If you require further information about this agenda please contact: Thomas Ribbits on 020 8583 2251 or [email protected].
BOROUGH COUNCIL
A meeting of the Borough Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow on Tuesday, 15th July 2014 at 7.30pm
MEMBERSHIP
The Mayor and Deputy Mayor All other Members of the Council
AGENDA
1. Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest from Members
2. Announcements
To receive announcements (if any) from the Mayor, Leader, Members of the Cabinet or the Head of Paid Service.
As part of this agenda item, the Mayor will be leading a two minutes silence in remembrance of the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War.
3. Minutes (Pages 1 - 44)
To approve the minutes of the meetings held on 25th May 2014 and 10th June 2014
4. Petitions (Pages 45 - 51)
Report by Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement
5. OFSTED Inspection of Services for Children in Need of Help and (Pages 52 - 106) Protection, Children Looked After and Care Leavers (CA454)
Report of Councillor Tom Bruce, Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services
6. Vision 2020 - Right to Sight - Action Plan to Improve Services for (Pages 107 - Blind and Partially Sighted Residents in Hounslow 127)
Report by Councillor Ajmer Grewal, Cabinet Member for Equalities and Inclusion
7. London Borough of Hounslow (Lionel Road South) - Compulsory (Pages 128 - Purchase Order (CPO) 2014 (REG220) 154)
Report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration
Please note that the appendices for this report are available to inspect in the online edition of this agenda only. They are not included in the paper version.
8. Treasury Management Annual Report 2013/14 (CR127) (Pages 155 - 163) Report by Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement
9. Appointment of Statutory Officer (Pages 164 - 167) Report of Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration
10. Appointments to Committees and Other Bodies
Members are asked to make any appointments that are nominated at the meeting for the remainder of the municipal year and delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, to make any adjustments necessary to ensure political proportionality where necessary.
11. Decisions Taken Under Urgency Arrangements (if any)
The Council is asked to note the following uses of the urgency arrangements: Council and Cabinet Decisions Taken Under Urgency Arrangements: Council Urgency Process: Appointment of Statutory Officers (26th June 2014) Forward Plan Urgency Notices: Extension of Hounslow Homes Stores Management and Materials Supply Contract with Jewson (31st March 2014) Universal Infant Free School Meals Capital Funding (UFSM) (3rd April 2014) Redevelopment of Hartlands Travellers Site Additional Funding (16th April 2014) Borough Cemetery Urgent Path Upgrades (17th June 2014) Future Management of Housing Services Carried Out by Hounslow Homes (23rd June 2014)
Questions from Members
12. Councillor Samantha Davies to ask Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration
“Planning benefits granted by a local authority to a business which are above the de minimis financial threshold set by the European Commission will constitute State Aid. The Planning benefits granted to the Brentford Football Club and entered into this month by the Council are hugely above the financial threshold. Has the Leader/Council obtained the dispensation required by European law from the European Commission approving this State Aid? If not then the Compulsory Purchase Order Resolution before the Council appears to be invalid.”
13. Councillor Gerald McGregor to ask Councillor Amrit Mann, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment
“Would the Deputy Leader lay out his approach to the Hounslow Highways contract and its current implementation?”
14. Councillor Sam Hearn to ask Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration
“In light of recent newspaper comments could the Leader of the Council please reassure the residents of Hounslow that this administration remains committed to opposing a third runway at Heathrow?”
Motions
15. Proposed by Councillor Peter Thompson and Seconded by Councillor Sheila O'Reilly
“This Council welcomes the inclusion of “Citizen Engagement” in its Cabinet priorities and agrees that citizen engagement is key to any successful Democracy. It therefore agrees to introduce a “Question and Answer” mechanism for Cabinet, Borough Council, Overview and Scrutiny Committee and all Scrutiny Panel meetings, allowing residents the opportunity to question its elected representatives more fully and hold them to account than ever before within a maximum time frame of half an hour. This Council further agrees to implement a policy petition system similar to national Parliament whereby any Hounslow-related issue is debated at full Borough Council provided it meets a minimum signature threshold. This Council notes that both these initiatives are already up and running in Councils across the country and that they have proven successful and popular with local residents and more importantly, advanced citizen engagement and local Democracy for residents.”
16. Any Other Matters That the Mayor Considers Urgent
17. Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Council is scheduled for 16th September 2014 and will commence at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber
DECLARING INTERESTS
Committee members are reminded that if they have a personal interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and if the interest is also a prejudicial interest then they may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter.
Mary Harpley Chief Executive, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow, TW3 4DN
Published on 7th July 2014
AGENDA ENDS Agenda Item 3
At a meeting of the Borough Council held on Tuesday, 25th March 2014 at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber at the Hounslow Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow
Present: The Mayor, Councillor Sachin Gupta (in the Chair) The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Corinna Smart
Councillors: Mindu Bains, Felicity Barwood, Lily Bath, Raj Bath, Mark Bowen, Tom Bruce, Ruth Cadbury, Peter Carey, John Chatt, Melvin Collins, Linda Davies, Samantha Davies, Theo Dennison, Ajmer Dhillon, Gopal Dhillon, Poonam Dhillon, Colin Ellar, Brad Fisher, Pamela Fisher, Mohinder Gill, Ajmer Grewal, Darshan Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Matt Harmer, Barbara Harris, Sam Hearn, David Hughes, Gillian Hutchison, Paul Jabbal, Gurmail Lal, Adrian Lee, Paul Lynch, Liz Mammatt, Amrit Mann, Ed Mayne, Gerald McGregor, Andrew Morgan-Watts, Shantanu Rajawat, Sheila O'Reilly, Robert Oulds, Barbara Reid, Sue Sampson, Sohan Sangha, Jagdish Sharma, Balvir Sond, Rebecca Stewart, Peter Thompson, John Todd, Beverley Williams and Allan Wilson.
1. Apologies for Absence, Other Announcements and Declarations of Interest from Members
Apologies for Absence received from Councillors Colin Botterill, Steve Curran, Jason Ellar, Elizabeth Hughes, Kamaljit Kaur and Peta Vaught
Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors John Chatt, David Hughes, Pamela Fisher, Adrian Lee and Robert Oulds.
There were no declarations of interest.
2. Announcements
The Mayor invited Councillor Lily Bath, as Cabinet Member for Children’ Services, to address members. In doing so, Councillor Bath advised that she had three announcements to make. The first comprised the following statement: “Earlier this year, OFSTED (The Office for Standards in Education) carried out an inspection of our services for looked after-children and child protection. They spent four weeks carrying out the new single inspection by speaking with officers, Members, and young people themselves, and found that whilst children are being kept safe, and there are no serious issues, overall the services do require improvement to be rated as "good" in all the inspection categories. The report was published on Friday, and does recognise our strengths in a number of areas such as strong partnership working, children being kept safe from harm, having a stable workforce and the fact that children young people and their families value the support they get from the
1 local Authority and partners. There are, however, areas for improvement across all services, which we will be working to address over the next few months. These include improving our support for older children in care, and we are working to increase the training and employment opportunities available to them through expansion of apprenticeship schemes. Changes will be made to ensure protection plans are improved, and new initiatives that had not yet been embedded when OFSTED visited - such as the early help service and our new multi-agency support hub - will be monitored closely to make sure they are delivering the improvements we want to see. One area identified, where everyone in this chamber can make a difference, is the need for better oversight by scrutiny and our corporate parenting role. We all - Councillors and officers - can, and must do more to help the children and young people in our care, and I hope we can take this report as a timely reminder of our responsibilities and work together to make sure we are delivering the services and support the children in our care deserve.”
Councillor Bath then advised that she had been pleased to attend the then annual Youth Achievement Awards on 7th March 2014 at which 450 people were present, 187 of whom received recognition in 11 categories of awards such as personal achievement, artistic achievement, health achievement, etc. She was also delighted to have seen many Members and both Members of Parliament for the Borough in attendance. She described the Awards ceremony as “superb” and she thanked the Youth Council, and the staff in the Early Intervention Service for their help in organising the successful event.
Councillor Bath then finally announced that Sure Start Hounslow, a local charity providing services within the Borough, had confirmed that it was intending to cease its local operations from the end of the month. She explained that the charity had a contract with the Council to provide services in the Beevors Estate, but whilst the charity itself would no longer be providing these, the work would continue. She clarified that two former members of the charity’s staff had now started working for the Council and that in additional to the continuation of the previous services, further support was planned from July. She concluded by thanking Sure Start Hounslow for its work and engagement in the Borough in the past.
Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health Services, announced that the Clifton Gardens Residential Homes Resource Centre had recently been the subject of an unannounced inspection by the Care Quality Commission. Inspectors had spoken to residents and gathered information in other ways as well in order to come to its conclusions that the quality of care was good. No recommendations for improvement were made. The findings were that staff interacted positively with residents and met their social and physical needs. He thanked all staff for their work.
Councillor Tom Bruce, Cabinet Member for Education and Human Resources, expressed his pleasure that three schools in Hounslow had recently been inspected by OFSTED and been judged to have been good. These were Hounslow Town Primary School, The Rosarie Catholic Primary School and Wellington Primary School. They were all found to have a good quality of teaching and of leadership. Furthermore, Gunnersbury Catholic Secondary School had had its achievements
2 recognised formally by David Laws, the Schools Minister, as one of the top 100 non- selective secondary schools in the country.
Councillor Jagdish Sharma, the Leader of the Council, then made the following statement on MIPIM (Le Marché International des Professionnels de l’Immobilier), the international property fair: “I would like to report back to Council on the very successful visit made to the MIPIM Property Conference in the South of France earlier this month. MIPIM attracts over 20,000 senior property professionals and investors from around the world. As Members will know, both Cllr Ellar and I attended with Brendon Walsh, our Director for Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment and his Assistant Director, Heather Cheesbrough. Perhaps the high point of our attendance was the signing of the Development Agreement with Barratt and Wilson Bowden on the Tuesday afternoon in a packed London Pavilion. This happened a year on from announcing the opportunity to the market. We had further opportunities to explain our plans to regenerate Brentford, the Golden Mile and the area around Feltham Station, delivering a range of formal presentations in the London Pavilion and at breakfast meetings. The proposals for the Golden Mile, which are now supported by a detailed master-plan were particularly well received and have since led to requests for further meetings from some of the largest and best funded development teams in the country. Overall, I was particularly pleased to see at first hand the work that officers are doing to build our reputation as a Borough that is serious about regeneration and can be trusted to deliver on its commitments”
Councillor Ed Mayne, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Regulatory Services, paid tribute to Carl Bussey, the outgoing Police Borough Commander. He thanked him for his work and his focus on detection and prevention of crime and also for his successful joint working with the Council. He also thanked Sally Benetar, who had acted as interim Borough Commander in the period after Mr Bussey had left and concluded by welcoming Paul McGregor, who was to be the new post holder, who had previously worked in the role in the past. He wished him well for the future.
Councillor Mayne then updated Members on the Council’s decision to seek to create a by-law preventing spitting in public. An encouraging reply had been received to a letter sent by the Council to Brandon Lewis MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Council was also drafting the proposed by-law in consultation with the Police and Hounslow Highways, as well as discussing the matter with the London Borough of Enfield which had already introduced such a measure. He concluded by stating that it was his hope that it could be introduced in fewer than the three years that it took for Enfield successfully to introduce its anti-spitting by-law.
The Mayor then concluded the announcements by congratulating Councillor Colin Botterill on his recent marriage and then, after noting that the meeting was the last Council meeting prior to the Municipal Elections in May, thanking all Members for their support to him as Mayor over the last year.
There were no further announcements.
3
3. Minutes
It was
RESOLVED -
That the minutes of the meeting held on 25th February 2014, having been agreed as a correct record, be signed by the Mayor, subject to the following amendments:
Page 1 – the date should read “25th February 2014” Page 3 – “there was no right to debate or rebuff statements made” should read “there was no right to debate or rebut statements made.” Page 15 – First bullet point, line 4 – “…as a new school was built in the Borough” to be replaced by the words “…as new classrooms were being built in the Borough”. Page 17 – Second bullet point, line 9 – “a specialist secondary school might be required” to read “a specialist secondary school was required” Page 18 – Last bullet point line 2 – Councillor Tom Bruce’s cabinet portfolio to be amended to read “Education and Human Resources” and not “Community Safety and Regulatory Services” as written.
4. Petitions
Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services.
Councillor Ed Mayne submitted a petition to the Mayor on the subject of parking problems in Worton Road on days when rugby matches were being played at the Twickenham sports stadium.
Councillor Elizabeth Hughes presented the Mayor with a petition seeking support for the Somali community across the Borough in relation to teaching the Somali language and culture.
Councillor Gillian Hutchison presented a petition to the Mayor from the Feltham Tigers, a local cricket club, who were seeking the creation of a new local cricket pitch.
There were no more petitions presented to the Mayor.
The Mayor then invited Members to note the referrals of previously received petitions as detailed in the report, and updated in the tabled paper which had been circulated to those present.
The Mayor further advised that there were three petitions for consideration by the Council itself, the details of which were included in the agenda report.
4 He therefore invited Ms Meena Walia, the headteacher of Cranford Primary School, and Ms Judy Matthews, the Chair of the Governors, as the organisers of the petition listed as petition two to address Members to explain their request.
Ms Walia and Ms Matthews explained that Cranford Primary School had 700 pupils and also a children’s centre for children up to the age of five. They had concerns that changes to the Cranford Agreement, an agreement with Heathrow Airport to reduce the worse effects of noise pollution in the area, would adversely affect the children in the school and the centre. The school already recorded 63-66 decibels of noise when aeroplanes landed on the Northern runway at the airport and the changes to the agreement were likely to see this increase to an expected level of 72 decibels. They asked the Council to intercede on the school’s behalf in the planning application made by the Airport to the London Borough of Hillingdon seeking to amend the Cranford Agreement. Ms Walia as headteacher confirmed that during hot weather it was necessary to open the school windows and doors as the school had no air conditioning and that the resulting noise in the classroom was sufficient for it to become hard to hear teachers in charge of lessons.
In response, Councillor Ellar, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment, agreed that the prospect of increased noise from Heathrow Airport was alarming. He noted that to allow the proposed changes to take place, works were needed on the Northern runway and consequently, Heathrow Airport had applied to the London Borough of Hillingdon for planning permission. Hounslow Council had objected to this proposal principally because the noise impact of the changes had not been properly assessed. Noise mitigation had not been offered to Hounslow schools in relation to this change and whilst the proposal affected a number of schools in Hounslow, Cranford Primary School was particularly badly affected given how close it was to the Eastern end of the northern runway. The Council’s formal objections were considered by the London Borough of Hillingdon’s planning committee on 12th February 2014 where the application was refused. The grounds for not granting the application included the points the Council had made regarding the effect on schools including Cranford Primary School. He thanked the London Borough of Hillingdon for coming to this decision. Hounslow Council was now waiting to see if Heathrow Airport was intending to appeal this decision. If there was an appeal it was the Council’s intention to vigorously defend the view that a proper assessment and sufficient noise mitigation was required If the Airport could not guarantee that the school would be able to teach effectively after any changes to the Cranford Agreement, the Council would argue that it should not be allowed to expand and that the a new school in a quieter place would need to be provided.
Members noted the response.
ACTION BY: Director, REDE
The Mayor then invited Councillor Jagdish Sharma to introduce the petition listed as petition four.
Councillor Sharma explained that he was introducing the petition on behalf of its organisers who wished the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment to
5 review the decision not to replace or repair the paving stones in Rosemary Avenue and Ivanhoe Avenue more quickly than was currently proposed.
In response, Councillor Ellar, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment, explained that in the current schedule for repairs to pavements and walkways across the Borough which was part of the PFI (private finance initiative) for the Council’s roads, the streets in question were due to be repaired in 2016. However, he stated that he had inspected the pavements in the two roads and agreed that they appeared to be in a poor condition and so he undertook to ask Hounslow Highways to review the area and consider whether it would be appropriate to bring the date for these works forward.
Members noted the response.
ACTION BY: Director, REDE
The Mayor then invited Mr David Blackett, the organiser of the petition listed as petition 16 in the report, to address Members on his request.
Mr Blackett advised that he whilst he was the Chair of the Heston Residents Association, he was addressing Members merely as a representative of the Glen and its residents who had been told that Hounslow Highways had been scheduled to begin pavement repair works in the road from 1st April and replace the existing paving stones with asphalt and also the on-street crossovers (also known as dropped kerbs). The residents objected to these proposals and believed that there was no need for such replacement as there was nothing wrong with the paving or the existing crossovers. The street had been paved since 1930 and was much admired for how it looked. As such, the residents there wished to retain original features and so were asking for replacements to be on a “like for like” basis. He advised that of the 36 properties in the Glen, 34 were occupied and the residents of thirty of the properties supported the petition. He asked that the works be delayed and that paving stones be retained.
In response, Councillor Ellar, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment, explained that the Council had a precise policy on this matter and that the Glen was neither designated a heritage zone nor heritage fringe zone. It was only these areas (which formed 30% of the Borough) which were scheduled to have “like for like” replacement paving stones whereas others were to be provided with asphalt street surfaces. The reason for this was, as he had advised Members previously, due to reasons of cost as there had been a cut in the Government funding allocated to the PFI (private finance initiative) for the Council’s roads. However, he advised that asphalt paving worked well for most of the Borough and was a trip free surface. He expressed sympathy for the residents affected in the Glen but reitereated that as the area was neither a heritage zone or heritage fringe zone, it would be treated in the same way as all such other areas in the Borough in accordance with the Council’s policy.
Members noted this response.
ACTION BY: Director, REDE
6
It was then
RESOLVED –
That the petitions forwarded to other formal bodies of the Authority for consideration be noted; and That the responses from Councillor Colin Ellar to the three petitions presented to the Council be noted.
TO NOTE: All
5. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Strategy 2014 to 2019 (CEX039)
Members considered a report by Councillor Tom Bruce, Lead Member for Education and Human Resources, who introduced it by explaining that it was the product of the cross-party Health and Safety Committee which had referred the strategy to the Council for approval. The Strategy included seven health and safety performance indicators which would improve health and safety management within the Authority itself. He thanked Jon Robinson, the Head of Occupational Health and Safety, for his involvement and commended the report to Members.
Councillor Shantanu Rajawat seconded the recommendations.
The Mayor then invited comment and debate on the report.
Councillor Paul Lynch observed that there were parts of the strategy which were excellent and that he did not intend to take issue with any of the content of the report. However, he did have a concern about an omission from it, which he believed was so significant that he was asking that consideration of the report be deferred to the future. The concern was based around the outcome of the recent OFSTED report into child protection and in particular the review of the effectiveness of the Local Safeguarding Children Board which had been found to require improvement. He appreciated that officers worked very hard in this area and that many children had been helped by successful interventions. However, it was necessary for the Council to address the criticisms in the findings of the OFSTED report effectively.
At this point, Councillor Colin Ellar stated that he did not consider that Councillor Lynch was speaking to the issue in that the OFSTED inspection did not relate to the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Strategy as the latter was aimed at staff of the Council rather than residents.
The Mayor agreed with this and asked Councillor Lynch to ensure that his comments addressed the matters in the report. Councillor Lynch, in response, stated that to anyone who had read the report, it was clear that the OFSTED inspection findings were relevant and stated that the Council’s child protection arrangements needed to integrate with any overall health and wellbeing strategy. The Mayor reiterated that the strategy before Members in the report was aimed at the wellbeing of staff and was not a strategy for the Council to use with residents. Councillor Lynch therefore
7 drew the Mayor’s attention to page 45 of the report which placed the Children and Adults Policy Statement as being part of the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Strategy. However, he agreed to accept the Mayor’s ruling and so not continue with his comments, but expressed frustration that he was not being permitted to speak further.
The Mayor clarified his view that he would not ask Members who were talking to the issues in the report to stop speaking. However, in this case he considered that Councillor Lynch’s comments were not relevant to the report before Members.
Councillor Peter Thompson suggested to the Mayor that he was overstepping his Authority in that the Council had been the subject of a critical report from OFSTED, the implications of which could reasonably have been expected to be part of the Council agenda.
Councillor Oulds stated that Members were entitled to make points in discussions on reports. The Mayor clarified that they could only do so if they were relevant and on this occasion, he did not consider this to be the case.
Councillor Liz Mammatt expressed the view that the Conservative Group was being “gagged” and supported the proposal that the report be deferred. However, she then commented on the report and drew Members attention to indicator one on page 42 of the report and asked if this would be enhanced to include contractors as she was aware of a gardener working for one of the Council’s contractors who had discovered a hand grenade in the course of his duties, which in turn had led to the evacuation of a local school for safety reasons.
Councillor Lin Davies expressed the view that the OFSTED report referred to the Council’s health, safety and welfare responsibilities and as such the OFSTED findings were connected to the contents of the report before Members. She then suggested that if Members were not prepared to take criticism, they were in the wrong job. However, she clarified that she was referring to the Administration as a whole and not the Mayor.
Councillor Lily Bath suggested that the Conservative Group appeared to have read the report but not understood it by erroneously linking children’s safeguarding issues to the Council’s responsibility to its own staff’s wellbeing and health which was the subject of the report. Furthermore, the Children’s Safeguarding Board was independent of the Council. She concluded by stating that Conservatives had made themselves looking “silly and pathetic”.
Councillor Lynch expressed dissatisfaction as being referred to as “silly and pathetic” and asked the Mayor for the opportunity to rebut the claim. In response, the Mayor clarified that he had understood Councillor Bath to be making her comments about the Group in general and not specifically against him as the initial speaker on the matter.
Councillor Brad Fisher disagreed and expressed his view that Councillor Bath’s comments were aimed squarely at Councillor Paul Lynch and Councillor Lin Davies.
8 Councillor Sheila O’Reilly quoted the OFSTED report in relation to a statement included which made reference to the Children’s Safeguarding Board and its work having changed but also commenting that it was too early to say if the changes would result in improvements. This being the case, Councillor O’Reilly expressed her support for the proposal to defer consideration of the report.
Councillor John Cooper drew Members attention to page 38 of the report and the statement that the Council was committed to ensuring the health, safety and wellbeing of its employees. He considered that this made it very plain that the strategy before Members was about the Council’s internal health and safety arrangements and how they affected staff. The OFSTED findings related to children and so was a different matter.
There being no more comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Bruce to sum up. In doing so, Councillor Bruce made the following comments: The strategy before Members was about Council employees. The reference to the Children and Adults Policy Statement on page 45 related to the departmental policy within that directorate towards its staff The strategy would be considered annually by the Council He was disappointed that many of the points made during the discussion today were based on misunderstandings that could have been avoided if the Conservative representatives on the Council’s Health and Safety Committee had attended its meetings. He again commended the report to Members for approval.
It was then
RESOLVED
That the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Strategy 2014 to 2019 be adopted. That the recommendation of the Health and Safety Committee that an annual health, safety and wellbeing report be presented to the Borough Council starting in April 2015 be agreed.
ACTION BY: Assistant Director, Transformation and Human Resources TO NOTE: Head of Democratic Services
This was a majority decision.
At this point, Councillor Paul Jabbal suggested to the Mayor that he had acted inappropriately during the debate and in a way that could be considered to have been politically motivated. The Mayor expressed strong dissatisfaction with this comment and adjourned the meeting.
The meeting stood adjourned for ten minutes.
The meeting resumed at 8.40pm.
The Mayor recommenced the meeting by reminding all three political parties represented on the Council that as Mayor he had always striven to be fair in letting
9 Councillors speak in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. He had also often had to intervene to stop Councillors interrupting other elected Members or using discourtesy in addressing individuals. He therefore did not intend to change his approach of being fair and ensuring relevance and decency in debate at this late stage of the life of the Council. He concluded by reminding Members that the meeting was the last one before the election and that he would close it if Members continued to be un-cooperative.
6. Pay Statement 2014
Members considered a report by Councillor Tom Bruce, Lead Member for Education and Human Resources, who introduced it by explaining that the Council was required to agree the pay statement under the Localism Act 2011. He clarified that the information in the report related to the situation on 1st December 2013 and also that the Council paid to the London Living Wage or more to all employees.
Councillor Shantanu Rajawat seconded the recommendations.
The Mayor then invited comment and debate on the report and the following comments were made: Councillor Samantha Davies noted the large salaries identified on pages 61- 63 of the report and stated that whilst this was understood as not being uncommon in local government, she had more concerns about the operation of the performance related pay aspects of the Council’s remuneration arrangements. She did not object to performance related pay as an idea but she did not believe the Council operated the system effectively as it not seem to relate it to the quality of overall performance in all cases. She illustrated her view by relating several examples of failure of service in Hounslow Highways.
The Mayor asked Councillor Davies to speak more directly to the report and its contents.
Councillor Davies continued her comments on the report by questioning how far effective management of a service was considered in relation to awarding performance related pay and she welcomed the proposals for “earn back pay” in paragraph 3.20 of the report. She also considered that some post titles were not transparent in relation to describing the responsibilities of the person in them. Councillor Sam Hearn observed that the report did what was legally required. However, he was concerned that paragraph 3.19 of the report stated that the report should explain what the Authority thought the relationship should be between the remuneration of its chief officers and its employees who were not when this was not actually included in the report. He also stated that it was hard to know from the information given which officers were at the top of their salary ranges, although he did accept that this would be due to the need to strike a balance between disclosing personal data and transparency. Councillor Theo Dennison observed that the pay statement for 2010 would have been a great deal higher than it was in 2013. He also considered that in
10 terms of performance related pay, the Council was now getting “more for less”. He said that it was for any party which was successful at the election to introduce performance related pay or not once they formed an Administration. He then concluded that it was wrong of the Conservative Group to talk about failures in the operation of performance related pay arrangements when in 2006, it had increased Members Allowances significantly upon forming an Administration. Councillor Gerald McGregor noted historic inequality in Council staff payments based on gender in some areas; he explained that Birmingham City Council was facing a bill of £100 million to compensate female Members of staff who had been underpaid compared to male colleagues over a period of forty years. However, he understood that Hounslow had been giving equal pay since the 1960s and should be proud of having done so. He was however more concerned about the pay statement in future including information on pension changes and the implications for staff. He also hoped to read more in future reports on redundancy agreements and confidentiality agreements on severance. Overall, he welcomed the report and commended the National Health Service to produce something similar and concluded by asking that if there were any responses to the consultation in paragraph 15.1 that he be advised by letter.
ACTION BY: Assistant Director, Transformation and Human Resources
Councillor Peter Thompson observed that whilst it was true that the salary costs of the Authority were lower in 2014 than in 2010 when the Labour Administration took office, the same was true in 2010 – as the previous Conservative-Independent Administration had also drastically staff costs to a lower level than in 2006 when it had come into power. By way of example he noted that the number of chief officers had been 15 in the last year of the 2002-2006 Labour Administration and was down to six oi 2010. He welcomed the current Administration continuing the good work of the previous Administration.
There being no more comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Bruce to sum up. In doing so, Councillor Bruce made the following comments: The differing views on performance related pay illustrated the difference between the parties on the Council, particularly on emphasis rather than on principle. Paragraph 6.2 of the statement clarified how performance related pay operated – it was based on a positive basis rather than the negative basis proposed in 3.19 of the report. He commended the report to Members.
It was then
RESOLVED –
That the Pay Statement for 2014, attached to the report at Appendix A, be approved as required under the Localism Act 2011.
11 ACTION BY: Assistant Director, Transformation and Human Resources
There was one abstention.
7. The Future of the Members’ Constitution Working Party
Members considered a report of Councillor Jagdish Sharma, Leader of the Council (and Chair of the Members Constitution Working Party) who introduced the item and made the following comments: The cross party Members’ Constitution Working Party had done a good job in reviewing the constitution and improving it for Members, officers and residents by making it more transparent and user friendly. He thanked both Members and officers for their hard work in this area. The changes made had been appreciated by many people and had been widely complimented. He considered that the Group fulfilled a useful function in allowing Members to debate detailed changes to the constitution and then refer recommendations to the Council itself for agreement in a way that saved the latter body time. He proposed that the Group be continued after the election.
Councillor John Todd seconded the recommendations and made the following comments: He endorsed the comments of Councillor Sharma. Revising a constitution on a thorough basis was a big task and he paid tribute to all Members on the Working Party for being co-operative. He also thanked officers who supported the Working Party. The Group had successfully done a big job in a good time and now the Council had a credible and effective constitution.
There were no comments made and so the Mayor invited Councillor Sharma to sum up. In doing so, Councillor Sharma agreed with Councillor Todd and also thanked the officers who supported the Working Party.
It was then
RESOLVED –
That the contents of the report identifying the successful programme of work undertaken and completed by the Working Party be noted; and That the Working Party be re-established in the new Council term with expanded terms of reference to allow it to consider other cross party arrangements where this was appropriate (eg reviews of outside body appointment arrangements, etc).
ACTION BY: Assistant Director, Corporate Governance/Head of Democratic Services
12 8. Appointments to Committees and Other Bodies
Members considered a report of Councillor Jagdish Sharma, Leader of the Council.
The Mayor invited debate on the report and the following comments were made: Councillor Liz Mammatt objected to the reconstitution of the Tenants, Leaseholders, and Sheltered Tenants Joint Consultative Committee (TLSTJC) as she considered that the removal of Councillors from this body, except for the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, was anti-democratic and an attempt to depoliticise it. She considered that Councillors served a useful function on the body speaking up for residents who might feel intimidated in addressing a Cabinet Member. She considered it to be part of a worrying trend as the old Police Consultative Group had also recently had Councillors removed from it. She went on to explain recent discussions that had been held during meetings of the latter body.
The Mayor reminded Members of the need to focus on the issues in the report.
Councillor Gerald McGregor expressed concerns about the de-politicisation of the Hounslow Homes Board by the removal of Councillors from its Membership. Until recently, there had been five Members on the Board, but following a recent restructure this had reduced to four, depriving the organisation of the involvement of Councillor Gillian Hutchison who had been very effective. The new arrangements which were shortly to come into force deprived the Board of professionals as well as Members and deprived tenants of a link with the Council. Both tenants and leaseholders were feeling cut adrift from the Council and their representatives due to the hiatus in governance at Hounslow Homes pending the latest restructure. He objected too to the fact that when he tried to raise issues and concerns at Council meetings he had been told that the correct place to discuss these was at Hounslow Homes Board meetings but on raising them there, he was told they were beholden to Councillor Steve Curran as Cabinet Member for Housing. He considered this to be “Kafka-esque”. He concluded by stating that he thought that there should be five Members appointed to the Board as the best model for governance arrangements. Councillor Mel Collins stated that he disassociated himself from the last part of Councillor McGregor’s comments. He also observed that the Hounslow Homes Board had not yet voted on the changes to agree them. Councillor Ed Mayne advised that he wished to comment on the statement made by Councillor Mammatt about the changes to the Police Consultative Group At this point, Councillor Lynch asked the Mayor to remind Councillor Mayne of his earlier comments about focussing on the issues in the report which would preclude discussion on the Police Consultative Group. Councillor Mayne then explained that he wished to clarify a point of fact – and in doing so, he explained that the changes to the Police Consultative Group did not originate with the Council but with the Mayor of London. A proposal on how to proceed was made by the Group itself but rejected by MOPAC (Mayor's Office for Policing And Crime). On the matter of the Hounslow Homes Board, he observed that the Conservatives when in office had
13 removed accountability from leisure services by outsourcing the provider to a private contractor, whilst Conservative Governments had removed the power to set Council tax and create new schools from locally accountable local authorities. Councillor Robert Oulds objected to Councillor Mayne’s comments on the Police Consultative Group. However, the Mayor advised that this body was not included as part of report before Members and advised that any Members wishing to discuss it should do so outside of the meeting. Councillor Gerald McGregor objected to the suggestion that outsourcing leisure services to Laing, the Council’s contractor, was not democratic as it was strongly controlled and monitored by the Council and its officers. Councillor Adrian Lee clarified that the Council’s leisure services had not been “privatised” but had been outsourced to a company, which had been precisely the case prior to Laing winning the contract – the previous operators had also been a company, CIP, who had been given the contract by the previous Labour Administrations in the 1990s. The Company did not have any Councillors included on its board and this had been part of the problem. He shared the concerns of Members that the number of Councillors on bodies was being reduced in various places which was anti-democratic and reduced accountability and representations. He observed that there were proposals for the creation of a Gunnersbury Park Trust but that the number of Members to be included on this was sufficiently small to mean that minority parties, including the main opposition, would not be included. He considered this to be unwise, and noted that whilst the parties often clashed at Council meetings, Members of all parties usually worked co-operatively and across party lines at other bodies. Councillor John Chatt wondered what observers would make of the debates taking place at the meeting. He then noted that the Council was not being asked to restructure Hounslow Homes, merely to take off Members if that organisation were to make likely changes to its own governance arrangements itself. He thought it might be sensible to remove Members from some bodies, such as the Hounslow Homes Board, as he thought that many people would consider that they had political agenda which might get in the way of practical running of the organisation. Councillor Jagdish Sharma did not think there was any problem with asking the Council to withdraw Members for outside bodies that no longer wished to have them. He drew Members attention to paragraph 3.3 of the report which made it plain that the request to remove Members from Hounslow Homes came from that organisation itself. The Council did not run outside bodies as these were independent of the Council. Councillor Brad Fisher asked for clarification on whether the Council was being asked to remove Members from the Hounslow Homes Board or merely note the changes to the body, as Councillor Collins had not been clear in his comments on this matter. Councillor Barbara Harris observed that she like many Members only acted politically on the Council and not when serving on outside bodies. Councillor Theo Dennison noted that the political parties on the Council differed in their views on Hounslow Homes which was an arms length management organisation (ALMO). There had been some poor management at the organisation as it had become complacent, but this was now being
14 rectified which was to be supported. The Hounslow Homes restructure of its own board was part of this process. He suggested that it was for the winning group after the Council election to decide how to respond to Hounslow Homes in future.
Councillor John Cooper proposed that the question be put to a vote in accordance with the constitution. This was seconded by Councillor Chatt and there was general agreement to the suggestion.
It was then
RESOLVED –
That the removal of Councillors John Chatt, Mel Collins, Ajmer Dhillon and Gerald McGregor as the Council’s representatives from the Hounslow Homes Board to take account the proposed new Articles of Association of that Body be approved; and That the removal of Councillors Gillian Hutchison, Liz Mammatt and Sue Sampson from the newly reconstituted Tenants, Leaseholders, and Sheltered Tenants Joint Consultative Committee, following a decision of the Cabinet decision taken on 4th March 2014, which removed Councillors other than the relevant Cabinet Member with responsibility for housing from the Membership of the Committee, be approved;
ACTION BY: Head of Democratic Services
9. Decisions Taken Under Urgency Arrangements (if any)
The Mayor advised that no such decisions had been taken.
Questions from Members
10. Councillor Beverley Williams to ask Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health Services
Councillor Beverley Williams asked Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health Services, the following question:
“Would the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health Services give this Borough assurances that going forward all vulnerable persons who have a formal care package from this local Authority will also be linked into the London Fire Brigade to have a free home fire safety check which may help to mitigate any further loss of life by fire as indicated in the report sent through to elected Members from the London Fire brigade on the 28th December 2013 in relation to the sad death of a resident in Haworth Park?”
In response, Councillor Rajawat advised that any death in such circumstances was a tragedy and the Council expressed its sympathies to the family and friends of the
15 victim in this case. He observed however that the report to which she referred had not been sent to all Members. Nonetheless, he was committed to helping residents get help and support on fire prevention measures.
Councillor Williams declined the opportunity of asking a supplementary question.
11. Councillor Mindu Bains to ask Councillor Colin Ellar, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment
Councillor Mindu Bains asked Councillor Colin Ellar, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment, the following question:
“Can the Cabinet Member inform us of any impact on the Borough of the recent heavy rains, and the steps taken to mitigate any damage?”
In response, Councillor Ellar advised that the Council had been much less badly affected than many other Authorities, including its neighbouring Councils. There had been no flooding in Hounslow due to the Thames Barrier which being regularly closed as the need arose, helped protect the Councils with borders on the River Thames in Greater London. Consequently both Brentford and Chiswick did not flood and the Rivers Crane and Brent did not rise appreciably in the wet weather. Fortunately, no further severe weather was now expected so it appeared that the threat had now passed. Hounslow Highways had also just completed a year long projects of sewer cleansing which helped prevent the flooding of roads within the Borough’s borders. During the period of the bad weather, there were only two reported incidents, both relating to flooding in cellars both of which were subsequently drained.
Councillor Bains declined the opportunity of asking a supplementary question.
12. Councillor John Todd to ask Councillor Sue Sampson, Cabinet Member for Performance and Customer Care
Councillor John Todd asked Councillor Sue Sampson, Cabinet Member for Performance and Customer Care, the following question:
“Will the Cabinet Member confirm that the London Borough of Hounslow is not at risk of ICT (Information Communication Technology) failure, inadequate performance or third party attack - given the apparent vacillation in upgrading legacy software in Hounslow Council?”
In response, Councillor Sampson advised that ICT security was continually evolving and changing to meet new threats. However, sufficient measures were in place on the perimeter network. It was however true to observe that after a long period of underinvestment in this area, some elements of the Council’s software network would no longer be supported in the next two years. The Council took the matter seriously and was reviewing the situation to ensure it remained adequate and also
16 flexible. She stated that she was happy to write to Councillor Todd in response to any specific concerns he might have.
Councillor Todd then asked a supplementary question: he stated that in September 2013, he had written to both Councillor Lily Bath and to the relevant Director seeking details of the case of a computer being provided to the London Borough of Ealing which had subsequently been mislaid by that Council. He stated that he had not yet had a reply and asked if Councillor Sampson could instead provide it.
Councillor Sampson agreed to respond in writing.
ACTION BY: Councillor Sue Sampson
13. Councillor Pamela Fisher to Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health Services
Councillor Pamela Fisher asked Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health Services, the following question:
“Can the Cabinet Member tell us how much has been spent to date by Hounslow Council on the proposed Integrated Care Organisation for vulnerable residents of Hounslow and Richmond Boroughs?”
Councillor Rajawat replied that the London Borough of Hounslow had contributed £349000.
Councillor Pamela Fisher then asked a supplementary question; She asked if this figure included the costs of the recent peer review, the full report of which had been seen by select Members of the Administration but had not been released in full to other Members.
Councillor Rajawat stated that the peer review would be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the usual Council practice. However, he clarified that the figure he had provided did not include the costs associated with the review.
Motions
14. Proposed by Councillor Tom Bruce and Seconded by Councillor Steve Curran
The Mayor invited Councillor Tom Bruce to introduce the motion at agenda item 14 which was as follows:
“This Council notes the shortfall in the capital programme to provide primary school places for the children of this Borough. This Council condemns the Government’s policy of failing to properly fund school places for LEA (Local Education Authority)
17 maintained schools. Local Authorities have a duty to ensure that there is a school place for every child, and Government ideology is making this task impossible.”
Councillor Bruce therefore proposed the motion and made the following comments: The ideologically led stance of the Government prevented the Council from meeting its responsibility to provide sufficient school places for local children. The Council was planning its approach to meeting the rising demand for school places and although it had been in receipt of some Government funding, it was still £30 million short. He had written to the Government on four occasions but not had any reply. There was no clarity in the Government’s thinking on future funding availability for the Council which it needed in order to plan how best to meet the post 2016 demand for school places. The scale of the problem was such that the Council needed 28 more forms in secondary schools to meet the demand. The Government was not funding the Council to meet its school place needs. David Laws, Schools Minister, had confirmed that the Government did not see free schools as the answer to the problem but failed to clarify what then was. Councillor Colin Ellar seconded the motion, but reserved his right to speak.
The Mayor then invited debate on the motion and the following comments were made: Councillor Peter Thompson noted that the motion had first been placed on the Council agenda for discussion in November 2013 and he wondered why, if it was such a pressing issue, it had taken four months and three Council meetings, to be resubmitted for discussion. He recalled that much of the problem causing demand for school places in the Borough was caused by the uncontrolled rise in immigration that occurred under the last Government. The current Government had doubled the spending of the previous Government on school building and expansion programmes. The last Labour Government had introduced the failed but expensive Building Schools for the Future programme but this had done nothing to increase school capacity. In December 2013, the current Government had announced a £2.4 million increase in funding for primary school places. There was also a move to a three year funding cycle which was widely applauded by local authorities as being helpful to planning. He did not recognise the problem that Councillor Bruce was describing. He also stated that he had written to Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education on the allegations that Councillor Bruce had made about not receiving a reply and had been provided with copies of the letters from David Laws, Schools Minister, to the Council in response to the original letters sent. Councillor Ruth Cadbury accepted that there had been increased funding, but it was not enough nor focussed in the right place nor the right way to address the increasing problem. She also noted that the Conservative Cabinet Member of Hillingdon Council had welcomed recent funding announcements but had also called for Councils to be given back the power to meet local demand, which had been removed by the Government. Hounslow was fortunate to have a number of excellent schools but residents feared that there would be insufficient places in them in future to meet demand. Residents wanted local authorities to be able to work with all schools to meet
18 the demand for places which was greater in London than elsewhere; despite this the Government refused to see that building schools in London was more expensive than anywhere else in the Country and so failed to provide sufficient funding. In addition, schools in Hounslow were more expensive again as they needed noise insulation against the disruptions from aircraft. The National Audit Office had reported that there was no pattern of new schools opening in areas where there was a need for additional places. It was not sufficient for the Council to have to wait to see if any developers wished to open a school in the Borough’s borders, but this was what it was now required to do by the Government. She called on the Government to listen to Councils, Parents and the National Audit Office and allow local authorities to plan for school growth. Councillor Colin Ellar noted that the shortage of places was not unique to Hounslow. Many Councils needed extra funding to build additional schools but the Government would not provide it. He recalled when he was Cabinet Member for Education in the past under the Labour Government, the Council had met with the Department for Education and Employment seeking help to develop a Private Finance Initiative for Heston School and instead the Government had given the Authority the necessary funding directly – it had seen that the Council’s need was so great that it had a duty to assist. The current Government conversely refused to help now in a similar situation, and this could only be down to the dogmatic and ideological approach currently in operation in the Government. The Government only permitted particular kinds of schools to be built but as there was no-one interested in doing so in Hounslow, there was a significant problem. Councillor Robert Oulds considered that Councillor Bruce had misled Members by stating that he had received no reply to four letters to the Government when he had received several from David Laws in September and November 2013. In one of the letters, Mr Laws had stated that the majority of new free schools were located in places where there was a need for school places. This therefore helped to address the problem. He also noted that as Government funding was based on the data supplied to it by each Authority, it was for Councillor Bruce to check to see what information had been provided to the Government by the Council. He considered that the Government plan to fund school building was effective and the Government’s policy of “pupil premium” was benefitting the education of thousands of children. At this point, the Mayor advised that, in accordance with the Constitution, the limit on time for debate on motions had now been reached and so discussion of the motion would have to stop.
15. Proposed by Councillor Peter Thompson and Seconded by Councillor Brad Fisher
This motion was not considered due to lack of time.
16. Any Other Matters That the Mayor Considers Urgent
19 There was no such business.
17. Date of Next Meeting
It was noted that the next meeting of the Council was scheduled for Tuesday 10th June 2014 and would commence at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber. This would be the annual meeting of the Council.
The Mayor then concluded the meeting with the following statement:
“As we have reached the last Council meeting of this Council term, I should like to thank all Members of this Council over the last four years for your positive involvement and good manners at Council meetings, your hard work for your constituents and your successful contributions to the life of Hounslow and all its residents. As none of us can know our fates, political or otherwise, I should like to wish you all well for the future, whether that be as part of the next Council or not. So, however you find yourselves after May, I wish you great success and happiness in all areas of your lives.”
Members showed their appreciation with a round of applause for the Mayor.
The meeting ended at 10.10pm
MAYOR
MINUTES END
20 At a meeting of the Borough Council held on Tuesday, 10th June 2014 at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber at the Hounslow Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow
Present: Councillor Sachin Gupta (The Mayor in the Chair) Councillor Corinna Smart (The Deputy Mayor and then the Mayor after the Election) Councillor Bishnu Bahadur Gurung (the Deputy Mayor after the election)
Councillors: Keith Anderson, Candice Atterton, Harleen Atwal Hear, Felicity Barwood, Lily Bath, Raj Bath, Tom Bruce, Manjit Buttar, Ruth Cadbury, Peter Carey, John Chatt, Bandna Chopra, Mel Collins, Steve Curran, Samantha Davies, Theo Dennison, Katherine Dunne, Colin Ellar, Richard Foote, Linda Green, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Puneet Grewal, Sachin Gupta, Tina Howe, David Hughes, Kamaljit Kaur, Hanif Khan, Gurmail Lal, Adrian Lee, Tony Louki, Paul Lynch, Mukesh Malhotra, Khulique Malik, Nisar Malik, Amrit Mann, Ed Mayne, Gerald McGregor, Shaida Mehrban, Hina Mir, Alan Mitchell, Sheila O'Reilly, Robert Oulds, Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Daanish Saeed, Sue Sampson, Sohan Sangha, Myra Savin, Jagdish Sharma, Peter Thompson, John Todd, Gurpal Virdi and Bob Whatley
1. Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest from Members
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Samia Chaudhary, Sam Christie, Sam Hearn and Elizabeth Hughes.
An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Adrian Lee.
There were no other apologies and no declarations of interest.
2. Members Elected to the Council
Members considered a report listing the names of all sixty Councillors who had been elected to the Council at the municipal elections held on 22nd May 2014.
The Mayor wished all Members great success over the life of the Council. He also thanked all previous Members who had not returned for their long service to the Council and the community.
It was
RESOLVED -
21 That the report be noted
3. The Election of the Mayor and Appointment of the Deputy Mayor
Councillor Lily Bath proposed a motion that Councillor Corinna Smart be elected as Mayor for the London Borough of Hounslow for the Municipal Year 2014-15. In doing so, she made the following statement:
“It gives me great pleasure to nominate Cllr Corinna Smart as Mayor. I would like to say a few words about Corinna if I may. Corinna was born in Rochester, Kent. At the age of 19, she came to London to attend college and has never left (London that is, not college!). She lived and worked in many London locations before arriving in Isleworth nearly 20 years ago. She gives many reasons for moving to this Borough, including its proximity to the River Thames, its green spaces and of course the wonderful Hounslow Heath which I know she loves! Corinna was first elected to this Council in 1998 in her home ward of Syon where she served until 2006. She refers to herself as a recycled Councillor because she stood in 2010 to represent the Hounslow Heath Ward where she was successful in being elected. Much to her delight she was re-elected again in the Hounslow Heath Ward in the recent elections with an increased vote. Corinna has been a Member of the Labour Party since she was 16. She joined the NUT (National Union of Teachers) whilst still at college. She is a co operator and a Member of the Fabian Society.
For those of you who know Corinna well, you will know that she is passionate about the environment and our heritage. Among her many and varied interests is her great love of wildlife, particularly “twitching” - also known as bird watching. She enjoys many sports although participation, she says, is now limited due to her knee problems. Many of you will know that she loves football… and her beloved Crystal Palace Football Club exceeded all expectations last season, not just staying in the premiership, but in safety, where she says they belong.
In her previous life as well as being as teacher, she also was a youth worker, and she is still very passionate about working with young people particularly encouraging them to reach their full potential. She is also committed to causes such as ending child poverty. Corinna has served as a primary school governor in a number of schools since 1998 and is currently a governor at Isleworth Town Primary School where she has dedicated a lot of her time and energy over the past few years. She has been a great asset to the school and is pleased to be serving another term as a governor. She has three brothers, who live in Kent, Dorset and Italy. She has five nephews and nieces (so far). She has seven great nieces and nephews who she says certainly keep her on her toes! She has a teenage goddaughter who lives locally and who also happens to be a very talented musician. And last, but not least, she has recently had two new arrivals to her family (of the furry kind, I should say) - her beloved cats - Olivia and Oscar who provide her with much joy and amusement! I have had the pleasure of knowing Corinna since 2010 when she was re-elected. She has been a great colleague and friend. She is well respected in her ward and in the wider community as well as with her friends and colleagues.
22 She is a very dedicated, loyal and committed person with tons of energy, and all the right qualities I believe to be a Mayor. She also happens to be the best cat sitter in town (and I can tell you that from personal experience). I am really proud to able to nominate her tonight. I know that she will do a wonderful job as a Mayor and I would like to wish her all the very best for her Mayoral year”
Councillor Colin Ellar seconded the motion and in so doing expressed his delight at being able to second the nomination for Councillor Smart, his fellow ward Councillor, to be Mayor for the next year. He wryly observed that there now appeared to be a precedent that the first Mayor for each newly elected Council should come from Hounslow Heath ward as he had in 2010. He also welcomed the nomination of a female Mayor, the first in Hounslow for a number of years and, given that there were 23 female Councillors on the Council, he considered this to be overdue. He noted her success in the last year as Deputy Mayor and observed that some Councils considered that the appointment of a Deputy Mayor as the Mayor in the following year to be a practical way forward. He reminded her that on election she would find all her time dedicated to Mayoral activities and so, although the football world cup was about to commence, she would not get to see much sport but she would get to meet a large number of people instead.
There were no further nominations.
The Mayor then put the decision to the vote and it was
RESOLVED –
That Councillor Corinna Smart be elected as Mayor of the London Borough of Hounslow for the municipal year 2014-15.
Councillor Corinna Smart then signed the declaration of acceptance of the office of Mayor which was formally witnessed by Ms Mary Harpley, the Chief Executive.
Members showed their appreciation with a round of applause.
The Chief Executive then reported that, in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1972, the Mayor had appointed Councillor Bishnu Bahadur Gurung to be Deputy Mayor for the municipal year 2014-15
There was then a short adjournment.
Upon reconvening the meeting, Councillor Corinna Smart took the chair as Mayor. Her first act was to invite Councillor Shantanu Rajawat to propose a vote of thanks to Councillor Sachin Gupta for his work as Mayor in 2013-14
Councillor Shantanu Rajawat paid tribute to Councillor Sachin Gupta and in so doing, made the following comments:
“Thank you Madam Mayor.
23 May I start by congratulating you on your election and thanking you for having me as your consort in your year as deputy Mayor. It has been an honour and immense pleasure. A year ago, I stood before this Council and had the privilege of nominating Councillor Gupta for the Mayoralty. In my remarks, I commented that under Councillor Gupta the Mayoral year would be fun, busy and for all residents of our Borough. I am pleased to say that Councillor Gupta has most definitely delivered on these promises. Councillor Gupta has: Attended over 300 events throughout the year, often attending four or more events in a day Events have included Zumba, street parties, football matches, events in many of the religious venues throughout the Borough and parties to mark the 100th birthday of several of our residents. Has spent many hours eating at events and it is lucky that he then had to flight an election to shed the pounds! Received fantastic feedback from residents and event organisers. I know from Councillor Gupta that a particular highlight of his Mayoral year was attending the Mayors Annual Civic service at Westminster Abbey.
Madam Mayor, perhaps the biggest achievement of Councillor Gupta’s Mayoralty has been his ability to allow young people to really understand what it means to live in Hounslow, to understand the roles and responsibilities they will one day take on as residents of this Borough. It has been noted that young people who have met Councillor Gupta have felt confident to ask questions about what the Mayor does, what the Council does and how they fit into all of this. Whilst these concepts seem somewhat high level, it is a credit to Councillor Gupta that he has been able to use his position to stimulate curiosity and engage discussion in order to make high ideals appear normal.
Madam Mayor, I firmly believe that every Mayor leaves their own unique imprint on the character of this Borough; you will do so as well, Madam Mayor, and that is certainly true of Councillor Gupta in his year in the sheer variety of duties he has carried out with different cultures, ages, religions and organisations who call Hounslow their Borough. However I believe that in a time when politicians like ourselves wrestle with the fundamental questions about the future of our Borough and the daily lives our residents, Councillor Gupta has used the Mayoralty to engage our future generations and show them that the identity of the Borough and their place in within it are fundamentally linked. Whilst many nationally despair or write off our next generation, I know Councillor Gupta will continue to support and indeed champion political education for young people as well as civic identity...
And for this and the whole of his Mayoral year, I am delighted to once again move a vote of thanks for Councillor Gupta.”
Councillor Steve Curran seconded the proposal. He also thanked Councillor Smart for her work in the last year as Deputy Mayor and considered that she had done a “fantastic job in supporting Councillor Gupta as Mayor”. He then stated that his experience of visiting schools and other venues had shown him how important the Mayor was to residents and how 24 genuinely people were pleased to see him. Consequently, he confirmed that it was his intention to ensure that the Mayoralty was fully supported in resource terms. He considered that the role was influential in helping younger people in particular understand the Council and its work in the community. He then paid tribute to Councillor Gupta’s family and in particular his wife and children. He praised their support of Councillor Gupta in his role as Mayor over the last year. He observed that it was no small commitment to continue in his job, remain a family man and carry out his Mayoral duties but Councillor Gupta had been able to do this effectively and he thanked him and his family for their service over the year.
Councillor Paul Lynch also expressed support for the proposal and described his Mayoral year as a wonderful one. He thanked him for his impartial and cross-party approach to the Mayoralty overall and welcomed the ongoing fruitful liaison between the Mayor and his predecessors of all parties. He described Councillor Gupta as a very amiable man who made a good impression across the Borough. He had helped build up the reputation of the Mayoralty and the Council whilst balancing the role with his family commitments. He had achieved this admirably, although he knew that his children would certainly welcome the chance of seeing more of their father at home. He concluded by thanking Councillor Gupta for a great year as Mayor.
It was then unanimously
RESOLVED –
That a vote of thanks be recorded to Councillor Sachin Gupta for his services as Mayor in 2013014
Members showed their appreciation with a round of applause.
Councillor Corinna Smart, the new Mayor, congratulated Councillor Gupta and presented a gift of a past Mayor’s badge to him as a memento of his Mayoral Year and also gave him a Mayoral brooch for his wife as his Mayoress.
Councillor Sachin Gupta, the outgoing Mayor, then responded to the vote of thanks and made the following statement:
“Deputy Lieutenant, Madam Mayor, Councillors and distinguished guests.
Madam Mayor, I would like to congratulate you on your election as Mayor of the London Borough of Hounslow for the municipal year 2014-15. I know that you’ll make a fantastic ambassador for the Borough, as you have already gained experienced as the deputy Mayor last year. As I made history in becoming the youngest Mayor in the London Borough of Hounslow, you Madam Mayor are also making history by being elected as Mayor from the position as deputy Mayor in a successive year.
Thirteen months have flown by and I have managed to travel the length and breadth of the Borough many times over! But, Madam Mayor, I have no hesitation to saying that it has been a fantastic year and one that I can say has been an absolute honour to be the youngest Mayor of London Borough of Hounslow. Madam Mayor, I started my year with two themes in mind. The first was that the Borough's younger people would 25 be a particular focus of my year as Mayor. The second was to engage with as many of our communities and organisations as possible, to help them, and the Borough thrive. I can certainly say that I have done my utmost to achieve both themes during the year. I had the pleasure of celebrating the success of young people’s hard work when I visited schools during the GCSE and A-levels results day. It was the joyous moment for anyone to witness. And I also managed to achieve two Guinness Book of World Records recognised record-breaking events – both with the Borough’s young people. I also had the pleasure of attending many community events, I was really amazed to witness the rich diversity of our Borough and how different communities are so tolerant to each other and play a vital part to promote community cohesion in the Borough.
Madam Mayor, last year has been a very special one for me and my family. If someone had asked me the highlight of the year, I will not have any doubt by saying it was a very proud moment for me when I walked through the Westminster Abbey for the service of dedication to the London Boroughs Mayors and of course attending the Queen’s Garden party last week, which most Mayors attends after their Mayoral year finishes but I had the privilege to attend beforehand. Where there were joyous occasions, there too were sad moments; one was to attend the funeral of our Borough’s oldest resident Rose Bicknell, at a time when we were planning to celebrate her 110th birthday. It will be always in mind that I wasn’t able to meet her personally as Councillor Pritam Grewal did in his Mayoral year.
Over the course of the year as Mayor I was honoured to meet many amazing people. Across our entire Borough we have hundreds of unsung heroes who quietly go about their business, volunteers and carers helping the young, old and disabled within our day centres and at home, also our volunteers who look after our most vulnerable children, dedicated head teachers and teachers. Army/Air Cadets who are carving out promising careers and futures. The list is endless and it is very humbling to have witnessed this during my year. In the end, we manage to attend around 350-400 events. Madam Mayor, I would like to thank everyone who has supported my charities and charity events – and here I make special mention of Sarfraz Khan. I would also like to thank the charities themselves for their continued support during the year I know that they have made great strides within the community and beyond and will receive the recognition they both deserve.
Now any Mayoralty can only be a success thanks to the hard work and efforts of other people, and I have many people to thank. As the saying goes, “There is always a woman behind every successful man” and I have no hesitation to say that is true in my life - my Mayoress and wife Shalu Gupta. I don’t have words to say thank her for supporting me and continually being by my side. The same is true of my wonderful children and my father-in-law and mother-in-law as well as my Deputy Mayor, Cllr Corinna Smart and her consort, Councillor Shantanu Rajawat. Over the past year you have provided me with great support. You have been a fantastic Deputy and it has been wonderful working with you. I also thank Thomas Ribbits, Head of Democratic Services for providing support to the Mayoral office and for his continued helpfulness. I would like to thank my various Mace Bearers who has provided support to me and the Mayoral office. I would like to give my thanks to our Deputy Lieutenant, Maria Pedro; her enthusiasm and support has been amazing. Madam Mayor, Maria has been an absolute gem for the Borough and I have no hesitation to say that she will be a great 26 support to you in your Mayoral year. For Uday Sisodia and his colleague Gary, our chauffeurs, who always knows the quickest route and deliver me to each event in good time! My thanks too to all Councillors but with a special mention of Councillor Sharma and Councillor Thompson as the leaders of their respective political parties for their support, and Councillor Lynch for his unconditional support and guidance during the year. As some of you may know chairing Council meetings are never the easiest of experiences but I would like to thank all of you for your conduct and patience throughout this year. I also thank Laurie Lopes for all her non-political advice and moral support throughout the year. And finally, I thank Julie Davies my PA, thank you for all your work over the past year, for your dedication and commitment, your advice, support and friendship which enabled me to undertake my role.
Madam Mayor, at the end of the year it has been an honour and privilege to serve as the Mayor of Hounslow and I wish you and your Deputy Mayor and Mayoress a successful and enjoyable year. Thank you”
Councillor Corinna Smart, the new Mayor, then addressed the Council and made the following statement:
“It is an honour and a privilege to have been elected as Mayor of the LB of Hounslow for the year 2014-15. 2014 is a momentous year of commemoration of the First World War – one of which will see the unveiling of a new Memorial in Hounslow Town and other ceremonies of remembrance around the Borough. My focus for the year will be to encourage the young people of the Borough to strive to achieve their potential from primary school children, through to Secondary School and College students. I also include our apprentices, young people in work and those who are currently unemployed. I also want to help to enthuse and educate the residents of the Borough about the range and variety of wildlife we have in the Borough and to help to protect it. I care passionately for wildlife and to alleviate child poverty as well as caring for the most vulnerable in our society. My two charities for this year will be The London Wildlife Trust (within LBH) and Hounslow Community Foodbox.
My Consort for the year will be one of my best friends, Pat Simmons a resident of Osterley and Spring Grove Ward, Isleworth and a born and bred Londoner. I thank Pat for agreeing to perform this task for me. However I am aware that this year will be a little unusual as I will be asking several of my friends and councillor colleagues to accompany me to ceremonies and events as Pat is an incredibly busy person too!
My thanks too to my friends and family here in the public gallery. In addition, I would like to thank Councillor Gurung for being my Deputy Mayor and extend my thanks to his family. I am grateful to Councillors Lily Bath and Colin Ellar for their kind speeches and also to Councillor Malhotra, my other fellow ward Councillor.
A theme of my year will be to support culture and the arts – I am a great supporter of the Hounslow Music Service and believe that we all benefit from celebrating our cultures through the media of art, music, dance and theatre and I hope to see Watermans Arts grow from strength to strength this year. Hounslow is a wonderfully diverse Borough where we speak over 140 different first languages and I believe that community cohesion and equality and this has to be at the heart of all we do within the 27 Council, the Borough and Greater London. I’d like to end with a quotation from one of my heroes - Maya Angelou:
“My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive and to do so with some passion, some compassion, some humour and some style”
Thank you”
After completion of the new Mayor’s speech, Members received short presentations from representatives of the two Mayoral charities for 2014-15.
The London Wildlife Trust thanked Councillor Smart for selecting them as one of her charities and explained to Members that the organisation had been created in 1981 and had been active in the London Borough of Hounslow area since 1982. Its aims were to conserve and protect wildlife and help bring people close to it as a way of making their lives happier. The organisation now managed forty nature reserves, two of which were within the Borough’s borders with two more very close by on the Borough’s borders. These were supported by volunteers who have a passion for wildlife whilst understanding the context of looking after it in a city environment. The organisation was also always looking for local environmental ambassadors and additional volunteers. Members then heard details of some of the local projects being promoted by the Trust including improved access to the Crane Meadow, the enhancement of the habitat for water vole in the River Crane and further improvements to the Gunnersbury Triangle Nature Reserve. The Trust also ran an apprenticeship skills programme to help people develop land management skills. The Trust representative advised Members that the Borough was a particular hotspot for stag beetles, and then concluded by thanking the Mayor.
Hounslow Community Foodbox thanked the new Mayor for selecting them as the other of her charities for the Mayoral year. The representative of the charity paid tribute to Councillor Steve Curran as one of the driving forces behind the creation of the organisation and who had remained closely involved, working with Councillors and volunteers to help make a genuine difference to people’s lives. It had over 2000 local people relying on it for support in terms of helping to provide food to people touched by poverty who would otherwise go hungry in many cases. She welcomed any support that could be given to those in poverty. The organisation had been sufficiently successful to extend its areas of support so that it now also tried to help people get back into work. The organisation was very open to helping anyone in need of food and the representative for Foodbox asked any Councillor who was aware of people who might be in need of its services to liaise with it. She then concluded by thanking the Mayor.
The Mayor thanked the representatives from the two charities and also thanked Councillor Shantanu Rajawat who had been her consort last year as Deputy Mayor. She also thanked his new wife - and then concluded this item of the agenda by thanking all Members for their support and help. She undertook to be an impartial and fair Mayor.
Members showed their appreciation with a round of applause.
4. The Election of the Leader and Notification of Appointment of the Deputy Leader and the Cabinet 28
Councillor Amrit Mann proposed a motion that Councillor Steve Curran be elected as Leader of the London Borough of Hounslow for the life of the Council (2014-2018). In doing so, he made the following comments: He first congratulated Councillor Smart and Councillor Gurung on becoming the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and expressed the hope that they would enjoy their year. He was pleased to nominate Councillor Steve Curran as Leader as he had the key qualities that befitted a person in the role, such as being a good listener and also having a steely determination to get things done. The new Administration was determined to deliver change both on time and on budget and it intended to do so with the support of residents. He concluded by commending Councillor Steve Curran as Leader of the Council for 2014-2018.
Councillor Nisar Malik seconded the proposal.
There being no other nominations, the Mayor put the proposal to the vote and it was unanimously
RESOLVED –
That Councillor Steve Curran be elected as Leader of the London Borough of Hounslow for the life of the Council.
Councillor Steve Curran then signed the declaration of acceptance of the office of Leader which was formally witnessed by Mary Harpley, the Chief Executive.
Members showed their appreciation with a round of applause.
Councillor Steve Curran then thanked all Members for their support. He paid tribute to all former Councillors who had decided to retire or who had not been re-elected and he thanked them for their service to the residents. He then explained the priorities for the new Administration over the next few years. He stated that the election results had shown that the residents of Hounslow had given their resounding support to the values of the Labour Group and wanted to see increased support in areas such as schools, jobs, housing and being able to meet the basics of life such as providing food for their families. The new Administration would respond to these concerns but do so in a wise and financially prudent way. He intended that the Council would meet its targets on time and on budget – the last four years had shown it could be done and he thanked Councillors Ruth Cadbury, Colin Ellar and Jagdish Sharma for their important roles as Deputy Leaders and Leader over the life of the last Council. He also paid tribute to Councillor Sharma for his forty years of public service as an elected Member of the Council. He considered that his dedication to his residents and to the people of the Borough was an example to everyone within the Council Chamber and beyond. He had been instrumental in embedding social cohesion in the Borough and this was something the new Administration would continue. He also paid tribute to Councillor Amrit Mann who was to be Deputy Leader and concluded by drawing Members attention to the information in the tabled papers circulated to those present which gave details of the names of the Cabinet Members for 2014-15 and their portfolios. 29
These were as follows:
LEADER OF THE COUNCIL (Councillor Steve Curran)
HOUSING AND REGENERATION Corporate Strategy Engagement (Central and local government) Communications Housing Local Plan Planning Policy and Regeneration Property Management and Asset rationalisation Business Development (including Lampton 360)
DEPUTY LEADER OF THE COUNCIL (Councillor Amrit Mann)
ENVIRONMENT Hounslow Highways (PFI) Domestic and Commercial Refuse Climate Change (air quality), energy and carbon reduction Heathrow Airport Transport and Traffic
ADULT SOCIAL CARE AND HEALTH SERVICES (Councillor Lily Bath) Older People Mental Health, Learning Disabilities, Physical and Sensory Disabilities Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults Health Partnership and Commissioning
COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Councillor Sue Sampson) Community Engagement Voluntary Sector funding and commissioning Youth engagement and youth services Jobs, skills, training and apprenticeships Domestic Violence
30
COMMUNITY PROTECTION (Councillor Richard Foote) Community Safety and Crime Reduction Engagement with Metropolitan Police and other agencies Regulatory Services Parking Enforcement
CORPORATE PERFORMANCE AND CUSTOMER CARE (Councillor Kamaljit Kaur) Performance Management Customer Care Corporate ICT Legal Services Supply Chain Management
EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES (Councillor Tom Bruce) Education School Places Special Education Needs Adult, Community, Further and Higher Education Statutory Lead on Children’s Services Looked after Children Fostering and Adoption Safeguarding and child protection
EQUALITIES AND INCLUSION (Councillor Ajmer Grewal) Human Resources and Trade Union Liaison Equality and Diversity Social and Financial Inclusion Contingency Planning
FINANCE AND CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT (Councillor Theo Dennison) Revenue and Capital Resources Citizen Engagement (consultations, elections, area forums, petitions) Risk Management Organisational change and development, including Civic Centre relocation
31
PUBLIC HEALTH AND LEISURE (Councillor Sachin Gupta) Sport, culture, leisure and recreation Community sport and recreation for children and young people Leisure libraries and parks Heston Leisure Centre Public Health
The Council noted the information.
5. Establishment of and Appointments to Formal Council Bodies 2014/15 and Confirmation of the Constitution
Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services.
The Mayor drew Members attention to a tabled report which had been circulated to those present giving details of the nominations to formal Council bodies for the municipal year 2014- 15.
In addition, the Mayor advised that the tabled paper also identified the following corrections and amendments that had been identified in relation to the proposed terms of reference for various bodies. Members were therefore asked to agree the terms of reference as listed in the agenda report as amended by the following:
Hounslow Health and Wellbeing Board (page 49 in the agenda)
The terms of reference in the report to be replaced with the following which is a more recent updated version:
The Hounslow Health and Wellbeing Board aims to improve the health and wellbeing of Hounslow’s communities by bringing together the leadership of key organisations to plan and work in partnership, identify local needs and inequalities, monitor performance and develop effective plans and services.
The Board will: 1. Operate within the overall framework provided, and be influenced, by Hounslow Together (the Local Strategic Partnership). 2. Commission and endorse the Hounslow Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), the Hounslow Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy (JHWS) to meet the needs identified in the JSNA, and the Hounslow Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment. 3. Review the commissioning plans for healthcare, social care, and public health to ensure that they have due regard to the JSNA and JHWS, and to take appropriate action if it considers that they do not. 4. Ensure that the annual commissioning intentions of the Borough the NHS 32 Commissioning Board and the Hounslow Clinical Commissioning Group are coordinated and delivered to meet national and local priorities. 5. Discharge its duty to encourage integrated working with relevant partners within Hounslow, which includes: endorsing and securing joint arrangements, including integrated commissioning where agreed and appropriate; development of appropriate partnership agreements for service integration, including the associated financial protocols and monitoring arrangements; and making full use of the powers identified in all relevant NHS and local government legislation. 6. Develop and implement a communication and engagement strategy for the work of the Board, outlining such work will: reflect stakeholders’ views; discharge its specific consultation and engagement duties; and work closely with local HealthWatch. 7. Appoint such sub-groups or sub-committees (formal and informal) as the Board considers appropriate to carry out specified functions on its behalf for a specified period of time. It shall hold accountable such sub-groups and committees and agree their workplans. 8. Work alongside the Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Panel to ensure that substantial variations in service provision by health care providers are appropriately scrutinised. The Board itself will be subject to scrutiny by the Panel. 9. Report to the Borough Council on an annual basis on its activity and progress against the milestones set out in the Board’s Action Plan. This should include advice on the opinion of the Board on whether the Council is discharging its duty to have regard to the joint strategic needs assessment and joint health and wellbeing strategy in discharging the Council’s functions.
Licensing Committee (page 30 in the agenda)
Clause 2 in the report to be replaced with the following which was previously agreed by the Council at its meeting in November 2013:
“To delegate responsibility for the future review, making, amendment and/or revocation of byelaws to Licensing Committee and for the terms of reference of Licensing Committee and the constitution to be amended accordingly.”
It was therefore
RESOLVED –
That the terms of reference for the formal Council bodies detailed in the report be agreed, subject to the corrections detailed above; That the appointments to the formal Council bodies (including the appointment of chairs where stated) as detailed below be approved;
33 That the Chief Executive be given Authority, in consultation with the Mayor, to make any adjustments necessary to ensure political proportionality rules following receipt of nominations from area committees to those bodies subject to such rules That the current constitution be confirmed for the municipal year 2014/15, subject to any future amendments that might be made by the Council during this period.
Committee Nominations (All Councillors unless otherwise stated)
The Sub-Groups of the Cabinet
Confidential Cases Sub-Committee Councillors Lily Bath, Tom Bruce and 3 Members of the Cabinet and 2 other Steve Curran. Councillors co-opted in a non-voting Councillors Mukesh Malhotra and capacity. The Sub-Committee to include John Todd (Co-opted members) the Leader and the relevant cabinet member(s).
Community Investment Advisory Councillor Sue Sampson (Chair) Panel Four Labour Members (to be 6 Councillors. This is a Cabinet Advisory nominated by the area forums) Committee and therefore not a decision One Conservative Member (to be making body. The Chair must be the nominated by the area forum) Cabinet Member for Communities (for Corporate Grants and Community Relations). The other five Members are nominated by each of the area committees. If this results in a political imbalance in terms of proportionality, other additional Members are appointed by the Chief Executive.
Disability Community Forum Councillors Lily Bath (Chair), Mel 5 Councillors. Collins, Mukesh Malhotra and Shantanu Rajawat One Conservative Member (vacant)
Affordable Housing Committee Councillors Steve Curran, Theo 3 Members of the Cabinet including the Dennison and Sue Sampson Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Finance
Overview and Scrutiny
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Councillors Harleen Atwal Hear, 34 (10 Councillors and up to 3 non-voting Felicity Barwood, Peter Carey, John co-opted members). No Cabinet Member Chatt (Chair), Linda Green, David may sit on this body. Hughes, Gurmail Lal, Khulique Malik, Hina Mir and Alan Mitchell
Scrutiny Panels These are created by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its first meeting following the annual meeting of the Council
Regulatory Bodies
Planning Committee Councillors Tom Bruce, Manjit Buttar, (15 Councillors) Bandna Chopra, Mel Collins, Katherine Dunne (Vice-Chair), Pritam Grewal, Puneet Grewal, Elizabeth Hughes, Gurmail Lal, Khulique Malik, Nisar Malik, Shaida Mehrban, Sheila O’Reilly, John Todd and Bob Whatley (Chair),
Planning (Enforcement) Sub-Committee Councillors Katherine Dunne (Chair), (6 members: The Chair of the Sub Hanif Khan, Ed Mayne, Shaida Committee is appointed by the Annual Mehrban and Daanish Saeed. Borough Council (as the Vice Chair of the One Conservative Member (the vice- Planning Committee) and five Vice-Chairs chair of the Chiswick Area Forum - to of the Area Forums are appointed as the be confirmed) five remaining members)
Licensing Committee Councillors Peter Carey, Samia (15 Councillors) Chaudhary, Bandna Chopra, Linda Green, Puneet Grewal, Tina Howe, David Hughes, Elizabeth Hughes, Adrian Lee, Tony Louki, Nisar Malik, Hina Mir, Shantanu Rajawat (Chair), Daanish Saeed and John Todd.
Pension Fund Panel Councillors Sam Christie, Mukesh (5 Councillors) Malhotra (Chair), Khulique Malik, Surinder Purewal and John Todd.
Revenues Appeal Panel Councillors Bandna Chopra, Mel (9 Councillors) Collins (Chair), Samantha Davies, Hanif Khan, Mukesh Malhotra, Hina Mir, Surinder Purewal, Peter Thompson and Gurpal Virdi
35 Audit Committee Councillors Sam Christie (Vice- (5 Councillors) Chair), Sam Hearn, Elizabeth Hughes, Mukesh Malhotra, and Surinder Purewal (Chair). Standards Committee Councillors Richard Anderson (9 Councillors) (Chair), Felicity Barwood, Samia Chaudhary, Mel Collins, Puneet Grewal, Elizabeth Hughes, Adrian Lee, Nisar Malik and Shantanu Rajawat.
Schools Forum Councillor Tom Bruce (1 Councillor: the relevant Cabinet Member is appointed to this body as an observer only)
Schools Admissions Forum Councillor Tom Bruce and Bandna (2 Councillors) Chopra
Complaints Panel Councillors Candice Atterton, (Pool of fifteen Members required) Harleen Atwal Hear, Lily Bath, Bandna Chopra, Mel Collins, Samantha Davies, Theo Dennison, Katherine Dunne, Puneet Grewal, Sam Hearn, Tony Louki, Nisar Malik, Hina Mir, Robert Oulds and Shantanu Rajawat.
Corporate Parenting Panel Councillors Candice Atterton, (5 Councillors) Harleen Atwal Hear, Tom Bruce (Chair), Samia Chaudhary and Paul Lynch.
Special Educational Needs Transport Councillors Mel Collins, Puneet Appeals Panel Grewal, Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, 10 Members to act as a pool from which Tony Louki, Paul Lynch, Mukesh Members will be drawn for each hearing Malhotra, Hina Mir, Alan Mitchell, Robert Oulds and Sohan Sangha.
Governor Appointments Panel Councillors Candice Atterton, (15 Councillors: for individual panels, Harleen Atwal Hear, Felicity any two Councillors taken from list of Barwood, Samia Chaudhary, Bandna nominees) Chopra, Mel Collins, Katherine Dunne, Linda Green, Pritam Grewal, Sam Hearn, Paul Lynch, Mukesh Malhotra, Surinder Purewal, Corinna Smart and Bob Whatley.
36 Health and Safety Committee Councillors Keith Anderson, Richard 5 Councillors and five staff side members. Foote, Ajmer Grewal (Chair), Tina Chair to be a Councillor, vice-chair to come Howe and Gerald McGregor. from the staff side.
Members Constitution Working Party Councillors Steve Curran, Theo 5 Councillors Dennison, Elizabeth Hughes, Amrit Mann and Sheila O’Reilly. Hounslow Health and Well Being Board Councillors Lily Bath, Tom Bruce, The full membership of this newly created Steve Curran (Chair), Sachin Gupta statutory committee is listed below as an (Vice-Chair) and Amrit Mann. annex to this appendix. Its Council representatives are as follows: Leader of the Council – Chair Cabinet Member for Public Health and Leisure – Vice Chair Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health and Services Cabinet Member for Children’s Services Cabinet Member for Environment Chief Executive of the London Borough of Hounslow Director Children’s and Adults’ Services Director of Public Health Assistant Director Housing, Leisure and Public Health Services Employment Appeals Panel All 60 Members All Members are appointed to this panel and may be called to sit at panel meetings which are constituted and run as set out in the Council’s Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure.
37
AREA FORUMS
Bedfont, Feltham, Hanworth Councillors Keith Anderson, Candice Atterton, John Area Forum (formerly the West Chatt, Samia Chaudhary, Sam Christie, Richard Area Forum) Foote, Sachin Gupta, Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, Tina (Councillors for Bedfont, Howe, David Hughes, Elizabeth Hughes, Hanif Khan, Hanworth Park, Feltham North, Khulique Malik, Hina Mir, Alan Mitchell. Feltham West, and Hanworth Wards and up to 3 non-voting co-optees)
Central Hounslow Area Forum Councillors Tom Bruce, Bandna Chopra, Colin Ellar, (Councillors for Hounslow Heath, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Puneet Grewal, Hounslow West, Hounslow Mukesh Malhotra, Nisar Malik, Shaida Mehrban, Central and Hounslow South Jagdish Sharma, Corinna Smart, Bob Whatley. Wards and up to 3 non-voting co-optees)
Chiswick Area Forum Councillors Felicity Barwood, Samantha Davies, Sam (Councillors for Turnham Green, Hearn, Paul Lynch, Gerald McGregor, Adrian Lee, Chiswick Riverside and Chiswick Robert Oulds, Peter Thompson, John Todd. Homefields and up to 3 non-voting co-optees)
Heston and Cranford Area Councillor Harleen Atwal Hear, Lily Bath, Raj Bath, Forum Manjit Buttar, Kamaljit Kaur, Gurmail Lal, Amrit Mann, (Councillors for Cranford, Heston Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Daneesh West, Heston Central and Saaid, Sohan Sangha, Gurpal Virdi. Heston East Wards and up to 3 non-voting co-optees)
Isleworth and Brentford Area Councillors Ruth Cadbury, Peter Carey, Mel Collins, Forum Steve Curran, Theo Dennison, Katherine Dunne, (Councillors for Osterley and Spring Grove, Linda Green, Tony Louki, Ed Mayne, Sheila O’Reilly, Syon, Brentford, Isleworth and up Sue Sampson, Myra Savin. to 3 non-voting co-optees)
OTHER BODIES
Organisation/Committee Nominations
38 Tenants, Leaseholders, and Sheltered Councillor Steve Curran Tenants Joint Consultative Committee (1 Councillor - the Lead Member with responsibility for Social Housing)
Hounslow Community Safety Councillors Richard Foote, Hanif Partnership Board Khan and one Conservative Party (3 Councillors) vacancy
Gunnersbury Park Joint Advisory Councillors Mel Collins, Adrian Lee Panel and Myra Savin (3 Councillors)
Adoption & Permanence Panel Councillor Paul Lynch (1 Councillor)
Fostering Panel Councillor Shaida Mehrban (1 Councillor)
Local Strategic Partnership (Hounslow Councillor Amrit Mann Together) (1 Councillor – usually the Leader and/or the Deputy Leader)
SACRE (Standing Advisory Council Councillors Mukesh Malhotra and for Religious Education) Nisar Malik Group D of the SACRE is formed of no more than six representatives of the Education Authority – need not be Councillors/currently 2 Councillors appointed
Safer Neighbourhood Boards - Arrangements Yet to be Finalised Included for information at this stage
6. Appointments to Outside Bodies 2014/15
Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services.
The Mayor drew Members’ attention to a tabled report which had been circulated to those present, giving details of the nominations to outside bodies for the municipal year 2014-2015.
It was then
RESOLVED – 39
That the names of the organisations included in the report be approved as the final list of outside bodies to which it will appoint Members from now on.
That all appointees to outside bodies be required to complete an annual assessment of the work of the body over the term of their appointment
That the appointments to outside bodies for the municipal year 2014/15 (unless otherwise stated) as listed in the tabled report at the meeting be approved and that it be noted that a review of all outside bodies is currently being undertaken. The appointments being as follows:
NATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS
Name of Organisation Number of Representatives
Local Authorities' Aircraft Noise Council Councillor Amrit Mann
Local Government Association General Assembly Councillors Ruth Cadbury, Steve Curran, Nisar Malik, and Amrit Mann
NATIONAL COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS
Name of Organisation Number of Representatives
Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme Councillors Mel Collins and Ed Mayne (two year appointment)
Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group Councillors Amrit Mann and Bob Whatley
LONDON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS
Name of Organisation Number of Representatives London Councils’ Leaders’ Committee (S.101 Joint Member: Councillor Steve Committee) Curran. Deputies: Councillors Theo Dennison and Amrit Mann.
London Councils’ Associated Joint Committee (London Member: Councillor Amrit 40 Councils Transport and Environment Committee) Mann. Deputies: Councillors Manjit Buttar and Bob Whatley London Councils’ Associated Joint Committee (London Member: Councillor Sue Councils Grants Committee) Sampson. Deputies: Councillors Ajmer Grewal and Sachin Gupta London Councils’ Greater London Employment Forum Councillor Ajmer Grewal West London Waste Authority Councillor Amrit Mann
LONDON COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS
Name of Organisation Number of Representatives
Crane Valley Park Steering Group Councillor Candice Atterton
Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC) Members: Councillors Khulique Maalik and Bob Whatley.
Deputies: Councillors Ruth Cadbury, Peter Carey and Mukesh Malhotra
London Road Safety Council (formerly the London Accident Councillors Mel Collins and Prevention Council) (TRUST) Bishnu Bahadur Gurung
Mortlake Crematorium Board Councillors Felicity Barwood, Linda Green and Myra Savin
Reserve Forces & Cadets Association (Greater London) Councillor Bishnu Bahadur Gurung and Paul Lynch (Councillor Paul Lynch only to be appointed if the Association is prepared to accept two representatives from the Borough as it has in the past)
Rugby Football Union Concert & Match Day Committee Councillor Sue Sampson South West Middlesex Crematorium Board Councillors Candice Atterton, Tina Howe and Corinna Smart
Thames Landscape Strategy Steering Group Councillor Paul Lynch and Ed Mayne
Thames Water Liaison Committee Councillors Ed Mayne and Bob Whatley 41
HOUNSLOW ORGANISATIONS
Name of Organisation Number of Representatives
Bedfont Lakes Country Park Trust Fund Panel (TRUST) Councillors Keith Anderson,
Sam Christie, Sachin Gupta, Elizabeth Hughes and Alan Mitchell
Brentford and Chiswick Merged Charities (TRUST) Councillors Felicity Barwood
and Myra Savin (four year term)
Brentford Dock Limited Councillor Steve Curran
Brentford Football in the Community Management Councillors Mel Collins and Committee (TRUST) Tony Louki
Chiswick House and Gardens (Trustees) (TRUST) Councillor Ruth Cadbury and
Paul Lynch
Chiswick Parochial Charities (TRUST) Counciollor Felicity Barwood
(four year term)
Chiswick Pier Trust (TRUST) Councillor Corinna Smart and
one Conservative vacancy
David Henry Waring Home Committee (TRUST) Councillors Keith Anderson,
Sam Christie, Sachin Gupta, David Hughes, Elizabeth Hughes and Alan Mitchell
Disability Network Hounslow (TRUST) Councillor Mel Collins
Feeding Future (COMPANY) 2 officers Michael Marks Clive Palfreyman
Hanworth Village Hall Management Committee (TRUST) Councillor Hanif Khan
Heston & Isleworth Old People's Welfare Committee Councillors Raj Bath, Linda (TRUST) Green, Tony Louki, Nisar Malik
and Shaida Mehrban.
Heston Parochial Charities (TRUST) Councillors Lily Bath, Kamaljit
Kaur, Surinder Purewal and 42 Shantanu Rajawat
Hounslow Community Association Ltd (TRUST) Councillors Tom Bruce, Pritam
Grewal and Kamaljit Kaur
Hounslow Community Transport Management Committee Councillor Bishnu Bahadur
Gurung
Hounslow Economic Business Forum Councillor Nisar Malik
Hounslow Heath Advisory Committee Councillors John Chatt, Colin
Ellar, Mukesh Malhotra and Corinna Smart
Isleworth & Hounslow Charity Ltd Trustee Board (TRUST) Councillors Linda Green, Tony
Louki and Mr. Ron Bartholomew
Thomas Layton Museum Trust Councillors Ruth Cadbury,
Bandna Chopra, Mel Collins, Tony Louki and Myra Savin.
Town Twinning Association of Hounslow Councillors Steve Curran,
Khjulique Malik, Nisar Malik, and Amrit Mann
Watermans (TRUST) Councillor Myra Savin
7. Announcements
The Mayor invited all Members and guests to attend the Armed Forces Day on Monday 23rd June 2014 which was to start at 10.35am at the Civic Centre. This event was scheduled formally to commence the Council’s extensive series of events and activities which commemorate the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War. The Armed Forces Day event would see both the laying of wreaths and planting of small memorials to the dead of all nations, and also the official unveiling of a floral display of remembrance in the flower bed by the reception area of the Civic Centre. She hoped that as many Members as possible would be able to attend this important event.
She also invited all Members to attend the celebratory Mayor making dinner scheduled for 19th July 2014. Formal invitations to this event would shortly be circulated to all Councillors.
Finally, the Mayor concluded by inviting all Members and guests to join her for a small reception in the area outside the Council Chamber immediately after the closing of the meeting.
43 There were no other announcements.
8. Any Other Matters That the Mayor Considers Urgent
There were no such matters.
9. Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Council was scheduled for 15th July 2014 and would commence at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber.
The meeting ended at 8.55pm
Mayor
MINUTES END
44 Agenda Item 4
Report for: INFORMATION
Contains Confidential No or Exempt Information Title Petitions Member Reporting Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement Contact Details Thomas Ribbits, Head of Democratic Services. Telephone: 020 8583 2251 Email: [email protected] For Consideration By Borough Council Date to be Considered 15th July 2014 Implementation Date if Not applicable Not Called In Affected Wards See below Keywords/Index Petitions
1. Details of Recommendations
Members are asked to:
Note the petitions that have been forwarded to other formal bodies of the Authority for consideration; and Note the responses from members to any petitions heard at the meeting.
If the recommendations are adopted, how will residents benefit? Benefits to residents and reasons why they will Dates by which they can benefit, link to Values expect to notice a difference Not applicable
2. Report Summary
This report identifies the petitions previously presented to the Mayor for consideration by the full council or other formal bodies of the Authority.
3. Reason for the Report
3.1 At its meeting in July 2010, the Council agreed a new scheme for dealing with petitions. This was revised in January 2012, and allows for petitions to be considered either at borough council or by other formal bodies of the authority.
45
3.2 Below is a table of petitions received by the Mayor and the bodies which will be considering each one. This has been attached as an appendix to this report.
3.3 Under the petition scheme, some petitions may still be considered by the Council itself. In some cases the organisers or nominated spokesperson will introduce the petition, after which the relevant Cabinet Member or Committee Chair will respond (usually in writing) and Members will be invited to agree the response. The appendix to this report lists any such petitions.
3.4 The Scheme allows for one or more of the following outcomes:
taking the action requested in the petition considering the petition at a council meeting holding an inquiry into the matter undertaking research into the matter holding a public meeting holding a meeting with petitioners referring the petition for consideration by the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee writing to the petition organiser setting out our views about the request in the petition Other responses
3.5 Attached as an appendix is a list of petitions received by the Mayor and the bodies at which they will be considered.
3.6 This list of petitions is unusually long. However, this is because there was a lengthy period when there were no Cabinet Members or formal meetings of any council body at which petitions could be discussed.
Option Comments As this report is for noting, there are no options to consider.
4. Key Implications
4.1 The targets and measures in relation to each petition presented will be considered by the council body at which each petition is considered.
5. Financial Details
Financial Impact On The Budget
5.1 There is no impact on the budget as this report is purely for information.
Comments of the Assistant Director Strategic Finance
46 5.2 The Assistant Director, Strategic Finance has been consulted on this report and advises that the financial implications of any actions arising from these petitions will need to be considered at the appropriate time.
6. Legal
Legal Details
6.1 There are no legal implications identified in the noting of this report. Further reports on petitions presented to other council bodies will include relevant legal comments in relation to the requests in each case as necessary.
Comments of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance
6.2 The Assistant Director, Corporate Governance has been consulted on this report and has no comments.
7. Value For Money
7.1 The report is for noting and so there are no value for money implications.
8. Sustainability Impact Appraisal
8.1 The report is for noting and as such no appraisal is necessary.
9. Risk Management
9.1 There are no risks related to this report.
10. Links to Council Priorities
10.1 The consideration of requests in petitions presented to the Mayor relate to the Council’s priority to create an ambitious council which improves the lives of residents and works in a transparent way.
11. Equalities, Human Rights and Community Cohesion
11.1 The Council is not being asked to make any decisions on the petitions presented to it, and so there are no implications in relation to equalities, human rights and community cohesion.
12. Staffing/Workforce and Accommodation implications
12.1 The Council is not being asked to make any decisions on the petitions presented to it, and so there are no implications in relation to staffing or accommodation.
47
13. Property and Assets
13.1 The Council is not being asked to make any decisions on the petitions presented to it, and so there are no implications for property or assets.
14. Any Other Implications
14.1 There are no further implications.
15. Consultation
15.1 No consultation is required for this report.
16. Timetable for Implementation
16.1 The petitions presented to area forums or other council bodies would normally be considered at the next meeting of that body to take place.
17. Appendices
17.1 Appendix A comprises a table of petitions received by the Mayor and the bodies which will be considering each one.
18. Background Information
18.1 There is no background information and no background papers in relation to this report.
48 APPENDIX A
PETITIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT OTHER BODIES
Please note that the petitions below which have been presented to the Mayor. In each case the relevant Cabinet Member has determined which body would be appropriate for them to be considered by.
No Details Signatures Cabinet Ward Committee Dealing Member (or alternative action) 1 Add Worton Road to 35 Cllr Hounslow Central Hounslow RFU Match Day CPZ Richard South Area Forum and Foote Isleworth and Brentford Area Forum 2 Request to provide 75 Cllr Sue - Council funding to facilitate Sampson teaching children in the Somali and Arabic language 3 Build a cricket pitch 36 Cllr Feltham Bedfont, Feltham and facilities at Sachin North Hanworth Area Glebelands Playing Gupta Forum Field 4 Remove the car park 26 Cllr Hounslow Central Hounslow ticketing system in Richard West Area Forum the Boswood Court Foote car park 5 Repair pot holes in 148 Cllr Amrit Hanworth Bedfont, Feltham Fernside Avenue Mann Park Hanworth Area Forum 6 Create a CPZ in 17 Cllr Chiswick Chiswick Area Eastbourne, Richard Riverside Forum Milnthorpe, Foote Chesterfield and Chatsworth Roads
(SEE ALSO PETITION 15)
7 Reduce speeding, 81 Cllr Amrit Osterley Isleworth and HGVs and Mann and Brentford Area congestion in Spring Forum Windmill Road Grove 8 Introduce a CPZ in 17 Cllr Feltham Bedfont, Feltham Tynan Close Richard West Hanworth Area Foote Forum 9 Resolve parking 56 Cllr Hounslow Central Hounslow issues in Spring Richard Central Area Forum (and Grove Road Foote ward councillors to be asked to agreed
49 to extend consultation area) 10 Resolve parking and 53 Cllr Hounslow Central Hounslow antisocial behaviour Richard Heath Area Forum (tbc) in Hibernia Gardens Foote 11 Request a CPZ in 34 Cllr Chiswick Chiswick Area Elmwood Road Richard Riverside Forum Foote 12 Petition for CPZ in 77 Cllr Hounslow Central Hounslow the Drive Richard Central Area Forum Foote 13 Reinstate a licence to 1697 Cllr Hounslow Council operate a children’s Richard Central ride and sweet stall Foote near the Treaty Centre 14 Build and outdoor 12 Cllr Hounslow Central Hounslow workout area in Sachin Central Area Forum Inwood Park Gupta 15 Include Chatsworth 21 Cllr Chiswick Chiswick Area Road in the Grove Richard Riverside Forum Park CPZ Foote
(SEE ALSO PETITION 6)
16 Introduce residents’ 22 Cllr Hanworth Bedfont, Feltham parking in Kings Richard Park Hanworth Area Road, Feltham Foote Forum 17 Protect children 10 Cllr Turnham Chiswick Area using Fishers Lane Richard Green Forum (tbc) Playground from Foote human waste 18 Move the 235 bus 52 Cllr Amrit Brentford Isleworth and stop and stand out of Mann Brentford Area GWQ Development Forum Area Brentford 19 Implement residential 77 Cllr Syon Isleworth and parking in Hartham Richard Brentford Area Road Foote Forum 20 Build a children’s 55 (still Cllr Bedfont Bedfont, Feltham play area on Page open so Sachin Hanworth Area Road and Lewin more may Gupta Forum Terrace come) 21 Extend Residential 15 (still Cllr Isleworth Isleworth and parking hours for open so Richard Brentford Area residents of 61-83 more may Foote Forum Twickenham Road come) 22 Improve traffic 94 Cllr Feltham Bedfont, Feltham calming in Hamilton Richard West Hanworth Area Road Foote Forum 23 Antisocial behaviour 53 Cllr Hounslow Central Hounslow outside Beaversfield Richard West Area Forum Park on Ravensdale Foote
50 Road and Gardens 24 Request for certain 105 Cllr Brentford Isleworth and hours to be Richard Brentford Area considered for the Foote Forum (note: this Brook Road Petition matter has already been considered by the area forum)
REPORT ENDS
51 Agenda Item 5
Report for: ACTION / INFORMATION
Contains Confidential No or Exempt Information
Title CA454 Ofsted Inspection of Children in Need of Help and Protection, Children Looked After and Care Leavers
Member Reporting Councillor Tom Bruce Contact Details Chris Hogan (ext 3002) For Consideration By Borough Council Date to be Considered 15 July 2014 Implementation Date if Not Called In Affected Wards All Keywords/Index Ofsted
1. Details of Recommendations
Borough Council is asked to 1) Note the recommendations of the Ofsted report, and 2) To agree Children's Services action plan outlined in the Statement.
If the recommendations are adopted, how will residents benefit?
The recommendations will affect a small percentage of residents in Hounslow but they are the most vulnerable. The attached Statement provides a list of those benefits.
2. Report Summary
This report outlines the outcome of the Ofsted Inspection of Children’s Services and introduces the statement of proposed actions to be made to Ofsted in response to the findings.
All Children’s Services authorities are subject to regular inspection by Ofsted. Hounslow’s last inspection was in 2009. A new single inspection framework was introduced in the Autumn 2014 with a higher bar and revised gradings. Hounslow was one of eleven authorities in the first tranche and was inspected from 14th January to 5th February 2014. This involved a team of eight inspectors with
1 52 particular specialisms looking at all areas of Children’s Social Care over a four week period. Staff at all levels in the organisation including the Chief Executive and staff from other Directorates were interviewed in relation to their role.
Members were also interviewed as Corporate Parents as were young people on the Children in Care Council and cases were examined in detail.
This new framework includes an inspection of the Fostering and Adoption Services, replacing separate inspections of these areas. It also included an inspection of our services for young people leaving care.
The full report is attached at Appendix 1. The grading for the judgment has changed within the framework and the ‘bar’ has been set much higher.
These judgments are: Outstanding, Good, Requires Improvement and Inadequate.
The outcome judgment was that of ‘Requires Improvement’ across all 5 areas:-
Children who need help and protection; Children looked after and achieving permanence; Adoption performance; Experience and progress of care leavers; Leadership, management and governance.
The inspection found that children and young people in Hounslow are being kept safe and that the welfare of looked after children is safeguarded and promoted.
The Council’s Safeguarding Services have no serious or widespread failures. There were no areas for priority and immediate action
The judgement Requires Improvement is currently an undifferentiated grade which covers a wide range and level of performance. Ofsted is currently considering how to provide a narrative paragraph attached to the final judgment that gives more detail about how near the local authority was to an adjacent category and specifically how close an authority is from being judged as good.
The Council has, within the prescribed timeframe, submitedt a written statement to Ofsted outlining the actions proposed to bring about improvement.
This statement is attached as Appendix 2. The statement is based upon a comprehensive and detailed action plan owned by managers and staff alike with a robust reporting mechanism and one that is already bringing some improvements.
The Council will not be inspected again under this framework but will face a multiagency inspection possibly in 2016.
Of the three London Authorities inspected with published reports to date, all have been judged as ‘Requires Improvement’.
2 53
3. Reason for Decision and Options Considered
We were required to submit this statement and would be in breach of statutory guidance if we had not done so.
4. Key Implications
There will be some structural changes within Children’s Services to improve care planning and sharpen up some practice.
There is the possibility of reputational damage but as yet we see no evidence of this.
5. Financial Details
The change will be made from within existing budgets a) Financial Impact on the Budget
No impact. b) Comments of the Assistant Director Strategic Finance
There are no direct financial implications stemming from this report. Any subsequent changes to the operation of Children’s Services must be made within the division’s existing budget envelope.
6. Legal
In accordance with s137, Education and Inspections Act and associated regulations the Local Authority has prepared a written statement of the action they propose to take in light of the Oftsed report.
The ADCG has been consulted and his comments are incorporated within the body of the report.
7. Value for Money
The improvements, many of which were in planning prior to the inspection, will we believe lead to a reduced care population and a reduction in the older cohort of looked after children. This allows us to maximise the impact of our resources.
8. Sustainability Impact Appraisal
The sustainability of making the improvements is dependent upon having competent confident staff particularly social workers in a highly competitive market.
9. Risk Management
The Improvement Board and AD lead Improvement Group consider and manage any risk.
3 54 10. Links to Council Priorities
This links to the priority of safer communities and ensures we are fulfilling statutory duties
11. Equalities, Human Rights and Community Cohesion
No impact.
12. Staffing/Workforce and Accommodation implications
Some staff will be required to work differently and we will re-locate the Leaving Care Service into the Civic Centre. Staff are engaged with this and all appropriate groups are involved.
13. Property and Assets
The re-location of the Leaving Care Service will allow the existing property at School Road to be considered for other usage.
14. Any Other Implications
None
15. Consultation
This is not required.
16. Timetable for Implementation
This is already happening.
17. Appendices
Ofsted Inspection Report 14/01/2014 to 05/02/2014 Statement of proposed actions by the Council in response to the Inspection findings
18. Background Information
Ofsted began inspecting local authority children’s services under the new ‘single’ framework[1] in November 2013, announcing at the time that all 152 local authorities in England and the associated LSCB’s would be inspected within three years, with a sample receiving an integrated inspection from April 2015.
Hounslow was inspected from 14th January to the 5th February 2104 making it the second London authority to be inspected under the new regime. The outcome was a judgement of Requires Improvement across all the areas described above.
Ofsted has commissioned the services of Professor Munro to review and evaluate the new inspection framework. One of her recommendations is to make the detail of
[1] www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/130216. 4 55 the Requires Improvement Judgement clearer in relation to its nearness to the adjacent grade. The concern is that Requires Improvement is an undifferentiated and very broad grade which covers a range and level of performance. Future inspections will give an indication of where an authority is positioned within the band but this will not be applied retrospectively.
The inspection of services for children in need of help and protection, children looked after and care leavers in Hounslow found that children and young people in Hounslow are being kept safe and that the welfare of looked after children is safeguarded and promoted. The council’s safeguarding services have no serious or widespread failures. There were no areas for priority and immediate action.
The report identified a number of strengths including:
Children and young people who are identified at immediate risk are protected through effective child protection arrangements. Children and families benefit from strong partnership work in almost all areas between children’s services and other agencies. Children and young people and their families value the support they receive from the local authority and partner agencies. The Fostering service provides high quality support to foster carers and their children. Prospective adopters are thoroughly assessed and supported through the adoption process. Children in care and care leavers benefit from a range of support services addressing health, education and accommodation. The stability and sustainability of the children’s social care workforce has been highly successful leading to better relationships with children and young people.
The report identified a number of areas for improvement in order to be judged as good. These include:
Improve access to services for older children to prevent them coming into care. Early assessments need to be carried out more quickly and thoroughly. Child Protection Plans need to be completed quicker and should clearly set out what is required from parents and agencies. Make sure the out-of-hours service has access to children’s records. Helping children in care avoid experiencing too many changes of placement. Improving the education attainment of looked after children so they close the gap with their peers. Ensure effective oversight, support and challenge of services through the scrutiny committee and corporate parenting panel to drive improvement. Making sure performance management and monitoring is underpinned by robust evaluation and analysis and leads to service improvement.
We acknowledge that the bar had been raised and accept the recommendations as both fair and an opportunity to sharpen our practice. In response we embarked immediately on an intensive programme of improvement work which we based on the
5 56 formal verbal feedback but in anticipation of the written recommendations. The imperative was to ensure that we took advantage of the momentum from the inspection to engage practitioners, managers and senior officers throughout children’s services in a cultural shift from a focus on compliance to one of genuine challenge, enquiry and aspiration.
The following key principles were at the heart of our whole systems approach:
Doing things differently Acting with pace Inciting challenge Enabling culture Evidencing impact Sustaining and embedding change
An Improvement Plan was developed by the time we received the draft report in March and further refined to reflect the final set of recommended areas for improvement.
Actions were identified under a series of core cross-cutting themes that we wanted to address and which articulate our ambitions for improving both the experience of and outcomes for vulnerable children and young people in Hounslow.
These themes are:
Preventative and effective early help Timely decision making and planning for permanency Stable placements and sufficiency Improved outcomes for looked after children and care leavers Robust management, leadership and strategic challenge
We established multi-disciplinary task and finish groups led and delivered through operational line management so that improvements are embedded into practice. A workshop entitled ‘Raising our Game’ held in April was very well received by the 100 staff and managers who attended and demonstrated an enthusiasm, energy and commitment to thinking afresh and aiming to be outstanding.
Overseeing the progress of the improvement plan is a fortnightly Improvement Board, chaired by the Director of Children’s and Adults’ Services. The Lead member for Education and Children’s Services and the Chief Executive sit on the Board providing scrutiny and challenge to ensure sustained pace and purpose. The Board receives regular progress reports from the thematic leads, scrutinises activity and engages in solution focussed discussions to progress agreed measures.
Some of the improvements achieved to date include:
There is a clear and demonstrable corporate commitment to and ownership of the improvement agenda. Greater liaison between Scrutiny and Corporate Parenting Panel will provide more effective oversight, support and challenge. This has begun with the current induction process for newly elected members and will continue through co-option across the
6 57 panels and joint training. The Improvement Plan is a priority for the first Scrutiny panel meeting.
Improved timeliness of child protection planning and decision making.
Full implementation of the Multi-agency Safeguarding Hub in Early intervention Services.
Improved tracking and monitoring mechanisms involving Legal which aims to reduce the length of care proceedings.
A new targeted preventive service to support older young people to remain in the community and reduce the need for care.
Increased scrutiny and challenge from Independent Reviewing Officers to provide more quality assurance for children with a plan of protection and children in care.
A reconfigured and strengthened education service to improve outcomes for children in care and care leavers with the involvement of School Effectiveness and Connexions.
The attached Statement provides more detail of the actions implemented or in progress to drive the desired improved outcomes. The priority is to maintain the drive and momentum to ensure the pace and direction of change is consistent, urgent and relevant and to demonstrate measurable positive impacts and improved outcomes for children and young people.
7 58
London Borough of Hounslow Inspection of services for children in need of help and protection, children looked after and care leavers and Review of the effectiveness of the local safeguarding children board1 Inspection date: 14 January 2014 to 5 February 2014
The overall judgement is requires improvement. There are no widespread or serious failures that leave children being harmed or at risk of harm. The welfare of children looked after is safeguarded and promoted. However, the authority is not yet delivering good protection and help and care for children, young people and families.
Requires 1. Children who need help and protection improvement
Requires 2. Children looked after and achieving permanence improvement
Requires 2.1 Adoption performance improvement
Requires 2.2 Experiences and progress of care leavers improvement
Requires 3. Leadership, management and governance improvement
The effectiveness of the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) Requires improvement. The LSCB is not yet demonstrating the characteristics of good.
1 Ofsted produces this report under its power to combine reports in accordance with section 152 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. This report includes the report of the inspection of local authority functions carried out under section 136 of the Education and Inspection Act 2006 and the report of the review of the Local Safeguarding Children Board carried out under the Local Safeguarding Children Boards (Review) Regulations 2013.
59 1
Contents Section 1: the local authority 3
Summary of key findings 3
What does the local authority need to improve? 6
Information about this inspection 9
Information about this local authority area 10
Inspection judgements about the local authority 13
What the inspection judgements mean: the local authority 30
Section 2: The effectiveness of the local safeguarding children board 31
What the inspection judgments mean: the LSCB 34
60 2
Section 1: the local authority Summary of key findings
This local authority requires improvement and is not yet good because
1. When older children and young people need to access early help services, particularly when they have complex needs, these services are not effective and too many older children come into care because early help services do not provide the help that they need.
2. Important information about the child or young person’s history is not always given enough consideration. Some assessments take too long and this means that plans to provide services also take too long to be put in place. Although children and young people are safe, they do not always get the support that they need quickly enough.
3. When children and young people go missing from home, care or education or are at risk of sexual exploitation, the local authority and other agencies in Hounslow work separately to prevent them coming to harm. Multi-agency arrangements are not yet fully in place to make sure that these vulnerable children are fully safeguarded.
4. When agencies are involved in protecting children the written plans they follow are not focussed enough on key actions. They do not always help children and families to understand what needs to change to make them safe and are not always clear and measurable.
5. When children and families need help out of normal working hours, the out-of- hours service does not have access to all the information that they may need. This is important as this service needs to make decisions to keep children safe and consider if they should become looked after.
6. A very small number of children and young people who are privately fostered are known to the local authority. The authority cannot be sure that it knows of all children living in a private fostering arrangement.
7. In Hounslow, too few children and young people are making use of advocacy services to help them to have their voices heard. The voices and views of the wide range of looked after children and care leavers are not gathered well by the local authority to help them to shape the services provided. Although some children are able to get their own views heard, such as those who are on the Children in Care Council, many children do not have this opportunity.
8. Sometimes children are looked after voluntarily with their parents’ permission by the local authority when there are sufficient concerns for their safety to allow court orders to be obtained. In some of these cases, this causes
61 3
difficulties if parents change their minds about consenting to their child being looked after, which creates uncertainty for the child and their carers.
9. On some occasions when children and young people come into care there is unnecessary delay in making plans as soon as possible about their long term future, to enable them to be in a permanent new home or returned home as quickly as possible.
10. Children looked after have too many changes in where they live. Although the local authority is working to improve this, it is not getting better quickly enough.
11. Independent reviewing officers do monitor the plans for children and young people looked after at reviews, but they are not challenging social workers and managers enough to ensure that things happen in the best way possible for the child or young person.
12. Too many children looked after do not get the qualifications that they could achieve and too many young people leaving care do not go into further education or get jobs.
13. Children and young people are not always adopted quickly enough. Sometimes it takes too long for the local authority to match children to adopters. People interested in adopting children also experience delay from when they first express an interest to when they begin to be assessed, although once this starts it gets done quickly and they feel well supported.
14. Not all changes made by managers have been well planned and implemented. For example, some of the changes in the team that supports young people preparing to leave care and care leavers are not yet working effectively. Staff in this team do not always feel well supported.
15. Oversight by the authority’s Scrutiny Committee and the Corporate Parenting Panel of safeguarding children and the needs of children looked after is not sufficiently strong. Links between children’s services, the Children’s Trust and the Health and Wellbeing Board, which bring together all the key agencies in the area, are not sufficiently established to make sure that issues affecting children are prioritised.
16. Managers receive a lot of useful information about children’s services, but this is not always fully interpreted or understood. This makes it difficult for them to know if the plans that they have in place to improve services are really working. It is also difficult to ensure that services provided can be matched to the changing needs of children and young people.
17. Currently Hounslow has a need for a high number of placements for older young people in care and is struggling to achieve this, although it has a surplus of foster placements for babies.
62 4
The local authority has the following strengths
18. Children and young people who are identified as at immediate risk of harm are kept safe through effective child protection arrangements between children’s services and partner agencies. In the cases seen by inspectors, everyone knew what to do if a child or young person was at risk and needed protection, and at what point they needed to take action.
19. Children, young people and their families in Hounslow value the support that they get from the local authority and partner agencies. They have good relationships with their social workers and others who support and care for them. Importantly, these relationships last over the time the help and support is needed.
20. Social workers and care staff have a good understanding of the diverse needs of the children and families that they support. As a result, children and families from Hounslow’s many different cultures and ethnic backgrounds get the help that they need in the way that is most appropriate for them.
21. Strong partnership-working has been established in almost all areas between children’s services and the other agencies that support children. This ensures that children and their families benefit from services that are joined up and from staff who share information and work well together.
22. The local authority and its partners get together often and share information about adults who pose a risk to children and young people. They make sure that these adults are monitored and are helped, to prevent children being harmed by them.
23. When social workers are dealing with cases where children and young people need to be protected they consider all the risk and protective factors well. Parents who need extra support to care safely for their children are supported well by the Specialist Intensive Support Programme.
24. Young people looked after who are in need of emotional support are helped to deal with any issues they may have through good therapeutic support delivered by specialist workers, and through the direct therapeutic work done by their social workers and carers.
25. Looked after children are encouraged and are enabled by the local authority to maintain contact informally with families and friends. They are also helped to do so safely through the authority’s formal contact arrangements. This is done at times and places which are convenient for the children and their families.
26. Staff in the children in care and fostering teams provide high quality support to foster carers and their children. This helps children and young people who are fostered to form strong relationships with their carers. 63 5
27. People who want to adopt children are thoroughly assessed to make sure that they are the right people to care for the child. They are well prepared and supported during and after adoption by the adoption team.
28. Looked after children and care leavers who are ambitious to go on to further education or university are encouraged throughout their school careers, and are supported very well so that they achieve their goals.
29. Care leavers have good relationships with their social workers and personal advisers, who know them well and help them to make plans that suit their needs.
30. Care leavers benefit from an increased range of safe and suitable accommodation that is made available to them, and from helpful preparation for independence.
31. Children’s and young people’s needs are championed by senior officers, staff and elected members across the local authority, who work hard to make sure that the services that they receive are of a good quality and are what the children need.
32. A lot of good effort has been given to recruiting social work staff and to keeping a stable workforce so that children and young people can benefit from having the same people helping them.
What does the local authority need to improve?
Priority and immediate action
33. The inspection did not find any areas for priority and immediate action.
Areas for improvement
34. Ensure that effective multi–agency arrangements for the oversight and review of services and for the management of the individual cases of children who are missing, vulnerable or at risk of sexual exploitation are implemented, recorded and publicised.
35. Ensure that arrangements to identify and support children who are privately fostered are robust and are effectively publicised across the partnership and within the community.
36. Ensure that all initial child protection conferences take place promptly to enable multi-agency plans to be agreed.
37. Ensure that child protection plans are specific and measurable and clearly state what is required from parents and agencies to safeguard children. 64 6
38. Ensure that the out-of-hours service has access to Hounslow children’s records out of office hours.
39. Ensure that early help assessments fully consider and reflect the history of the child, and their wishes and feelings, and that these lead to comprehensive and effective early help plans.
40. Ensure that the use of voluntary care arrangements is robustly assessed and reviewed and that a legal order is sought if more appropriate.
41. Ensure that the need for secure and permanent arrangements is fully considered at the earliest stages when children become looked after.
42. Ensure that early help services for older children or young people are appropriately focussed to prevent the need for them to be looked after.
43. Strengthen work to close the gap in educational attainment between looked after children and their local peers.
44. The Looked After Children Education Services, virtual school and Pathways should improve their analysis of the wide variation in achievement for looked after children and those preparing to leave care; they should strengthen work to close the gap in attendance and attainment of those young people with their local peers.
45. Ensure that Independent Reviewing Officers provide robust scrutiny and challenge to care planning for looked after children, to ensure that the best outcomes for children are achieved without delay.
46. Ensure that the reasons for placement instability for children looked after are fully analysed, to avoid children experiencing too many changes of where they live.
47. Ensure that sufficient, targeted accommodation is secured for looked after children within the authority’s area.
48. Formalise the arrangements for fostering to adopt and concurrent planning, to ensure that children are adopted in a timely manner.
49. Work with partners to reduce further the delay children experience whilst going through the court system.
50. Ensure that social workers and the adoption panel members receive regular training to keep up to date with best practice.
51. Develop approaches to family finding to ensure that a ready supply of adopters is available for the children who are waiting for adoption.
65 7
52. Develop a full range of options for care leavers who do not wish to continue in education or go to university, and provide better support for young people to access apprenticeships, work placements or vocational training.
53. Improve the supervision and management arrangements in the Pathways team to support continuing improvement in practice and ensure that workloads are sustainable.
54. Ensure that there is effective oversight, support and challenge of services through the local authority’s Scrutiny Committee and the Corporate Parenting Panel to drive improvement.
55. Ensure that performance management and monitoring within children’s services is underpinned by robust evaluation and analysis and leads to improvement in service delivery.
56. Ensure that an effective and thorough ‘test of assurance’ is undertaken on whether it is appropriate to combine adult and children’s services into a family directorate.
57. Ensure that children’s issues are prioritised and addressed through more effective links between children’s services, the Children’s Trust and the Health and Wellbeing Board.
58. Ensure that a robust sufficiency plan is developed and implemented for looked after children that meets their needs.
59. Ensure that managers provide consistent, effective supervision that is recorded, and that workload is appropriately distributed across services.
66 8
Information about this inspection
Inspectors have looked closely at the experiences of children and young people who have needed or still need help and/or protection. This also includes children and young people who are looked after and young people who are leaving care and starting their lives as young adults.
Inspectors considered the quality of work and the difference adults make to the lives of children, young people and families. They read case files, watched how professional staff work with families and each other and discussed the effectiveness of help and care given to children and young people. Wherever possible, they talked to children, young people and their families. In addition the inspectors have tried to understand what the local authority knows about how well it is performing, how well it is doing and what difference it is making for the people who it is trying to help, protect and look after.
The inspection of the local authority was carried out under section 136 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006.
The review of the Local Safeguarding Children Board was carried out under section 15A of the Children Act 2004.
Ofsted produces this report of the inspection of local authority functions and the review of the local safeguarding children board under its power to combine reports in accordance with section 152 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006.
The inspection team consisted of eight of Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) and an additional inspector from Ofsted.
The inspection team
Lead inspector: Pietro Battista
Team inspectors: Brendan Parkinson, Emmy Tomsett, Ali Mekki, Jenny Booker, Christine Davies, John Gregg, Pauline Turner and Kathryn Gethin.
67 9
Information about this local authority area2
Children living in this area
Approximately 63,200 children and young people under the age of 18 years live in Hounslow. This is 25% of the total population in the area. (ONS Mid- Year estimates 2012.) Approximately 22% of the local authority’s children are living in poverty. The school population in Hounslow is approximately 39,400. The proportion of children entitled to free school meals (January 2013 School Census) in primary schools is 28.9% (the national average is 18%) in secondary schools is 31.8% (the national average is 15%). Children and young people from minority ethnic groups account for 76% of all children living in the area, compared with 21% in the country as a whole (Census 2011). The largest minority ethnic groups of children and young people in the area are Asian and Black (Census 2011). The proportion of children and young people with English as an additional language (January 2013 School Census) in primary schools is 62.3% (the national average is 18%) in secondary schools is 57.2% (the national average is 14%). The population is more ethnically and linguistically diverse than the London average, with 46% of people identifying themselves as being of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic origin. The population is quite fluid, with a higher turnover of both international and domestic migrants compared to London and national averages.
Child protection in this area
At 31 March 2013, 1,758 children had been identified through assessment as being formally in need of a specialist children’s service. This is a reduction from 2,200 at 31 March 2012. The number of children identified between March 2013 and this inspection was 1,617. At 31 March 2013, 200 children and young people were the subject of a child protection plan. This is a reduction from 216 at 31 March 2012. At the time of this inspection 223 were subject of a child protection plan. At 31 March 2013, the number of children known to the local authority who lived in a privately arranged fostering placement was less than five. This
2 The local authority was given the opportunity to review this section of the report and has updated it with local unvalidated data where this was available.
68 10
was also the case for previous years. At the time of this inspection five children were known to the authority to be living in private fostering arrangements.
Children looked after in this area
At 31 March 2013, 305 children were being looked after by the local authority (a rate of 52 per 10,000 children). This is a reduction from 320 (56 per 10,000 children) at 31 March 2012. Of this number 160 (52%) lived outside the local authority area, 200 (66%) lived within 20 miles from their home, and 70 (23%) lived more than 20 miles from their home. 45 lived in residential children’s homes, of whom 50% lived out of the authority area; 6% lived in a secure unit; 19% lived in hostels. 10 lived in residential special schools3, all of whom lived out of the authority area. 220 lived with foster families, of whom 53% lived out of the authority area. 14% were placed with in-house foster carers, 2% were placed with relatives or friends. Four lived with parents, none of whom lived out of the authority area. 25 children are unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. At the time of this inspection, 328 children were looked after by the local authority. 165 children have ceased to be looked after in 2012–13, of whom 12 (7%) subsequently returned to be looked after between 1/04/12 and 31/01/14. 57 children and young people have ceased to be looked after and moved on to independent living. One young person ceased to be looked after and is now living in a house in multiple occupation.
In the last 12 months: There have been 15 adoptions. Five children became subject of special guardianship orders. 55 children have ceased to be looked after.
3 These are residential special schools that look after children for fewer than 295 days.
69 11
Other Ofsted inspections
The local authority operates two children’s homes. Both were judged to be good or outstanding in their most recent Ofsted inspection. The previous inspection of Hounslow’s safeguarding arrangements was in November 2009. The local authority was judged to be good. The previous inspection of Hounslow’s services for looked after children was in November 2009. The local authority was judged to be good.
Other information about this area
The acting Director of Children’s Services has been in post since October 2013. The chair of the LSCB has been in post since September 2010.
70 12
Inspection judgements about the local authority
The experiences and progress of children who need help and protection require improvement.
60. Young children and their families who need early help receive a timely response to their needs following the recent establishment of Early Help Hounslow, which brings together many local authority and partner agencies. Universal support services, such as children’s centres and youth centres, remain locally based and work alongside a range of targeted support services across the borough.
61. Children benefit from good relationships between early help and statutory services, and from strong partnership working. Thresholds for access to services are understood and are consistently applied by staff from partner agencies. The local authority and its partners have a strategy for early intervention, but this is not sufficiently informed by the analysis or understanding of the impact of early help services. As a result, some are not sufficiently well targeted to the identified local needs. For example the services for addressing some complex needs of older children, such as substance and alcohol misuse, are too limited, leaving them at risk of becoming looked after.
62. Some good personalised work takes place with families where the needs of children do not require the involvement of social work services. The Virtual Initial Planning Meeting is used effectively to co-ordinate timely early help and intervention, drawing on key universal and targeted services.
63. Families now receive better support as a result of Early Help Assessments (EHAs), which replaced Common Assessment Framework assessments in Hounslow in November 2013. These provide a gateway for access to early help services and have resulted in a significant increase in the number of assessments undertaken and families receiving support. However, the quality of these assessments is not sufficiently consistent in key aspects. For example, five of 12 assessments seen by inspectors do not fully consider the child’s history or identify the child’s wishes, experiences and feelings. More recent assessments completed by the Early Help Hounslow service are of a better quality and focus more clearly on the direct experiences of children. The local authority is aware of the inconsistency and is working with partners to improve this work.
64. Early help plans for children and their families are reviewed regularly, but are not yet consistently outcome-focused. This reduces the ability of staff to track effectively whether outcomes are improving for the child. The Family Star Outcome model is being introduced across early help services to measure the effectiveness of work with families. However, the evaluation of the impact of early help services was not built in from the beginning of the service and remains underdeveloped.
71 13
65. Recently revised thresholds for accessing support from the local authority’s children’s services are appropriate, well-articulated and are used consistently within social care services and by partner agencies. The quality of information sharing when referrals are made is highly variable, but is steadily improving as a result of recent training on the new thresholds. Within children’s services decisions about contacts and referrals are timely and are made by experienced practitioners who understand the duties and responsibilities of the local authority. Decisions are routinely made and recorded by managers, with a clear rationale and action plan; as a consequence, the risks to and needs of children are prioritised and addressed appropriately.
66. Referrals that meet the threshold for a child protection enquiry are appropriately undertaken by qualified social workers. Child protection enquiries are robust. Strategy discussions between police and social care staff are timely, clearly recorded and result in well-coordinated arrangements to protect children. However, not all relevant partner agencies are routinely consulted beyond the initial information sharing stage as part of child protection enquiries.
67. Families are beginning to benefit from better joint working between agencies. At the time of inspection the police, probation service and the local authority had established a co-located Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). Health and education partners are due to join the MASH in the near future. The MASH was implemented five weeks prior to this inspection and it is too early to assess its impact and effectiveness.
68. Domestic abuse notifications are now routinely made by police and these are robustly screened and risk assessed through the MASH, using standard tools. The new MASH is beginning to help partner agencies to improve their collective knowledge of the prevalence of domestic abuse, parental substance misuse and mental ill-health and to better target their services to address these issues.
69. Risk and protective factors for children and young people are well identified and documented in assessments, and include patterns of behaviour. These contribute strongly to the analysis of the needs of children and young people.
70. Good parenting assessments and parenting support programmes are delivered by the authority’s Specialist Intensive Support Programme, including jointly commissioned assessments where there are proceedings in the Family Court. The programme delivers a high standard of parenting assessments and direct work with some children who are either on the edge of care or working towards a return to their birth families. Social workers based in the local hospital also produce good quality referrals which result in effective planning and discharge arrangements for new-born babies or informed arrangements for their protection.
71. Chronologies of significant events in the lives of children and their families were seen on most case files, but these are not routinely or fully used by workers to 72 14
inform assessments and future planning. Children in need assessments are not always undertaken in a timely manner and this results in the needs of some children not being addressed as promptly as they should be. However, most eventually result in appropriate offers of support to children and their families once plans have been agreed.
72. While most children in need plans are outcome focused, specific and measurable, the quality of child protection plans remains too variable. Many of those seen do not enable parents to understand what is expected of them well enough, nor to identify sufficiently the consequences of not meeting these expectations. Most plans contain contingency arrangements should children not be safeguarded and these are reviewed regularly. Step-down arrangements for children who no longer need to be subject to a child protection plan are mostly timely, and monitoring arrangements for these are robust in terms of expectations for change and improvements.
73. Social workers know their children well and children are seen regularly and seen alone where appropriate. Where children are unable to communicate effectively or are pre-verbal, practitioners use other techniques, such as sign language and interpreters, to good effect. Most children now report positively that their social workers do not change as frequently as before, so they are better able to develop more trusting, meaningful and sustained relationships.
74. The area has a wide range of ethnic and cultural diversity. Workers have a good understanding of the diverse needs of children and their families and ensure that those needs are appropriately considered and addressed.
75. Initial child protection conferences are not sufficiently timely following child protection inquiries. Whilst children’s services take action to protect children in the interim, there is undue delay in ensuring that multi-agency plans to protect children are put into place. The local authority and its partners recognise this and commissioned an independent audit that identified delays caused by communication and administration issues, and these are beginning to be tackled.
76. The outline plans made at initial child protection conferences are not sufficiently specific and measurable, resulting in further delay until the first core group meeting develops the plan into more specific objective tasks. Child protection conferences are effectively and sensitively chaired. Parents and partner agencies are enabled to contribute and the wishes and feelings of children are sought and recorded. However, little consideration is given of whether it may be appropriate for older children to attend child protection conferences to enable them to fully engage in planning for their safety, and very few do. Multi- agency meetings such as core groups and conferences are well attended, with effective collaborative working, particularly with health and education partners.
77. Practitioners and managers in children’s services are committed to working in partnership with parents and do this well. In many cases this enables children 73 15
to remain at home with their parents with appropriate safeguards in place. However, in four cases seen by inspectors, the prospects for success were low and the persistence in working with parents was unrealistic and led to delay in the implementation of contingency plans for the safety and well-being of the child. In six cases seen, assessment, intervention and planning are predominantly focussed on supporting the adult and addressing their needs rather than maintaining the essential focus on the experience and vulnerabilities of the child.
78. Children and young people are protected through effective communication across partner agencies, particularly when tackling issues of domestic abuse. Information sharing at the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) and the Multi–Agency Public Protection Arrangements are robust. Partners have a clear understanding of risk to children living in circumstances where domestic abuse is a factor and where adults are known to pose a significant risk to children. The meetings recommend appropriate actions to be taken by partners within timescales which are both realistic and challenging.
79. The management of allegations regarding professionals is rigorous and the Local Authority Designated Officer service is effective. Allegations are recorded and monitored robustly and the different arrangements for children and adults in these cases are well co-ordinated, diligently pursued and tracked to ensure safe outcomes.
80. Multi-agency approaches to identifying and protecting young people at risk of sexual exploitation and those children and young people who are missing from home, care and education are under-developed. The local authority and its partners have been slow to tackle these issues collectively. Until recently these have primarily been addressed through separate agency arrangements, which have not enabled agencies to fully know the number, extent and reasons for children going missing. Incidents and those identified as at likely risk are now reported to the MASH through the recently-introduced, centralised specialist police unit. This is beginning to improve intelligence, communication and the assessment of such risks to young people. Commitment from partner agencies to improve joint working in these areas is evident, but this work is not yet embedded and it is too early to assess its impact.
81. Advocacy for children and young people is not well-promoted or used; as a result, the voice of the child is not always effectively considered. While the arrangements for provision of an advocacy service have recently been re- commissioned it is too early to see its impact.
82. An emergency duty team (EDT), commissioned from another local authority, provides very limited involvement with children and their families out of hours and responds to emergencies only. The EDT does not have access to Hounslow’s electronic recording system to provide the background information or current circumstances on known children and families to inform decisions. EDT staff have delegated powers to make a wide range of decisions about 74 16
Hounslow children, but there is no formal arrangement for these decisions to be discussed or authorised by a Hounslow senior manager. No cases were seen by inspectors where children were left at risk or unsafe decisions were made by the EDT. Some social work staff report that information is not always shared promptly with them by the EDT following intervention out of hours. The local authority recognises the issue and is arranging for the EDT to have access to its children’s services electronic database.
83. The number of privately fostered children known to the local authority is low in proportion to the size and composition of the local population, and has not increased in recent years. Activity to increase public awareness, and to enable the community and staff from partner agencies to identify and notify when private fostering is taking place, has not been effective or sufficiently promoted and publicised recently. Privately fostered children who are known to the authority do receive appropriate monitoring and support.
The experiences and progress of children looked after and achieving permanence require improvement.
84. Decisions on whether children and young people should be looked after are based on clear assessments of their needs. The majority of assessments seen by inspectors are at least adequate, with some good examples. A small number of assessments have been independently evaluated by a specialist NSPCC service commissioned to consider whether it is safe for children to return home. None of these assessments has resulted in a change of plan for the child.
85. For younger children, the understanding and application of thresholds for entry into care are consistent and care plans accurately reflect risk and capacity for change by parents within the child’s timescales. However, a high proportion of older teenagers with complex needs are becoming looked after as a last resort, when they can no longer be supported at home and early help services have not been effective in preventing the need for care.
86. Compared to national levels, Hounslow has a high proportion of looked after children accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act, in voluntary care arrangements. The reasons for this are not sufficiently known to the local authority. In some cases seen by inspectors, an interim care order should have been considered as an alternative. In some cases, the use of voluntary care has caused difficulties for children and young people where parents have withdrawn consent at short notice. In cases seen by inspectors it was not sufficiently clear that other, more legally permanent, alternatives such as special guardianship orders, residence orders or adoption had been fully considered by social workers or by independent reviewing officers. However, more recently such options are now beginning to be considered when case planning.
75 17
87. Where younger children return home from care, risks to them are carefully considered and a good range of services is available to support their family. No cases were seen by inspectors where younger children had been received into care or returned home inappropriately. Consideration of the child’s long-term future does not always happen by the second statutory review. As a result, some experience undue drift and delay in securing a permanent place to live.
88. Looked after children are transferred from the assessment teams into the children in care teams at appropriate times and always have an allocated social worker to maintain continuity of support, which is particularly important to those who are going through legal processes.
89. While the local authority has a strong focus on achieving placement stability for looked after children, rates of both short term (12.5%) and long term (68%) stability require improvement and the reasons for this are not always well understood by the authority. As a result, looked after children experience too many moves, and more work needs to be done to avoid this occurring, especially in an unplanned manner.
90. Looked after children benefit from social workers who get to know them well and form strong relationships with them. Children are almost always seen alone during statutory visits and visiting patterns often exceed statutory requirements. This was particularly the case for younger children and for children and young people who live outside the borough. Children’s wishes and feelings are sought, consistently listened to, respected and taken into account when making and implementing care plans. Records of statutory visits, looked after children review documentation and child permanence reports reflect the voice of the child almost without exception. High quality and sustained direct work is undertaken with children to help them to understand their early experiences and to make sense of their current situation.
91. Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) do not always provide effective scrutiny and challenge to care planning for looked after children to ensure that the very best outcomes for children are achieved without delay. Whilst they do meet their core statutory duties and produce an annual report on their work, there is little evidence that they provide rigorous challenge to case planning for children or engage effectively with looked after children. No issues were escalated by IROs formally to senior managers, despite IROs acknowledging to inspectors that they did have concerns in some of the cases selected for this inspection.
92. Looked after children do not do as well in their education as their peers in Hounslow and this gap is not closing for children at some stages of their education. In Hounslow, the performance of looked after children is similar to those in other outer London boroughs and nationally, but this is not consistently the case across all indicators by the end of Key Stage 4. Through their links with schools and support services the Virtual School team, called the Looked After Children Educational Support (LACES), ensures that looked after children aged three to sixteen years living both inside and outside the borough 76 18
have access to high quality education and support. However, this has so far had limited impact on improving the progress that some looked after children make.
93. The educational attainment and progress of looked after children varies widely between year groups. Children’s individual progress is tracked in detail through Personal Educational Plans, although collation and analysis of attainment and progress by the virtual school is limited. The numbers of children being compared with their peers in some Key Stages and year groups is small but, overall, the gap for Hounslow looked after children is not closing consistently with their age group in Hounslow or with looked after children nationally. Looked after children in Hounslow make better progress than looked after children nationally by the end of Key Stage 2, notably in reading where concerted support has been put in through the Letterbox Club literacy scheme. The small numbers who are in care before the age of 1, who are tracked through from their primary school education to the end of Key Stage 4, make good progress. However, the majority those at the end of Key Stage 4 have come into care at an older age. Their progress and attainment is not consistently good and most do not make up ground. Some young people who arrive in Hounslow unaccompanied by a responsible adult are ambitious and achieve well with good support. The proportion of looked after children achieving 5 A* to Cs including English and maths, 13% in 2013, has improved from 2012, and is now in line with national, but below other comparators at 18%. The proportion sitting and achieving the easier target of at least one CCSE is high at 84% and 54% of children looked after achieve 5 A* to Gs. Achievement of 5A* to Cs improved from 2012 to 2013 and is now in line with the national figure at 35.5%
94. Tracking of individual children’s progress is done through Personal Education Plans, which are of a satisfactory quality. The detailed tracking for each child underpins decisions on how best to support the child through a range of commissioned tuition, coaching and mentoring, homework clubs and enriching activities. In some cases seen, this is very effective in helping those children who have high aspirations, through trips to Universities and ‘taster days’. However, those who do not have high aspirations are less effectively engaged and supported.
95. Incidences of bullying are routinely monitored through the Personal Education Plans and children are effectively helped through pastoral and behavioural support. Where children looked after move school, only schools graded good or outstanding are now considered. However, because of previously existing arrangements, only 76% of children looked after are in schools graded good or better. Attendance is closely monitored and good provision is in place for children without a school place. Absence from school overall is low, but persistent absence among a few young people, mostly out of borough, is high and this is being appropriately addressed.
77 19
96. There are good services to promote and support the health of children looked after, both in terms of physical and emotional health and well-being, but progress to ensure that all children have timely health and dental checks is variable between teams. While 100% of children in some teams had received these assessments and checks, in the children with disabilities team the figure is 89%. Children and young people directly involved with and able to access ‘Da Spot’, a children’s services resource centre for children, are well supported with health improvement work to keep safe, avoid drugs and alcohol and lead a healthy lifestyle. However, many more children looked after, who are not able to access the resource centre, are at a disadvantage. Children and young people are well supported with their emotional well-being. The local authority provides a range of dedicated therapeutic input for looked after children at all ages and stages of care, which supports the good direct work done by social workers and carers. Looked after children who live out of the borough are well supported to access health services near to where they live.
97. The needs of most looked after children are met well in their placements and good consideration is given to deciding whether brothers and sisters can live together. Children are helped to build positive relationships, contact arrangements are carefully considered and children’s views about contact are respected.
98. Children looked after benefit from robust and safe arrangements for contact with their families. The local authority’s in-house contact service provides an extensive range of supervised contact arrangements as well as transport to unsupervised contacts. Workers are well-trained, supervised and carefully briefed about the child’s history and current circumstances. Every effort is made to ensure consistency of escorts for children. Reports by contact workers are regularly used as evidence in court during proceedings and the quality of these is improving.
99. The Fostering Panel meets all statutory requirements. The fostering service’s work to recruit and support foster carers is of an excellent quality. In-house foster carers spoken to were very satisfied with the service that they receive from Hounslow. However, there are not enough foster carers in the borough and the service is unable to increase the pool of foster carers sufficiently to meet identified need. Recruitment activity has resulted in a net gain of 13 households last year, with 18 new carers and five who left the service. The recruitment target for the 2012–2013 year was exceeded. However, those recruited were primarily for younger children and babies whereas there remains a shortage of foster homes for teenagers in the area.
100. The arrangements for procuring placements for children looked after from third parties are robust. They are made in partnership with the West London Alliance and Pan-London arrangements. Placement arrangements seen were safe and appropriate. However, the sufficiency duty, under the Children Act 1989 ‘to secure as far as reasonably practical, sufficient accommodation within the authority’s area’ is not met. 78 20
101. The Children in Care Council, an interested and lively group of young people, provide good feedback to services and to the Corporate Parenting Panel. However, the interaction between these children and the rest of the looked after population is limited. The Participation Officer makes strenuous efforts to keep in contact with out of borough children but opportunities for these children to undertake the same level of participation activities as locally placed children is also limited.
102. The Corporate Parenting Panel is formed of a committed and well-informed group of elected members who are determined to improve the lives of looked after children in Hounslow. However, little evidence was seen of a strong impact by the panel. They describe their work to involve all local authority elected members and other departments in the corporate parenting task as ‘improving slowly’, and inspectors agree with this. The panel considers issues raised by looked after young people as a standing item at all its meetings, and young people have attended panel meetings. However, there is little evidence of what impact their views have had in the work of the panel.
103. A designated Children’s Complaints Manager is in place. Looked after children and young people are informed about how to complain but are not encouraged or supported to do so. Information about complaints is aggregated and reported on in an annual report. Increasing numbers of children are accessing the advocacy service, but outcomes from this work are not yet available.
104. While a high proportion of looked after children are living outside the local authority area, most live within a short distance of Hounslow. This enables them and their carers to maintain regular contact with their social workers and support staff. Looked after children who live out of the area are effectively supported to access suitable services in the areas in which they live, in particular health and education, where they are not easily able to access services in Hounslow.
The graded judgment for adoption performance is requires improvement.
105. Overall, adoption performance does not yet meet the criteria for good because some children experience delay in going to live with their new family. The local authority is taking appropriate action to reduce the length of time that children wait before they go to live with their adoptive family and for the most recent cases the timescale is reducing. However, the current average time taken from when a child first becomes looked after by the authority to when they go to live with their new family is too long; it is currently 672 days, which is higher than the national threshold of 608 days. It is also higher than both the England average (647 days) and that of statistical neighbours (636 days). In Hounslow, only 54% of children move in with their new family within the target of twenty months, this is lower than the all England average of 55%. This is because of the difficulty the local authority has experienced in finding suitable adopters for the age and needs of some children.
79 21
106. Once the court makes a decision that a child should be adopted, it still takes the authority too long on average to match the child with suitable adopters despite some recent improvements. Hounslow now takes 222 days on average. This is higher than the England average of 210 days and of statistical neighbours. As a result, children are waiting too long to meet their new families.
107. Historical delays in finding suitable placements have led to a high number of children, who had waited for a long time, no longer being considered suited to adoption. This is because their needs have changed in the time taken to seek a permanent family for them. In 2012–2013, 32% of children in Hounslow who had a plan for adoption had this changed away from adoption. The 2010–2013 average for such a change was 17%, which is also higher than both the average in England (9%) and that of statistical neighbours (12%). Although timescales for adoption in Hounslow are improving, few older children are put through adoption and there have been no children aged five or older adopted in the last year.
108. A newly established tracking system has been put in place to make sure that children no longer experience any drift or delay in their care plan. A monitoring board, which considers timescales, is now in place and senior managers have recently improved the rigour with which they scrutinise planning for children. This is beginning to reduce the delay that children with a more recent plan for adoption experience.
109. The average length of care proceedings in the area remains too high at 49 weeks. The local court started working to the Public Law Outline (PLO) arrangements in August 2013. The local authority is also developing a tri- borough arrangement to improve the quality of evidence reported to the court and to further reduce delay. The authority has taken a range of effective action to oversee cases before the court to improve timeliness. It is too early to assess the full impact of these actions, although four cases were recently completed within 26 weeks.
110. The Judiciary and the Children and Family Court Advisory Service (Cafcass) staff have good working relationships with local authority staff. The Specialist Intensive Support Programme is acknowledged as providing good reports for court. This service is now used following an agreed letter of instruction from all parties, and this is helping to reduce both delay and the reliance on independent assessments.
111. Social workers write good quality assessments and child permanency reports (CPRs), which is acknowledged by the court. The local district family judge reports that over time the quality of reports received has improved greatly. Permanence planning is culturally sensitive to diversity issues for children and their families.
80 22
112. The quality of adoption practice in individual cases is strong, despite the delays that some children experience. However, fostering to adopt or concurrent planning are not routinely considered. This means that early opportunities for a child to live with a permanent family are not maximised. The local authority accepts that this is an area for development.
113. For several years there have been no disruptions of adoptive placements between placement for adoption and the court making the order. Children develop sustained security and attachment to their new family. This is because of the care taken to match them and the high quality of the work done in the adoption team.
114. The local authority has embedded the new two-stage adopter assessment process into practice and this is having a positive impact. Several adopters reported to inspectors that they had a positive experience of adopting with Hounslow.
115. Adopters often experience delay between making their initial enquiry and their assessment starting. Once the assessment starts, they are assessed promptly and are able to access both the consortium and adoption register more quickly than is required. The consortium arrangements allow adopters to access timely preparation training. In 2012–2013, 14 children were placed with adopters approved by other adoption agencies. At the time of this inspection nine adopters are waiting to be matched to a child. Three of these are on hold for various appropriate reasons. This is due to the difficulties that the authority has experienced in finding suitable families for the children waiting to be adopted. Adopters are able to complete safe base training after they are approved. This makes sure that they are able to respond to the needs of their children.
116. Local consortium arrangements ensure that adopters are made available from other agencies to reduce delay. Social workers who are family-finding for children do this alongside a range of other tasks and duties, including assessment and support. This means that social workers cannot always be as responsive as they need to be when finding families for children, which can cause undue delay. Adopters for younger children are often found without delay but older children often have to wait much longer.
117. Adoption support is widely available and effective. Currently 79 children and their adoptive families are receiving support. A range of therapeutic interventions is available through the adoption team; this includes a part-time clinical social worker, which has contributed positively to the stability of adoptions. Contact is carefully considered and arrangements are set out in the adoption support plan. There is a small backlog of work with adopted adults wishing to access their birth records. No formal complaints have been made about the service in the last year.
118. The adoption and permanence panel provides robust scrutiny and challenge to the local authority. Although there have been some recent changes to the 81 23
panel, including the appointment of a new chair, the authority has ensured stability and continuity through the independent vice chair. Panel decision sheets do not always follow good practice recommendations, which require the decision maker to set out the key arguments, consider any additional material and explain the reason for their decision. Arrangements are in place for panel members to receive annual appraisals. However, panel members have not received any training in the last year to make sure that they keep up to date with current adoption practice and that they are informed about the national adoption agenda.
The graded judgment for the experiences and progress of care leavers is requires improvement.
119. Young people preparing to leave care and care leavers are supported well through the Pathways leaving care team, who form good relationships with them and who encourage them to engage in constructive activities. This enables practitioners to better assess and understand the needs of the young people, and to help them to plan for their future.
120. Pathways team members have successfully brought pathway plans up-to-date over the past year, where previously too many plans were not in place or were outdated. However, plans are not yet of a consistently high quality. Plans do not always explicitly reflect the views of young people and few contain contingency arrangements to address what action should be taken if the young person’s circumstances change.
121. The Pathways team has undergone significant changes in the past year, combining support services for young people preparing to leave care and those who have left care. However, the transition process has not gone smoothly and difficulties remain, with turnover of staff and managers. Staff report a number of concerns about how well they are managed and supported to help young people. Senior managers are aware of and are tackling these issues, which at the time of this inspection remain unresolved. Measures taken to strengthen supervision arrangements in the team are beginning to have a positive effect on the quality of work. However, workloads in the team remain high.
122. Services are tailored to meet care leavers’ immediate needs, under the direction of managers and with oversight of independent reviewing officers who track individual young peoples’ progress well. Services are provided, in partnership with other agencies, to meet the complex needs of young people as they move to independence. Support for care leavers who are young parents and asylum seekers is particularly well-established.
123. Too many care leavers are not in education, training and employment (NEET) and too few young people have useful qualifications, skills and experience for work. Pathways staff successfully encourage some care leavers without qualifications, including young parents, to return to flexible learning in high quality colleges and community education. Only a small minority of care leavers 82 24
make use of these services. The challenge remains for the service to expand its impact to the majority of young people who are not currently engaged. A growing number of care leavers achieve highly and are supported financially and through ‘staying-put’ accommodation to go on to university, with ten on track to go in September 2014.
124. The proportion of care leavers who are NEET, at 38% overall, is higher than the national average and for other local young people. This represents 110 young care leavers aged from 18 to 21 years. Without the inclusion of unaccompanied minors, who mostly stay on in education, the proportion is even higher at 44%. Every effort is made to meet individuals’ aspirations through direct work and partnerships but there is insufficient provision for care leavers to take up vocational training and work based learning. Very few care leavers are currently in apprenticeships, and only two of these are within local authority services.
125. Young people have access to a good range of accommodation through the Housing Panel. Some options provide bespoke guidance on practical and financial skills to maintain a tenancy. The very large majority of care leavers move quickly into permanent suitable housing of their choice. Accommodation for care leavers has significantly improved. In 2011–12, too many care leavers were not in accommodation that suited their needs (80% were in suitable accommodation) and young people, including those under 18, were too often placed in bed and breakfast. Since the opening of further semi-independent accommodation with emergency access, no young people aged under 18 have been placed in bed and breakfast.
126. Provision for those young care leavers with physical and learning difficulty is sufficient and includes 24-hour floating support. Care leavers receive effective community support with partner agencies such as Visions (for substance misuse) and Dfuse, (for emotional and behavioural issues). However, provision for care leavers with housing needs relating to drug and alcohol dependency and other complex difficulties is underdeveloped. There are sufficient mother and baby placements. In cases sampled by inspectors, little use was made of universal provision such as children’s centres to support care leavers who are young parents, and the awareness of the support that these services offer was low amongst practitioners in the Pathways service.
127. Young people known to the Pathways team are supported well with their physical and emotional health needs. Health assessments are undertaken before young people leave care and clear action plans are in place that address their health needs. Those with mental ill-health receive good support. Social workers and personal advisors ensure that young people are aware of their entitlement to continuing health support, although the young people’s views of what is important in their health are not always clearly recorded in pathway plans.
128. Pathways staff use guidance skills well to inform care leavers of their entitlements. Young people spoken to knew about bursaries for further and 83 25
higher education, advocacy, access to interpreters and how to complain. Young people reported that they are happy with the range of services and the level of contact offered by most social workers and personal advisors. Complaints by young people have been appropriately addressed by managers.
129. Care leavers are routinely listened to individually by practitioners and managers about their views on the services that are provided for them. However, representation of care leavers on the Children in Care Council is now low. At a time when this local authority is consulting on revisions to the Care Leavers’ Charter, care leavers have too little opportunity to exchange their views and to have a say.
Leadership, management and governance require improvement
130. The development of a combined family services division of the local authority, incorporating children’s and adults’ services, has been subject to a limited evaluation of the possible impact of combining these functions, called a ‘test of assurance’. This is due to be reviewed during 2014. The interim Director of Adults service is due to take on the combined services and the role of the Director of Children’s Services in June 2014, on an interim basis.
131. The extensive and well-focussed children and young people’s plan and Children’s Trust arrangements have been strengthened to ensure coordinated partner agency activity at a time when strategic planning arrangements for children and young people in the area are undergoing significant change. However, engagement with the Health and Wellbeing Board has been approached too slowly and children’s issues have not yet been effectively aligned in the work and priorities of that board.
132. The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment is in place and informs and is consistent with other strategic planning for children’s services. There is far less clarity in relation to sufficiency planning for children looked after, which has led to a limited focus on recruitment and planning for an appropriate balance of local and in-house provision to match need. The local authority is not sufficiently specific about the identified groups of young people for whom placements may be required, and does not set out what they plan to do to secure sufficient placements for them.
133. The Leader of the Council, the Lead Member for Children’s Services, the Chief Executive and acting Director of Children’s Services demonstrate attention, focus and drive to promote children and family issues. However, the formal arrangements to discharge the local authority’s children’s scrutiny function for help and protection, and the Corporate Parenting Panel do not provide sufficient focus or challenge on aspects of the service which require improvement. Children’s services have also experienced additional uncertainties from several recent changes at senior managerial level, with further similar changes planned over the coming year, which adversely affect the continuity and pace of improvement. 84 26
134. There are regular, planned and purposeful meetings between all key officers, members and the independent chair of the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB). These ensure that all are well briefed and that services are subject to a balance of support and challenge. It is recognised that the LSCB is improving with further developments underway.
135. Extensive support and commitment has been made by the local authority across children’s services. Significant staffing and other resources have been maintained and enhanced within children’s social care for early help as well as for children looked after. Potential pressures to return children looked after to lower cost local placements are appropriately based on the needs and stability of each child. A high priority has been given to achieving, for the most part, manageable and balanced social worker caseloads, and this supports effective direct work with children.
136. Extensive data are routinely collected to inform management oversight of children’s services. Performance reports are fully considered at three-monthly intervals by key elected members and senior officers. More regular monitoring of a wide range of indicators is provided to and considered at all levels of operational management. However, the reports contain too little analysis and evaluation. For example, evaluation systems are not yet in place for senior managers to assure themselves that early help plans are effective in responding to the identified needs of children and their families. This is recognised by the local authority and evaluation of the effectiveness of individual early help plans has recently commenced.
137. The local authority has not notified Ofsted of any serious incidents recently, despite some cases being considered by the local safeguarding children board to see if they met the threshold for a serious case review.
138. Performance reporting is supplemented by both regular and specifically targeted audits, addressing both compliance and some qualitative performance measures. The targeted auditing is determined by existing performance data as well as by specific strategic objectives. Some audits have specifically targeted issues raised in this inspection, such as initial child protection conferences not being timely. However, many of the issues raised in this inspection, whilst known to the authority, have not yet been subject to audit. Findings of audits provided by the local authority on cases selected for this inspection were mostly similar to those of inspectors, although where there was variance, the findings of the authority were more optimistic and positive than those of inspectors. The authority acknowledged this and is now working to develop greater consistency in its audits.
139. A range of commissioned activities and services have been established, based on previously assessed needs of children in the area. However, the local authority has yet to fully develop commissioning opportunities. There are examples of strong and effective work with key partner agencies, for example, with the housing authority in working across the troubled families agenda, 85 27
additional supported accommodation for young adults leaving care and in individual targeted work in safeguarding families against so-called ’rogue landlords’.
140. Effective work is undertaken by the local authority within the family courts, which is valued by the Judiciary. They acknowledge increased focus by the authority on making timely care applications, the robustness of thresholds and plans, and the steadily reducing length of time of proceedings, albeit from a base of previously lengthy timescales. Effective arrangements are in place, particularly for implementing jointly instructed assessments of parenting capacity and in the engagement of the local authority with Cafcass.
141. Senior and operational managers have a clear understanding of operational service delivery, mostly modelling an open and accessible managerial style in many parts of the service. This enables them to have a sufficiently clear and extensive understanding of the issues, pressures and performance of the service. As a consequence they are able to consider and devise responses to issues, such as previously high or unequal workloads, and the impact of the rapidly changing diverse population.
142. Parts of the service have not benefitted sufficiently from sustained managerial support, supervision and effectively managed workloads, particularly within the Pathways service. High caseloads also remain a continuing challenge within parts of the intake service. While the authority has been aware of a range of difficulties within the Pathways service for some time, and is highly active in seeking to address these, they remain unresolved.
143. The stability and sustainability of the children’s social care workforce has been highly successful in recent years, as a consequence of concerted and coordinated activity by corporate human resources, membership of a cross- authority training alliance and direct focus on recruitment and retention. Particularly successful has been the quality of practitioners supported through participation in the ’step-up to social work‘ programme. This has resulted in a high proportion of permanent practitioners who have access to extensive programmes of training, individualised support and mentoring. There are reducing numbers of locum social workers and, for example, low rates of ill- health absence. The position at first line management level has been less settled, although it continues to improve. The benefits are evident in better relationships with children and young people, as well as improved knowledge of services and work with partner agencies.
144. The authority values and promotes feedback from service users, and particularly from children looked after, although the broader consultation through the children in care council is not sufficiently well developed. Examples of efforts to seek and learn from the experiences of looked after children include: their involvement in responding to the Ofsted inspection framework; attending a meeting about the Munro review; and contributing to Bristol University research into the voice and journey of the child. These have been 86 28
positively supplemented by the contributions of advocates for children with existing complaints. Learning from complaints, representations and surveys is appropriate although not extensive. Regular oversight of the reasons for and outcomes of complaints is exercised by the Director of Children’s Services. Some changes have resulted, for example, in producing clearer information for both children and parents receiving services.
87 29
What the inspection judgements mean: the local authority
An outstanding local authority leads highly effective services that contribute to significantly improved outcomes for children and young people who need help and protection and care. Their progress exceeds expectations and is sustained over time.
A good local authority leads effective services that help, protect and care for children and young people and those who are looked after and care leavers have their welfare safeguarded and promoted.
In a local authority that requires improvement, there are no widespread or serious failures that create or leave children being harmed or at risk of harm. The welfare of looked after children is safeguarded and promoted. Minimum requirements are in place, however, the authority is not yet delivering good protection, help and care for children, young people and families.
A local authority that is inadequate is providing services where there are widespread or serious failures that create or leave children being harmed or at risk of harm or result in children looked after or care leavers not having their welfare safeguarded and promoted.
88 30
Section 2: The effectiveness of the local safeguarding children board (LSCB)
The effectiveness of the LSCB requires improvement.
Areas for improvement
145. Ensure that the LSCB establishes ways to effectively evaluate safeguarding performance through audit and performance monitoring of multi-agency activity, and that this evaluation is used to improve services.
146. Ensure that the impact and effectiveness of multi-agency safeguarding training is evaluated so that its effectiveness can be assessed and improved.
147. Ensure that the issues discussed at board meetings are fully analysed and recorded in its minutes and the LSCB annual report and that this information is used to develop and monitor local plans that demonstrate what measurable impact the Board is having.
148. When the LSCB considers that a case may meet the criteria for conducting a serious case review, even if one is not carried out, the Board must check that the local authority has notified Ofsted.
149. Continue to develop mechanisms to ensure that children and young people can engage with the work of the Board and ensure that the views of all sectors including faith and wider voluntary groups are represented.
150. Increase the influence of the Board by strengthening the relationships with other key strategic groups, such as the Health and Wellbeing Board and the Local Safeguarding Adults Board. To ensure that the safeguarding of children is prioritised.
151. Ensure that the work of the LSCB sub-committees is effectively undertaken and that the work of the Monitoring and Evaluation, Missing and Vulnerable and the Child Sexual Exploitation Sub Groups are influencing practice.
Key strengths and weaknesses of the LSCB
152. Governance arrangements between the LSCB and the local authority are well established, with the LSCB chair regularly meeting with the Director of Children’s Services, Chief Executive Officer and Lead Members following LSCB meetings, to ensure that the authority is fulfilling its safeguarding responsibilities. The LSCB chair is a member of the Children’s Trust, which helps to ensure that safeguarding is appropriately considered in the wider context of services for children and families. A recent protocol between the LSCB and the Health and Wellbeing Board has been established, but it is too early to demonstrate that the LSCB has influenced the work of this Board to ensure that safeguarding of children is prioritised.
89 31
153. The LSCB complies with its statutory responsibilities. The LSCB minutes and the annual report provide a detailed review of the activity of the Board and the extensive range of issues that it has considered. However, the report does not sufficiently analyse the significance of many of these issues and what impact, if any, the work of the Board has made on them. The Board has identified priorities for its partners that are appropriately based on local and national issues, but these are not transferred into an achievable and measurable action plan.
154. The Board has very limited engagement with children, families and the community to secure their views to influence the development of its work and safeguarding practice. An LSCB young people’s forum has been recently established, with a committed and enthusiastic small group of young people who are well supported to consider and give their views on the sensitive issues identified by the Board. This forum is at too early a stage of development to show impact. The views of the community are well represented at the LSCB through the appointment of a lay member. However, the views and engagement of the wider voluntary and faith sectors are not well represented at the board.
155. The terms of reference for the LSCB are clear, as are the roles and responsibilities of the chair and board members. The role of the LSCB chair is sufficiently independent. The chair is highly experienced and is well respected by partner agencies staff at all levels. He effectively oversees the work of the Board, ably assisted by the LSCB manager. The chair has effectively raised the profile of safeguarding and appropriately challenged partner agencies and the local authority where shortfalls have been identified. The LSCB chair has recently been appointed to chair the Adult Safeguarding Board. It is too early to assess the impact that this will have on ensuring that the work of both boards are effectively undertaken.
156. The LSCB has actively overseen the recent scoping and reconfiguration of the early help services across it partners, although it is too early for it to evaluate the impact. The LSCB has actively and appropriately maintained an overview of the safeguarding of children looked after, and particularly those placed outside of the area. It has challenged children’s services to report to the Board on the effectiveness of these services, although it is too early to show if this has had impact.
157. Performance management and analysis are not sufficiently developed within the Board. The LSCB has recently begun to receive individual agency audits and monitoring information from some of its key partners. However, monitoring and analysis of this information and the impact across the partnership is not regular or embedded in the culture of the board. Performance management and audit models used within individual partner agencies are not consistent with each other or rigorously established. LSCB plans to develop multi-agency monitoring and audit are at a very early stage of development. In recognition of this the LSCB chair has personally undertaken and externally commissioned some 90 32
targeted audits. The learning from these has been appropriately reported to and acted on by the LSCB.
158. Safeguarding is appropriately prioritised by partner agencies and this is confirmed through the safeguarding audits that agencies completed last year under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004.
159. The work of the Board is primarily progressed through a range of sub- committees and network groups. The Child Death Overview Panel and the Serious Case Review Sub-Group are well-established, well-represented by partner agencies and robustly consider detailed information. The Health and Education Networks are increasingly ensuring that safeguarding issues are effectively addressed within the wide range of health and education services and are reported to the LSCB. However, the progress of work by the LSCB Monitoring and Evaluation, Missing and Vulnerable and the Child Sexual Exploitation Sub Groups, which were restructured in 2013, has been slow. As a result, performance management and development of localised policies and procedures for these areas are at a very early stage of development.
160. The Board maintains effective oversight of safeguarding issues within the Feltham Young Offender Institute (FYOI), sited within the borough. Good communication and collaboration ensure that safeguarding young people is well focused at FYOI through its representation on the LSCB and through the chair visiting the institute and regularly reporting on safeguarding practice. The LSCB has recently established a FYOI scrutiny group to enhance this oversight. It is too early to see its impact.
161. Whilst no local Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) have been recently undertaken, the LSCB has implemented learning from previous SCRs and national findings. The LSCB serious case review sub-committee has appropriately commissioned and considered reviews of individual agency involvement in cases that did not meet the threshold for an SCR. It is the role of the local authority to notify Ofsted of such incidents considered by the Board, but the authority has not done so and the LSCB has not picked this up.
162. The LSCB has a well-established multi-agency training programme, which underpins safeguarding training provided within individual partner agencies. This has been progressively developed to incorporate learning from local serious incidents, issues arising from LSCB conferences and national issues, including learning from high profile serious case reviews from other authorities. Evaluation of the quality and impact of training on improving practice and the experience of children is at an early stage of development. This is primarily based on feedback from training participants through questionnaires and a telephone poll. It is not evident that the evaluation of training is effectively used strategically. For example, some training participants reported that training was too basic to enhance their safeguarding work; however, the LSCB has yet to address this.
91 33
What the inspection judgments mean: the LSCB
An outstanding LSCB is highly influential in improving the care and protection of children. Their evaluation of performance is exceptional and helps the local authority and its partners to understand the difference that services make and where they need to improve. The LSCB creates and fosters an effective learning culture.
An LSCB that is good coordinates the activity of statutory partners and monitors the effectiveness of local arrangements. Multi-agency training in the protection and care of children is effective and evaluated regularly for impact. The LSCB provides robust and rigorous evaluation and analysis of local performance that identifies areas for improvement and influences the planning and delivery of high-quality services.
An LSCB requires improvement if it does not yet demonstrate the characteristics of good.
An LSCB that is inadequate does not demonstrate that it has effective arrangements in place and the required skills to discharge its statutory functions. It does not understand the experiences of children and young people locally and fails to identify where improvements can be made.
92 34
Any complaints about the inspection or the report should be made following the procedures set out in the guidance ‘raising concerns and making complaints about Ofsted', which is available from Ofsted’s website: www.ofsted.gov.uk. If you would like Ofsted to send you a copy of the guidance, please telephone 0300123 4234, or email [email protected].
The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) regulates and inspects to achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages. It regulates and inspects childcare and children's social care, and inspects the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcass), schools, colleges, initial teacher training, workbased learning and skills training, adult and community learning, and education and training in prisons and other secure establishments. It inspects services for looked after children and child protection.
If you would like a copy of this document in a different format, such as large print or Braille, please telephone 0300 123 4234, or email [email protected].
You may copy all or parts of this document for non-commercial educational purposes, as long as you give details of the source and date of publication and do not alter the information in any way.
To receive regular email alerts about new publications please visit our website and go to ‘Subscribe’.
Piccadilly Gate Store St Manchester M1 2WD T: 0300 123 4234 Textphone: 0161 618 8524 E: [email protected] W: www.ofsted.gov.uk © Crown copyright 2014
93 35 Statement of proposed actions following the Ofsted Inspection of services for children in need of help and protection, children looked after and care leavers in the London Borough of Hounslow (Reg 3 Education and Inspection Act 2006).
1. The London Borough of Hounslow has taken very seriously the findings and areas for development contained in the report and has acted swiftly to create an improvement plan that we believe addresses all the issues. We have engaged staff both in Children‟s Services and from across the council in the creation and actualisation of the improvement plan. This is themed under the following areas so that we can better measure the impact of the actions.
1. Management Effective governance and monitoring arrangements drive continuous service improvement.
2. Prevention and Early Help Children and families are given early help as soon as it is needed ensuring better outcomes and impact on Specialist Services.
3. Timeliness and Decision Making Children benefit from timely decision making and care planning to protect and to promote permanence.
4. Stable placement and sufficiency There is a sufficient range of placements and children in care are placed in stable and nurturing homes.
5. Outcomes for Looked After Children Looked after children and care leavers are supported to achieve the best possible outcomes in line with their peers.
The activity related to these themes are outlined in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.5
2. The improvement plan is “owned” by line managers who are reporting on progress to the Assistant Director in regular monitoring meetings. An Improvement Board chaired by the Director of Children‟s and Adults‟ Services meets on a fortnightly basis to hear directly from Heads of Service, the DCS and the Assistant Director. The Chief Executive and Lead Member are also in attendance. The plan is detailed, has names set against actions and a clear time frame by which actions and changes will have happened. Fortnightly progress reports track key milestones and outcomes. The information in the following pages describes the content of the improvement plan. The references in brackets refer to the relevant points in the Inspection report
1 94 3. The Improvement Plan
3.1 Management
Area for improvement; “Ensure that there is effective oversight, support and challenge of services through the local authority‟s Scrutiny Committee and the Corporate Parenting Panel to drive improvement.” (Para 15 and 54)
We have completed a scrutiny induction process and a development plan will be complete by the end of July. A video for training purposes will be completed by the end of June and we have a revised handbook for Members.
We have delivered mandatory Corporate Parenting training to newly elected members with presentations from young people in care, care leavers, foster carers, and professionals from social care, health and education. We are developing bespoke training for members of Children and Young People Scrutiny and Corporate Parenting Panels to support effective questioning, understanding of performance data and working with young people and this will be in place by 31 July.
There will be greater liaison and joint working across the scrutiny and the corporate parenting panel. This will commence with the induction process and continue through co-option across the panels and through new arrangements around officer support. This will allow easier referral to scrutiny of issues, better oversight by scrutiny and provide added corporate capacity in the planning and undertaking of the corporate parenting panel meetings.
Area for improvement; “Ensure that performance management and monitoring within children‟s services is underpinned by robust evaluation and analysis and leads to improvement in service delivery.” (Para 55)
“Information is fully interpreted, used and understood by Managers to inform planning, evaluate improvement and demonstrate that needs of CYP are met.” (Para 16)
We have established a new Performance and Quality Assurance group which meets bimonthly to consider and evaluate key themes and future priorities. We are updating our quality assurance documentation to explain how the findings from audits, performance information, complaints, user views and consultations are collated to provide intelligence to drive service improvements. The IRO service is contributing to the quality assurance framework through attendance at these bi- monthly meetings; and offering challenge to the analysis and processes produced by the group; and will produce a top level analysis of all the audits carried out across Children‟s‟ services by July 2014.
We have reviewed the Specialist Service Compendium to ensure the measures used are relevant and we have developed a programme of themed audits and reviews informed by performance and management information. We are also developing an effective Outcomes Based Performance Framework for measuring the impact of the actions in the improvement plan .
2 95
Area for improvement; “Ensure that an effective and thorough „test of assurance‟ is undertaken on whether it is appropriate to combine adult and children‟s services into a family directorate.” (Para 56)
We are undertaking a formal structured test of assurance involving internal and external stakeholders including elected members. Recommendations regarding the future will be submitted through the formal decision making process.
We have developed a vision paper and joint improvement plan which sets out the purpose and method of working for the directorate and which has been disseminated at both the extended Senior Leadership Team and at Children‟s and Adults‟ Staff Briefings. Progress against this plan is regularly monitored and reviewed.
Area for improvement; “Ensure that children‟s issues are prioritised and addressed through more effective links between children‟s services, the Children‟s Trust and the Health and Wellbeing Board.” (Para 15 and 57)
The formation of a new Children‟s Delivery Group (CDG) was approved by Hounslow‟s HWBB on 27 March 2014, replacing the Children‟s Trust Board as the strategic lead for children‟s and young people‟s services as part of a wider governance review. The CDG will become a core delivery group for the HWBB and will advise the Board on future planning and local implications of the national change agenda in relation to C&YP. The CDG will work closely with other relevant partnerships such as the LSCB and Community Safety Partnership.
The development of the CDG will be further aided by the successful bid for a £7,000 grant from London Councils for the development of Health and Wellbeing Board governance arrangements. The bid application was focused on clarifying roles and responsibilities between the CDG and HWBB and relevant linked partnerships such as the LSCB. The CDG has met and a work plan is under development.
Area for improvement; “Ensure that managers provide consistent, effective supervision that is recorded, and that workload is appropriately distributed across services.” (Para 59)
We are reviewing the model of supervision to incorporate reflective supervision and practice across all teams and are ensuring supervision and management arrangements are consistent across Children‟s Social Care services by identifying and implementing measures to reduce disparities and blockages in caseloads across services particularly in relation to Intake and Safeguarding and Support Services.
Area for improvement; “Improve the supervision and management arrangements in the Pathways team to support continuing improvement in practice and ensure that workloads are sustainable.” (Para 14and 53)
We have revised and strengthened the line management and supervision arrangements within the Pathway's Service to make them more robust, transparent and consistent with other teams across the directorate. Leaving Care services will be co-located with children in care teams. We are reconfiguring our services to children in care and to care leavers to provide more consistency of worker, minimise change 3 96 to young people and provide a more coordinated response to those who are late entrants to care. We will also create a Post 18 Care Leavers‟ Team within the corporate parenting service who will offer a joint approach to those young people aged 16 to 18 by working closely with their social worker.
Area for improvement; ”IROs challenge Social Workers and managers to ensure that things happen in the best possible way for the CYP“. (Para 11)
We have appointed a new permanent Head of Safeguarding and Quality Assurance, who has been proactive in raising the profile of the IRO service in all aspects of children‟s care planning, offering additional challenge and scrutiny and moving away from a focus on “monitoring of compliance”. A key aspect of changing the culture of challenge is the agreed protocol between the IRO service and all of the social work teams, about how “challenges” to practice are progressed through all forms of communication; including recording on the child‟s case record and how issues are escalated and resolved between managers. We have revised the Issues Resolution Protocol to include low-level 'challenge‟ and IROs now record 'challenge' and corresponding issues resolutions raised in TRIO Case Notes as part of the new Protocol. This protocol covers both the child protection system and care planning for looked after children The IRO manager now audits and quality assures the care plan at first review for children in care and the IRO service is represented at the Permanency Monitoring Group (PMG), and the PLO Monitoring Group, (See below).
The Head of Safeguarding and Quality Assurance reports formally to the Performance and Quality Assurance group as a key part of the explicit quality assurance function. We will conduct a survey to evaluate the effectiveness of IRO challenge in September 2014
3.2 Prevention and Early Help
Area for improvement; “Ensure that the early help assessments fully consider and reflect the history of the child and their wishes and feelings and that these lead to comprehensive and effective early help plans.” (Para 39)
We have established quarterly performance reporting to evaluate the impact of Early Help and the Early Intervention Service (EIS) with an agreed data set and measures between EIS and Specialist Services. We will develop reports for SLT and wider partnerships by 31 July and incorporate key measures from the new data set into Q1 Children‟s and Adults‟ performance monitoring process by 31 July. We have an audit programme and will be independently evaluating the effectiveness and quality of the service in September. We have embedded the Outcome Star model to capture the views of children and families in assessing the impact of services to them.
4 97 Area for improvement; “Ensure that early help services for older children or young people are appropriately focussed to prevent the need for them to be looked after.” (Para 1 and 42)
Following a review of data and cases of older young people at risk of social care, we have reconfigured targeted youth support within EIS to begin to reduce the number of older young people coming into care. This new six week programme of assertive outreach and intensive support (Family Adolescent Assertive Support Team – FAAST sits within the Triage zone within Early Help Hounslow (EHH) and is a dedicated resource that responds to young people aged 10 to 17 years at point of contact. The methodology is based upon a hybrid of effective intervention models within the Ofsted report - Edging Away From Care - how services successfully prevent young people entering care which indicates that work focused upon the development of improved familial relationships, boundaries and conflict resolution is effective in preventing accommodation of young people in the longer term. This became operational in June with further expansion of the service in September. Incrementally challenging outcome targets have been agreed and will be monitored monthly.
Area for improvement; “Ensure that effective multi–agency arrangements for the oversight and review of services and for the management of the individual cases of children who are missing, vulnerable or at risk of sexual exploitation are implemented, recorded and publicised.” (Para 3 and 34)
We have completed the full implementation of the MASH and will review and evaluate the impact in September.
We have established systems within Early Help Hounslow and the MASH to collate information and identify children at risk of sexual exploitation and we are reviewing current practice and identifying recommendations for practice changes within the MASH and EHH.
Early Help Hounslow also acts as the single point of contact for children reported missing from home or care, children missing from education, and helps to identify other vulnerabilities such as risk of exploitation through exposure to organised groups or gangs. Working in close proximity with the MASH, information is shared across partner agencies in "real time" which enables risk assessments to be done quickly and remedial action to be taken to protect individual children.
The Local Safeguarding Children Board [LSCB] in Hounslow maintains a strategic oversight of Missing Children, and those children identified at risk of sexual exploitation, through the MASH and Early Help Hounslow. This oversight of trends and practice is maintained via the missing and vulnerable groups sub-group that meets quarterly.
We are scoping the potential for a Children‟s and Adults‟ MASH for Hounslow.
5 98
3.3 Timeliness and Decision Making
Area for improvement; “Ensure that the out-of-hours service has access to Hounslow children‟s records to allow them to make more informed decision.” (Para 5 and 38)
Working with our Legal department and that of our partner borough, we have written and agreed an Information Sharing Process which forms part of a new contract which is due to go live on 1st July 2014. We are providing ICT equipment, training and technical support as part of an ICT Service Level agreement which also forms part of the new contractual arrangements. . These measures will ensure full compliance with Information Governance and Data Protection.
Pending the above access to records, the effectiveness of the current long standing arrangements have been reviewed to ensure that there is effective and timely communication between both departments and appropriate access to senior management .
Area for improvement; “Ensure that all initial child protection conferences take place promptly to enable multi-agency plans to be agreed.” (Para 36)
We have revised the process for requesting and reporting re initial child protection conferences. We have established a new more challenging baseline performance expectation and the most recent data confirms that there is a significant improvement in timeliness.
Area for improvement; “Ensure that CPP are specific and measurable and clearly state what is required from parents and agencies to safeguard children.” (Para 4 and 37)
We are improving practice through targeted training and better use of existing tools For example; we are working to shift the focus of ICPCCs towards the “planning” element and being outcomes focussed. IROs have had bespoke training (April 2014) on chairing Child Protection Case Conferences to ensure that the plans are genuinely capturing outcomes; and further joint training is planned with team managers from the safeguarding and support services in June 2014.
We are currently auditing plans for conferences held in April and May and will report to the Improvement Board in July. The exemplar for SMART plans has been re- launched and follows the audit outcome. Social workers and IROs will be given support to improve plans to develop an outcome focus
Area for improvement; “Ensure assessments are timely and that children and young people access support quickly.” (Para 2 & 71)
We continue to focus on the development and use of chronologies to inform and drive planning. This is a key area of ongoing training, supervision and audit. It links to our aim to ensure that all assessment and planning activity is purposeful and outcome focussed and at the child‟s pace. This is supported by the PLO and PMG monitoring processes.. IROs are routinely reviewing use of chronologies for looked after children We will narrow the gap in timeliness between first and subsequent assessments and show continued improvement each quarter. 6 99
Area for improvement; “Ensure the use of voluntary care arrangements are robustly assessed and reviewed and that a legal order is sought if more appropriate.” (Para 8 and 40)
We are ensuring that information in relation to children aged 11-17 are prioritised by the Early Intervention Service. The development of FAAST will provide targeted work with older teenagers at risk of becoming looked after, whilst the Specialist Intensive Support Programme will continue to focus on those where there is a longer term risk of family breakdown. This is aimed at reducing the Section 20 looked after rate. We are auditing the new admissions to care from April to assess the effectiveness of the preventative work. The IROs are, in their attendance at the Permanency Monitoring Group, offering greater challenge on the use of the Public Law Outline to secure permanency for children subject to Section 20. This is having the impact of driving up the number of care proceedings.
Area for improvement; “Work with partners to reduce further the delay children experience whilst going through the court system.” (Para 49)
We have developed and implemented a timeline tracking tool to use for monitoring at the PLO Board. We are regularly monitoring and tracking the use of legal planning meetings and have redrafted the request form to be much more explicit about the outcome required. We have re-launched the permanency monitoring group to expand membership to those in Intake and Safeguarding teams and to consider all children. There is Legal representation at every PLO Board which now meets fortnightly.
The child‟s journey is now tracked against agreed check points through improved auditing and reporting. All cases with CP plans for 2 years plus and repeat CP plans are audited on a quarterly basis. These findings will be incorporated within the Safeguarding quarterly report.
We have appointed to the case progression manager who will take up the post in September to track the timeliness of every case in proceedings and liaise with the judiciary to minimise undue delay.
Area for improvement; “Children and young people are not always adopted quickly enough. Sometimes it takes too long for the LA to match children to adopters (this plan focuses on the LAC issues.” (Para 13)
We are improving the matching process through more timely referral to the Adoption & Permanence team and increasing the use of “fostering to adopt”. We have improved our timeliness in all adoption measures and are currently below the most recent England averages. The average number of days between a child entering care and being placed with an adoptive carer has reduced from 672 to 628 days (most recently available England average is 647 days). The time between a placement order and a match has reduced from 222 days to 188 days (England is 210 days) and 70% of children wait less than 21 months from entering care to placement compared to the national average of 55%.
7 100
3.4 Stable placement and sufficiency
Area for improvement; “Ensure that the reasons for placement instability for children looked after are fully analysed, to avoid children experiencing too many changes of where they live.” (Para 10 and 46)
We identified the reasons for placement breakdown and discussed these widely to determine an agreed strategy. We will highlight and report on a quarterly basis all those at risk of breakdown. We will analyse the rate of disruption meetings over the last six months to identify risk factors, strategic and case characteristics. This intelligence will be considered by the group in addition to the IRO review to identify further development. The resources panel will identify, source and agree additional input to children and carers to promote stability.
We have created a short audit tool to better assess placement stability and suitability and so more effectively assess those placements at risk of breakdown. The first cohort was reviewed by the working group in May with a detailed analysis of risk factors. This analysis is further informed by information from the Safeguarding Review team. IROs will be reviewing and quality assuring placement stability as part of the LAC review and this will include the evaluation of „Staying Put‟ in relation to those over 18.
The fostering team has re-invigorated the recruitment strategy to include a more targeted approach including a focus on identification of private fostering arrangements. The child‟s placement needs will be more accurately specified with the new assessment tool. We are introducing a placement protocol to cover placement stabilisation and disruption meetings to anticipate and intervene early where there are signs of pressures on placement. Unplanned placement moves will only be agreed following a disruption meeting unless there is an immediate risk of harm. All requests for a placement change will be notified to the Agency Decision Maker, Head of Placements and Team Manager of the Fostering team.
Area for improvement; “Ensure that sufficient, targeted accommodation is secured for looked after children within the authority‟s area.” (Para17 and 47)
We will continue to work with in-house resources and WLA to increase the availability of high quality provision meeting the need profile of Hounslow LAC through commissioning in the most effective way. We will specifically target and focus on attracting foster carers for teenagers. Hounslow is the lead for the WLA on the commissioning of high quality local semi independent provision for care leavers. This will provide a better regulated and managed market with quality, and choice for young people We will be working with providers to develop a suitable geographical spread, and a range of provision needs from accommodation with floating support placements through to high support 24 hour support and accommodation placements. The aim is to harness the commitment of commissioners and providers to deliver the best possible outcomes for young people and care leavers
8 101
Area for improvement; “Ensure that a robust sufficiency plan is developed and implemented for looked after children that meet their needs.” (Para 58)
We have strengthened the sufficiency assessment and bespoke plan and are undertaking a benchmarking exercise across WLA to compare staff levels and effectiveness in delivery and supporting placements. We have established a joint commissioning unit and have recruited a Children‟s Commissioner who is writing a Commissioning Strategy for Children‟s Services underpinned by an agreed outcomes framework. The Children‟s Commissioner is involved in the review of contracted services and in developing our commissioning intentions both singly and in partnership with the West London Alliance. We are reviewing the mechanism by which our annual needs assessment informs this work. The establishment of a joint commissioning unit is a significant development which will ensure a coherent and effective approach to service planning and commissioning.in response to local need
Area for improvement; “Ensure the arrangements to identify and support children who are privately fostered are robust and effectively publicised across the partnership and within the community (Para6 and 35)
We have increased the awareness of private fostering in the community by marketing and community events. This has resulted in a 100% increase in the number of registered private fostering arrangements. We will be working with Early Intervention Services to disseminate awareness though a wider range of professionals. We are benchmarking our activity against other authorities to determine the most effective practice.
3.5 Outcomes for Looked After Children and Care Leavers
Area for improvement; “Ensure social workers and the adoption panel members receive regular training to keep up to date with best practice.” (Para 50)
We have delivered training to the panel and developed an ongoing themed training programme. Training was delivered to the panel in February 2014, as planned. A detailed training schedule for 2014/15 has been developed in conjunction with the Adoption Panel Chair, panel members and social workers.
Area for improvement; “Develop approaches to family finding to ensure that a ready supply of adopters is available for the children who are waiting for adoption.” (Para 51)
We are reconfiguring adoption resources to enable dedicated family finding. This restructure will be achieved by May 31st and posts recruited by the end of June 2014. We have convened an Adoption Recruitment Board which meets monthly to track the timely journey from prospective adopter to approval and match. We approved 11 adopters in 2013/14. We have no adopters awaiting children at the time of writing this report.
Hounslow is leading the West London Adoption Consortium profiling event to recruit carers for children with more challenging needs. An activity day is being planned by
9 102 the Consortium. Our revised recruitment and marketing strategy now offers sessions for adults in full time employment.
Area for improvement; “Ensure that the need for secure and permanent arrangements is fully considered at the earliest stages when children become looked after.” (Para 9 and 41)
We are involving the children in care managers at the legal planning meeting to ensure the earliest effective care planning, have agreed and implemented a new protocol to assist collaborative planning and are embedding the parallel planning process across the service through the use of the Permanency Monitoring Group (PMG). All children‟s cases are monitored at the PMG and planned Reg 24 assessments are now conducted jointly.
All children‟s cases are monitored at the PMG to ensure timely, bespoke permanence objectives and the first cohort of those Section 20 cases were reviewed by the middle of May. Those looked after in the last 3 months will be reviewed at PMG by the end of May to ensure appropriate permanency plans and where appropriate the required actions to achieve this. The PMG will review all children under 10 looked after under Section 20 by the end of June. By September all looked after children between 13 and 15 years old will be reviewed by PMG with a focus on achieving a permanency outcome. Briefings for managers on achieving permanency are in development and will be launched at the Managers‟ Forum in July.
Area for improvement; “Formalise the arrangements for the foster to adopt and concurrent plans to ensure that children are adopted in a timely manner.” (Para 48)
We have ensured the permanency team are working more closely with the fostering service and intend to increase the number of suitable flexible carers from 0 to 4, of concurrent carers from 0 to 2 and of foster carer adopters from 2 to 4 this year. We are realigning our Adoption and Fostering Service under one Head of Service to maximise opportunities to support foster carers who wish to adopt children already in their care.
Area for improvement; “Ensure that Independent Reviewing Officers provide robust scrutiny and challenge to care planning for looked after children to ensure the best outcomes for children are achieved without delay.” (Para 45)
We have recruited a new Head of Service who is building the culture of challenge and robust scrutiny in the service, moving from a mainly “monitoring” of compliance service to a genuinely quality assuring and challenging service. We have revised the recording process of such challenge so that this can be tracked and that the impact on care planning is evident. The IRO service is represented at both the PLO and PMG meetings, and is expected to provide a quality assurance function to help maintain standards whilst improving the timeliness of decision-making.
Area for improvement: “The Looked After Childrens Education Service, Virtual School and Pathways should improve the analysis of the wide variation in achievement for looked after children and those preparing to leave care; they should strengthen the work to close the gap in attendance and attainment of those young people with their local peers.” (Para 43 and 44)
10 103 We have conducted a comprehensive review of the education of looked after children and care leavers and agreed a rigorous, streamlined approach which builds on strengths, addresses gaps and creates an integrated service maximising expertise, capacity and challenge. We have identified a new professional lead for the Virtual School which will move from the purlieu of social care to that of Education. We have reconfigured resources to employ a leader with current senior school leadership experience to promote the challenge and provide the drive for the changes. We have introduced half termly pupil progress meetings which include attainment, attendance and exclusion discussions. We are establishing a management board for the Virtual School to lead the changes to develop education support to age 5-25 years. We are extending the remit of the Virtual School to form a Virtual College and will ensure independent educational challenge is in place. We are working with colleagues from the Early Intervention service to develop a strategy to support students with education, employment and training. This includes a dedicated Connexions Personal Advisor for young people aged 14-19 years.
Other measures include:
Enhanced data management capacity and accountability within the Education Management Information Service Develop an integrated database for the Virtual School/College to enable robust monitoring and tracking of pupil progress and attainment, which will support identification of positive impact and where focused intervention is required in line with mainstream expectations Ensure all staff working with young people have high expectations of educational attainment. This will require training and awareness raising of staff who regularly attend LAC reviews and placement panels to prioritise Education when decision are being made about a young person‟s future. Research into evidence based interventions which accelerate progress of young people across all phases of education has started, with implementation planned for the new academic year Measure impact and effectiveness of working practices against educational progress, to provide focused work with cohorts and individuals and modify practice to improve impact Developing a policy to hold schools to account for effective use of Pupil Premium Plus to meet the PEP outcomes for young people Develop strong and effective partnerships with all agencies and services providing support for LAC both resident in Hounslow and out of borough Robust support and challenge will be provided by the School Effectiveness Service.
Area for improvement; “Develop a full range of options for care leavers who do not wish to continue in education or go to university, and provide better support for young people to access apprenticeships, work placements or vocational training.” (Para 12 and 52)
We will extend the Virtual School to include support for the positive attainment of students in alternative provision and further education placements to achieve GCSE/A Levels and other accredited education outcomes. We will develop a strategy to reduce the number of LAC students who are not in education, employment and
11 104 training (NEET) through early help and support and using a combined corporate approach. We will have an employability scheme agreed by the end of June and implemented by 30 September. We are reconfiguring existing resources to improve educational outcomes from 5 to 25, integrating the work of LACES, Pathways and Connexions and aligning with the Local Authority‟s 14-19 Strategic Team to ensure that the needs of LAC and care leavers are considered in planning to meet the needs of children aged 14-19. We will be extending the role of LACES to include LACES team continuing to work with LAC who are remaining in school placements Post 16 and extending the educational monitoring which is well developed for statutory age pupils to include non-statutory young people and care leavers.
Area for improvement; “Promote and ensure use of advocacy services to help young people have their voices heard. The voices and views of the wide range of looked after children and care leavers are not gathered well by the local authority to help them to shape the services provided. Although some children are able to get their own views heard, such as those who are on the Children in Care Council, many children do not have this opportunity.” (Para 7)
We review the work plan for the Children in Care (CiC) Council on a monthly basis to ensure a specific focus on age groupings. A separate Children in Care Council for care leavers is currently being set up to complement the younger children‟s council and the first meeting will be held in the summer. The group will meet four times a year and representatives will attend the Corporate Parenting Panel.
In May 2014, young people were surveyed to find out their experiences of being listened to by the borough. The questions covered the advocacy service, IROs and LAC reviews. Half (50%) of the responses came from young people living outside of the borough. A report with the findings of the survey will be presented at the next Corporate Parenting Panel. We will provide further specific opportunities for out of borough children and young people to participate on issues identified through the survey.
Feedback cards following the statutory visits will be sent twice a year to all children to ensure they have a voice about the quality of the service they receive. IROs will be represented at the CiC Council to ensure that these views are shared and promoted within their work. They will also present an overview of children and young people's feedback in their statutory reviews.
The advocacy service has planned road shows to ensure out of borough children are aware of the new service provider. All children and young people will be sent regularly updated information about this service. The Children in Care Council meeting is regularly attended by a representative of the advocacy service to remind young people of the advice and support they can offer.
4. Governance
The progress on the improvement work is reported to and overseen by the Improvement Board. This meets fortnightly with the brief to:
Inform and agree the direction of improvement Provide rigorous oversight and challenge 12 105 Drive the pace of progress Provide effective links to the Corporate Improvement Partnership Board and the Children‟s Delivery Group.
The Board is delivering this through:
Commissioning and consideration of progress and proposals Focussing on specific themes and priority areas for change Challenging officers to be ambitious, clear and timely Inviting corporate and partnerships involved and hearing directly from key officer leads.
The Board has already considered the work in relation to:
Corporate Parenting and Children & YP Scrutiny The reconfiguration and relocation of the care leaving service Placement stability The development of the assertive program for adolescents and their families The development and relocation of the Virtual School Timeliness of assessments.
The agenda for future Board meetings is planned and we intend to review our progress in July and report on what has changed in the six months since the Ofsted inspection and the impact that the changes have made.
13 106 Agenda Item 6
Report for: Action
Contains Confidential No or Exempt Information Title ‘Vision 2020 – Right to Sight’ – Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow Member Reporting Councillor Ajmer Grewal –Lead Member for Equality Councillor Lilly Bath –Chair of Disability Community Forum
Contact Details Celia Golden– Head of Equality and Human Rights, LB Hounslow, [email protected]
For Consideration By Hounslow CCG Clinical Board , Cabinet Borough Council , Health and Well Being Board
Date to be Considered 24th June Health and Well Being Board ; Ist July 2014 Cabinet Meeting; 15th July 2014 Borough Council Implementation Date if Not Called In Affected Wards All Keywords/Index
1. Details of Recommendations Borough Council is asked to note and approve the decision of the Cabinet meeting of the 1st of July 2014 which agreed to the following recommendations:
a) To note the outcome of the consultation exercise undertaken on the 28th October 2013 with blind and partially sighted residents and partners (see Appendix 1).
b) To agree key actions in the joint action plan (Appendix1) relevant to Hounslow Council as specified in paragraph 4.5 of the report. If the recommendations are adopted, how will residents benefit? Benefits to residents and reasons why they will Dates by which they can benefit, link to Values expect to notice a difference The Action plan will prioritise and co-ordinate service Between 2014 and 2020 improvements between health, social care and third sector partners for blind and partially sighted residents of Hounslow. This aims to alleviate hardships caused by gaps in co-ordination.
1 | P a g e 107
2. Report Summary
Sight loss can be devastating: over one-third of older people with sight loss live with depression and two-thirds of registered blind and partially sighted people of working age are not in paid employment. Daily life is more complicated, and the challenges people face may make other health conditions worse.
This report describes the impact of sight loss across Hounslow and how local organisations are working together to tackle the challenges that people face every day. The RNIB have estimated that almost 5,150 people living in Hounslow have sight loss that affects their daily life. By 2020 that number is forecast to rise to around 5,730. By 2050 it is expected to double: around 10,300. Tackling sight loss is a public health issue because about 50% of sight loss can be avoided. It is linked with health priorities for smoking cessation, reducing obesity and excess alcohol consumption, reducing the risk of falls and promoting healthy hearts and minds.
Local organisations, professionals and people affected by sight loss have formed a partnership to tackle avoidable sight loss and make sure that together we are working to improve life for visually impaired people across Hounslow.
2. Reason for Decision and Options Considered
This report
2.1 sets out the impact of sight loss in Hounslow and the efforts to make a difference at a local level;
2.2 provides details of the proposed action between partners;
2.3 provides details of the consultation exercise undertaken on the 28th of October 2013 and the proposed response to the issues raised by local residents and relevant stakeholders.
3. Background
3.1 The ‘Right to Sight’ is the global initiative known as ‘VISION 2020’ for the elimination of avoidable blindness through its three core strategies of disease control, human resource and infrastructure and technology development. It is co-ordinated jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness (IAPB).
3.2 It’s objective is to increase national awareness and secure resources through advocacy, and mobilise the will and passion for action to prevent and treat the causes of blindness and facilitate national ‘VISION 2020’ programmes in all countries.
3.3 UK is a supporting member of the global initiative and the Department of Health has a wide range of programmes and services across the NHS to contribute to ‘Vision 2020’.
2 | P a g e 108
3.4 In the UK, Vision 2020 is coordinated by the Thomas Pocklington Trust, a national sight loss charity supporting the development of Vision Strategies across Greater London and across UK through a strong alliance of government statutory, health and social care bodies, voluntary organisations, eye health professionals and individuals at local authority level.
4.0 Key Implications
4.1 The Pocklington Trust have approached the Council to motivate the development of a borough based programme in Hounslow to ensure that actions are taken to reduce the incidence of sight loss in the borough. The Trust has with the assistance of the Equalities team of the council set up a Hounslow Vision Strategy Partnership, chaired by the Chief Executive of Middlesex Association for the Blind and co-chaired by Cllr Melvin Collins and Mr. Arun Gupta, Consultant Opthalmic Surgeon from Ashford and St. Peters Hospital. The Council led the consultation event jointly with the partnership organisations and supported the production of the attached Action plan in Appendix 1. (For membership see Appendix 2)
4.2 Hounslow ‘Vision 2020 – Right to Sight ‘ aims to eliminate avoidable blindness through the adoption five key themes underpinned by the following core values:
Fair and equitable access for all members of society to eye health, eye care and sight loss services, particularly ensuring equity for members of society who, for whatever reason, encounter the greatest difficulty in achieving this.
Person-centered delivery of excellent services and support in the most appropriate way for each individual, in line with their personal preferences. Evidence-based policies and services to guide resource allocation and adoption of priority outcomes for equitable and efficient services to those experiencing sight loss.
4.4 The Partners have adopted the following objectives to achieve Equality for those with sight loss
1. Everyone in Hounslow is encouraged to take responsibility to look after their eyes and their sight.
2. Everyone with an eye condition receives timely treatment and, if permanent sight loss occurs, early and appropriate services and support is available and accessible to all.
3. To promote full participation in activities by people with sight loss in the Borough
3 | P a g e 109
4.4.1 Everyone in Hounslow is encouraged to take responsibility to look after their eyes and their sight.
In the next six years, we will work to:
raise awareness and understanding of eye health, particularly focusing on people most at risk of eye disease encourage every individual to develop personal responsibility for their eye health and sight raise awareness of eye health and the impact of sight loss among health and social care practitioners and ensure the early detection of sight loss and prevention where possible.
4.4.2 Everyone with an eye condition receives timely treatment and, if permanent sight loss occurs, early and appropriate services and support are available and accessible to all
In the next six years, we will work to:
improve the co-ordination, integration, reach and effectiveness of eye health and eye care services ensure that, when permanent sight loss occurs, emotional support, habilitation and/or rehabilitation will be provided in a timely fashion, enabling people to retain or regain their independence.
4.4.3 To promote full participation in activities by people with sight loss in the Borough In the next six years, we will work to:
improve attitudes, awareness and take actions within education, employment , leisure and other services ensure that children and young people with sight impairment can take their place in society
4.5 The ‘Right to Sight’ is supported by a detailed Action Plan in response to feedback from Hounslow’s residents and stakeholders. The Plan encapsulates the core values and objectives above. The Action plan delivers the changes under five key themes and the actions numbered: 1.1; 1.3; 1.4; 1.5; 2.1; 2.2; 2.4; 3.1; 3.4; 4.1; 4.2; 4.3; 4.4; 4.5; 4.6; 4.7; 4.8; 5.1; 5.4; 5.8.
4 | P a g e 110
4.6 Leadership for Implementing the Action Plan 2014-2020 The Action Plan is owned and steered by a cross-sector Strategic Partnership including representatives from Hounslow Council, Hounslow CCG, eye health professionals, public health, hospital, social care, education and transport professionals, voluntary organisations and service users, supported by external experts as required. The intention is to ensure the priorities will inform the next iteration of the following strategies: Public Health Strategy, Adult Strategy; Leisure and Culture Strategy.
4.7 The lead partner will implement each actions assigned to their organization.
5.0 Financial Details a) Financial Impact On the Budget (Mandatory)
The Action Plans are expected to be delivered from within existing budgets b) Comments of the Assistant Director Strategic Finance
The delivery of the Action Plan must be funded from within approved budgets.
6. Legal (to be completed in conjunction with the Legal Department)
a) Legal Details
b) Comments of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance
The Assistant Director Corporate Governance supports the recommendations
7. Value for Money
The joint action plan will maximise scarce resources to ensure residents can benefit from pooled efforts from the different partners. Any reduction in preventable sight loss will reduce the costs of treatments and follow up services.
8. Sustainability Impact Appraisal n/a
9. Risk Management
As the number of older people in Hounslow increases, so will the risks of sight loss associated with ageing. The risk factors for developing sight problems are documented in a report by the RNIB including common public health issues which have been widely linked with eye problems, including obesity, diabetes, stroke and smoking. If no action is taken there will be more visually impaired people in Hounslow and the costs to individuals, communities and the public purse will also increase.
5 | P a g e 111
Controls
As 50% of sight loss is avoidable, prevention is a central part of Hounslow’s Vision Programme and targeted action to identify at risk groups, which include people from black and ethnic minority communities and older people. Successful targeting of key audiences can reduce the pressure on eye health and sight loss services in the future.
If we reduce the risks of sight loss and make the services that people need more effective we will improve peoples’ lives, and reduce costs to the public purse.
10. Links to Council Priorities
The Action Plan responds to Council priorities and values set out in ‘A Vision for Hounslow 2030’ and to the Corporate Plan. The report has high ambitions for borough residents and it seeks to go the extra mile and demonstrates that we never give up trying to find ways around barriers to improving services and the quality of residents’ lives, whether these barriers are in the council or in other organisations. We seek to understand residents’ needs fully and have been working with residents, communities and voluntary organisations to empower them to meet their needs where they can do so.
11. Equalities, Human Rights and Community Cohesion
The Council has to give due regard to its Equalities Duties, in particular with respect to general duties under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.Having due regard involves, the need to remove or minimize disadvantages suffered by equality groups.
The Equality Act 2010 requires public authorities to adopt evidence based equalities objectives to reduce disadvantages. As 50% of sight loss is avoidable, prevention is a central part of Hounslow’s Action Plan. Collaboration between partners is the intelligent response to financial constraints as the joint ownership of the Action Plan will help to minimise disadvantages and also achieve joint partner compliance with equality legislation.
12. Staffing/Workforce and Accommodation implications: None
13. Any Other Implications None
14. Consultation
The Council held a public consultation event with local blind and partially sighted residents, key health and social care professionals and third sector partners on October 28th 2013. Over 8O residents braved the storms and attended the event. The event sought views on what services are working,
6 | P a g e 112
what needs improving and what is missing – the gaps and issues requiring improvement were captured under the following themes:
Theme 1: Promotion of eye health and preventing sight loss Theme 2: Diagnosis and Treatment Theme 3: Support for the newly diagnosed Theme 4: independent living- getting out and about Theme 5: Independent living- access and participation
A follow up event is planned to give residents feedback on the issues raised by them.
15. Timetable for Implementation The Action Plan will if agreed will be delivered from June 2014 and be implemented by 2020
16. Appendices Appendix 1 Consultation feedback and Hounslow’s ‘Right to Sight ‘Action Plan 2014- 2020;
Appendix 2- Vision Strategy Partnership details.
Background Information Toolkit for community based eye care services- Dept of Health; Hounslow Evidence Base for ‘Right to Sight’ Action Plan 2013 -2014 which can be found at http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/equality_objective_blind_residents.pdf
REPORT ENDS
7 | P a g e 113
Appendix 2
Vision Strategy Partnership Members – Partnership sub-group and report contributors are identified with an asterix.
*Andrew Cox Middlesex Association for the Blind (Chair of the Group) [email protected] *Councillor Mel Collins L B Hounslow (Vice Chair of the Vision Strategy Group) *Dr. Arun Gupta (Joint Vice Chair) Ashford and St Peters Hospital [email protected] Celia Golden Corporate Services, L B Hounslow Mark Blomfield Senior Commissioner, LB Hounslow *Clare McKenzie Public Health, LB Hounlsow, [email protected] *Chris Jenkins Thomas Pocklington Trust , [email protected] Kezia Coleman Thomas Pocklington Trust Kevin Edwards Service User Barry Hazel Service User Leon Gilbert Hounslow Association for the Blind Joan Hazel Carer Debbie Heusch Hounslow Association for the Blind *Maggie Lewis Clinical Nurse Specialist Ophthalmology Hounslow Community Ophthalmology service, Ashford & St Peters Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , [email protected] Thelma Lewis Service User Nila Mehra Hounslow Local Optical Committee Raheel Razvi Sensory Services Kevin Sarwarpolley Independent Activities Project *Anindita Debnath Hounslow Clinical Commissioning Group, [email protected] Hajnalka Toth-Szollas Certitude Dr. Parvinder Garcha Hounslow Clinical Commissioning Group Hounslow GP [email protected]
*Subhash Suthar International Glaucoma Association [email protected]
8 | P a g e 114 Appendix 1 Hounslow ‘Vision 2020- Right to Sight’ Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow
Background On 28 October 2013, a consultation event was held in Hounslow to discuss issues relating to services used by people in the borough who are blind or partially sighted. Over 80 blind and partially sighted local residents attended on the day along with adult care, health and third sector colleagues.
The Action Plan
The Action Plan distils the consultation feedback and highlights key issues raised by residents under five main themes and sets out the stakeholder responses to each highlighted issue.
115
It was agreed by the ‘Vision 2020- Right to Sight’ Planning Group to annually review the Action plan to address any perceived needs and gaps, in services for children and young people and for those with dual sensory impairments as they were under represented at the consultation event. .
Abbreviations - London Borough of Hounslow – LBH; Hounslow Clinical Commissioning Group – HCCG; Hounslow and Richmond Community Health NHS Trust - HRCH NHS Trust ; St Peters and Ashford Hospital; Middlesex Association for the Blind- MAB; Thomas Pocklington Trust – TPT; Transport for London- TfL ; Guide Dog Association
Implementation All actions will be delivered between 2014 and 2020 and monitored annually by the lead delivery agents highlighted in Appendix 2.
1 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow Theme 1: Promoting eye health and Stakeholder Response to residents and Outcome and Timescale Action By preventing sight loss –Residents Measurable Activity feedback 1.1 Ensure public health awareness campaigns Yes, priority agreed by partners. Maggie Lewis include promoting eye health and preventing Subash Suthar sight loss. Schedule of campaign planned for Health Awareness talks 2 events Dr. Arun in Mosques, Sikh and Hindu temples and Churches and between Gupta/ Ensure that campaign media content is third sector organisations, disability groups and Disability April 2014 Celia Golden inclusive e.g. multi-lingual, large print/braille, Community Forum. and March Public Health via radio, social media and displayed in 2015 & LBH Comms prominent locations and places of worship. Health Awareness campaign also planned for Glaucoma (annually week between 9th -15th June 2015. thereafter)
Also plans to raise awareness through organisations championing other clinical conditions e.g. Tri-borough Stroke Partnership, Diabetes UK.
116
1.2 Identify/develop targeted support and Yes, priority agreed by partners. Maggie Lewis resource to enable GPs to raise their Subash Suthar awareness and knowledge about eye health GP lectures and practioner nurse lectures planned. Will Annually Dr. Arun Gupta conditions. aim to target ‘Heat’ (education) events for all GP’S and to committee of pharmacists and opticians. Good Practice lessons from eye health awareness campaign with East Kent GP meeting will be fedback to Hounslow GP talks
Appropriate information leaflets will be left in GP surgeries October including posters from and leaflets from Macular Society 2015 and Diabetes UK.
2 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow
Theme 1: Promoting eye health and Stakeholder Response to residents and Timescale Action By preventing sight loss –Residents feedback Outcome and Measurable Activity 1.3 Develop targeted health promotion to Yes, agreed. Explore use of radio stations to raise Annually Maggie Lewis encourage regular use of optometrists. awareness further. Will engage behaviour change Subash specialist from public health team to advice on behaviour Suthar change strategies amongst residents Dr. Arun Gupta Celia Golden Clare McKenzie 1.4 Ensure early years sight testing for 5 year Yes, agreed. Programme already in place 0-5 sight testing Review Clare olds in Hounslow is in delivered in line with is commissioned by NHS England. Public Health will check annually McKenzie best practice that locally sight testing is delivered as part of the Healthy Child Programme and in line with the national school
117 nursing specification. Links with Family and Children Bill will also be assessed. 1.5 Provide disability equality training for public Yes, agreed. Targeted equality training planned with October Celia Golden sector staff. Council’s customer services and social workers. Disability 2015 Andrew Cox training will include disability related legal obligations and practical direction on serving customers with sight loss. Encourage other service providers to Yes, agreed. Training for Leisure Services staff, health April 2015 Clare undertake disability equality training. champion volunteers programme, libraries and transport McKenzie providers will be negotiated with service leads and other providers.
3 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow
Theme 2: Diagnosis and treatment - Stakeholder Response to residents and Timescale Action By Residents feedback Outcome and Measurable Activity 2.1 Ensure that various travel modes to Yes, agreed. The council’s transport planners will collect March Celia Golden community and hospital eye services are information on what transport network exists to Ashford 2015 Mark Frost publicised and updated. and St Peters and the Heart of Hounslow Clinic. Transport for London There will be an assessment of adequacy of the current Aug 2015 Local Bus transport links to service providers. Operators LBH/TfL/Local Further work to engage partners and local bus operators to October Bus address poor transport links. 2015 Companies
A public transport route map will be developed and the October route map and journey planner information will be made 2016 available at hospitals, Heart of Hounslow clinic and GP surgeries. Chris Jenkins 118 Explore audio solutions for bus companies serving eye October Maggie Lewis hospitals and clinics through RNIB. Negotiate with local 2015 Subash bus companies to announce arrival at clinics and hospitals. Suthar
Transport routes to hospitals and Heart of Hounslow clinic December Celia Golden/ will be made available at GP surgeries. 2014 Clare McKenzie 2.2 Talk to London Ambulance service (LAS) Yes, agreed. March Maggie Lewis about their refusal to transport eye patients 2015 to Ashford hospital outreach clinics located at Hounslow Health centres, because they are not Hospitals.
4 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow
Theme 2: Diagnosis and treatment - Stakeholder Response to residents and Timescale Action By Residents feedback Outcome and Measurable Activity 2.3 Ensure patients are aware of choices about Yes, agreed. Information about local ophthalmology March Dr. Arun where they can be referred for appropriate services will be made available at hospitals, Heart of 2016 Gupta treatment. Hounslow clinic and GP surgeries.
2.4 Ensure vulnerable residents in care homes Yes, agreed. It is important to ensure that there are no Celia Golden and the elderly can access services readily. assumptions about residents in care homes being at lower Mark (Children’s needs overlap). risk than those in their own homes. Blomfield
To ensure increased awareness of risks of sight loss for March vulnerable residents in residential homes, information and 2016 leaflets will be made available in residential homes in the borough. 119
5 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow
Theme 2: Diagnosis and treatment - Stakeholder Response to residents and Timescale Action By Residents feedback Outcome and Measurable Activity 2.5 Ensure referrals to specialists, eye clinics Yes, agreed. Currently there is a 18 week timeframe from Anindita and Local Authority services are dealt with GP referral to appointment at the eye hospital clinics. This Debnath efficiently and holistically. is national Referral to Treatment (RTT) target for all outpatient appointments at hospital. Hounslow CCG has commissioned a consultant led community ophthalmology services (based at 4 locations across the borough). The RTT for community service is 4 weeks. Adherence to these RTTs by the providers will be monitored by contract management process.
Review any delays in the pathway due to potential late referral by GPs will be reported to the Hounslow CCG and to Vision Strategy sub group. Annually 120
2.6 Ensure emotional support is in place e.g. Yes, agreed. Hospitals and clinics to be given Middlesex March Andrew Cox Opportunities to discuss eye condition at Association for the Blind (MAB) card with their contact 2015 point of diagnosis. details for emotional support for those newly diagnosed and their families. Establish an Eye Care Liaison Officer post Yes, LBH will explore opportunities for external funding for Andrew Cox (ECLO) (currently provision missing). ECLO post, including through the Health and Well Being and Celia Funds. Golden MAB will develop a business case and summary of March advantages of ECLO post for Hounslow. 2015 Explore volunteer recruitment to work with ECLO and explore part funding of ECLO through Surrey Visual Impairment Association and Hillingdon and Hounslow October CCG. 2015
6 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow
Theme 2: Diagnosis and treatment - Stakeholder Response to residents and Timescale Action By Residents feedback Outcome and Measurable Activity 2.7 Ensure services along the sight-loss Yes, agreed. Suggestion from the group is to enable direct Anindita pathway are timely, better co-ordinated referral from opticians to specialist service. Optician contracts Debnath and joined up e.g. Between local are managed by NHS England and there are a number of opticians, community hospital, eye commissioning and contract issues to be addressed for the direct clinic, voluntary sector and sensory referrals to be set up. team. Reducing the risk of delay in the pathway and of people ‘falling But this will be explored with Hounslow CCG to arrange an through the net’. agreement with Optometrists to refer directly to the hospital March following eye checks and not wait for GP referral which creates 2015 additional time delays for hospital referral.
East/West Surrey CCG’s and Medway CCG is in the process of Nila and arranging direct referrals to Hospitals from Optometrists. Anindita 121 Link with Local Optical Committee to discuss the referral process March Debnath in further detail but overall the referrals are managed by NHS 2016 England, so changing this could be lengthy.
2.8 Ensure Information from eye Yes, agreed. Ensure patient information booklets are to RNIB Maggie Lewis clinics/GPs can be provided in standards. Patients must also request choice of alternative appropriate formats, to enable patients formats specific to their need. to be pro-active in understanding links Explore with Trust Net Communication for audio format and December with general health and eye health check status of ‘Accessible Standards’ document which NHS 2015 issues. England are currently developing for purposes of dissemination and good practice.
Need to engage Libraries about the health information that can May 2015 Clare be accessed through Libraries. McKenzie
7 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow 2.9 Ensure details of patient transport Yes, agreed. Discuss with Hounslow CCG about current March Tandeep service provision is communicated contracts with non emergency transport service 2016 Fairman/ effectively. Anindita Debnath Ensure patient transport service is reliable.
122
8 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow
Theme 3: Support for the newly Stakeholder Response to residents and Timescale Action By diagnosed - Residents feedback Outcome and Measurable Activity 3.1 Ensure resources and support from Yes, agreed. Assess current provision of rehab services and September social/rehabilitation services are in place explore commissioning opportunities for rehab services. 2015 to meet projected amount of follow up required with service users. Explore scope for Cross borough funding of rehab services Andrew Cox commissioned from the third sector. October 2016 3.2 Ensure people with sight loss who are Yes, agreed. Currently Ashford and St Peters’ Hospital run a Anindita not eligible to register as blind or clinic on Tuesdays to support residents without Certificate of Debnath / partially sighted are aware of support Vision Impairment but it has poor attendance. Maggie Lewis options available to them. to check GP’s and Optometrists are aware of the clinic but poor referral December patterns of rates suggests need for improved information to providers. To 2015 referral to the
123 disseminate the information of this group to wider groups clinic including social services. 3.3 Ensure Certificates of Vision Impairment Yes, agreed. Local Authority to flag delayed CVI’s to the Clinical Annually Sukhi Sahlon (CVIs) are authorised and passed to Commissioning Group and monitor patterns of delay from Anindita social services in good time particular consultant Ophthalmologists. Debnath 3.4 Assess feasibility of general helpline to Yes, agreed. Third Sector Helpline is available but providers to Annually Andrew provide visually impaired people with be given MAB contact details to pass onto patients and families Cox/Celia details about services and organisations Eye drop administration advice is provided at St Peters’ and Golden available to support them. Ashford Eye Hospital. There is an ongoing need to raise awareness with pharmacists about eye drop administration, Maggie Lewis particularly to ensure that medication is labelled strategically without hiding the Braille instructions.
9 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow
Theme 4: Independent living – getting Stakeholder Response to residents and Timescale Action By out and about - Residents feedback Outcome and Measurable Activity 4.1 Ensure rights of way and public realm Yes, agreed. This is within the Hounslow Highways Contract. Annually Hounslow services enforce the removal of There will be ongoing enforcement activity by Hounslow Highways/ inappropriately positioned street Highways. SERCO furniture or obstacles. Such as A Boards and vehicles, if and where they are cited as causing problems. Raise public awareness of the Yes, agreed. There will be work on addressing footway parking Annually Hounslow challenges faced by visually impaired and obstructions from traders Highways/ people of all ages in a range of settings, SERCO including high streets and residential areas. 4.2 Consider impact of how low contrasted Yes, agreed. Re-publish street scene design guide. March Celia Golden
124 obstacles including bollards can cause 2016 and REDe unseen obstructions. Paint low contrasting objects in more contrasting/visible colours. 4.3 Raise awareness of legality to provide Enforcement of private sector establishments is the On going Andrew Cox goods and services with reasonable responsibility of the Commission of Equality and Human Rights and adjustments and where necessary through their helpline. Information sign posting, case work, Guide Dog enforce the Equality Act 2010. In lobbying and advocacy will be offered to support blind and Association relation to guide dog owners being partially sighted residents to pursue complaints. prevented from accessing particular establishments. The Council and Health sector provide training on reasonable 2017 Celia Golden adjustments to staff and respond to all requests for reasonable Tandeep adjustments. Fairman
10 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow
Theme 4: Independent living – getting Stakeholder Response to residents and Timescale Action By out and about - Residents feedback Outcome and Measurable Activity 4.4 Ensure road crossings are audible Yes, the Council will raise this with TfL. 2015 and Celia Golden where appropriate to allow people to on going and Mark know when to cross the road safely. Frost Ensure tactile cones are installed on crossings and repaired quickly when reported as broken. 4.5 Ensure public transport is fit for purpose Yes, agreed. The Council will work with local bus operators to 2014 - Celia Golden to meet needs of visually impaired raise awareness of disability related challenges and the need to 2018 people. improve bus driver training.
Ensure transport staff have more The Council will raise this with TfL. awareness training, as buses aren’t stopping, drivers not lowering the step
125 on buses and audio announcements are being switched off. Explore if audio Celia Golden announcements at bus stops would be and Mark feasible. Frost 4.6 Ensure Dial-a-Ride services are Yes, the council will secure a speaker from Dial a Ride for the 2014 Celia Golden consistent. next DCF meeting to discuss the quality and consistency of monitoring arrangements for the service . 4.7 Establish a buddy system for visually Yes. A buddy services by LBH will be reviewed to ensure there July 2015 Clare impaired people to get around is more joined up approach between services and the Middlesex McKenzie/ Hounslow. Association for the Blind. Mark Bloomfield /Andrew Cox
4.8 Ensure terminology on forms for mobility Yes, the Council will review the forms and discuss with TfL and 2016 Celia Golden and freedom pass cover entitlement by Mobility team whether there is scope to make changes deaf and visually impaired people. requested.
11 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow
Theme 5: Independent living – Stakeholder Response to residents and Outcome and Timescale Action By access and participation - Residents Measurable Activity feedback. 5.1 Ensure leisure services are promoted Yes, agreed. Enhance and develop initiatives that enable 2019 Clare in creative and inclusive ways. . visually impaired people of all ages to participate in sport and McKenzie leisure activities, in the boroughs facilities and sports groups Engage with Leisure Services team to look at training modules, mainstreaming and specialist leisure provision. 5.2 Continue to promote and encourage Yes. MAB to consider sharing good practice sports projects from 2016 Andrew Cox uptake of flagship leisure activities for other Boroughs e.g. tricycle funding visually impaired people of all ages including: Brentford Leisure Centre which provides free swimming on a Monday afternoon, Tricycle Club, yoga classes,
126 and free health walks. 5.4 Ensure ‘carers go free’ system in Yes. Undertake stock taking exercise to review Inclusive Fitness 2016 Clare leisure centres is continued. Initiative with a view to identifying gaps. McKenzie 5.5 Develop life-long learning opportunities Yes. MAB has secured funding to work with employment service Ongoing Andrew Cox for visually impaired people. To and will take this action forward. ensure they have skills and opportunities to access early years/extra-curricular activities, the job market, the internet and academic/vocational courses. 5.6 Improve and develop more local job Yes, agreed. MAB will use part of the funding above to work 2015 - Andrew Cox opportunities for visually impaired with employers to show them how adaptations can work in the 2020 people with small and medium world of work. enterprises and larger businesses in the borough.
12 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow
Theme 5: Independent living – Stakeholder Response to residents and Timescale Action By access and participation - Residents Outcome and Measurable Activity feedback 5.7 Ensure that visually impaired people Yes, agreed. MAB will offer support for this. Ongoing Andrew Cox have the support they need when in employment, through promoting and utilising the Access to Work employment service. 5.8 Support links and opportunities with Yes, agreed. Adult Learning will review opportunities with April 2015- Vicky Taylor Hounslow college, on furthering good Hounslow College. March practice with providing accessible 2017 learning and development opportunities, within and beyond the education sector.
127
13 | Page
‘ V i s i o n 2020- R i g h t to Sight’ - Consultation Feedback and Action Plan to improve services for blind and partially sighted residents in Hounslow Agenda Item 7
Report for: ACTION
Contains Confidential No or Exempt Information
Title London Borough of Hounslow (Lionel Road South) Compulsory Purchase Order 2014 Member Reporting Councillor Curran Contact Details Shane Baker [email protected] For Consideration By Borough Council Date to be Considered 15 July 2014 Implementation Date if 16 July 2014 Not Called In Affected Wards Brentford, Chiswick Riverside, Turnham Green Keywords/Index Brentford Football Club, Compulsory Purchase Order
1. Details of Recommendations
That the Council notes the recommendation of the Cabinet on 1 July 2014, and that it:
a. Notes and approves the draft London Borough of Hounslow (Lionel Road South) Compulsory Purchase Order 2014 as attached at Appendix 1 ("the Order"), the map comprising the Order Land ("the Order Land") as attached at Appendix 2 and referred to in the draft Order ("the Map") and the draft Statement of Reasons made in support of that Order and attached at Appendix 3 ("the Statement of Reasons"). The Order is required for both planning and regeneration purposes in order to enable Lionel Road Developments Limited („LRDL‟) to build its new community stadium and to facilitate the comprehensive regeneration of the Lionel Road area and complete the land assembly in relation to the Order Land
b. Subject to (i) the prior completion of the agreement for lease between the Council and LRDL and (ii) the Director Regeneration Economic Development being satisfied (as agreed in consultation with the Chair of Cabinet Committee) as to the contractual or other arrangements between LRDL and its chosen development partner (to ensure the deliverability of the Scheme), to authorise the making of the London Borough of Hounslow (Lionel Road South) Compulsory Purchase Order 2014 under section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning
128 Act 1990 („The 1990 Act‟). c. Authorises the Director Regeneration Economic Development and Environment ("the Director") in consultation with the Assistant Director Corporate Governance (“the Assistant Director”), to make changes to the draft Order, the Map (within the red line boundary as shown on the Map) and Statements of Reasons as considered necessary and agreed with the Chair of Cabinet Committee. d. Authorises the use of powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the removal of any apparatus of statutory undertakers or communication code operators from the Order Land shown in Appendix 2. e. Authorises the acquisition by agreement of all third party interests in and over the Order Land under Section 227 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 before and after confirmation of the Order and in respect of any new rights required for the development or use of the Order Land. f. Authorises the Director in consultation with the Assistant Director to take all necessary steps to secure confirmation of the Order and the acquisition of all third party interests in the Order Land and any new rights and the removal of all occupants from the Order Land. This authorisation includes the publication and advertisement of the Order, serving appropriate notices, seeking confirmation of the Order, taking all steps to acquire relevant interests and such other steps as deemed appropriate by the Director in consultation with the Assistant Director to facilitate the development, redevelopment or improvement of the Order Land. g. Authorises the Director in consultation with the Assistant Director to enter into agreements and make undertakings, contracts and transfers on behalf of the Council with third party interests in the Order Land or for the creation of new rights in favour of the Order Land or with parties otherwise affected by the Order, including for the withdrawal of objections to the confirmation of the Order and also including the offering back of any part of the Order Land or acquisition of additional land or interests in or over any such land and the removal of any land from the Order. h. Authorises the Assistant Director to defend any proceedings challenging these decisions, and the making, confirmation or implementation of the Order or any notice, general vesting declaration or anything else made pursuant to the Order. i. Authorises the Director in consultation with the Assistant Director following confirmation of the Order to publish and serve all appropriate notices of confirmation of the Order and to make one or more general vesting declarations or serve notices to treat and notices of entry (as
129 appropriate) in respect of the Order Land.
j. Authorises the Assistant Director Corporate Governance to initiate or take part in any arbitration or proceedings before the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) or the Courts in order to resolve any disputes as to compensation or other payments payable for any interests in the Order Land or arising from the making or confirmation of the Order or securing possession of any part of the Order Land or title to any part of the Order Land or the removal of any occupants or apparatus of statutory undertakers or communication code operators.
k. To note that the Director agreed terms for an Indemnity Agreement with appropriate surety covering all the Council‟s costs in and incidental to the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order or acquiring the Land by agreement, costs of process, legal / valuation costs, and officer time; and that the development of the Land and the use of the community stadium by Brentford Football Club („BFC‟) pursuant to planning permission reference 00703/A/P11 (or in substantially that form) with Lionel Road Developments Ltd. The CPO Indemnity Agreement was completed on 18/06/2014.
l. Notes that LRDL, in liaison with and on behalf of the Council, will continue to use reasonable endeavours to assemble the land by agreement / private treaty.
m. Notes that the Equalities Impact Assessment undertaken, that has assessed the potential impacts of the proposed Compulsory Purchase Order.
n. Authorises the Director in consultation with the Assistant Director to negotiate and complete the agreement for lease of the Land between the Council and LRDL, in accordance with the terms set out in the report.
o. Notes that the extant provisions contained in the „in principle‟ Resolution of Cabinet on 4 March 2014, remain in full force and effect.
If the recommendations are adopted, how will residents benefit? The proposal will assist with the land assembly in The current programme for order to facilitate the delivery of the proposed football the development seeks to and community stadium for Brentford Football Club commence in 2015/16 and as well as new housing and commercial complete during the development. This will help enhance the presence 2016/17 season, with of the club and secure its community work in the housing to follow in phases Borough, and will provide approximately 910 new until 2023. homes, hotel and overall on-site employment being 190 full time and 520 part time jobs, plus creation of a further additional 141 full time equivalent jobs in the area resulting from spending from new residents,
130 giving a net increase of around 200 full time jobs compared to existing uses, spurring the comprehensive regeneration of the area.
The proposal will assist in the regeneration of the area through optimising use of brownfield sites and enhancing the local economy. Importantly it would be an opportunity to improve the financial sustainability of BFC, retaining its home in the Borough, which will maintain its heritage and identity and help secure and expand its existing wide ranging community and sporting role in the borough. New housing, commercial uses and environmental improvements would add to this comprehensive regeneration and provide housing choice and spur local economic activity.
Overall the development will make a significant positive contribution to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the Council's area.
2. Report Summary
1. This report is a follow up to the previous report to Cabinet on 4th March 2014 where an in principle decision was made to use Compulsory Purchase powers to complete the land assembly for the proposed Lionel Road South development subject to the Council entering into an Indemnity Agreement to cover it‟s associated costs through the CPO by the developer LRDL (Brentford FC‟s company delivering the scheme). The report also agreed to authorise the use of Local Government Act powers to assist with the CPO process. 2. This report seeks resolutions from both Cabinet and Full Council for the making and use of Compulsory Purchase powers in respect of land surrounding Lionel Road, Brentford, to enable the comprehensive regeneration of the area and facilitate the retention of Brentford Football Club in the Borough. 3. The Council entered into an Indemnity Agreement with LRDL on 18/06/2014, which will enable the land assembly to deliver the proposed regeneration scheme. The Council‟s costs in promoting and implementing a Compulsory Purchase Order are underwritten by LRDL. 4. The key financial implications for the Council are minimal. Consultant costs for professional advice, costs of external lawyers and costs in respect of officer time will be paid by LRDL together with all other promotional, inquiry and land assembly costs are dealt with in the Indemnity Agreement between the Council and LRDL, and which provides a number of protections for the Council (including e.g. a bond). 5. These recommendations are being made to facilitate the remaining land assembly which will assist in the delivery of the redevelopment of the site, which has wider public benefits that will improve the economic, social and
131 environmental well-being of the area.
3. Reason for Decision and Options Considered
3.1 BFC through LRDL have been seeking to assemble the site since 2012 and to date have approximately 66% of the site in its freehold ownership. The club continue to negotiate with landowners and parties with an interest in the site to secure terms to acquire all interests. Since the in principle decision by Cabinet on 4th March 2014 LRDL has continued attempts to acquire the land.
3.2 Whilst the Council will, through LRDL, continue to attempt to agree reasonable terms to acquire land, it has not been possible to agree terms to acquire all the remaining interests. Neither LRDL nor the Council can be sure that it will be possible to agree terms to acquire outstanding third party interests at a reasonable cost within a reasonable timescale. There are also areas of potential unknown ownerships and other rights – a confirmed Order would mean these could not be an impediment to the scheme proceeding.
3.3 The decision to use compulsory purchase powers are as a last resort to ensure that site can be assembled and therefore to ensure the delivery of the regeneration scheme around Lionel Road South. This will entail the comprehensive re-development of brownfield land of an area of approximately 4.7 hectares which will allow for a 20,000 seat football stadium with new housing, commercial space and community and sports facilities, along with new site access and environmental improvements.
3.4 LRDL (with Council assistance where required) will continue private treaty negotiations with third party owners and occupiers. Negotiations will continue both before, during and after any Public Inquiry, and confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase Order. Without the use of compulsory purchase powers, the uncertainty associated with completing the land acquisition is likely to cause delay and uncertainty as to whether the scheme will eventually happen. A Compulsory Purchase Order, if confirmed by the Secretary of State, provides certainty of site assembly for the development and deals with land title matters which will affect the delivery of the development.
4. CPO Indemnity Agreement
4.1 The CPO Indemnity Agreement („CPOIA‟) was completed on 18/06/2014. The CPOIA is the agreement between the Council and LRDL that provides for LRDL to indemnify the Council against all and any CPO costs reasonably and properly incurred and to provide a surety to guarantee that indemnity. It also outlines the mechanics of how the requisite land for the scheme will be transferred to LRDL.
4.2 Under the terms of the CPOIA the Council will work with LRDL to take forward the promotion and implementation of CPO powers to complete the land assembly for the development. LRDL is under an obligation to continue negotiations to acquire land by agreement but in the event that land assembly
132 is not reasonably possible then the Council can promote and implement a CPO. All costs properly incurred by the Council in connection with the promotion and implementation of the CPO are recoverable from the developer.
5. Land which is proposed to be the subject of the CPO
5.1 Land which is to be included in the CPO:
a. The Central Site – (Freeholder – LRDL). A roughly triangular shaped plot bounded by railway lines to the northwest and east, with Lionel Road South running along its southern and southwest side. This site has a variety of industrial type uses, and is principally used for waste transfer with construction waste being sorted and transferred. Other uses include vehicle repair, construction hire and engineering. Much of the site is unsurfaced, with stockpiles of various waste materials amongst a number of pre-fabricated buildings. A two- storey brick building c1870s adjoins Lionel Road South. There are a number of occupiers on the site on short term tenancies. LRDL is actively progressing with a strategy to achieve vacant possession. LRDL have served notices to terminate the existing lease arrangements with the 8 occupiers. Formal notices have been served on 3 occupiers who are afforded protection under the provisions of Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. LRDL is prepared to assist with timings for seeking vacant possession and where possible give practical assistance in relocating businesses. The S106 agreement requires a Relocation Strategy to be agreed with the Council before commencement of development. LRDL are unlikely to be obliged to relocate or extinguish any businesses through the CPO process as a consequence of working with occupiers through the terms of the existing lease agreements. Should any business need to be compulsorily acquired the Indemnity Agreement will require LRDL to use all reasonable endeavours to assist with the relocation of local businesses. Additionally, the Council‟s Economic Development and Skills and Training teams are able offer guidance and support in this respect.
The Central Site is principally in the freehold ownership of LRDL and whilst it may be possible to achieve vacant possession of this part of the site, there are occupier interests, areas of unregistered title and rights which may exist over the site. On this basis it is considered necessary to include this land in the Compulsory Purchase Order so that any unregistered, express or implied rights can be determined and in order to achieve certainty of complete land assembly.
b. The Duffy Site – (Freeholder - The Duffy Group PLC). A triangular shaped plot adjacent to Lionel Road South which is used as a Builder‟s Yard and has a number of two storey temporary buildings. It is owned and occupied by the Duffy Group PLC.
LRDL commenced negotiations in early 2013 in an attempt to acquire the land by agreement. These negotiations have now reached an advanced
133 stage, with the major commercial points agreed and negotiation of legal contracts underway. However, there remains an element of uncertainty as whether the negotiations will be concluded to allow the site to be developed in line with LRDL programme. Therefore this site remains part of the Compulsory Purchase Order The inclusion of this site will also ensure that any other third party rights can be extinguished. c. The Capital Court Site – (Freeholder - First Industrial Investments Ltd). This is an irregular shaped plot to the east of the main site, which has railway lines to the west and Capital Interchange Way to the east. It has a four storey office building, Capital Court, which is one of a pair of 1980s office buildings, the other building (which is not required for the scheme) having recently been converted to a secondary school (“the Capital Court site”). Based on the information that has been provided, the Capital Court commercial building currently has three occupiers. One is a commercial tenant on a lease with break clauses. The other two occupiers appear to be recent agreements to charities. Save for these three tenants, the remainder of the building is currently vacant.
The freehold of this site has been the subject of negotiations for a sale since December 2012 with LRDL. LRDL will continue negotiations but there is no certainty that an agreement will be reached. We have been advised by the landowner that they have recently entered into an option agreement for the sale of the site to a development company. The Council and LRDL have requested details of the terms of the option but none have been provided. The Council has written directly to the development company to ascertain what they are seeking to do with the site. The development company has not yet responded to the Council's request for information. There remains no certainty that attempts to acquire the site by agreement will be successful and therefore this site remains within the Compulsory Purchase Order to complete the land assembly and to extinguish any other third party rights. d. Network Rail Land. – (Freeholder - Network Rail Infrastructure Limited („NRIL‟)). The main site has two railway lines running through the Order Land. Whilst it is not proposed to acquire or move these lines, the scheme does include a bridge to link parts of the proposed development, therefore the acquisition of air and possibly land (interest) rights above and either side of the rail corridor will be necessary.
LRDL are in advanced negotiations with Network Rail with Heads of Terms agreed between the parties and tripartite discussions with LRDL‟s proposed development partner underway. LRDL will seek to secure appropriate land and air rights by agreement to facilitate the proposed development. However, to ensure that negotiations with NRIL continue on the same timetable as other affected parties, it is important to include the NRIL land over which land and / or air rights are sought within the Compulsory Purchase Order. LRDL has progressed negotiations which are likely to enable it to enter into an appropriate agreement with Network Rail covering both protection of the railway use, but also allow rights in
134 favour of LRDL to deliver a bridge over the railway and re-open an underpass as part of the access arrangements for the proposed development, with there also being a payment for improvements to the adjoining Kew Bridge station.
e. Other Interests.- There are some small parcels of land and minor land interests which will be required to assemble the site in order to ensure the scheme can be delivered. Similarly to the above, it will be necessary to include these in the Compulsory Purchase Order as in some cases there is no registered owner to negotiate with, and it will be necessary to extinguish any other third party rights in this land.
The scheme may also affect others interests near to the site once the development is underway. Any such interests such as rights to light will be included within the Order to ensure that they cannot impede the scheme's delivery.
f. Council Land- [LBH Highways Land].
The Council has public highway ownership on Lionel Road South and at Chiswick High Road. These highways will remain but will be improved as part of the scheme. This land is included to ensure all rights and restrictions applying to the scheme land are acquired or extinguished, noting that adjoining owners could have rights to the land beneath the surface of the highway (the subsoil) were the highway to ever be extinguished or stopped up. Additionally the scheme includes the reopening of an underpass beneath the Lionel Road South highway which does not form part of the highway.
6. Statement of Reasons.
6.1 The final draft Statement of Reasons attached at Appendix 3 sets out the Council‟s reasons for making and seeking confirmation of the proposed Compulsory Purchase Order. This document will form part of a suite of information to be prepared to support the proposed Order.
6.2 The document is produced in accordance with paragraph 35 and appendix R of ODPM Circular 06/04 (Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules). It provides helpful information about the proposed Order including the following points summarised below. A number of these points are considered in more detail elsewhere in this report.
6.3 Background to the making the Order.
6.3.1 To facilitate the comprehensive regeneration of 4.7 hectares of brownfield land to enable the retention of BFC in the Borough by building a new 20,000 seat stadium with housing, commercial space, hotel, community facilities and environmental improvements to the area.
6.4 Description of the Order Land.
135 6.4.1 As stated in paragraph 5 above, this sets out the land subject of the Order and its current uses.
6.5 Legal Powers.
6.5.1 This section outlines why the use of Section 226(1)(a) is appropriate, as well as considering the power under Section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to override easements or rights affecting the land.
6.6 The Purpose for making the Order.
6.6.1 To complete the assembly of the land required to implement the regeneration scheme and deliver the identified improvements to economic, social and environmental wellbeing.
6.7 Justification for Compulsory Purchase.
6.7.1 The Order is needed to enable the Council to acquire the land to facilitate the comprehensive regeneration of the site, comprising a phased scheme to provide a new 20,000 seat stadium for BFC, up to 910 homes, ancillary commercial space, hotel and associated public realm improvements. This regeneration scheme will bring widespread community benefits through providing a modern stadium for BFC, helping to secure its long term future in the Borough and facilitating the expansion of its extensive community work through the associated charity, the BFC Community Sports Trust. Importantly the proposed development is of a scale and nature that will provide a catalyst for wider regeneration of the surrounding area, and brings significant benefits in providing a significant number of new homes to meet housing demand, expansion of the local economic activity and increased opportunities for employment and training, a new public park and extensive additions to the public realm that will enhance the local environment and improve links to the wider area.
6.8 Description of the Proposals
6.8.1 This provides description of the development proposals as outlined in the December Planning Committee report and considered further at 6.10 below.
6.9 Resources for Land Acquisition, Delivery and Implementation.
6.9.1 The Club has secured sufficient underwriting from the Club‟s owner Matthew Benham to complete land acquisition, fees and related interest costs. The Club are not reliant upon any third party funding from its bankers or other stakeholders.
6.9.2 The overall scheme viability is interdependent on a combination of: the owner‟s underwritten funding contribution, the development value of Griffin Park (the Club‟s existing stadium), and developer funding.
6.9.3 Repayment of the developer funding/ profit margin comes from proceeds from the residential enabling development sites. The estimated stadium and
136 associated infrastructure costs are over £71m with a build period in the order of 24 months. The planning consent requires this stadium phase being delivered early to ensure the main anchor of the scheme is completed. The cost of stadium and associated infrastructure can only be recovered from the income generated by the total residential developments on:
the Lionel Road Central site the Capital Court site the Duffy site the Club‟s existing stadium site at Griffin Park
6.9.4 In 2013, LRDL carried out a procurement exercise to seek a development partner to assist with delivering the overall scheme. This process has been successful to date with 3 parties being shortlisted to work with LRDL to deliver the scheme from which a preferred partner was selected in early 2014. As part of the preferred partner‟s delivery team a specialist stadium contractor has been identified and this party has undertaken a detailed costing exercise based on the stadium specifications. The completion of the development agreement including the stadium specification is scheduled to be concluded in July 2014.
6.9.5 The three phases of the development will be financed by the developer who will provide cash flow funding to allow the stadium and associated infrastructure to be completed in Phase 1 together with some residential elements. A part of this Phase 1 residential scheme will comprise Private Rental Scheme units which will be funded via institutional investment. The developer will receive part repayment of its cash flow funding from the sale of the Phase 1 residential units.
6.9.6 Recovery of the balance of the developer‟s funding plus the allowable profit margin will require the completion of Phases 2 (Griffin Park) and Phase 3 (Duffy). Phase 2, the development of Griffin Park can take place once the stadium has been completed. The third and final planned phase of the development is the Duffy site. The proceeds from the sale of the residential units on this site will provide the final tranche of income to make the overall project viable.
6.9.7 All the residential elements are key funding sources for the scheme as they effectively cross subsidise the stadium costs and associated infrastructure costs including the bridge, public realm improvements and Section 106 payments (including the provision of space for the Hounslow Interim Education Centre). Section 10 of the Statement of Reasons provides more detail on this.
6.9.8 LRDL and the Council are satisfied through the detailed procurement process to date that the scheme is attractive to the market and this interest assists with underpinning the commercial viability of the scheme. The ability of the Club‟s owner to underwrite the cost of land acquisition, fees and interest costs without reliance on any bank funding further supports the viability and deliverability of the scheme. While BFC‟s detailed financial plans and the viability of the scheme are commercially sensitive and confidential in the
137 planning process it made available a less detailed Business Plan publically available and also allowed its finances and the scheme‟s viability to be independently assessed by a consultant property surveyor on behalf on the Council.
6.10 Planning Position.
6.10.1 This section deals with the site in terms of national, London-wide and local planning policy. It also sets out the position on the planning application for the scheme – this has received both LB Hounslow resolution to approve and subsequently the necessary authority from the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for the application to be determined. The planning permission was granted on 12 June 2014 with a S106 agreement completed on the same day.
6.10.2 The two main elements of the proposed development consented pursuant to the above permission are:
(i) A 20,000 seat football stadium with ancillary and community uses and new access to the Central Site. (ii) Housing development on adjoining and surrounding land comprising up to 910 dwellings, commercial uses, car parking and a 160 room hotel.
6.10.3 The Council resolved to grant full planning permission on 5 December 2013 for the football stadium and associated uses including hospitality and function space, club management, training facilities, car parking, public realm improvements and accommodation for community uses with an association with the club, these being the Brentford FC Community Sports Trust, the Learning Zone and the Hounslow Interim Education Centre.
6.10.4 The Council also resolved to grant outline planning permission on 5 December 2013 for the housing and hotel development with car parking. These uses would be located around the stadium, with all matters (layout, scale, appearance, access, and landscaping) relating to the buildings being reserved at this stage. Twelve tower blocks ranging from 7 to 17 storeys are proposed.
6.10.5 A separate outline planning permission is extant for the redevelopment of BFC‟s existing home ground (Griffin Park) for housing, with housing on this site to also provide funding for the development on the Order land.
6.11 Human Rights.
6.11.1 The Human Rights Act 1998 requires a public body to act in a manner that is compatible with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) (also see section 9.1 below).
6.11.2 The Order is to be made as it is considered that there is a compelling case in the public interest to exercise its CPO powers to meet the purposes set out in this report and the Statement of Reasons, and that that case outweighs the interference with the human rights of those who would be affected by the Order. 138
6.12 Equalities Impact Assessment.
6.12.1 The Council has completed an Equalities Impact Assessment which has demonstrated that due regard has been given to the equalities protected characteristics and the equalities duties. 6.12.2 The proposal facilitated by the Order would have similar impacts on people of all ages, genders and those with all protected characteristics within the wider community, including impacts of the regeneration of the site with significant opportunities for new employment and training, enhancement of the local economy, new housing with a range of unit types including a minimum of 10% being wheelchair accessible, improved open space and public realm with the stadium access and facilities being fully accessible. Additionally, the associated BFC Community Sports Trust provides major positive benefits in the areas of sports development, social inclusion, education, health and community safety, with a particular focus on younger people, the disabled, women and disadvantaged children from poorer socio-economic environments. 6.12.3 A more direct impact will be felt by those persons directly affected by the CPO, through land or rights acquired to enable the development to be implemented. The statutory compensation framework ensures claimants are compensated for the losses they occur. 6.12.4 The assessment concluded that the proposal engages a number of equalities duties with positive impacts resulting from the regeneration of the site with a new stadium and associated facilities, housing and public realm improvements, with there being no negative impacts. There are benefits across the community from new housing, employment and training and enhancement of the physical environment. Particular benefits for young people, women, BAME groups and the disadvantaged young people are likely with the enhanced community facilities proposed and the increased activity of the associated BFCCST and its focus on provision of social and sporting activities, education and skills attainment and personal development.
7. CPO Land referencing
7.1 Following the Cabinet decision on 4th March 2014, the Council, through the appointed Land Referencing agent, issued notices under S16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to those with registered and identified interests in the proposed CPO area. These notices request information from those who have or may have interests in the land, and are used to confirm the ownership and occupation information. From Land Registry checks, information from the returns on the notices and further due diligence made by the Land Referencing company, the Order has been prepared to identify the various interests and rights in the site, and those who own them or have the benefit of them. The attached Order at Appendix 1 identifies those who have interests in the site, which is itself identified in the red line plan in Appendix 2. Any further relevant persons identified will be added into the Order prior to it being made.
139
8. Government Circular 06/04
8.1 ODPM Circular 06/04 sets out guidance for acquiring authorities in relation to the making of Compulsory Purchase Orders, including when it is appropriate for CPO to be utilised. The Circular sets out the key tests which need to be satisfied before a Compulsory Purchase Order will be confirmed – these are considered by the Secretary of State prior to deciding whether to confirm the Order and must be considered by the Council now prior to making the Order. These tests include:
Circular requirement Section Council’s response in Circular The purpose for which the land is Appendix The Council considered at Planning being acquired fits with the adopted A – Committee in December 2013 the planning framework for the area or Paragraph various issues affecting the Order Land. where no such up-to-date framework 16(i) This resulted in a resolution to grant exists, with any core strategy and any planning permission for the scheme, Area Action Plans in the process of which has now been granted following preparation in full consultation with completion of the S106 agreement. The the community. Council resolved to grant planning permission for the scheme on 5 December 2013 – the planning position is Demonstration that the scheme is Part 1 – set out in more detail at 6.10 above. unlikely to be blocked by any Paragraph There are not considered to be any impediments to implementation. This 22 planning or other impediments which needs to include financial, physical would prevent the scheme being and legal considerations. delivered.
Where planning permission will be Part 1- required for the scheme, and has not Paragraph been granted, there should be no 23 obvious reason why it might be withheld.
The extent to which the proposed Appendix The scheme generates significant purpose will contribute to the A – benefits to both the local and wider area, achievement of Paragraph and is a significant positive for both. The the promotion or improvement of the 16(ii) Council considers that there is a economic, social or environmental compelling case in the public interest. wellbeing of the area. The scheme will secure the redevelopment of the Order Land, which There is a compelling case in the Part 1 - will in turn bring about social, economic public interest for the Order / Paragraph and environmental benefits for the area. scheme, which outweighs the 17 The scheme will bring widespread interference with owners' human community benefits through providing a rights. modern stadium for BFC, helping to secure its long term future in the Borough
140 Whether the purpose for which the Appendix and facilitating the expansion of its acquiring authority is proposing to A – extensive community work through the acquire the land could be achieved Paragraph associated charity, the BFC Community by any other means. 16(iv) Sports Trust. The regeneration benefits including new stadium, new housing, commercial space, environmental improvements and long term security for BFC and the Brentford Community Trust are compelling. With no certainty of securing all land interests through private treaty agreements, without which the scheme would not be delivered, it is considered necessary and appropriate to make and seek confirmation of the Order. The financial viability of the scheme Appendix LRDL has confirmed it has the necessary is such that it can be delivered. This A – funding to meet the land assembly costs, includes resources to acquire land, Paragraph CPO promotional costs and development as well as develop the scheme. 16(iii) costs.
The proposed development has been examined independently by consultants on behalf of the Council during the The acquiring authority should Part 1 - planning assessment and during the provide as much information as Paragraph preparation of the Order, with this work possible about the resource 20 demonstrating that the proposal is viable implications of both acquiring the and that the scheme is deliverable. land and implementing the scheme for which the land is required. Details of how any shortfalls are intended to be met. Whether any other bodies have agreed to underwrite the scheme and if so details of this agreement.
Details on the timing of the Part 1 – availability of the funding. It would Paragraph only be in exceptional (and fully 21 justified) circumstances that it might be reasonable to acquire land where there was little prospect of implementing the scheme for a number of years.
9. Human Rights
9.1 The Human Rights Act 1998 places direct obligations on public bodies such as the Council to demonstrate that the use of compulsory purchase powers is in the public interest, and the use of such powers is proportionate to the ends being pursued.
141
9.2 It is acknowledged that the compulsory acquisition of the Order Land or the creation of new rights will amount to an interference with the human rights of those with an interest in the Order Land. These include rights under article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR").
9.3 The relevant part of Article 1 to the First Protocol provides:
‘that every natural or legal person is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by the law and by the general principles of international law....’
9.4 The relevant part of Article 8 provides:
"that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence". Similarly to article 1 of the First Protocol this is however not an 'absolute' right - there is to be “no interference with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society.... in the interest of... the economic well- being of the country....."
9.5 It is considered that there is a compelling case in the public interest for compulsory acquisition of the various interests referred to in the Order which outweighs such rights, and therefore the use of compulsory purchase powers in respect of the Order Land is proportionate. Without the use of these powers, the much needed regeneration and redevelopment of the Order Land is unlikely to be achieved either at all or in any reasonable timescale. Appropriate compensation will be available to those entitled to claim it under the relevant statutory provisions. Having regard to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the guidance set out in Circular 06/2004, Members are advised that the Order Land is both suitable for and will facilitate the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement, and the scheme will make a positive contribution to the promotion of the economic, social and environmental well being of the area.
10. Details of alternative options considered and rejected
10.1 The Order Land may be capable of piecemeal development with individual plots capable of being brought forward in isolation. However the combined approach of using the whole of the Order Land for comprehensive development is considered to yield a significantly better regeneration outcome for the borough, securing the football club and its heritage in the area, the creation of a new 160 room hotel, up to 910 residential units, parking, cycle parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and public and private amenity spaces, with the scale and nature of the proposal, which provides a major community focal point with associated infrastructure and extensive additions to the public realm providing a catalyst for permanent, positive impacts on the site and wider area.
142 10.2 A comprehensive approach is required to deliver all the regeneration benefits and to enable the delivery of the stadium, with the whole site needed to enable funding of the stadium and associated works and to ensure the development is satisfactorily woven into the surrounding urban environment with improvements to permeability in the area. It also ensures that BFC stay in the area with all the social and economic benefits that entails, as considered elsewhere in this report.
10.3 The National Planning Policy Framework, policy 4.6 of the London Plan (LP) and policy C.5.1A of the Unitary Development Plan all require a sequential approach to be taken to the development of new stadia with objectives being to location such facilities in the most accessible locations. LP policy 4.6 supports new sports facilities where they are located on sites with good public transport, are accessible to all including disabled and older people, and where they address deficiencies in facilities and provide a cultural focus to foster more sustainable communities.
10.4 BFC has sought to find a location for a new ground for over a decade, in consultation with the Council. There are many constraints in finding a suitable location for a stadium in Brentford given it is an urban area with land being relatively expensive compared to other regions, with very few sites capable of accommodating a stadium in West London let alone the Borough, and even fewer having no policy protection, for example for office or industrial development. Possible sites in other parts of the Borough or neighbouring boroughs are also constrained by being outside built up areas such as on Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, where public transport is also poorer.
10.5 Initial research into possible alternatives sites was carried out in 1999 where six sites were considered in a study by consultants on behalf of BFC and the Council. The current site was not included. After further research none of the possible sites proved deliverable or acceptable in planning terms.
10.6 Further investigation of alternative sites was carried out in 2004 and 2005 by planning consultants for BFC and discussions with the Council, with these investigations considering sites at Osterley Park, Gunnersbury Park, Feltham Arenas, Western International Market (Cranford) and land in Bedfont, Hanworth and Hounslow West.
10.7 However none of these sites were preferable in planning terms to the more centrally located, brownfield Lionel Road site, owing to factors reducing the desirability or feasibility of the other sites including:
Green Belt/ Metropolitan Open Land/ Local Open Space designation Poorer access public transport Unacceptable displacement of existing uses
10.8 Subsequently the Lionel Road site was selected as the preferred location in the Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP, adopted 2009). This selection followed appraisal of alternative sites in the region, with its higher accessibility to public transport an important factor. Additionally, weight should also be given to the retention of the club in Brentford as this is where it was established and has
143 maintained its home and heritage, providing an important element to the cultural history and identity of the area for over 120 years. The site is a short distance from the existing ground and of historical note is that the site is less than 200m from where the BFC was originally established in 1889. As noted above, the retention of the Club in the Borough ensures the continuation of the socio-economic and community benefits which it (and the related community trust) brings.
10.9 Therefore the proposed stadium is justified at this location, given it would be likely to improve the club‟s longer term financial position and its ability to compete, attract spectators, and links to local residents, providing enhanced facilities and accessibility for all in a location with good public transport links. The site is referred to in the BAAP as the site for a new stadium, with no preferable alternative sites available. Alternatives such as expansion of Griffin Park is not practical and doing nothing could threaten the long term survival of the club, whilst its retention in the Borough and Brentford is a major positive outcome given historic and cultural links with the local community.
10.10 Vacant possession is required to deliver all these elements, and can only be achieved by acquiring all of the remaining private land interests that exist. The Council, through LRDL, has and will continue to attempt to acquire these interests by negotiation, however, this may not be possible in all cases. Where agreement by negotiation is not possible the only other option is to acquire the interest through the exercise of the Council‟s powers of compulsory purchase.
11. Policy Context
11.1 The Cabinet report on 4th March 2014 set out the Policy context for the proposed scheme. This is also in the Statement of Reasons at Appendix 3 to this Report. Key Policy context includes:
a. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) emphasises three elements to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental, with new development to make a positive contribution to each.
b. London Plan policy 4.6 provides support for the continued success of professional sporting enterprises and the cultural, social and economic benefits that they offer to residents, workers and visitors.
11.2 At a regional level the proposed housing, which is necessary to provide funding for the stadium, would make a significant contribution to the Borough‟s supply of new housing for which there is great demand, up until 2023, in accordance with requirements of the NPPF on deliverable housing supply and London Plan policies regarding housing supply and quality including 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8
c. The Development Plan for the Borough, which is comprised of the London Plan, the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Employment Development Plan Document, and the Brentford Area Action Plan.
144
d. The UDP seeks sustainable development and regeneration to meet the primary objectives of the plan which include
IMP.1: To encourage a pattern of land use and provision of transport which minimises harm to the environment and reduces the need to travel, especially by car, whilst maximising development opportunities in the Borough. This will be achieved by encouraging the reuse of existing buildings and previously developed land as a first priority, consistent with the principles of sustainable development whilst maintaining environmental quality and providing opportunity and equity for all. IMP.3: To promote area regeneration, particularly in areas of the Borough which require physical improvement, and the enhancement of the quality of life, housing and employment opportunities for local people. IMP.4: To attract new economic development, encourage economic diversity, and direct it to appropriate areas. Concentrating development and promoting competitiveness in regeneration, whilst stimulating economic activity and improving the environment, within the capacity of labour availability, transport and the environment. IMP.5: To promote a good quality of natural and built environment specifically in relation to high quality of building and urban design, the improvement of the Green Belt, and enhancing the riverside environment of the Thames. IMP.6: To encourage the provision of appropriate planning obligations in association with new development. IMP.7: To have regard to the relationship of UDP policies, proposals and objectives with other London Boroughs, adjoining districts and counties.
11.3 The proposed mixed use development is a significant opportunity for economic, social and environmental improvements that can help achieve the broad goals of sustainable development and also help in the wider regeneration of the area. This is consistent with objectives of the NPPF to enhance the economy, deliver a choice of homes, ensure good design, promote healthy communities and sustainable transport, and to take account of environmental issues including the historic environment.
11.4 Locally, this site is in an area of Brentford that historically accommodated commercial and industrial activity on the Great West Road and near the Thames, but the area is continuing to undergo transformation, with major redevelopment schemes comprising housing and commercial uses completed or underway. It has been identified for regeneration in a number of iterations of the Borough‟s Local Plan over time and it is a major site for future redevelopment in the Borough.
145 11.5 The central aims of the scheme are to enable the redevelopment of the Lionel Road site through the provision of housing, commercial space and a new stadium which will secure the long term presence of BFC in the Borough. The overall mixed-use scheme creates an opportunity to reuse previously developed land to secure wider economic, social and environmental benefits through providing employment and economic activity, new housing, and improvements to the public realm and character of the area. It will also achieve enhanced links to surrounding areas, including recreational and cultural features such as Gunnersbury Park, the Thames, Kew Bridge Steam Museum, the Musical Museum and the Royal Botanic Gardens. The scheme would also provide accommodation for community uses associated with the club and safeguard the future of these community uses.
11.6 The quality of the townscape in and around the Order Land is much lower than some of the attractive, historic residential areas nearby such as Strand on the Green and Kew Green, and the site detracts from the local environment owing to its main use for waste transfer which is unsightly and generates heavy lorry traffic. Being bound by railways and severed from other areas to the north by the elevated M4, it is relatively isolated and lacks good connections to its surrounds. Lionel Road is a hostile pedestrian route, with a narrow footpath and high enclosing fencing creating a poor public realm. Nearby Kew Bridge station building, long in poor condition, has recently been refurbished externally but remains disused, whilst its adjoining shopping parade has vacant shops and a rundown appearance. Further afield the shopping parade on Chiswick High Road opposite Capital Interchange Way suffers from limited footfall and heavy traffic and lacks vibrancy. New development would provide an opportunity to enhance the townscape and its links to adjoining areas.
11.7 The process of regeneration in Brentford is assisted by the Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP, adopted 2009), which provides a spatial strategy and detailed policies and proposals for the area and includes designation of development sites. The BAAP emphasises the importance of quality urban design and sustainable development, as well as the pressures on community infrastructure from increased development in the area, and makes reference to the importance of the Royal Botanic Gardens World Heritage Site at Kew and the Thames Landscape Strategy.
11.8 The BAAP (and UDP) designate the Order Land for „Waste Management‟. The draft Local Plan (Draft Proposed Submission document, March 2014) will replace the UDP/ BAAP when adopted – it is currently at Draft Proposed Submission stage and so has limited weight. The draft Local Plan identifies the Order Land for a mixed use development including a football stadium, with it providing a significant part of the future housing land supply for the Borough.
11.9 The BAAP recognises the existing role that BFC has in the community, identifying it as a large scale community and leisure facility that has the potential to make a significant contribution to local area regeneration, creating opportunities for people to share a sense of pride in where they live, as well as delivering initiatives that support community cohesion and facilitate greater social inclusion.
146 11.10 The BAAP states that the role of BFC within the community is highly valued and supported by the Council as its continued operation in the area and the prospect of enhancing their activities through relocation to Lionel Road. Objectives of the BAAP (3 and 9) provide support for the principle of a new stadium and community hub at the application site and the club‟s plan to develop a community stadium hub linking a range of sports, health, education, leisure and business support facilities.
11.11 The policies and objectives of the emerging Local Plan also identify the site as the location for a new football stadium for Brentford FC and for mixed use development, including housing.
11.12 The proposed mixed use development is a significant opportunity for economic, social and environmental improvements that can help achieve the broad goals of sustainable development and also help in the wider regeneration of the area. Any scheme needs to take account of and provide for the environment including built heritage, the natural landscape, neighbouring residents and infrastructure. It is considered that the proposed scheme does so.
11.13 Development of the proposed housing on each site in the order is essential to ensure funding for the stadium, enabling its delivery. Delivery of a new stadium will help secure the future of the football club in Borough, and the accompanying economic and social benefits that it facilitates. The housing will also ensure there is a comprehensive scheme that integrates the stadium with new mixed use development on adjoining land, resulting in the complete regeneration of the locality, which is necessary for such a large scale development in a tight urban environment, enhancing links to the surrounding area and improving the townscape.
12. Key Implications
12.1 Facilitation of the project is the key outcome which, as set out elsewhere in this Report, the Order is necessary to achieve.
13. Financial Details a) Financial Impact On The Budget (Mandatory)
13.1 Since the Cabinet resolved in principle to make a CPO, the Council has commissioned GVA to advise on the proposal with this including review regarding the deliverability of the development.
13.2 The costs of the CPO must be met by BFC and Lionel Road Developments Limited (which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Brentford Football Club) has provided a CPO Indemnity Agreement which covers all costs associated with the preparation and making of the CPO, including officer time and acquisition of land. This Indemnity Agreement minimises potential financial risks with administrative costs be charged to LRDL on a monthly basis, and a parent company guarantee, bond or cash equivalent sum being provided by LRDL for any acquisitions or compensation payments before the Council will incur the
147 expenditure. The Agreement provides for regular and prompt billing and payment of costs incurred; and that altogether it provides as much protection as possible against the worst case scenario e.g. BFC going bankrupt.
13.3 Prior to making the CPO, the Council proposes to enter into an Agreement for Lease with LRDL (the "Owner") for the grant of long leases to enable the Owner to carry out the development (if it decides to do so).
13.4 The leases to the Owner will be long leases of parts of the site which accord with the phasing programme set out in the section 106 agreement. The grant of the leases would be conditional on inter alia the following:
grant of planning permission (reference 00703/A/P11) completion of the section 106 agreement; the Council serving confirmation of the CPO on the owner; and the Council acquiring all interests in respect of relevant parts of the site under the CPO.
13.5 If these conditions are not met by a longstop date (to be agreed between the Council and the Owner) then the Agreement for Lease may be terminated.
13.6 If the Conditions are satisfied before the longstop date, the leases will be granted although the timing of the grants (and the extent of the land involved, up to the trigger point as set out in the section 106 agreement) will need to be agreed between the Council and the Owner. The leases will contain an option for the Council to buy-back the land demised under the lease in the event of certain scenarios (i.e. insolvency of the Owner or failure to carry out the development within a certain time period).
13.7 Once the development works are practically completed then the Owner will be entitled to acquire the freehold interest under the respective leases. This will either be linked to the site as a whole or to specific areas of land under each phase.
13.8 In conjunction with the grant of the leases for the phased land, the Owner will also be granted a licence to alter by which the Council consents to the carrying out of the development works in accordance with the planning permission and the section 106 agreement. Each lease of the phased parts of the site will need to contain a mechanism to enable the Owner to grant underleases, which mirror the requirements set out in the section 106 agreement. The leases will enable the Owner to grant underleases of the residential units(including affordable housing as required)/commercial units to assist with funding of the stadium development but will also enable the Council to retain control of the overall site and manage the timing and conditions under which the leased land may be disposed of.
13.9 The full details of the arrangements for lease agreement including details of matters such as phasing, timing of drawdown of the leases, purchase price, alienation and terms of the transfer(s) of the freehold of the site or buy-back will need to be agreed between the Council and the Owner, in a separate
148 Land Agreement. The values payable on the transfer of lands from the Council to LRDL are not finalised but is the intention these to be transferred to LRDL at a peppercorn on the basis that LRDL cover the compensation costs as provided by the bond. There will be no overage provision, as there are provisions in the s106 which increase contributions (for affordable housing) if the development proves more viable. b) Comments of the Assistant Director Strategic Finance
13.10 A CPO Indemnity agreement has been provided by LRDL with the purpose of providing the Council with certainty that all additional costs incurred as a result of this project are recoverable from LRDL.
13.11 This agreement must allow for either:
the recoverable costs to include the financing impact of all advance funding provided by the Council or;
the facility for LRDL to pay an advance lump sum to the Council from which costs will be deducted with final settlement on completion of the project.
13.12 The Assistant Director Strategic Finance should be consulted on whichever option is pursued prior to any agreement being reached with LRDL.
13.13 It is anticipated that the transfer valuation of the freehold (on completion of works) will be dealt with in ongoing discussions between the Council and the Owner.
14. Legal Details
Making a CPO
14.1 The making of a compulsory purchase Order under S.226 (1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is a function which Cabinet may exercise together with Borough Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Council‟s Constitution.
14.2 Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local authority to exercise its compulsory purchase powers:
i If it considers that acquiring the land in question will facilitate the carrying out of development, redevelopment, or improvement on, or in relation to, the land being acquired (s.226(1)(a)); and
ii Provided that it considers that the proposed development, redevelopment or improvement is likely to contribute to achieving the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of its area (s.226(1A)).
149 14.3 The Council must therefore be satisfied that both of these elements are satisfied in relation to the proposed Order.
14.4 As set out in more detail above and in the appended draft Statement of Reasons, the Council is proposing to make the CPO for the purpose of facilitating the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to enable the provision of the new football stadium and housing, to secure the delivery of the community benefits associated with Brentford Football Club, and the associated mixed use development, which overall will make a major positive contribution to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area.
Confirmation of a CPO and Acquisition of the Land
14.5 If the Council makes the CPO, the Order must be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation, notified to those persons affected by it and advertised in the local press.
14.6 Any party who wishes to object to the making of the CPO has 21 days within which to do so from the date of notification. All statutory objectors have a right to be heard at a public inquiry although it is possible for the Secretary of State to consider objections in writing. Although any Inquiry will be held on the earliest possible date, typically this could be six months or more after submission of the Order to the Secretary of State.
14.7 The Council cannot exercise compulsory purchase powers until such time as the CPO has been confirmed – this can either be by the Secretary of State (the more common route) or if there are no objections or all objections are removed quickly the Secretary of State can permit the Council to confirm the CPO itself.
14.8 Following confirmation of a CPO the Council has three years within which to exercise the compulsory acquisition powers. Once the interests included in the proposed CPO area have been acquired for planning purposes, the site will benefit from the operation of Section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which overrides all existing third party rights or covenants that could prevent the development or use of the land from proceeding. The rights and covenants that are 'overridden' are effectively converted to a right to compensation. The compensation payable is as per the Statutory Compensation Code in section 237 of the 1990 Act (as amended).
The Indemnity Agreement
14.9 The terms of the Agreement provide for the Council to make a CPO and follow all the necessary steps to ensure that the CPO is confirmed and in due course implemented to ensure that all the land and rights required for implementing the scheme are secured. They are then to be transferred to LRDL at no cost to the Council. The terms of transfer will be governed by the (proposed) Agreement for Lease and subject to the satisfactory delivery of the scheme. Compensation and costs associated with the Compulsory Purchase will be met by LRDL through the provisions of the indemnity agreement.
150 14.10 The Agreement ensures that the costs of running and implementing a Compulsory Purchase Order are covered by LRDL. This minimises the Council‟s exposure to costs in promoting and exercising its compulsory purchase powers. The costs of formal notice serving, public inquiry and any subsequent legal challenges will also be dealt with through the Agreement.
Legal Challenge
14.11 Decisions made by the Council and / or the Secretary of State in relation to Compulsory Purchase are subject to challenge on public law grounds in the usual way.
COMMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
14.12 The comments of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance have been included in the Report.
15. Sustainability Impact Appraisal
15.1 The delivery of the Lionel Road South development, which will be facilitated by the CPO process, will provide for a mixed use scheme to help with balanced communities, better integrated with their surrounding areas and with well designed homes, improved community facilities and a safer, more attractive environment.
15.2 Key environmental benefits are:
Re-use of a previously developed site for a mix of uses including housing, reducing need for greenfield development. Comprehensive regeneration of unsightly brownfield land of low townscape value, thereby enhancing the appearance of site and acting as a catalyst for improvements to nearby rundown areas. Creation of new and enhanced public realm to Lionel Road South and Capital Interchange Way with 6,395sqm of new publically accessible space including a park, and 2,763sqm of highway and shared surface improvements. New paving, street tree planting, lighting and pathways will enhance the permeability of the area linking places of interest to the north, such as Gunnersbury Park, to the south and River Thames, as well as creating a new east-west route across the site. Stadium and housing meet relevant targets for energy efficiency and carbon deduction, contributing to mitigation of climate change, with all dwellings to achieve a minimum of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Improvements to access to Kew Bridge station, with London bound platform made fully accessible. Improvements to pedestrian safety of junction of Lionel Road South and Chiswick High Road.
151
16. Risk Management
16.1 The Council‟s compulsory purchase powers are in themselves an important risk management tool. For the authority to use these powers ensures that where negotiations to acquire interests by agreement have been unsuccessful, the Council can achieve vacant possession in a timely manner and avoid the risk of delay in delivering the regeneration scheme and the longer term security of the football club and its valued community work in the Borough. Such a delay or the failure to assemble the site is likely to prevent the delivery of the scheme.
16.2 Those affected by the exercise of compulsory purchase may object, and the compulsory purchase process provides a statutory forum for consideration of these objections. The Council is managing the potential risk through continued consultation and engagement with LRDL and affected occupiers and stakeholders.
17. Links to Council Priorities
17.1 The proposed redevelopment would help achieve objectives of the Brentford Area Action Plan in relation to regeneration of the area and retention of Brentford Football Club. Additionally, through the completed s106 agreement LDRL is required to provide CCTV in the area, funding for school places, and viability linked deferred contribution towards affordable housing, which corresponds with a number of the key pledges of the Council.
18. Equalities, Human Rights and Community Cohesion
18.1 The Human Rights Act 1998 protects particular European convention rights to include:
(a) the right of everyone to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, which can only be impinged upon in the public interest and subject to relevant national and international laws (Article 1, Protocol 1) 1 ;
(b) the right to a fair and public hearing for those affected by the making of the CPO (Article 6);
(c) the right to a private and family life, home and correspondence, which again can only be impinged upon in accordance with law and in the public interest (Article 8).
18.2 In light of the matters detailed in this report, the exercise of the proposed compulsory purchase powers is justified on the basis that it is in the public interest, authorised by law and necessary and proportionate in achieving the comprehensive regeneration of the Lionel Road South area. The CPO will also contribute towards meeting the Council‟s priority to promote mixed communities in well designed neighbourhoods.
152 18.3 The proposed CPO will be consistent with Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. All those affected will be informed and advised of a right to make representations / objections to the Secretary of State, to be heard at a public inquiry and have entitlement to compensation in accordance with compulsory purchase legislation. Therefore in respect of the relevant Articles of the Human Rights Act any interference with those rights is judged to be proportionate.
18.4 The public sector equality duty prescribed within section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, has been considered with an Equalities Impact Assessment carried out. This found the proposal engages a number of equalities duties with positive impacts with there being no negative impacts.
19. Consultation
19.1 Comprehensive and detailed consultation on the scheme was carried out through the planning process.
19.2 The process will continue with those who have interests in the Order Land through the land referencing exercise All parties with an interest in the Order Land will be notified of the making of the CPO.
20. Staffing/Workforce and Accommodation implications:
20.1 The Council will need to cover legal and officers' input into the preparation and support of the CPO. The Indemnity agreement covers the financial costs of doing this including the appointment of any external legal advice and property support; therefore this cost will be met by LRDL through the Indemnity Agreement.
21. Property and Assets
21.1 The Council has land interests in the vicinity as a highway authority of Lionel Road and Capital Interchange Way, which is adjacent to the Order Land. The redevelopment of the site and regeneration of the area would enhance its character and provide possible opportunities to increase the value of the existing Fountain Leisure Centre, nearby, through encouraging further regeneration of the area, increasing its value, which would include re-provision of the leisure facility. These possible factors in relation to Council owned land nearby are not however relevant to the decision as to whether the Order should be made and implemented, and should not be taken into account by members.
22. Timetable for Implementation
22.1 Authorisation is sought to approve the making of a CPO. Once submitted to DCLG, the approximate timeline to securing a decision is likely to take between 9-12 months depending on the number of objections (if any) and time taken to deal with a public inquiry along with a decision from the Secretary of State.
153 23. Background Papers
Draft Order, Order Schedule and Order Map Draft Statement of Reasons
24. Internal Consultation
Name of Post held and Date Date See comments consultee Department sent received in paragraph: Legal Benita Edwards 5 June 5 June 14.12 Finance Paul Gulley 5 June 5 June 13.2 2014
Report History
Decision type: Urgency item? Key decision 30.1.14 No
Cabinet decision 1.7.14 No
Report Full name of report Job title Full contact no: no. author (REG ) Shane Baker Area Planning 020 8583 4899 Manager
Schedule for writing and reviewing report
Stages in the life of the report (not all will apply) Date to complete 1. Officer writes report ( in consultation with Lead Member) 2. Report goes for review to AD / head of service or SMT 3. To specialist departments: eg, legal, finance, HR (in parallel) 4. To lead member 5. To SLT or CLT 6. Cabinet Briefing 7. To cabinet 1 July 2014
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 CPO Order Appendix 2 Map of CPO Lands (“the Map”) Appendix 3 Statement of Reasons
REPORT ENDS
154 Agenda Item 8
Report for: INFORMATION
Contains Confidential No or Exempt Information Title Treasury Management Annual Report 2013-14 Cabinet Portfolio Councillor Theo Dennison, Lead Member Finance & Citizen Engagement Report of Clive Palfreyman, Assistant Director, Strategic Finance Contact for Information Name: Lorelei Watson, Head of Treasury, Pensions & Capital Michael Rust, Treasury Management Officer Telephone: 020 8583 2310 Email: [email protected] For Consideration By Borough Council Date to be Considered 15 July 2014 Implementation Date if Not Applicable Not Called In Affected Wards All Keywords/Index Treasury Management Annual Report 2013-14
1 Details of Recommendations Members are asked to approve the Treasury Management Annual Report for 2013-14.
If the recommendations are adopted, how will residents benefit? Benefits to residents and reasons why they will Dates by which they can expect to benefit, link to Values notice a difference N/A -
2 Report Summary This report presents to the Council the Treasury Management Annual Report for 2013-14. This is required under the CIPFA Code of Practice. The key points are:
* The Council‟s net debt has decreased from £61.3 million at 31 March 2013 to £14.8 million at 31 March 2014. This is due in part to maturing debt not being refinanced but predominantly to higher levels of temporary investments.
* The average debt portfolio rate has decreased from 5.64% to 5.51%, due to the maturity of a £10m Public Works Loan Board loan running at 9.125%.
* The Council‟s budgeted investment return for 2013/14 was £1,800,000, and investment income received was £2,580,000. This was due partly to having negotiated very advantageous rates with the part nationalised banks Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland.
* The weighted average rate of return on the temporary investment portfolio at 31 March 2014 was 1.11%, compared to the London average of 0.79%. 155
* During the financial year the Council operated within the treasury limits set out in the Council‟s Treasury Policy Statement and Treasury Strategy Statement. These included only investing surplus cash with approved counterparties.
3 Reason for Decision and Options Considered
3.1 The reasons for the decisions stated in this report are outlined within the report. No other options need to be considered.
4 Key Implications
4.1 The key implications for the decisions in this report are outlined within the report.
5 Financial Details Financial Impact On The Budget
5.1 An update on the Council‟s treasury management performance during 2013/14 is provided below.
Background
5.2 The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy‟s Code of Practice on Treasury Management 2009 was adopted by the Council on 2 March 2010 and the Council fully complies with its requirements. The Code requires the Council to approve an annual strategy report for the year ahead, which was done at Borough Council on 25 February 2014. The Code also requires the Council to approve an annual review of the previous year. This report comprises the annual review for 2013/14. In addition, during 2013/14 the Cabinet has received quarterly treasury management monitoring reports.
Treasury management in this context is defined as:
“The management of the local authority‟s investments and cash flows, its banking, money market and capital market transactions; the effective control of the risks associated with those activities; and the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks. ”
5.3 The Local Government Act 2003 and supporting regulations also require the Council to „have regard to‟ the Prudential Code and to set Prudential Indicators for the next three years to ensure that the Council‟s capital investment plans are affordable, prudent and sustainable. This report also reviews the outturn for the Prudential Indicators set for 2013/14.
5.4 In summary, this Annual Report covers: * the Council‟s outturn treasury position; * the borrowing strategy and outturn for 2013/14; * investments strategy for 2013/14; * compliance with Prudential and Treasury Indicators; * debt rescheduling.
156 5.5 The Council’s Outturn Treasury Position
The Council‟s debt position at the beginning and end of year was as follows:
31 March 2013 31 March 2014 Principal Average Principal Average Outstanding Rate Outstanding Rate £m % £m % Fixed Rate Funding: PWLB 180.3 169.9 Market 72.0 72.0 252.3 241.9 Variable Rate Funding: Market nil nil Long Term total 252.3 5.64 241.9 5.51
Temporary Debt nil - nil - Total Debt 252.3 5.64 241.9 5.51
Temporary Investments 191.0 1.18 227.1 1.11
Net Debt 61.3 14.8
PWLB : Public Works Loan Board
The Borrowing Strategy and Outturn for 2013/14
5.6 The Adopted Treasury Strategy
Due to the availability of internal cash the Council had no net external borrowing requirement in 2013/14.
5.7 Short-term variable interest rates and temporary borrowing
At 1 April 2013 Bank Rate stood at 0.50%. Our treasury strategy for 2013/14 was based on the “average” City view that it was likely that Bank Rate would be kept low until there was clear evidence that the economy was moving significantly out of recession. It was expected to remain at 0.50% throughout the year, with no increase expected until early 2015, reaching 0.75% by March 2015.
The Bank Rate remained at 0.50% throughout the year.
Our temporary borrowing turnover totalled £39 million mainly covering shortfalls on monthly payroll dates. Borrowing ranged from overnight to 32 days at an average rate of 0.36% for the year. This compared with the average 7-day LIBOR (London Inter Bank Offered Rate) of 0.48%. It was cheaper to borrow at low rates than to pull back on our temporary investments, which are invested at higher rates.
157 5.8 Long-term fixed interest rates
During 2013/14 the 50-year PWLB rate ranged between 4.04 – 4.71%. The rate at 31 March 2014 was 4.49% compared with 4.22% at 1 April 2013. All of our long-term debt is fixed, so this had no impact on existing borrowing.
5.9 Debt Performance
As highlighted in section 4 above the average debt portfolio rate has decreased from 5.64% to 5.51%, due to the maturity of a £10m PWLB loan running at 9.125%.
Temporary Investments Strategy for 2013/14
5.10 This area has become significantly more important since the banking crisis, and the impact of the credit crunch on domestic banks. The monies the Authority has available for investing are primarily cash flow derived, and are only available temporarily pending expenditure. Hence our investment priorities are security and liquidity. This Authority will only invest in institutions with the highest security and/or backing from the Government. The Council's approved lending list is in the Treasury Management Strategy, agreed at Borough Council on 26 February 2013 and 25 February 2014.
5.11 During 2013/14 funds were invested in institutions listed in the Council‟s approved lending list, for investment periods ranging from overnight to two years, achieving an average rate of 1.11% for the year. This compared with the average 7 day LIBID (London Interbank Bid or Deposit rate) of 0.35%.
5.12 The Council‟s budgeted investment return for 2013/14 was £1,800,000, and investment income received was £2,580,000. We achieved enhanced investment returns by investing available monies for periods of up to 2 years with the part nationalised banks Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland. We achieved interest rates of between 0.85% and 1.20% on these investments. The maximum we had invested was £263m in August 2013 and the average we had invested over the year was £233m. 5.13 The Council is the member of a benchmarking club organised by its treasury advisers, Capita Asset Services (formerly Sector). Capita has 20 London authorities in its client base, and of those 12 are in the benchmarking club. The weighted average rate of return on Hounslow‟s investment portfolio at 31 March 2014 was 1.11% compared with the London average of 0.79%. This was the equal second best of the 12 authorities in the benchmarking club, and was achieved despite having a low weighted average credit risk score of 2.7 compared with the London average of 2.9. The credit risk score is calculated by Capita and is based on factors such as counterparty risk and investment duration, the lower the score the less the risk.
Compliance with Treasury Limits
5.14 During the financial year the Council operated within the Prudential and Treasury Indicators set out in the Council's Treasury Strategy Statement, as agreed at Borough Council. The Prudential Indicators are either indicators of affordability or prudence. The outturn for the Prudential Indicators is detailed below.
158 Affordability Indicators
5.15 Ratio of financing costs to net revenue stream
2012/13 2013/14 2013/14 Actual Estimate Actual General Fund 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% HRA 22.1% 22.0% 21.8%
Financing costs primarily cover net interest and principal repayment costs. On 1st April 2012 the financing of the HRA through annual subsidy determinations finished, and was replaced with a move to self- financing. The HRA ratio of financing costs is higher than the General Fund because the bulk of the external debt is for the HRA, and the HRA revenue stream is lower than the General Fund. Hence the debt costs form a much higher proportion of the HRA costs than for the General Fund.
5.16 Capital Financing Requirement (CFR)
2012/13 2013/14 2013/14 Actual Estimate Actual £m £m £m General Fund CFR 113.5 113.7 111.0 HRA CFR 232.1 232.1 229.7 HM PFI* 97.3 94.5 94.5 TOTAL CFR 442.9 440.3 435.2 Gross Debt 252.3 ------241.9
* Highways Maintenance Private Finance Initiative
The Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) measures the authority‟s underlying need to borrow for capital (not revenue) purposes. The General Fund CFR was less than estimated due to approved borrowing not being as high as anticipated, due to slippage on the capital programme.
The Highways transfer of services to Vinci Ringway using a 25 years Private Finance Initiative contract started on 1st January 2013. Vinci are undertaking £98m of capital investment on Hounslow‟s infrastructure in the first five years of the contract. Under IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) we have to report the capital expenditure as showing as an increase in the capital financing requirement financed by borrowing on Hounslow‟s balance sheet, although Hounslow will not undertake the physical borrowing itself. The financing will be done by Vinci and recharged to Hounslow via the annual revenue service charge.
CIPFA‟s Prudential Code states „In order to ensure that over the medium term net borrowing will only be for a capital purpose, the local authority should ensure that gross external borrowing does not, except in the short term, exceed the total of the capital financing requirement‟
The Director of Corporate Resources notes that the Authority has had no difficulty in meeting this requirement for 2013/14. Gross debt decreased from £252.3 million at 31 159 March 2013 to £241.9 million at 31 March 2014, well below the CFR. Borrowing is below the CFR, and is below the CFR excluding the PFI, due to temporarily using funding from internal surplus cash resources. This reduces external borrowing costs and mitigates credit risks.
5.17 Comparison of External Debt to Authorised Limit and Operational Boundary
2012/13 2012/13 2013/14 2013/14 Indicator Actual Indicator Actual £m £m £m £m
Authorised Limit Borrowing 301.5 288.6 Other long term liabilities 2.2 2.3 TOTAL 303.7 290.9
Operational Boundary Borrowing 277.2 264.0 Other long term liabilities 2.2 2.3 TOTAL 279.4 266.3
Actual External Debt Borrowing - gross 252.3 241.9 Other long term liabilities 2.2 2.1 TOTAL 254.5 244.0
The 'Authorised Limit' and 'Operational Boundary' are estimates of limits for external debt, which ideally should not be exceeded.
The Authorised Limit is the maximum possible limit on borrowing for both capital and revenue purposes, and includes an allowance for unusual or uncertain events. The “other long-term liabilities” allowance enables the Council to use leasing finance if this is financially advantageous. The Authorised Limit should not be set so high that it would never in any possible circumstances be breached. It should be set to establish the outer boundary of the Authority's borrowing based on a realistic assessment of risks. If it is breached a review should be undertaken to assess and understand why. For example a breach could be an early warning sign of revenue overspending.
The Operational Boundary is the most likely maximum level of borrowing for most of the year, without the additional headroom included within the Authorised Limit for unusual cash movements. It may occasionally be exceeded due to cashflow reasons. However, a sustained or regular trend above the operational boundary would be significant and should lead to further investigation and action as appropriate.
Other long term liabilities are finance leases.
The Director of Corporate Resources reports that actual gross borrowing was maintained below both the Authorised Limit and the Operational Boundary in 2013/14.
160
5.18 Incremental impact of capital investment decisions on Council Tax
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Actual Actual Actual Impact on Council Tax per annum nil nil nil
This indicator measures the cost to the Council Tax from capital investment decisions of the Council. It primarily measures the costs of any capital investment for which central government is not providing finance and for which the Authority has no resources of its own available. Such investment would have to be financed by Council borrowing with the cost of repayment falling on the council tax. In line with the budget in 2013/14 the Authority undertook £1.6 million of borrowing, (financed from internal cashflow), primarily for leisure. This is to be funded from a reduction in the contract payment. Hence the impact on the council tax is nil.
5.19 Incremental impact of capital investment decisions on Housing Rents
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Actual Actual Actual Impact on Housing Rents per week nil nil nil
This indicator measures the additional cost to average housing rents from the capital plans in the HRA Budget. In 2013/14 no new borrowing was undertaken.
Indicators of Prudence These treasury management indicators recognise the existing structure of the Authority‟s borrowing and investment portfolios. They are set to avoid exposing public funds to unnecessary or unquantified risk, and to reflect safety and liquidity.
5.20 Interest Rate exposures – upper limits
2012/13 2013/14 2013/14 Actual Limit Actual £m £m £m Fixed interest rates 252 270 242 Variable interest rates - 55 -
Indicators have been set which limit the extent to which the Council is exposed to interest rate changes. Separate limits are set for the principal sums for fixed interest rate and for variable rate borrowings. During 2013/14 actual borrowings were maintained well within the limits set.
5.21 Maturity structure of borrowing
2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 Upper limit Lower limit Actual Outturn % % % Under 12 months 25 0 21 I year to 2 years 25 0 9 2 years to 5 years 33 0 22 5 years to 10 years 50 5 20 10 years and over 75 25 28 161
The Council sets upper and lower limits for the maturity structure of its borrowings. These limit the extent to which we will be exposed to significantly higher interest rates in any period in which we have to refinance maturing debt. During 2013/14 actual borrowings were maintained within the limits set.
5.22 Total principal sums invested for periods longer than 364 days
The authority set a limit of £100m to be invested for periods longer than 364 days. The maximum the authority allows is two years. The total amount of investments with a maturity period of longer than 364 days at 31 March 2014 was £45m.
5.23 Debt Rescheduling
2013/14 started with the expectation that longer-term PWLB rates would be on a rising trend during the year and that shorter term rates would be considerably cheaper. However, moving from long term to short term debt would mean taking on a greater risk exposure to having to reborrow longer term in later years at considerably higher rates, and consequently no debt rescheduling was undertaken during the year. Early repayment clauses also currently make debt rescheduling prohibitive.
Comments of the Assistant Director Strategic Finance
5.24 The Assistant‟s Director‟s comments are included within the body of this report.
6 Legal
6.1 There are no legal implications associated with this report.
Comments of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance
6.2 The Assistant Director Corporate Governance has noted the report.
7 Value for Money
7.1 Income from investments is maximised, within identified risk management parameters. Regular meetings are held with the authority‟s external treasury advisers, to explore opportunities for debt rescheduling.
8 Sustainability Impact Appraisal
8.1 A sustainability impact appraisal is not necessary.
9 Risk Management
9.1 Treasury management is defined as “The management of the local authority‟s investments and cash flows, its banking, money market and capital market transactions; the effective control of the risks associated with those activities; and the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks. ”
162 Therefore the whole report is about how the Council manages its treasury management activity within agreed risk parameters. Key financial risks are reported in the Council‟s risk register.
10 Links to Council Priorities
10.1 Regular reporting of the treasury management activity of the Council is an important part of running the Council in a transparent and efficient way.
11 Equalities, Human Rights and Community Cohesion
11.1 Members are not being asked to make any decisions with implications in relation to equalities, human rights and community cohesion.
12 Staffing/Workforce and Accommodation implications
12.1 Members are not being asked to make any decisions with implications in relation to staffing/workforce and accommodation.
13 Property and Assets
13.1 There are no implications for property and assets other than cash.
14 Any Other Implications
14.1 There are no further implications.
15 Consultation
15.1 No consultation is required for this report.
16 Timetable for Implementation
16.1 There are no recommendations made in this report.
17 Background Information 17.1 Treasury Management Outturn Files March 2014
End of Report
163 Agenda Item 9
Report for: ACTION
Contains Confidential No or Exempt Information Title Appointment of Statutory Officer Member Reporting Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration Contact Details Richard Gruet, Assistant Director Corporate Governance. Telephone: 020 8583 2023 Email: [email protected] For Consideration By Borough Council Date to be Considered 15th July 2014 Implementation Date if Not applicable Not Called In Affected Wards All Keywords/Index Calendar, meeting dates
1. Details of Recommendations
That Borough Council approves and confirms the extension of the appointment of Chris Hogan on an interim basis as the Director of Children’s Services (DCS) and also to appoint Alan Adams to the role from the 19th September 2014.
If the recommendations are adopted, how will residents benefit? Benefits to residents and reasons why they will Dates by which they can benefit, link to Values expect to notice a difference Improved services to residents Ongoing
2. Report Summary
This report deals with the appointment to the statutory officer role of Director of Children’s Services (DCS) in the short and longer term.
The appointments detailed in the report enabled the council to meet its statutory responsibilities with immediate effect by using the Council urgency procedure available in the Constitution. The report sets out details of the appointment which Members are asked to approve and confirm.
164
3. Reason for Decision and Options Considered
3.1 It is a requirement of Section 18(1) of the Children’s Act 2004 that every Local Authority with statutory responsibility for Children’s Services to appoint a DCS.
3.2 Following the resignation of the previous DCS, it became necessary to appoint to this post on an interim basis pending the appointment of a Director of Children and Adults. Chris Hogan was appointed to the post on an interim basis until the 30th June 2014.
3.3 The interim appointment was limited to seven months on the basis that the DCS should ultimately be the Director of Children and Adults.
3.4 Alan Adams has taken on this role and has been appointed to the role of DSC from the 19th September 2014.
3.5 In the interim, i.e. between the 30th June and the 19th September 2014, the current interim DCS, Chris Hogan, Assistant Director, Children's Safeguarding & Specialist Services has been appointed to continue looking after this responsibility as DCS.
3.6 The appointments detailed in the report enabled the council to meet its statutory responsibilities with immediate effect by using the Council urgency procedure available in the Constitution. The report sets out details of the appointment which Members are asked to approve and confirm. .
Option Comments Members may either agree the If members choose not to agree, the council recommendation or not will need to identify alternative arrangements in the short term and make new plans for the future.
4. Key Implications
4.1 This report is not a policy driven or political one and so the implications of agreeing the recommendations relate purely to supporting the council in carrying out its business including in some key statutory areas..
How is success to be measured? Defined Unmet Met Exceeded Significantly Date they Outcomes Exceeded should be deliver by The nature of the recommendation does not allow for meaningful measurements of success in this case.
5. Financial Details a) Financial Impact On The Budget (Mandatory)
165
5.1 See the comments below. b) Comments of the Assistant Director Strategic Finance
5.2 Any costs implications arising out of this report will need to be contained within existing budgets.
6. Legal (to be completed in conjunction with the Legal Department) a) Legal Details
6.1 There are no further legal implications relating to this report except those already identified. b) Comments of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance
6.2 This is a report of the Assistant Director, Corporate Governance and so his comments are included in the report.
7. Value For Money
7.1 There are no value for money implications in this report.
8. Sustainability Impact Appraisal
8.2 There are no such implications in this report
9. Risk Management
9.1 There are no risks related to this report except to observe that by making this appointment, the council is meeting is statutory obligations.
10. Links to Council Priorities
10.1 The appointment will help the Council’s priority to create an ambitious council which improves the lives of residents and works in a transparent way.
11. Equalities, Human Rights and Community Cohesion
11.1 In making any decision the Council is required to have due regard to its equalities duties and in particular with respect to the Equality Act 2010, section 149, part 11 of the public sector duty below a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and eliminate any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act, b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who are a protected characteristics and persons who do not share it and to c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
166
11.2 A relevance test has been carried out which indicates that the recommendation will not have any adverse impact on anyone with one or more protected characteristics, namely age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
12. Staffing/Workforce and Accommodation Implications:
12.1 There are no implications in relation to staffing or accommodation except to note that this is a staffing matter.
13. Property and Assets
13.1 There are no implications for property or assets.
14. Any Other Implications
14.1 There are no further implications.
15. Consultation
15.1 Members have been involved in the appointments process.
16. Timetable for Implementation
16.1 The report seeks the council ratification of a decision already made under the urgency process .
17. Appendices
17.1 There are no appendices.
18. Background Information
18.1 There is no background information and no background papers in relation to this report.
REPORT ENDS
167