonal environment • Increased travelling for people with mobility issues • Change will cause personal distress to vulnerable adults • Older less mobile residents and their carers have the opportunity to come to the office in Feltham. • Older people, the disabled will be disadvantaged because generally some have health, mobility, etc issues. • If the service moved to the civic, people with Learning Disabilities may struggle if they had to use the main reception. • There are often long queues at the reception which would create difficulties for some service users CLDT Service users often have communication needs and require additional support and understanding in some social situations. It is therefore crucial that reception staff is able to affectively communicate with them. • Some of our service users have dual diagnosis and have mental health issues. This will put them in a vulnerable position due to their short out bursts at others. They are at risk of committing an offence when they have to be among so many people.

END OF REPORT