MAYOR AND CABINET Date: WEDNESDAY, 31 JULY 2002 at 6.30 p.m.
Committee Room 3 **Please note time of meeting** Civic Suite Lewisham Town Hall London SE6 4RU A A Enquiries to: Mike Brown
Telephone: 020-8-314-8824 (direct line) G G
MEMBERS E
The Mayor (Steve Bullock) (L) Chair E Councillor Moore (L) Vice-Chair and Deputy Mayor Councillor Best (L) Cabinet Member for Environment N Councillor Donnelly (L) Cabinet Member for Lifelong Learning
Councillor Garcha (L) Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion N Councillor Holder (L) Cabinet Member for Social Care & Health Councillor McGarrigle (L) Cabinet Member for Culture Councillor Whiting (L) Cabinet Member for Resources Councillor Wise (L) Cabinet Member for Housing and Community D Safety D
Members are summoned to attend this meeting A A
Barry Quirk Chief Executive Lewisham Town Hall Catford London SE6 4RU Date: 25 July 2002
The public are welcome to attend our committee meetings, however, occasionally, committees may have to Consider some business in private. Copies of reports can be made available in additional formats on request.
1 ORDER OF BUSINESS - PART 1 AGENDA
Item Page No. No.
1 Minutes 1
2 Declarations of Interests 1
3 Exclusion of the Press and Public 9
4 Capital Programme Issues – OSCP and HIP Final Outturn 2001/02, 10 OSCP and HIP 1st Quarter Monitoring 02/03 and Overall Review of Capital Programme
5 Report Back on Matters Raised by the Overview and Scrutiny Business 50 Panel
6 Applications for Licensed Deficits in 2002/03 57
7 Best Value Review of Pupils Out of School 62
8 Best Value – Scopes of the 2002/03 Best Value Reviews 110
9 Consultation Results and Implementation of Introductory Tenancies 142 and Tenancy Charges
10 Pepys Estate Compulsory Purchase Order 164
11 Street Crime Action Plan 173
12 Response to Lifelong Learning Select Committee on the 179 Recommendations on School Catering
13 Social Inclusion and Equalities Budget 185
The public are welcome to attend our Committee meetings, however, occasionally committees may have to consider some business in private. Copies of reports can2 be made in additional formats on request. MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title MINUTES
Key Decision Item No.1
Ward
Contributors CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Class Part Date: 31 JULY 2002
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Minutes of that part of the meeting of the Mayor and Cabinet, which was open to the press and public, held on 17 July 2002 be confirmed and signed (copy attached ).
MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
Key Decision Item No.2
Ward
Contributors CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Class Part Date: 31 JULY 2002
Members are asked to make any declarations of pecuniary interests or other interests they may have in relation to items on this agenda (if any). Members are reminded to make any declaration at any stage throughout the meeting if it then becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.
3 LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
MINUTES of that part of the meeting of the MAYOR AND CABINET, which was open to the press and public, held on WEDNESDAY, 17 JULY 2002 at 6.30 p.m. at LEWISHAM TOWN HALL, CATFORD, SE6 4RU.
Present
Steve Bullock (The Mayor);(Chair); Councillor Moore (Vice-Chair); Councillors Best, Donnelly, Garcha, Holder, McGarrigle, Whiting and Wise.
Minute No. Action
1MINUTES (page
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Mayor and Cabinet, held on 8 July 2002, be confirmed and signed.
2 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS (page
None was declared.
3 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC (page
RESOLVED that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act:-
101 Disposal of 21 Peak Hill Gardens to Hyde Housing Association
4 CHANGES TO MEMBERSHIP OF SILWOOD SRB PARTNERSHIP BOARD AND REPORTING OF DELEGATED DECISIONS (page and Appendices page
RESOLVED (i) that the changes in the membership of Dir. the Silwood SRB Partnership be approved; Regen.
(ii) that the decisions taken by officers in accordance with authority delegated by the former Executive Committee in respect 4 Minute No. Action
of the Silwood SRB be noted; and
(iii) to note and endorse the existing delegation to officers set out in paragraph 10.1 of the report.
5 LEWISHAM’S FIRST HEALTH IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNISATION PLAN (HIMP) 2002-2005 (page and Appendices page
The Mayor declared a personal interest in this item as he was still the Chair of the Lewisham Hospital Trust.
RESOLVED to recommend the Council to:
(i) endorse the HIMP as the strategic plan Dir. Soc. for the modernisation of social services and Care & the commissioning of community care Health services in Lewisham;
(ii) endorse the content of the HIMP (particularly the Council’s contribution to the stated vision priorities and actions);
(iii) commit t continued partnership working to implement the HIMP (through the Lewisham Health Partnership, other established partnerships and corporately);
(iv) endorse the HIMP as a key supporting strategy to the social wellbeing theme of the Community Strategy; and
(v) the HIMP as the lead strategy for addressing health inequalities and as a key supporting strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal in Lewisham.
6 IMPROVEMENT PLAN OF THE HOME CARE BEST VALUE REVIEW 2001/2002 (page and Appendix page
RESOLVED that the improvement plan outlined in Dir. Soc. Appendix 1 to the report be agreed and Care & Health the best value review process brought to a formal conclusion. 5 Minute No. Action
7 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES (page and Appendices page
RESOLVED that
(i) the priority list for small scale traffic Dir. management measures set out in Appendix Regen. B be agreed, but the limited funding for this area of work and therefore the limited ability of officers to be able to respond to requests for action be noted;
(ii) £30k of the highways’ budget be allocated for small scale traffic management and pedestrian facilities;
(iii) if any funding is identified via S106 or other external sources, items from the priority list be investigated and treated, even if this results in schemes being addressed out of priority;
(v) officers report back next year on additional requests received and action taken in respect of this year’s priority list; and
(vi) the schemes carried out in 2001/02 listed in paragraph 5.3 of the report be noted.
8 AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO TRAFFIC CALMING, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS AND SAFER ROUTES TO SCHOOLS IN LEWISHAM (page and Appendix page Councillor Moore asked that , in the light of the need to identify resources for area traffic calming, the NDC Board be approached to assist with funding for the New Cross West and Telegrapgh Hill areas.
RESOLVED (i) the latest prioritised list of areas to be Dir. treated as laid out in Appendix A be Regen. approved; and
(ii) the continuing use of the underlying methodology of area studies including its use to co-ordinate the street scene within 6 Minute No. Action
residential areas, and bring about environmental and road safety improvements be approved.
9 STREETSCAPE GUIDE (page and Appendix page
RESOLVED that the Streetscape Guide be approved as Dir. a reference manual for future highway Regen. schemes, traffic schemes, private development and maintenance works.
10 ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND PREVENTION (AIP) PROGRAMME (page and Appendices page
RESOLVED (i) that the Borough Spending Plan capital Dir. allocation for 2002/03 of £531,000 be Regen. allocated to the implementation of accident remedial schemes as listed in the priority lists in Appendices C and D to the report;
(ii) that officers report back next year on the action taken in respect of this year’s priority list; and
(iii) to note the schemes carried out in 2001/02.
11 CAPITAL STRATEGY AND ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (page and Appendices page
RESOLVED that
(i) the content of the authority’s proposed Dir.Res/ Capital Strategy and AMP be agreed and H of CB submitted to the Council for approval prior to submission to OPDM and GOL by 31 July 2002;
(ii) delegated authority be given to the Executive Director for Resources and Deputy Chief Executive to amend and complete the documents as necessary before final submission;
7 Minute No. Action
(iii) the property mission statement, goals and objectives (AMP section 1) be noted;
(iv) the strategic action plan for the property function (AMP section 5) be noted; and
(v) the use of the five ODPM performance indicators as outlined in the AMP (section 6); the use of local performance indicators detailed in the AMP (section 6); and the results and analysis of the property performance indicators as detailed in the report to the Finance and Asset Management Officer Group (FAMG) be noted.
12 FINAL REVENUE OUTTURN 2001/02 AND PREPARATIONS FOR THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR EXTERNAL AUDIT (page and Appendices page
Paragraph 8 of the report was amended by the deletion of the word ‘deficit’ and the inclusion of ‘surplus’.
Councillor Moore questioned why the Council was holding balances of 2.5% in respect of the Local Schools Budget in the General Fund Balances of the net revenue budget even though there is a reserve against the schools budget. The Executive Director for Education and Culture and Executive Director for Resources and Deputy Chief Executive undertook to inform the Mayor and Cabinet of the reasons for this.
RESOLVED that
(i) adjustments to and from Directorates’ Dir. Res. earmarked reserves in 2001/02 totalling £1.074m and £4.205m, as detailed in paragraph 5.3.1 and Appendix 2, of the report be agreed;
(ii) the final outturn for all Directorates of £326.087m for 2001/02, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, be noted;
8 Minute No. Action
(iii) the use of net corporate underspends of £0.953m, a drawing of £1.005m from earmarked reserves and £1.800m from General Fund balances to meet the net service overspend of £3.758m, be noted;
(iv) action will be taken to restore General Fund balances to 2.5% of the net revenue budget (£7.800m) during 2002/03, in line with District Audit advice, be noted;
(v) school balances at £4.814m at 31 March 2002 (£4.238m at 31 March 2001) and that this balance is made up of standards fund balances of £1.957m and schools budget balances of £2.857m, be noted;
(vi) Housing Revenue Account reserves and balances of £12.200m at 31 March 2002 (£12.503m 2000/01), be noted; and
(vii) approval of the 2001/02 Statement of Accounts, to be compiled following final outturn, by the Mayor as detailed by the Audit Commission Act 1998 is required by 30 September 2002 be noted.
13 BUDGET 2002/03 – MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS IN RESPONSE TO THE DECISIONS BY THE MAYOR AND CABINET ON 19 JUNE 2002 (page and Appendix page
The following amendments were made to the report:
Para. 6.2 bullet point 2 the word ‘not’ was deleted and ‘Disability Day’ was added to the list
Para. 6.2 bullet point 3 – the figure of ‘£50k’ for faith grants was amended to ‘£30k’; and the
figure for small grants to the voluntary sector was amended to ‘up to £50k’.
9 Minute No. Action
The Mayor stated that officers had been asked to look at savings that could be made at present that would not have a major impact on services.
He therefore stated that he would not endorse the savings proposed in the second and third bullet points of paragraph 6.2 of the report, and although he would endorse the Regeneration proposals set out in paragraph 6.6 of the report he would note that the list is not definitive and would be subject to whether they would have a major impact on services.
In conclusion it was
RESOLVED that
(i) the savings proposed in the second and third bullet points of paragraph 6.2 of the report not be endorsed; and
(ii) the proposals for Regeneration set out in paragraph 6.6 of the report be endorsed but it be noted that the list is not definitive and would be subject to whether they would have a major impact on services.
Chair
10 MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
Key Decision Item No. 3
Ward
Contributors CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Class Part 1 Date: 31 JULY 2002
Recommendation
It is recommended that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act:-
101 Minutes
11 MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title CAPITAL PROGRAMME ISSUES – OSCP AND HIP FINAL OUTTURN 2001/02, OSCP & HIP 1ST QAURTER MONITORING 02/03 AND OVERALL REVIEW OF CAPITAL PROGRAMME Key Decision YES Item No.
Ward
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES & DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR REGENERATION Class Part 1 Date: 31 JULY 2002
1. Executive Summary and Purpose 1.1 This report updates the Mayor & Cabinet on the final outturn position of both OSCP and HIP for 2001/02, the current monitoring of the programmes for 2002/03 – 2004/05, and reviews the OSCP programme in light of the current revenue budget difficulties of the Council. The report also makes some recommendations for capital budgets to be allocated (OSCP) and contract variations to be agreed (HIP).
1.2 The bottom line in this report for the OSCP is that if the recommendations of it are agreed, and we assume that a corporate budget will be required for one area of uncertainty (The Albany) and allowing for the likely clawback of resources from other schemes that are withdrawn or alternatively funded (for example the Pupil Referral Unit) then the programme is balanced for the next 3 years. This may allow Members some scope at a future date to withdraw some bigger schemes (especially where ongoing revenue funding has not been identified to operate the asset) if needed to balance the Council’s 2002/03 revenue budget. 2. Recommendations
The Mayor is asked to agree:
OSCP 2.1 the revised budgets as set out in the report (Table 6 paras 3.11)
2.2 that directorates reimburse the OSCP programme from their revenue resources where they overspend allocated capital budgets (para 3.13)
12 unless where specifically agreed by the Mayor & Cabinet that additional budget is alllocated
2.3 the Executive Director for Regeneration and Executive Director for Resources report back to the Mayor and Cabinet regarding the future use of Mayfield and Arnon Oak (paras 3.7 and 3.8)
2.4 the additional capital budgets allocated for schemes outlined in paragraph 4.23 totalling £1.66m and paragraph 4.25 of £70k.
The Mayor is asked that approval be given to:
2.5 authorise the variation and extension of the existing contract with Lengard Limited for the Phase 1A works to include the Phase 1B works at an estimated cost of £506,862 plus fees of £75,281
2.6 enter into a funding agreement with the Deptford Fund to confirm that the Council will fund up to £750k on works to the Albany Theatre (initially by way of short term loan but if necessary by way of long term grant in the event that equivalent funding is not ultimately forthcoming from the LDA) on the main terms set out in paragraph 4.11 of the report and
2.7 to delegate authority to the Executive Director of Resources, in consultation with the Head of Law, to approve and finalise the terms of the funding agreement.
The Mayor is asked to agree:
HIP
1.8 The contract variations outlined in sections 6.27 to 6.32 inclusive for 2001/02 and for 2002/03 in sections 6.33 to 6.51 inclusive.
The Mayor is asked to note :
OSCP 2.9 the final outturn position for 2001/02 and the reasons for variations from forecasts as set out in the report (para 3.14 to 3.27 ); 2.10 The overall review of the OSCP as detailed in section 5
HIP
2.11 the final 2001/02 outurn as detailed in section 6
13 3. OSCP 01/02 Final Outturn and Roll Forward of Budgets for 2002/03 – 2004/05
3.1 At the last Executive committee meeting on 27 February 02 the resources for the new three-year programme were reported as £38.0m and budget expenditure of £31.0m. Table 1 below shows the programme updated for decisions made at that committee, which now shows an over programming of £120k.
Table 1 3 Year Programme updated for Committee Decisions of 27/2/02 Future Budget to Resources 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Total Years £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 BCA 5,351 1,000 1,000 0 7,351 SCA 350000350 Capital Receipts 11,082 1,610 0 0 12,692 Capital Grants 3,339 2,640 0 0 5,979 Revenue 6,341 2,047 2,000 0 10,388 Total Resources 26,463 7,297 3,000 0 36,760 LESS: Total Budgeted (23,839) (8,086) (4,954) 0 (36,880) Expenditure (Over)/Under 2,624 (790) (1,954) 0 120 Programming
Resources
3.2 The changes in resources since the decisions on 27th February are laid out in Table 2 below. It shows that overall resources have increased by £12.9m. The reasons for this increase are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Table 2 - Resource Changes
Resource Type £000s Roll Forward SCAs 0.021 Revenue Contributions (5.028) New Grants 2.747 Roll forward of grants from 2001/02 3.747 Increase in Capital Receipts 1.462 Transfer of Aids and Adaptations 0.350 Repayment from HIP 4.462 SRB 5&6 moved from HIP 5.156 Total Changes 12.917
14 Resources after 27 Feb Cttee Decisions 36.760 New Resources 49.677
3.3 Credit approvals have remained broadly the same with BCA of £5.351m in 02/03 and SCAs totalling £371k. The slight increase in resources is due to the Schools Access Initiative for which resource and spend has slipped from 01/02 into 02/03 totalling £21k. Both these SCAs had two year durations terminating in 02/03.
3.4 Revenue Contributions carried forward after financing the 01/02 programme were £950k. This is after capital receipts on the OSCP were used to fund spend on the GF Housing capital programme at the year end. Differences of £5.0m from the £10.4m reported at the budget report include a reduction in the carry forward of receipts by £4.4m and reductions of £550k (02/03) and £401k (03/04) due to the reclassification of Downham PFI as a revenue scheme. Members should note that the annual contribution of £1m from the revenue budget strategy in 02/03 is reinstated to the usual £2m per annum from 03/04 onwards. There have been a few additional contributions to support school projects totalling £250k.
3.5 Grant income over the three year programme is £12.5m of which £3.7m has been rolled forward due to slippage with spend. The table below sets out the increase of £2.8m in new and additional allocations of grant awarded which together with the roll forward of resources explains the rise of £6.5m in the £6.0m figure for grants last reported.
Table 3 New Capital Grants 02/03 03/04 Total £ £ £ TfL ITP Grants 2002-03 Schemes 1,348,000 1,348,000 New Deal for Communities – Getting Wired 34,000 34,000 New Deal for Communities – Eckington Gardens 465,000 25,000 490,000 New Deal for Communities – Eckington Gardens 34,000 34,000 Broadway Fields Regeneration 210,000 210,000 Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative 150,000 322,150 472,150 Honor Oak Playbus- SureStart Grant 120,000 120,000 Sure Start Bellingham –
15 Minibus 33,000 33,000 Chelwood & Clyde Nursery Retention 6,111 6,111
2,394,000 353,261 2,747,261 Revised 02/03 Capital Receipts 3.6 At the last report capital receipts were forecast as £13.992m over the three years, the detail of which is given below. In line with decisions taken by Executive Committee on 27 February the contribution from Housing to the OSCP has been reduced by £1m to £1m for this last year of 2002/03. In addition at the end of 2001/02 the Housing Programme used receipts to finance a shortfall in Housing General Fund resources from the Other Services programme worth £4.461m which is shown as a repayment to the OSCP in 02/03.
Table 4 Comparison of Capital Receipts over 3 year programme
Revised 1st Budget Report Difference Qtr Asset sales 11.992 12.453 0.461 Housing RTB Sales 2.000 1.000 (1.000) Aids & 0.000 0.350 0.350 Adaptations (trfr from HIP) Downham Depot 0.000 0.700 0.700 & Capital House (trfrs from HIP) Repayment of 0.000 4.461 4.461 receipts from Housing Capital Programme 13.992 18.964 4.972
3.7 It should also be noted that whilst asset sales over the three years are broadly the same there has been a realignment of receipts slipping from 02/03 to 03/04 (£3.677m). These receipts relate to large receipts on Arnon Oak (subject of a business case from Housing for use as a Homeless Persons Unit), St George's Square, Forest Hill Business Centre and Silver Road Depot (receipt also significantly increased due to detailed work by Valuers). The Executive Director for Resources recommends that the Executive Director for Regeneration produces a business case for the use of Arnon Oak for service provision for consideration in September and Members will need to consider this proposal alongside that previously considered that the Arnon Oak site is disposed of as previously considered, with an element of the site being retained for use by Dalmain school. Until this issue is resolved no progress can be made on enlarging 16 the Dalmain School playing area or on realising the potential capital receipt from Arnon Oak (forecast receipt in 2003/04 )
3.8 The former Mayfield Elderly Persons Home has been in use as a homeless persons unit since December 2000. At the time the decision was taken by the Executive Committee that the use for this purpose be limited to two years, pending a further report to Committee on whether Mayfield should continue in use for Housing purposes or declared surplus to requirements and disposed of with the capital receipts being utilised to fund additional capital schemes. It is recommended that the Executive Director for Regeneration is asked to report back in September on the proposals for the use of Mayfield after December 2002.
3.9 Discussions with the Head of Property and Development have highlighted several high risk sales that make up the disposals programme for this year. Most of the more commercially attractive garage sites have now been sold with remaining sites all having awkward access to plots or planning permission/ residents consultations to overcome. Additionally the sale of Copperas Depot is tied up with Berthon Street Depot and the developer's plans will be subject to planning approval. This presents a risk to the scheme if planning permission is delayed. Therefore a prudent view has been taken and most of these garage sites have not been included in the disposals list. If the sale of one of the bigger receipts (i.e. Copperas Street) did not go ahead then resources would be significantly reduced with the result that the programme would be under resourced. The position with regard to some of the key receipts will be closely monitored during the year and reported back here as part of the OSCP budget monitoring.
OSCP Budgets 02/03 – 04/05
3.10 The revised budgets are shown below. Since the last committee there have been £11.5m of new and additional budgets. Of this £5.0m has been reclassified from the Housing programme to the OSCP as the SRB schemes are not housing related. There has also been an additional allocation from TfL for the year of £1.3m and resources from Housing for the Aids and Adaptations of £350k. The roll forward exercise has resulted in an additional £2.9m of budgets inserted into the 3 year exercise. The table below summarises these budgets changes:
Table 5 OSCP Budget Changes 2002/03 – 2004/05
Budget Changes £ 000s Regeneration 8,249 Resources 60 E&C 34 SC&H 364
17 Corporate -149 Roll Forward 2,922 11,480 3.11 Table 6 below shows that including the decisions agreed at the last committee the resources are now £49.7m and budgeted expenditure is £48.4m. It also shows that there is an over programming of £3.6m in 02/03. However, the forecast position will show that this overprogramming can be accommodated as there is slippage with the 02/03 schemes.
Table 6 Revised 3 year OSCP Budgets 02/03 - 04/05 rolled forward
Future Budget to Resources 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Total Years £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 BCA 5,351 1,000 1,000 0 7,351 SCA 371000371 Capital Receipts 11,988 5,777 1,200 0 18,965 Capital Grants 10,209 4,046 3,375 0 17,629 Revenue 1,714 1,646 2,000 0 5,360 Total Resources 29,633 12,469 7,575 0 49,677 LESS: Total Budgeted (33,201) (8,757) (6,402) 0 (48,360) Expenditure (Over)/Under (3,568) 3,712 1,173 0 1,317 Programming
3.12 Budgets have been rolled forward on the basis that if completed schemes have spare resources available they have been taken as savings. Any schemes with budgets straddling 01/02 and 02/03 have had slippage or overspends netted off initial budgets in 02/03. This ensures that over the life of a scheme the overall scheme budget remains the same.
3.13 It was agreed when setting the 2001/02 programme that in the future where a directorate overspends its budget allocation on a capital scheme, it reimburses the capital programme from its revenue resources. Due to the timing of this report it will mean that overspends totalling approximately £300k in 01/02 will be charged to directorates in 02/03, and this will need reflecting in future budget monitoring reports.
Budget Variances on 01/02 schemes
3.14 The final spend on the OSCP was £27.0m. Based on revised budgets this meant there was overall slippage on the year's programme of £10.3m. Forecasts provided at the last committee in February highlighted £6.0m slippage. This was due mainly to forecasts slipping further on several large schemes totalling £3.6m (additional slippage over and above 4th quarter in brackets): 18 • CCTV (£2.0m) • Laurence house (3rd floor) ICT upgrade (196k) • SPACE schemes (£135k) • CAPS/HERS (£304k) • a grant for the mechanics path (£200k) • Lewisham CPZ (£200k) • Wearside Construction (£128k) • Lewisham Theatre phase 1 (£109k) • Libraries (£157k)
Several schemes had large differences between outturn spend and budgets. Any variances over £100k will now be discussed in more detail.
Regeneration Schemes
3.15 There were underspends on both the Forest Hill (£129k) and A2 Corridor CAPS/HERS (£275k) schemes. These involve making grants to businesses and homeowners to improve shopfronts. In the current building trade, given economic conditions, some applicants are having difficulty engaging builders to carry out the work. This has delayed the spend drastically.
3.16 The original budget for Civic Amenity sites was for two facilities. The second potential site has only just been identified and a revised bid will be made against the remaining allocation of £161k (see also para 5.1)
SC&H Schemes
3.17 The estimated redundancy costs for the closure of Elderly Person Homes were £1.45m. When the permission to capitalise these costs was received from the DTLR only £1.295m was allowed and the remaining costs have been dealt with as part of final revenue outurn for 2001/02 reported to this committee last week.
3.18 Children Leaving Care at Hollydale - £144k
This scheme, a Family Contact Centre, is currently being considered by officers in SC&H and as it remains to be started it maybe one worthy of consideration in terms of ceasing, particularly as SC&H officers are uncertain as to whether the scheme itself will be containable within their revenue resource position. (further reference made in section 5)
3.19 Crime Reduction Unit at Mercia Grove - £114k
This scheme has been delayed due to two problems involving the renewal of the lease. The landlord requested that improvements be made to deal with the Fire regulations and a solution has also been sought to remedy cabling difficulties.
19 E&C Schemes
3.20 Eliot Bank overspend of £115k and Coopers Lane overspend of £110k
It was reported to the Education PRG on 19th March 2002 that the gross slippage was expected to be £372k to the schools programme. In order to minimise the slippage spend on these two schemes was brought forward.
3.21 Sure Star Bellingham underspend of £543k
This is mostly an externally funded project. The project start date was subject to full approval from the Sure Start unit and this was not fully given until January 2002. Work started on site in February 02 and spend on the project commenced in bulk from then.
3.22 Bridge Teaching Pool underspend of £135k The reason for the contract overrun and subsequent underspend on the budget was due predominantly to the extreme weather conditions suffered. The overrun period in total was 22.5 weeks, 18.5 of which were justifiable. The remaining 4 weeks are currently in dispute.
3.23 Forster Park (£162k underspend) and Deptford Park (£191k underspend)
These sports pavilion schemes required detailed cost and design proposals for submission to the Football Foundation. Final confirmation was still outstanding at the end of the final year causing slippage of these two schemes.
3.24 Forest Hill Sports Facility underspend of £200k
A new bid has been submitted to the Sports Lottery Fund.
3.25 SPACE schemes underspend of £764k There are 4 schemes comprising this programme: Deptford Park School; Forster Park School; Coopers Lane School; Good Shepherd School. These schemes were subject to approval from Sport England, which was formally given in May 2002, four months later than promised. 3.26 Watergate
Total slippage for the whole year was £1m, although the scheme itself is forecasting spend to revised budget.
3.27 Libraries
Total slippage for the year was £300k, (£157k from February report) although
20 the scheme is spending to budget overall.
3.28 Theatre Phase 1 The negotiations with our project managers have been concluded. A final settlement amount will be made which will mean the scheme is likely to overspend by £542k. Options for funding this overspend will be reported back in the next capital report in September.
3.29 The following paragraphs outline new schemes that have been incorporated into the programme.
New Schemes (largely funded by additional grants detailed in para 3.5)
Urban Renaissance Royal Oak:
3.30 This building was acquired as part of the Urban Renaissance, SRB6 Scheme, funded by the LDA to make the sale of the Sundermead land more attractive. The building will ultimately be demolished as part of the Sundermead redevelopment, but in the interim Lewisham are negotiating a short-term lease of the building to a private arts company to offset any business rates liability.
Broadway Fields:
3.31 Broadway Fields is a semi-derelict recreation ground adjacent to the new DLR station at Deptford Bridge. The site is currently managed and maintained by Glendale Grounds management as part of the Parks Contract which runs to February 2010. The design will be based around youth activity space for both active and passive recreation and is funded by s106 money.
NDC Eckington Gardens:
3.32 Eckington Gardens is the main green space within the New Cross NDC area. Its refurbishment in the early part of the NDC programme recognises the importance of its central location to the community and to the urban environment. The park requires a complete redesign to encourage wider community use.
NDC Getting Wired:
3.33 This is part of a larger project to install a broadband capacity neighbourhood wide ICT infrastructure, funded through the NDC.
Shipwrights Palace:
21 3.34 The Shipwrights Palace was the original home of the master shipwright in Henry VIII's Deptford dockyards, and is now being restored and will be brought into use as an exhibition space for local artists. The OSCP funding provided £35k to match a similar sum provided by Creekside SRB to clear the contamination and landscape the public access areas in the front of the Shipwrights Palace to improve both visual and physical access to the building.
Silver Road DVLA
3.35 The Council agreed with the DVLA to operate a wheel clamping and removal operation targeted at untaxed vehicles in areas where vehicle workshops were known to be a problem. Silver Rd depot was found to have most of the security requirements except that some of these had fallen into disrepair.
3.36 Works were commissioned to restore the security and to provide for a payment point on site. Unfortunately due to delays in carrying out these works and additional requirements raised by staff on site, the cost of the works rose and the potential time the site would be available diminished. These works were eventually cancelled. However, it was necessary to meet the cost of the fabrication of the payment point and some initial building works on site, funded from Regeneration’s delegated capital budget.
Beckenham Place Park Stock Buyback and Health & Safety Works:
3.37 Due to contractual difficulties with the interim management at Beckenham Place Park the Council took the decision to take back the management in-house as from 1st August 2001. To ensure an uninterrupted service, at the peak season, it was necessary to purchase the operational equipment for both grounds maintenance and the catering service. Funded from Regeneration’s Delegated Works Budget.. In addition to the above on reviewing the park a number of urgent Health & Safety concerns were identified. Many of these items had to be undertaken immediately in order for the park and golf course to operate safely. Likewise these were funded from Regeneration’s delegated capital budget.
Goldsmith’s Community Association:
3.38 Goldsmiths Community Centre provides education, health & social opportunities for individuals and families in the Downham area. The total amount needed to renew the central heating system was £90,000, £70,000 was raised from the following sources: £50,000 from Downham Pride, (SRB) £10,000 from Peabody Trust £10,000 from Goldsmiths Community Association
22 £20,000 was funded from the OSCP Match Funding budget. TfL ITP Allocation 2002/2003:
3.39 On the 19th December 2001, Transport for London wrote to the council on the outcome of the 2002/03 Borough Spending Plan . For 2002/03 Group one funding for Lewisham amounted to £1131K. TfL also wrote indicating the funding for walking schemes of £60k which required an outline programme to be submitted to TfL prior to the sum being released. Lewisham is also a member of the South East London Transport strategy SELTRANS who have also bid for TfL Funding for Partnerships schemes for Lewisham, from which Lewisham has been awarded £197k.
4 OSCP 1st Quarter Monitoring and New bids for capital funding
4.1 As is usually the case at this stage of the financial year spend is low due to initial scheme planning and tendering stages being undertaken. Additionally the majority of the schools' schemes will take place during the summer break. Therefore at present many of the forecasts for schemes equal the budgets. When the second quarter monitoring is reported to Mayor and Cabinet in October a more refined forecast of expenditure will be included.
Table 7 Expenditure Forecasts to Resources
Future Forecast to Resources 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Total Years £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 BCA 5,351 1,000 1,000 0 7,351 SCA 371000371 Capital Receipts 11,988 5,777 1,200 0 18,965 Capital Grants 10,209 4,046 3,375 0 17,629 Revenue 1,714 1,646 2,000 0 5,360 Total Resources 29,633 12,469 7,575 0 49,677 LESS: Total Forecasted (29,471) (12,435) (6,407) 0 (48,313) Expenditure (Over)/Under 162 34 1,168 0 1,364 Programming
4.2 Over the three year programme there is under programming of £1.4m (Table 6). However in 02/03 the programme is only under programmed by £162k. If there are significant resources slipping, such as capital receipts, or forecast expenditure is exceeded there will be a problem trying to resource the programme. From table 7 it can be seen that £1.85m of spend has occurred in 02/03 against forecasts of £29.5m
23 Table 7 Detailed Forecasts analysed by Directorate
Forecast 2003- 2004- Future SPEND 2002-03 Total Summary 04 05 Years £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 Social Care 262 3,667 100 0 0 3,767 & Health Resources 46 1,192 0 0 0 1,192 Education & 645 12,050 4,298 11 0 16,359 Culture Regeneratio 17 6,859 1,603 3,515 0 11,977 n Corporate 0 120 2,000 2,081 0 4,201 Major 884 5,583 4,434 800 0 10,817 Schemes Total Forecast 1,853 29,471 12,435 6,407 0 48,313 Expenditure
New/Revised Bids
Capital House (original bid £500k, revised estimate £780k)
4.3 The revised estimated cost of the works required to Capital House are as follows:
£k Abatement work inc 250 fees Removal & storage 50 Refurbishment inc fees 350 Voice & data work 20 Decant plan Capital hse works 10 Voice data & moves 30 Forest Hill refit & move 40 Sydenham to 30 Kingswear Total 780
4.4 Provision of £500k was made in the 2002-03 Housing Investment Programme to meet the estimated costs of the work to Capital House, although as the scheme is being managed in the OSCP it is shown as a transfer of resources from HIP to OSCP. . Additional costs of £280k are anticipated as a result of the technical analytical cover required from specialist consultants and the required refit of the building once the abatement work is completed. Based on the occupancy of the building
24 a reasonable apportionment of costs for the building might be 2:1 Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to General Funded (GF) services
4.5 The Executive Director for Resources recommends that additional provision is made in the OSCP for 2002/03 of £260k and in HIP for 2002/03 of £20k .
Downham Depot (original bid £400k, revised estimate £860k)
4.6 The revised estimated costs of the work required to relocate Buildiing repairs from Downham Depot are as folows:
£k Works to Kingswear 50 Works to Sydenham 300 Works to Wearside 420 Fees - design supervision 90 Total 860
4.7 Provision of £400k was made in 2002/03 (in the February budget report ) for the work arising from the relocation of Downham Depot in the Council’s Other Services and Housing Investment Programmes with the funding of the work provisionally split 50:50, subject to final costings being made available. The original provision was based on a preliminary estimate of the relevant costs and it is now clear, from a detailed specification of the work that additional provision of £460k is required.
4.8 The most appropriate split of these costs from an accounting point of view is 80% HRA /20% General Fund. This reflects proper treatment between HRA/GF activity and apportionment of costs. However, although correct in accounting terms it has been discussed that, from a non-accounting perspective, the event given rise to the move was to assist with the Downham PFI, and so the contribution recommended from HIP is not wholly ‘fair’ from an HRA perspective. . 4.9 The Executive Director for Resources recommends the following additional budget allocations to fund the increases in both Capital House and Downham Depot relocation costs, based on the above :-
Current Proposed Additional Budget Funding Budgets £k £k £k Housing 700 1210 510 Other Services 200 430 230
Additional provision of £510k is required to be identified in the Housing 25 Capital Programme to meet the costs associated with these works and a further £230k from the Other Services Programme.
4.10 This allows speedy resolution of the issue, but Members may wish to consider allocating resources to HIP at a future date to compensate for this scheme, especially if contra items from OSCP to HIP have not occurred in the meantime.
4.11 Albany – Art of Regeneration
The February budget report identified a possible funding requirement of £750k with regard to phase 1B of the improvement works to the Albany Theatre. It stated that considering the risks identified in the report and given the Committee’s desire to see phase 1B proceed then the decision was delegated to the Executive Director for Resources, on advice from Education & Culture Directorate , whether to make temporary funds available to this programme, in the likelihood that the LDA would ultimately support the scheme with £750k of funding. At that time the LDA itself required confirmation from the DTLR of its funding.
Since then the DTLR have agreed that the LDA funding can be rolled forward and so the urgency for the LDA has somewhat dissipated although they continue to show interest in the project. The bid for funding to the LDA has been to their Land and Property Panel and is now proceeding to the Culture and Media group within the LDA in July and if approved will then go forward to the LDA appraisal panel in August.
Following the decision of the Executive Committee on 27 February, the Executive Director for Resources, having been advised by the Executive Director for Education and Culture as to the benefits of the Phase 1B refurbishment to the Albany, approved the short term funding of the works under delegated authority.
In February of this year a letter was sent by the Education and Culture Directorate to the Deptford Fund (who own and operate the Albany) stating that the Council would underwrite the costs of the Phase 1B refurbishment contract works up to a total sum of £750k and confirming that the Council would bear the cost of the project if the LDA funding was not forthcoming. At around the same time the client team instructed the consultant and the contractor to vary the Phase 1B works into the Phase 1A contract with Lengards Limited which was already in progress and began to order the fit out and equipment for Phase 1B.
Although the release of the funding had been approved under delegated authority, the variation of the contract also requires formal approval and it is recommended that this approval is now given. At present there is no agreement in place with the Deptford Fund to formalise the funding arrangements, to ensure the delivery of the perceived community benefits 26 and to secure the repayment of the funds in the event that the benefits are not delivered or if the Deptford Fund otherwise defaults on its obligations.
As the Council is already incurring expenditure on the Phase 1B works, but currently does not have the benefit of any funding agreement with the Deptford Fund, it is recommended that approval is now given to enter into a formal funding agreement with the Deptford Fund.
Because there is no certainty at present that the LDA funding will ultimately be forthcoming the agreement with the Deptford Fund would have to cater for this eventuality. It would therefore be structured as a short term loan initially with provision for repayment of the Council’s contribution (in whole or in part) if the LDA funding is ultimately received but converting to a long term grant in the event that the LDA funding was not ultimately received. The agreement would therefore contain standard grant agreement provisions requiring the Deptford Fund to carry out and complete the works and to provide a range of community benefits for a period of 15 years failing which the grant would become repayable to the Council. The repayment obligations would be secured by a legal charge over the Albany Theatre which would become exercisable if the grant became repayable or if the Fund went into liquidation.
The Executive Director for Resources does not recommend at this stage to allocate budget of £750k for 2002/03 for this scheme as the decision by the LDA is still outstanding, but brings to members attention that in fact a significant part of the £750k has now been expended which may need funding eventually from within OSCP resources.
4.12 Manor House (£1.75m)
Architects have been commissioned to prepare a scheme to repair and restore the building to accurately estimate the costs associated with the restoration, to prepare papers for listed building consent and planning proposals and to prepare a lottery fund application. Consultation with the user groups is currently underway.
By September 2002 Lewisham will need to submit first stage formal lottery application to the Heritage Lottery Fund (maximum HFL value could be 3 times Lewisham’s funding ie £5.25m). If this scheme does not proceed then the costs to date of approx £150k will need to be met from revenue funding and not OSCP. It is not clear what the revenue implication of this scheme will be for Lewisham at this stage.
4.13 Clarendon Rise (£1.2m)
This project is to develop the existing Clarendon Rise site as a new resource centre for disabled children and young people, including the provision of 27 overnight respite care. An external provider, secured by a tendering process, will deliver the service and will work in partnership with us to redesign the building to be fit for purpose. A bid has been made to the DofH for an additional £500k capital grant.
Although building work will not commence until Jan 2003 at the earliest work is progressing on procurement and consultation. Some of the revenue funding that will be used to support this centre is being spent on less cost effective packages of care.
The current profile of spend is £24k in 2002/03 (for project management) and the remaining £ 1,176k in 2003/04.
4.14 Theatre Phase II (£3.2m)
A budget of £3.2m has been allocated to this scheme (although this may reduce depending on the final outturn of the phase 1 Theatre project discussed earlier in section 3. The scheme is about investing in the Town Hall Chambers to act as a catalyst for regeneration of Catford, linked to the Broadway Theatre. The scheme is at a very preliminary stage with a detailed specification and draft business plan due to be drawn up by end of August.
Possible Future Bids
4.15 Capitalisation of Redundancy Costs (amount to be quantified)
There may be a requirement to capitalise redundancy costs in light of the significant revenue budget savings required as part of the revenue budget strategy for 2003/04. Information on the likely costs is being gathered as part of the revenue budget savings exercise and will be reported back in the next capital monitoring report. Officers will then recommend to Members that an application to the Secretary of State be made to seek approval to capitalise the redundancy costs.
4.16 Refurbishment on 11 Passenger Transport Vehicles (Swifts) (Bid of £484k max - £429k min)
Officers in Regeneration, Education & Culture and Social Care &Health have been working with officers in Resources to determine the way forward for some of the fleet of passenger carrying vehicles which are in need of urgent refurbishment./replacement. It is the officers views, after considering the medium term needs of both the services for Education & Culture (expanding due to the SEN best value review recommendations) and Social Care & Health (likely to reduce as a result of various reviews) that refurbishment of a minimum of 11 out of the existing 15 vehicles is the best way forward.
28 The service currently required is best met by dual use of 22 to 36 seat vehicles. The Swift vehicle is well suited to the service, given its narrow body and manoeuvrability, is popular with clients and operational staff and there is no like for like replacement vehicle available on the market. Refurbishment would give the vehicles an additional 7-10 years of use.
The refurbishment cost are £34k per vehicle and the engine replacement costs £10k per vehicle ((for modern fuel efficient systems) although this element may attract up to 50% grant from Powershift.
The Executive Director for Resources recommends that resources should be allocated from the OSCP for £484,000, although this figure could reduce to £429k if the grant is received for part of the cost of the engines.
It is likely that the award of this work would commence over the Summer following the tender exercise under officer delegation. Prior to this, it has been agreed that the Cabinet Member for Resources will be presented with the business case by the Regeneration directorate so that Members are fully briefed on the proposed investment.
4.17 Forest Hill School - Bid of £150k
Forest Hill school agreed to increase their temporary admmissions number to 240 on a temporary basis to meet the need for secondary school places. A programme of works has been specified to accommodate the additional pupils, estimated at £300k. The schools will contribute £150k from its devolved capital of £150k, leaving £150k being sought from the OSCP
The Executive Director for Resources recommends that a budget of £150k be allocated for this spend in 2002/03.
4.18 The Bellingham Recreation project (BECORP) Bid of £200k
A request has been received from BECORP for additional funding from the Council to enable them to complete the new Sport and Healthy Living Centre. As a previous contributor to the scheme, BECORP are asking the Council to consider giving additional capital funding of £200k to enable the centre to have a new Entrance Canopy and other works completed. The canopy is a planning requirement.
The Executive Director for Resources recommends that £200k is made available in 2002/03 to support the completion of this centre at Bellingham.
4.19 South Bermondsey to Millwall Footpath - Bid of £104k
At the end of 2001/02 funding of £50k was allocated from the OSCP to LB Southwark as a contribution to funding the above footpath. At that time Southwark were contributing £200k. Since then Southwark have advised 29 that the costs of the scheme has risen and have requested a further contribution from Lewisham of £104k
The Executive Director for Resources does not recommend that this bid be put forward for additional funding at this time on the basis that the prioritisation factors affecting this scheme remain unaltered and the costs have escalated and decisions have been made without reference back to Lewisham.
4.20 Aids and Adaptations - Bid of £225k
A bid for £225k for aids and adaptations (over and above that provided in HIP for 2002/03 – see section 6.20 in HIP report) has been received from officers in SC&H to meet increasing pressures for provision of services which enable people to be discharged from hospital and maintained in their own homes.
The Executive Director for Resources recommends that this bid is seen as a priority for future allocation of budgets later in the year if the opportunity arises from underspends elsewhere.
4.21 Highways – Bid of £100k
In the revenue budget report of 17th July Regeneration reported that part of their management action to deliver the required underspend in 2002/03 is to capitalise £100k of revenue spend on Highways. (Members will recall that £470k of such spend was capitalised in 2001/02 to ease the revenue position).
The Executive Director for Resources recommends that £100k is allocated from the OSCP to enable this treatment of costs in 02/03.
4.22 ICT Infrastructure and Improvements
As agreed in previous reports vital investments in the network infrastructure and core systems are being made on a phased basis; for example this month the link is being replenished to facilitate the National Grid for Learning. The Executive Director for Resources has reviewed planned commitments from OSCP and the provision for this has been adjusted down from £580k to £500k to be spent over the next year.
4.23.1 Bids approved for funding
30 The revised resource position would be as follows if the above recommendations for budgets are agreed:-
Resources £1.3m
Less resource allocations:- Downham depot/Capital House (0.23m) Forest Hill school (0.15m) BECORP (0.20m) Highways (from revenue) (0.10m) Swift vehicles (0.48m) ICT infrastructure (0.50m)
Total of new allocations (1.66m)
Revised level of overprogramming 0.36m
4.23.2 Bids not approved for Funding
This leaves the following schemes not yet funded in the OSCP for 2002/03 – 2004/05:-
Aids & Adaptations (addnl to HIP £350k) £225k Capitalisation of redundancy costs to be quantified Addnl funds for the South Bermondsey to Millwall Footpath £104k
1.24 Pupil Referral Unit – Award of Grant Officers have been notified of an award of a grant for the funding of £1.045m of this scheme although the details of the profile of the grant from the DfeS are not yet known. However a future OSCP monitoring report will include this and in effect the resource position then improves by this £1.045m as the budget for the scheme is already reflected. 1.25 Emergency repairs budget allocation for 2002/03 of £70k for Ladywell Leisure Centre
Emergency works required at Ladywell Leisure centre were agreed to be funded from the corporate emergency repairs budget by the Executive Director for Resources earlier in the year under delegation. This does not affect the overall resource position but reduces down to £210k the level of corporate funds available for the remainder of 2002/03 for such emergencies.
31 5. Capital Programme Review in the Context of Revenue Budget pressures
Regeneration
5.1 Civic Amenities Site £161k
A budget exists in 02/03 for this scheme. The original scheme is no longer proceeding (although an alternative scheme is being developed) and so it is recommended that the funds are now made available for corporate bidding in accordance with the normal protocols of managing the OSCP. Regeneration directorate may choose if they wish to bid for an alternative use of these funds in future capital reports but at this stage it is recommended that the budget is clawed back.
5.2 SC&H – Family Contact Centre £144k
A review of the SC&H capital programme has identified a scheme originally agreed last year for a Family Contact Centre (capital budget of £144k) in the earlier section of this report, para 3.18, it is recommended that this scheme be withdrawn and the budget clawed back from SC&H because of uncertain revenue prospects. SC&H can re-bid for OSCP funds as and when they are ready to proceed.
5.3 Education & Culture
A review has been carried out in the directorate which has highlighted unallocated budgets of £41k in 202/03 and £174k in 2003/04. However there appears to be additional costs that may arise from the Watergate school scheme in respect of ICT and kerb realignment so the unallocated budgets are currently being held by officers in E&C to provide cover for Watergate school at this time.
5.4 AMP related schemes
These are various schemes to manage the corporate estate to make it fit for purpose and safe for employees, in accordance with legislation, to work in for the benefit of the Council. It is not recommended at this stage that this set of schemes is ceased at this stage of the year.
5.5 Accesspoint £392k
The new Access.Point is Deptford is due for opening in September to relieve long journeys to Catford for residents in the North of the borough. Alongside the provision planned as part of for Downham PFI, officers recommend that 3 one-stop facilities (i.e. Catford, Deptford & Downham) are planned rather than the 5 originally planned on a rolling basis as part of Citizen First.
Centres in Lewisham and Forest Hill will not proceed over the next 3 years 32 until take-up of web services, call-centre services and the 2-3 Access.Points has been assessed and reviewed in terms of future strategy.
5.6 Refuse Vehicles (£520k)
Tenders from vehicle manufacturers are shortly to be appraised. Once this exercise has been carried out a VFM study will be undertaken on the benefits of leasing or purchasing vehicles and the results reported back to committee. Due to the pressures on the capital programme it is likely that the option of leasing vehicles will be recommended if the cost differential is not significant.
5.7 Summary of OSCP programme review
Earlier sections in this report give Members details of the overall shape of the programme for the next three years. The position on several of the key (and large) capital proramme schemes for this and future years are reported earlier.
Over time The Executive Director of Resources will recommend that only schemes that have no revenue implications (ie neutral or favourable revenue implications) should be included that can then be easily switched on/off eg highways maintenance. Whereas at present the only significant schemes that Members could consider stopping in the OSCP to help assuage the revenue budget position are those already detailed in sections 4.12 to 4.14 and possibly 5.6.
6 HIP Outturn 2001/02 and 1st Quarter Monitoring 2002/03
6.1 The Executive Committee on 6 February and 20 March 2002 agreed the schemes to be included in the 2002/20031 Regeneration Capital Programme. This included an allowance for Receipts Taken Into Account (RTIA), the continuing Deferred Purchase Agreement, policy commitments and new central and neighbourhood allocations.
Anticipated Resources as detailed in the Stage 2 Bids Report
Budget to Resources 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Future Total Years £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 BCA 12,008 12,008 12,008 12,008 48,032 SCA 00000 Capital Receipts 7,278 11,880 8,984 8,840 36,982 Capital Grants 25,326 25,147 25,529 25,919 101,921 Revenue 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 9,600 Total Resources 47,012 51,435 48,921 49,167 196,535
33 LESS: Total Budgeted (54,740) 0 0 0 (54,740) Expenditure
(Over)/Under (7,728) 51,435 48,921 49,167 141,795 Programming
6.2 Since the closure of the 2001/02 capital accounts the above table has now changed to the following:-
Budget to Resources 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Future Total Years £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 BCA 12,008 12,008 12,008 12,008 48,032 SCA 121000121 Capital Receipts 4,990 9,261 11,045 7,400 32,696 Capital Grants 23,065 24,725 25,488 25,849 99,127 Revenue 7,760 2,400 2,400 2,400 14,960 Total Resources 47,944 48,394 50,941 47,657 194,936
LESS: Total Budgeted (52,599) (15,872) (8,878) (4,315) (81,664) Expenditure
(Over)/Under (4,655) 32,522 42,063 43,342 113,272 Programming
6.3 This is shown more clearly in the variance table below.
Budget to Resources 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Future Total Years £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 BCA 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SCA -121.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -121.000 Capital Receipts 2,288.000 2,619.000 - 1,440.00 4,286.00 2,061.00 0 0 0 Capital Grants 2,261.000 422.000 41.000 70.000 2,794.00 0 Revenue - 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 5,360.000 5,360.00 0 Total Resources -932.000 3,041.000 - 1,510.00 1,599.00 2,020.00 0 0 0
34 LESS: Total Budgeted - 15,872.30 8,878.10 4,315.10 26,924.2 Expenditure 2,141.300 0 0 0 00
(Over)/Under - 18,913.3 6,858.1 5,825.1 28,523.2 Programming 3,073.30 00 00 00 00 0
6.4 The four year capital programme to 2005/06 (future years), prior to agreed revisions is £82.890m which is less than are estimated resources by £112,628m. The Mayor and Cabinet are reminded that resources for 2003/04 onwards are purely based on estimates. Housing Capital Resources are agreed on an annual basis.
6.5 The Capital programme for 2002/03 is £52.599m and exceeds resources by £4.655m (9,71%). £3.2m of the programme is actually spent, with £22.75m currently contracted and a further £26,6m remaining uncommitted. This is shown in detail in Appendix B.
6.6 Decent Homes Standard
In July 2000, following its Spending Review, the Government announced significant increases in resources for housing, and especially social housing. This came on top of other substantial increases announced in 1998. In July 2001the Department for Transport, local Government and the Regions published the definition and guidelines for the decent homes standards. As part of its desire to link increased spending to better outcomes, the Government has established a target to: “ensure that all social housing meets set standards of decency by 2010, by reducing the number of households living in social housing that does not meet these standards by a third between 2001 and 2004, with most of the improvement taking place in the most deprived local authority areas”.
6.7 A decent home is defined as one which meets all of the following four criteria: a: It meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing. At present this is the fitness standard: dwellings below the standard are those defined as unfit under current legislation. The Government plans to move to a statutory standard based on the new housing health and safety rating system - but this will require primary legislation. b: It is in a reasonable state of repair: dwellings failing on this point will be those where either one or more key building components are old and need replacing (where key means external components, electrics and gas heating source ); or two or more other building components are old and need replacing. c: It has reasonably modern facilities and services – dwellings failing. On this point are those that lack three or more of the following:
35 a reasonably modern kitchen (20 years old or less); a kitchen with adequate space and layout; a reasonably modern bathroom (30 years old or less); an appropriately located bathroom and WC; adequate noise insulation (where external noise/ neighbourhood noise is a problem); adequate size and layout of common areas for blocks of flats. d: Provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort – dwellings failing the standard are those where the occupants are unable to heat their homes to a reasonable level.
6.8 The recently completed Stock Condition Survey has provided updated information on the condition of the housing stock and the number of properties that do not meet the decency standards. The Survey indicates that 66% of all Council housing fails to meet the decent homes standard and that the total cost of bringing all homes up to the standard by 2010 will be £536 million. It is therefore appropriate that the survey will help, once policy and contractual commitments have been met, to formulate the remainder of the programme."
6.9 Housing Resources
2002/03 is the first year of the Single Capital Pot. It brings together a number of allocations that were formally made separately as well as introducing a discretionary element, equivalent to 5% of the total, which is allocated following assessments of service plans and of councils capital strategies and asset management plans.
6.10 The Government Office for London (GOL) announced on 13th December 2001 that Lewisham’s Housing Annual Capital Guideline (ACG) would be £13.329m, as well as a allocation of £0.841m under the 5% Single Capital Programme Discretionary element. However GOL informed local authorities that the announcement for Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG’s) would be made separately at a later date. This was subsequently announced on 28th February 2002 and Lewisham was awarded a two year Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA) of £0.154m.
6.11 Receipts Taken into Account The amount that the Government assumes is available to the council from capital receipts. This is taken from the ACG to reach the Basic Credit Approval.
6.12 Strutton Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA) Lewisham has once again been successful in bidding for a Department of Health Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA). On 9TH November 2001 Lewisham was notified that the Department had agreed to issue Lewisham a two year SCA of £120,562. This SCA is for the purchase and 36 development of a unit to provide long term housing for people living with HIV/AIDS. This will be done in conjunction with Strutton Housing Association who specialises in this area of housing need.
6.13 Capital Receipts On top of its HIP allocation, the Council can use 25% of receipts from Right to Buy sales and 50% of receipts from the sale of land and other assets to fund the Housing Capital Programme.
The provisional figures for Receipts from Right to Buy (RTB) sales in 2001/02 are as follows:- RTB sales (after deduction of allowable costs) £32,753m Discount Repayments £ .374m RTB Mortgage Repayments £ .907m Total £34,034m
giving a usable proportion of just over £8,508m.
6.14 The forecast for 2002/3 totals £34m, of which 25%, £8.508m, could be used to support the overall financing of the Housing Capital Programme. The remainder of the receipts must be used to redeem outstanding debt. This eventually results in a loss of Housing subsidy, initially however debt repayment results in an increase in resources available to the HRA as there is a time delay before the government takes into account reserved receipts on the Housing Subsidy Credit Ceiling.
6.15 Additional Capital Receipt - £1m On 27th February 2002 Members, as part of the 2002/03 Revenue & Capital Budget and Setting the Council Tax 2002/03 report agreed to target an additional £1m of capital receipts, in addition to those transferred to fund the repurchase of leasehold properties, from the OSCP to the Housing Capital Programme.
6.16 Recycled Land Receipts On 19th December at Executive Committee Members agreed that all site assembly costs incurred on the 4 main regeneration schemes would be reimbursed to the capital programme via the capital receipt raised by the sale. It was originally estimated that costs incurred in 2001/02 would amount to £3.235m. However following the closing of the capital accounts for 2001/02 the actual costs were £4,611,361 (detailed in para. 6.43)
6.17 At present receipts released from assets associated with these development sites amount to £2,213,625. There is currently a shortfall of £2,397,736. It is proposed that the current shortfall is met from planned 37 receipts generated within the current financial year. Officers will continually to monitor the position of these receipts and will update the Mayor and Cabinet in all subsequent reviews. .
6.18 The cost of repurchasng leasehold properties currently exceeds available resources by £1.48m. No account has however yet been taken of any capital receipts generated by the Silwood scheme. Further work is required to review the Silwood building programme and to ensure that there are sufficient resources available to fund both the demolition and construction costs as well as the cost of repurchasing leasehold properties.
6.19 East London Line Extension (ELLX) At Executive Committee members agreed to fund £5m from the Housing Investment Programme (HIP) to the East London Line Extension (ELLX) project in the OSCP. For 2002/2003 Housing’s final contribution amounts to £1.630m, which will complete the full £5.000m that members originally approved.
However although resources were originally identified for the ELLX project, delays with the ELLX scheme have resulted in all contributions made to date and proposed contribution for 2002/2003 being used to fund other projects within the other services capital programme (OSCP). Therefore if in the future members still want to contribute to the ELLX scheme additional resources will need to be identified to fund this commitment.
6.20 Transfer for Aids and Adaptations Included in this year’s HIP Bids report was an allocation for an Aids & Adaptations scheme for £350,000. This scheme is project managed by the Social Care & Health directorate and in order to maintain good accountancy practices in Lewisham the resources set aside for this scheme are subsequently transferred to the directorate running the scheme. (also refer OSCP para 4.20) .
6.21 Transfer for Capital House and Downham Depot
If the recommendations earlier in the report are agreed (OSCP paras 4.3 to 4.9) re the additional funding required for these two schemes, then an additional £510k is required to be transferred from HIP to OSCP to support these schemes. . 6.22 Less Other Services Capital Programme (OSCP) Contribution This funding resources regeneration schemes that are of benefit to tenants and the wider community within the OSCP. Executive Committee agreed a three year commitment at £2.000m each year to the OSCP, with 2002/2003 as the third and final year. The Mayor and Cabinet are reminded that at the stage 1 bids report this contribution was under review. The review has now been concluded and Executive Committee 38 agreed that the contribution will be reduced to £1m for 2002/2003. (2002/5 Revenue & Capital Budget Setting, the Council Tax for 2002/3’ presented to members on 27th February 2002).
6.23 Major Repairs Allowance As a result of the comprehensive spending review the government announced in July 1999 that funds would be directed to Local Authorities through the Major Repairs Allowance (MRA). This is calculated using a set formula (which does not include a general needs index). It is intended to provide funds to clear the backlog of repairs and avoid future deterioration of stock but can be used to fund borrowing. The advantage is that the MRA is guaranteed for the next three years allowing the Council to carry out a great deal of forward planning. Councils are required to produce business plans and carry out stock condition surveys to show how the priorities have been set and what options have been considered. The MRA is ring fenced to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). Lewisham will receive £21.745m in 2002/2003.
6.24 Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) As previously mentioned this was set by Central Government separately from the main ACG announcement. This resource was announced on 28th February 2002 and Lewisham was awarded a two year Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA) of £0.154m. This is exchequer support to the private sector for renovation grants for the disabled.
6.25 Silwood SRB5 Grant Contribution 2002/03 The original allocation was set at £3.426m, however following the last SRB Board away day the Board decided to change this year into a ‘planning and rethinking year’. The allocation was reduced to £1.858m, with the approval of the LDA to allow Silwood to review the programme and revisit some of the key elements. This has now been split even further with the Building element contained within the Housing Capital Programme and those projects which are non housing related now being monitored under the Other Services Capital Programme. The slippage of £1.568m has been moved to future years with the precise allocation being decided following the mid term review.
6.26 General Fund Programme Officers are currently undertaking a full review of the programmes funded through the General Fund. The results from this will be reported back to the Mayor and Cabinet at a subsequent committee. This review is becoming increasingly important to monitor closely through the year as funding decisions are made towards the end of the year on both HIP (General Fund) and OSCP.
Revised Net Resources
Budget to Resources 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Future Total 39 Years £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 BCA 12,008 12,008 12,008 12,008 48,032 SCA 121000121 Capital Receipts 4,990 9,261 11,045 7,400 32,696 Capital Grants 23,065 24,725 25,488 25,849 99,127 Revenue 7,760 2,400 2,400 2,400 14,960 Total Resources 47,944 48,394 50,941 47,657 194,936
LESS: Total Budgeted (52,599) (15,872) (8,878) (4,315) (81,664) Expenditure
(Over)/Under (4,655) 32,522 42,063 43,342 113,272 Programming
6.27 Schemes Requiring Contract Variations Following the Closure of the 2001/2002 Accounts
Following the closure of the 2001/2002 Capital Accounts and as part of this HIP Review, a number of schemes currently require contract variations to be agreed by the Mayor and Cabinet. These are shown more clearly below.
6.28 Mayor and Cabinet are asked to note & approve the expenditure already incurred against these schemes and the costs affecting the 2001/02 capital accounts. There are no financial implications for this year 2002/03.
6.29 Private Sector 2001/02 – Disabled Facilities Grant and Main Programme The original allocation for this scheme was set at £2.136m, however on 19th December 2002 Executive Committee agreed to increase this by £0.500m to £2636.0. Officers then sub divided this further into separate sub sections. Within these sub-sections certain elements overspent, such as Disabled Facilities and Home Repair Grant while others under-spent. The net result is that the final spend on this allocation amounted to £2621.4 m which is still within budget, but as individual sections overspent these need the Mayors and Cabinets retrospective approval.
6.30 R&M Match Funding 2001/02 As a result of an uncorrected miscoding the spend shown against Technical Services which on the schedules shows an overspend of £5.2k should have been charged against Hostels which has a budget of £20k and therefore results in a under-spend of £10k and £4.8k respectively.
40 6.31 Local Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG) At the beginning of the 2001/2 financial year an LASHG allocation of £4.4m was set aside for phase 1 of Kender. It was anticipated that Hyde HA (the preferred partner working on Kender) would draw down the acquisition and start on site tranche based on assumptions at the beginning of the financial year. However, there were significant increases, for example in valuation costs, which meant that an increase in SHG was required. The net result was an increase from the estimated required sum of £4.4m at the beginning of the financial year to an actual required figure of just over 4.8m.
6.32 Sundermead The Sundermead budget for 2001/2002 was exceeded by £0.380m and this can be attributed to the high demand by leaseholders to sell their properties back to the Council either to remain in them as non-secure tenants whilst the new development is being built or to buy another property elsewhere. This enabled Lewisham to buy back 3 additional properties in 2001/2002.
Summary Scheme Original Revised Final Spend Variance Allocation in 2001/02 (Revised Minus Final) £m £m £m £m Private Sector Housing £2136.0 2636.0 £2621.4 N/A (Under) 2001/02 R&M Match Funding £500.0 £500.0 £336.8 N/A (Under) 2001/02 LASHG 2001/02 £4400.0 £4000.0 £4842.4 £444.2 Sundermead Estate 2001/02 £1500.0 £1500.0 £1880.9 £380.9 Total £8536.00 £8636.00 £10682.00 £825.10
6.33 Schemes Requiring Contract Variations within 2002/2003
Lift Programme 2002/03 The Lift Programme for 2002/03 was agreed by Members at Executive Committee on 6th February 2002. One of lifts contained within this programme was Palmer House LM271. This lift has now been included within the Kender Triangle works.
Officers therefore request that the lift Sayers Court Estate (Lift Number LM116 – 37 to 96 Dacca Street) be substituted in its place. The Mayor and Cabinet are ask to note that the two lifts are estimated to have identical costs, therefore there are no cost implications.
6.34 Polecroft Lane
41 The Essential Works Schemes for Polecroft Lane was approved 24 February 2001 by Executive Committee with a budget of £230,000. The works consisted of concrete and brick repairs to various blocks on the estate. The contract was awarded to Llewelyn Stonecare in the sum of £121,000 exclusive of fees.
Work commenced at Polecroft Lane on the 26th November 2001. The Executive Committee on 27th February 2002 granted additional monies for urgent re-pointing works to 3 big blocks and 2 two storey blocks in the sum of £80,000, this work has now been completed.
Due to further unforeseen works an additional £5,000 is required to cover the additional costs. Officers request that the Mayor and Cabinet approve this sum.
6.35 Long Term Voids 2001/02 The original allocation for this scheme was £1m, however this was reduced to £938k because properties identified and ready to commence on site would achieve spend at this level. Following several Voids Strategy Meetings held towards the end of the financial year more properties were identified as being in need of such work and subsequently orders were placed. In 2001/02 the actual spend on this scheme amounted to £947.2k. This enabled the return of 45 dwellings back in to use, with a further 7 having now been completed or in the later stages of completion. As a result officers request that the budget be re-instated to the original allocation to enable these works to be completed.
The Mayor and Cabinet are ask to note that a new budget of £500k has been awarded to run a Long Term Void programme in 2002/03, however these resources have already been earmarked against properties.
6.36 Swiftdens Ways – Comprehensive Scheme 2001/02 On 4th April 2001, Executive Committee agreed the inclusion of this scheme as part of the 2001/02 capital programme. The budget allocation was £1,700,000 inclusive of fees. The scheme proposed UPVC replacement windows, roof renewals, new central heating systems, new kitchens, security improvements and environmental works.
The scheme went out to tender and was won by Botes Building Ltd, with a contract sum of £848,780 excluding fees. The schedules were reduced accordingly.
The works are almost completed, however asbestos has been discovered in 2 areas, the balconies to each property and asbestos debris to the loft areas, which has halted the upgrading of the lighting and water tanks.
Preliminary estimates suggest that £100,000 will be required to clear the loft areas and £25,000 for the balcony areas. 42 Officers therefore recommend that the Mayor and Cabinet approve the additional £125,000 detailed above.
6.37 Crossway Court The North West Area have identified this scheme for inclusion in the 2002/03 Energy programme for the installation and upgrading of central heating systems.
A comprehensive scheme at this address was agreed by Members at Executive Committee as part of the Stage 2 report. Unfortunately the agreed scheme didn’t include central heating. Preliminary estimates suggest an additional £120,000 will be required for central heating.
Officers therefore recommend that the Mayor and Cabinet approve the additional £120,000 budget allocation to this scheme.
6.38 Neighbourhood Warden Scheme - £25,000 Lewisham is expanding the provision of neighbourhood and street wardens schemes within the borough, and is already running schemes in Honor Oak, Silwood and the Catford / Hither Green area.. There is likely to be significant further expansion over the next few months.
The £25,000 capital allocation is for the conversion of a storage area on the Lewisham Park estate. This will act as a headquarters for the warden project and a base for the Catford / Hither Green scheme. This work is essential for the project and should have a direct impact on reducing crime and the fear of crime in the scheme area.
The Mayor and Cabinet are reminded that this allocation would be contained within the Tenure Diversification Budget which is already included within the Capital Programme. There are therefore no cost implications for the overall programme.
6.39 Housing Related Schemes Creative Sector This scheme was approved for inclusion in the Capital Programme for 2001/02 with an approved budget of £50,000. It’s aim is to identify unused council premises and convert them for use by new businesses in the creative sector. Two shop units on the Honor Oak estate were identified and two new businesses came forward to make use of the units. One business is a specialist function caterer who have developed a community enterprise working from the community centre on the estate and now wishes to extend their operation onto a more commercial footing. The second business is operated by two artists who wish to expand their operation by opening a gallery to exhibit the work of their and other local artists. The entrepreneurs in both businesses are residents on the Honor Oak estate. 43 A specification of the necessary works was drawn up by the Council’s building management service and the two businesses and a pre-tender estimate of the works of £40,000 was identified. Tenders were invited before Christmas, and received in the middle of January but all five submitted tenders came back in excess of the pre-tender estimate.
Tenders were invited from five local building contractors, these are shown below:- Contractor G & S Sharpe Ltd, T/A Homesales K Martin (Builders) Ltd J.E.M Building services Building associates Apex Contractors Ltd
The lowest admissable tender priced at £55,642 that is £25,642 in excess of the pre-tender estimate and the provision available in the project budget.
This revised tender price of £55,642, plus fees of £7,358 takes the project cost to £62,642, which is £13,000 over the project budget. Officers therefore recommend that this scheme allocation is increased by £13,000.
6.40 Disabilities Scheme - £40,000 Adaptation works to Chinbrook Estate have been identified. These works are concentrated to the shower area of dwellings and therefore are classified as being essential works. It is Lewisham’s responsibility as a social landlord to carryout these works.
Officers therefore recommend that this allocation is agreed and incorporated into the Disabilities scheme budget of £125,000.
6.41 Selden House CCTV - £60,000 Residents of the Selden Estate have been experiencing problems relating to anti-social behaviour for some time and these problems have primarily been created by youths. The problems faced by residents have included arson attacks, intimidation, homophobic acts, racial incidents, damage to cars and property and drug dealing.
In the period from March 2001 until March 2002, the Selden area witnessed an escalation of allegations of anti-social behaviour. A multi- agency approach to this issue has been adopted an action plan drawn up. The action plan detailed improvements to lighting on the estate as well as the installation of CCTV cameras to discourage potential perpetrators from carrying out anti-social acts.
44 A report was agreed by the Major and Cabinet in June 2002 approving the main scheme as detailed above. Officers recommend that additional funding of £60,000 be approved.
6.42 Energy Efficiency Programme As part of the HIP stage 1 report Executive Committee agreed £2.34m for energy efficiency programme in 2002/3. This programme has always achieved full spend and has been the main driver in increasing the energy efficiency rating for the housing stock. As it is anticipated that additional resources may become available later in the year it is prudent to run up to tender stage an additional scheme of £1m should funding become available and to report this in a future position statement.
6.43 Recycled Capital Receipts On 19th December 2001 Members agreed at Executive Committee to re- imburse costs associated site assembly costs, including leasehold buybacks, professional fees and administrative costs for Pepys, Kender, Sundermead and Silwood. In 2001/02 £4,611,361 costs incurred, these are shown more clearly in the table below.
Summary Site Costs Incurred 2001/02 Kender £1,454,440 Sundermead £1,734,909 Silwood £1,258,779 Pepys £163,233 Total £4,611,361
6.44 Homelessness Schemes 2002/03 On 6th February Executive Committee were shown, as part of the Stage 1 Bids Report, a list of potential Homelessness and Supported Housing Schemes. These totalled £2.425m. This list was to be prioritised and a revised list of schemes totally £1.5m were to be presented to the Mayor and Cabinet for approval in the 2002/03 Housing Capital Programme. This has now happened and the proposed schemes are shown below. An allocation of £1.5m has already been included in the programme for 2002/03 so there are no financial implications associated with this.
6.45 Officers recommend that the Mayor and Cabinet agree this list of schemes for inclusion with the 2002/03 Housing Capital Programme.
Scheme Type of work Revised Estimate
Mayfield CCTV/Fire Alarm Install and upgrade £95,000 45 Hurstbourne/ Woolstone refurbish bathrooms, install £82,000 central heating Woolstone Road refurbish bathrooms, new £120,000 kitchens, extra electrical sockets, decorate units, new floor covering Bishopsthorpe Make self contained £258,200 All hostels modifications to fire alarm £150,000 systems Vulcan Terrace Full refurbishment £95,000 Rushey Green Full refurbishment £306,000 Sydenham Road New windows £43,100 Lee Terrace new kitchens, Refurbish £83,000 laundry Dalrymple new kitchens, extra electrical £102,000 sockets, decorate units, new floor covering
Burnt Ash Hill Renew windows and £92,300 external doors Culverley Road Renew communal kitchen £24,000 Various - 50 units Renew floor covering £49,400 Total £1,500,000
6.46 Phased Comprehensive Schemes 2002/03 Onwards The schemes detailed below where approved as phased bids over the next two years. On further reflection it would be more cost effective if these were tendered with both phases included although it would be made clear that the overall budget per year would not change. Officers therefore recommend that these phased schemes be tendered and let this financial year, ensuring that the consultants and contractors are aware of the expenditure restrictions involved. It would also be advisable to work up those schemes from no 15 to 20 to tender stage.
6.47 Foreshore Phase 1 of this scheme was agreed as part of the Stage 2 Report agreed by Members at Executive Committee on 20th March 2002. The total scheme cost for all phases would amount to £554,000. £292,000 was agreed for inclusion with this financial year with the remainder £262,000 provisionally earmarked for 2003/04. However these figure exclude preliminaries and consultants fees, these are estimated to be in the region of £150,000. The cost of the scheme this financial year would still remain at £292,000 with phase two amounting to £412,000. Therefore there are no cost implications this financial year. Officers recommend that that all phases for this scheme are agreed now in order to seek competitive tenders.
46 6.48 Winchfield Road, Bell Green Lane, Porthcawe Road Again Phase 1 of this scheme was agreed at the above mentioned committee. The total scheme cost for all phases would amount to £3,088,371. £1,400,000 was agreed for inclusion within this financial year with the remainder £1,688,371 provisionally earmarked for inclusion within the 2003/04 capital programme. Officers therefore recommend that that all phases for this scheme are agreed now in order to seek competitive tenders.
6.49 Reserve List of Schemes as at Stage 2 Bids Report On 20th March 2002 Members agreed the inclusion of nine comprehensive schemes in 2002/03 with a further four schemes being worked up to tender stage. Due to the low level of over-programming officers now recommend the inclusion of these four schemes.
6.50 Lucas Court Lucas Court is one of the four schemes mentioned above. It was originally earmarked to phased over two years. However officers recommend that the total scheme cost be approved now for tendering purposes, however the scheme will still be phased over 2 years. The total scheme amounts to £1,555,950 with phase 1 amounting to £780,000 and phase 2, £775,950.
6.51 Seldon House Officers also recommend the inclusion of the next prioriitised scheme (number 14) at Seldon House for inclusion as this block forms part of the same estate as Hathway House and Selden House which have either already been approved or are waiting for approval. It would be better to target a whole estate rather than leave one block out. The table below has been taken from the original Stage 2 report for information.
Pr Ward Area No. Address Description Est. cost units (£m) 1O = Syd Sout 170 Winchfield Rd Windows, doors, 1.400 East h Porthcawe kitchens, N = Bell Lew. Rd and Bell bathrooms, rewires Green Lane & external works (phase 1) 2O= Dept 60 Pitman House Windows, roofs, 0.732 Grinling . kitchens and Gibbons rewire N= Brockley 3O= PepysNorth 42 Crossway Windows, roofs, 1.135 N= Tel. Hill West Court kitchens, Lew bathrooms and external works
47 4O= ManorCircl 108 Cordwell Windows, security 0.222 Lee e 33 Estate and external works N= Lee Green 5O= HitherCircl 20 Chiddingston Windows, roofs, 0.305 Green e 33 e kitchens, N= Cen. bathrooms, Lew. security and external works 60= Syd Pinn 47 Ormanton Windows, roofs 0.310 West acle Road and security works N= Syd 7O= GroveKenn 90 Chinbrook Roofs and security 0.427 Park edy Estate works N= Grove Hay Park ward s 8O=Syd Sout 30 Byron Close Windows, kitchens, 0.440 East h bathrooms and N=Bell. Lew. rewires 9O=Evelyn 130 Crusaders Windows and 0.677 N=Evelyn Co-op security works Sub Total Schemes 5.648 1 –9 10 O= North 20 Hutchinson Windows, roofs, 0.510 Marlowe West House kitchens, N= Tel.Hill Lew. bathrooms and security works 11 O=Syd Sout 30 Lucas Court Windows, roofs, 0.780 East h kitchens, N=Bell. Lew bathrooms, Phase 1 rewiring and structural works Phase 1 £780,000 Phase 2 = £775,950 12 O=Pepys North 32 Evelina Road Windows, roofs, 0.361 N=Tel.Hill West kitchens, Lew bathrooms, rewires and heating 13 O=Pepys North 24 Hathway Windows, kitchens, 0.436 N=Tel.Hill West House bathrooms, rewires Lew and external works Reserve Sub total schemes 2.087 Schemes 10-13
48 14 O=Pepys North 24 Selden House Windows, roofs, 0.570 N=Tel.Hill West kitchens, Lew bathrooms, rewires and external works 15 O= Hither Circl 20 Longbridge Roofs, kitchens, 0.510 Green e 33 way bathrooms, N=Central security and Lew. external works 16 O=Forest Pinn 112 Valentine Kitchens, 0.480 Hill acle Court bathrooms N= Perry heating and Vale rewiring. Phase 1 – (no.s 1-32) 17 O=Hither Circl 33 Plummer Windows, roofs, 1.250 Green e 33 Court kitchens, N=Central bathrooms, Lew. heating and rewiring 18 O=Black’t Circl 80 Baizdon Road Windows, roofs, 0.885 h e 33 kitchens, N=Black’t bathrooms, h security and external works Phase 1 19 O=Hither Circl 35 Hither Green Windows, roofs, 0.800 Green e 33 Lane kitchens, N=Central bathrooms, Lew. security and structural works Phase 1 20 O=Hither Circl 78 Courthill Windows security 0.160 Green e 33 Road and external works N=Central Lew.
Summary Scheme Original Current Revised Variance/ Allocation Allocation Allocation Additional Needed Request in 2002/03 Lift 1 for lift 2 £95,500 £95,500 £95,500 £0 Polecroft Lane £230,000 £210,100 £215,100 £5,000 Long Term Voids £1,000,000 £938,000 £1,000,000 £62,000 Swiftdens Way £1,700,000 £913,500 £1,038,500 £125,000 Crossway Court £1,135,000 £1,135,000 £1,255,000 £120,000 Neighbourhood Costs Costs Costs Costs Warden contained contained contained contained 49 Scheme Within Tenure within Tenure within Tenure Within Tenure Diversification Diversification Diversification Diversification Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation
Neighbourhood Costs Costs Costs Costs Warden contained contained contained contained Scheme Within Tenure within Tenure within Tenure Within Tenure Diversification Diversification Diversification Diversification Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation
Housing Related £50,000 £50,000 £63,000 £13,000 Schemes Creative Sector Refurbishment Disabilities £125,000 £125,000 £165,000 £40,000 Scheme – Chinbrook Estate Selden House N/A N/A £60,000 £60,000 CCTV Site Assembly £1,258,779 £1,258,779 Costs incurred in 2001/02 - Silwood Foreshore No No No No implicati implicati implicati implicati ons this ons this ons this ons this financial financial financial financial year year year year Winchfield etc No No No No implicati implicati implicati implicati ons this ons this ons this ons this financial financial financial financial year year year year Hutchinson N/A N/A £510,000 £510,000 House Lucas Court N/A N/A £1,555,950 £780,000 (phased) Evelina Road N/A N/A £361,000 £361,000 Hathway House N/A N/A £436,000 £436,000 Selden House New Scheme N/A £570,000 £570,000 Total £4,335,500 £3,467,100 £8,583,829 £4,340,779
NB None of the above additions have an affect on the General Fund programme.
7. HIP Conclusion
50 7.1 For 2002/03 subsidy will be based on debt charges on £10.882m irrespective of whether capital spend financed from BCA reaches this level. However, where BCA spend exceeds £10.882m no further subsidy is payable and there will be a short fall of revenue to finance debt.
7.2 The capital programme for 2002/03 is £52.599m and exceeds resources by £6.071m (13.05%). £3.2m of the programme is actually spent; £22.75m is currently contractually committed with the remainder of £26.6m uncommitted.
7.3 Taking into account the contract variations as detailed in paragraphs 6.33. to 6.51 the capital programme would increase to £56.940m exceeding resources by £8.996m (18.76%).
7.4 It is important that available capital resources are maximised. Overprogramming is a toll that helps to ensure that inevitable project slippage does not adversely affect programme spend. Schemes are therefore carefully monitored and schemes brought into the programme in order to manage slippage or held back where potential spending requires. The Mayor and Cabinet will be regularly advised of the position.
7.5 Housing Capital Expenditure in 2001/02 exceeded appropriate available resources by £4.462m. The financing of this position was covered by borrowing from the Other Services capital programme and this requires the repayment detailed earlier in Section 5.
7.6 The Housing Capital programme is made up of schemes relating to Housing Revenue Account activities and those relating to Housing General Fund activities. The transfer of resources between these two programmes is limited either because there are resource penalties for transferring resources as is the case with borrowing approvals or because the resources are ring fenced to the HRA as is the case with most capital grants and HRA revenue contributions to capital.
7.7 Both the Housing General Fund and HRA programmes must therefore be self financing. The Council may however use its capital receipts to fund capital expenditure in either programme. The tables below set out the resource and expenditure position for both the Housing General Fund and the Housing HRA programmes.
Housing Revenue Account Capital 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 Total Programme £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 Resources Basic Credit Approval (BCA) (10,355) (10,355) (10,355) (31,065) Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCA) 0 5% Single Capital Pot (SCP) (527) (527) (527) (1,581)
51 Discretionary Element Grants (22,911) (24,571) (25,334) (72,816) Revenue (776) (2,400) (2,400) (5,576) Capital Receipts 0
Total (34,569) (37,853) (38,616) (111,038)
Expenditure 45,215 15,872 8,878 69,965 Over (Under) Programming 10,646 (21,981) (29,738) (41,073)
7.8 The Housing HRA programme is overprogrammed in 2002/3. In future years only a small proportion of the forecast available resources have been allocated.
Housing General Fund Capital Programme 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 Total £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 Resources Basic Credit Approval (BCA) (1,071) (1,071) (1,071) (3,213) Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCA) (121) 0 0 (121) 5% Single Capital Pot (SCP) Discretionary Element (55) (55) (55) (165) Grants (154) (154) (154) (462) Revenue 0 Capital Receipts (13,132) (9,261) (11,045) (33,438) Capital Receipts transferred to the OSCP 8,142 8,142 Total (6,391) (10,541) (12,325) (29,257)
Expenditure 7,384 7,384 Over (Under) Programming 993 (10,541) (12,325) (21,873)
7.9 The Housing General Fund programme is overprogrammed by £993,000 in 2002/3. Management decisions will need to be taken during the year to ensure expenditure does not exceed resources. No programmes have yet been agreed for years 2003/4 and 2004/5. It is intended to move to a longer term planning framework for Housing grants in the future.
7.10 The transfer of capital receipts to the Other Services capital programme reflects previously agreed committee decisions and the repayment of capital receipts previously borrowed from the OSCP in order to maximise the Council’s financial position as a whole.
8 Legal Implications
8.1 Members have a duty to ensure that the Council acts lawfully. The Council must set and maintain a balanced budget and must take steps 52 to deal with any projected overspends and identify savings or other measures to bring budget pressures under control. This may be by way of savings, slippage of other schemes or contributions from revenue.
8.2 If a level of over-programming is built into the programme to reflect likely slippage then officers will need to manage the programme to ensure that actual expenditure does not exceed the resources available.
8.3 The Council has powers under Section 145 Local Government Act 1972 (to provide or contribute to cost of entertainment, theatres etc) Section 19 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 (to provide or contribute to recreational facilities etc) and Section 2 Local Government Act 2000 (wellbeing power) to provide funding for the improvements to the Albany Theatre either on a short term loan basis or as a long term capital grant.
Under the terms of the Constitution and the Mayoral Scheme of Delegation, variations to or extensions of building, construction and engineering contracts may only be taken by Members if the total value of the variation exceeds £500,000. The variation and extension of the phase 1A contract to include the phase 1B works therefore requires the Mayor’s approval.
At present there is no agreement with the Deptford Fund formalising the funding arrangements and no contractual obligations from the Fund as to the use of the Funds, delivery of community benefits or repayment of the grant in certain circumstances. The expenditure incurred by the Council to date and for which it is contractually committed is effectively unsecured. It is clearly desirable that the Council now seeks to secure its position by entering into a formal agreement with the Deptford Fund and taking a legal charge over the Albany Theatre to secure any funds which may become repayable to the Council. The Mayor’s approval would be required to enter into such an agreement. It is recommended that approval is now given to enter into such an agreement and that authority is delegated to the Executive Director of Resources, in consultation with the Head of Law, to approve the final form of the agreement.
9 Crime and Disorder Implications
Schemes contained within the Housing Investment Programme have been designed in consultation with local tenants, residents, local user groups, police etc and have been worked up to where possible “design out crime”. Resources are targeted to those areas that have previously not benefited from any such investment and are therefore more likely to be run down and could be a haven for crime. This investment should give local people greater pride in their surrounding areas and therefore reduce crime levels.
53 10 Equalities Implications
Resources available have been targeted at properties in greatest need of repair. This will be of significant benefit to many tenants who are women, black, elderly, disabled and people on low incomes. The Special Housing Group Programme is similarly intended to improve housing conditions for homeless households and people with special housing needs.
11 Environmental Implications
Works carried out under the Housing Investment Programme will lead to greater energy efficiency, reduced maintenance costs and lower fuel bill for tenants. There will also be a reduction in the levels of harmful gases being released into the air.
Background documents and originator
For further information on OSCP please contact Julie Bennett on 0208 314 8736 or Adam Barrett, Group Manager Capital & Treasury, on 0208 314 7182.
For further information on HIP please contact either Jo Rowlands, Head of Strategic Development on 0208-314 7071 or Robert Weyman, Capital Programme Manager on 0208-314 6401
Short Title of Date File Location Contact Exempt Document Officer Information
Budget Monitoring reports Budget report
54 MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title REPORT BACK ON MATTERS RAISED BY THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BUSINESS PANEL Key Decision Item No.
Ward
Contributors HEAD OF COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Class Part Date: 31 JULY 2002
1. Purpose of Report
To report back on matters raised by the Overview & Scrutiny Business Panel following their consideration of the decisions made by the Mayor and Cabinet on 8 July 2002.
2. Recommendation
To note the decisions made by the Overview & Scrutiny Business Panel.
3. Background
3.1 On 15 July 2002 the Overview and Scrutiny Business Panel considered the decisions made by the Mayor and Cabinet on 8 July. The Minutes of that meeting are attached.
3.2 The Mayor and Cabinet are asked to note the decisions made by the Panel in respect of:
(i) Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour on the Selden Estate; and
(ii) Budget Issues.
4. Legal Implications
There are no legal implications arising from this report.
5. Financial Implications
There are no financial implications arising from this report.
55 BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short Title Date File File Contact Exempt of Document Location Ref Officer Information
Report to Mayor 8.7.02 Gov. Minute M Brown N/A and Cabinet Support Book
Report to O & S 15.7.02 “ “ “ “ Bus.Panel
If there are any queries on this report, please contact Mike Brown, Head of Committee Business, extension 48824.
56 LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
MINUTES of that part of the meeting of the OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY BUSINESS PANEL, which was open to the press and public, held at LEWISHAM TOWN HALL, CATFORD, SE6 4RU on MONDAY, 15 JULY 2002 at 6.30 p.m.
Present
Councillor Long (Chair); Councillors Anderson, Brown, Maslin, Morrison, Muldoon and Sullivan.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Huntbach and Klier.
Under Standing Orders: Councillors Fallon and Semple.
Minute No. Action
1MINUTES (page
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 26 June 2002 be confirmed and signed.
2 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS (page
None was declared.
3 DECISIONS MADE BY THE MAYOR AND CABINET ON 8 JULY 2002 (page
The Chair reported that she had sought clarification on the decisions of the Mayor and Cabinet on 8 July in that it appeared that the Panel could again call in the decision made on the Budget Issues. However, this was not the case as call in could only be made once. Future reports on the decisions made by the Mayor and Cabinet would therefore show separately the decisions made following call in by the Panel.
The Panel still had concerns about the £4m falling on 2½ directorates which would have a greater impact on environmental services, regeneration and culture.
57 Minute No. Action
The Chair also reported that she had invited the Executive Director for Social Care & Health to the meeting to answer questions on the overspend in Social Care & Health; and the Head of Housing in respect of the item on tackling anti- social behaviour on the Selden Estate.
1. Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour on the Selden Estate
The Chair made reference to paragraph 5.4 of the report to the Mayor and Cabinet on 8 July which stated that the consultation exercise informs that 94% of residents were in favour of a curfew scheme. Despite this, the Mayor and Cabinet had agreed to install 3 CCTV cameras. No further information had been included in the report about the curfew scheme.
The Head of Housing explained that the possibility of implementing a Child Curfew Order had been discussed with all the relevant agencies but there were differences over whether the Order was appropriate.
It was also noted that the majority of the young people causing problems are Southwark residents; and that a curfew would only apply to young people when they are on the estate. As the majority of the problems are caused by young people from Southwark the possibility of seeking funding for the CCTV cameras was discussed.
In conclusion the Panel
RESOLVED that
(i) consideration of introducing a curfew scheme should be kept alive; and
(ii) the possibility of obtaining funding towards the cost of installing CCTV on the estate from the London Borough of Southwark be pursued.
2. Budget Issues – Update on 2001/02 Outturn, Current Year (2002/03) Matters and Preparing the Budget Strategy for 2003/04
58 Minute No. Action
The Executive Director for Social Care & Health gave an outline of the problems in the Social Care & Health budget that led to a significant overspend in 2001/02, the pressures that are faced in 2002/03; and the action taken to prevent this happening again in the future.
Following lengthy discussion and questions, the Panel were of the opinion that there was no clear accountability for the overspend. Other people across the Council manage their budgets and as a result of the overspend in Social Care & Health are now forced to make cuts because staff in the Directorate are not accountable.
Although continuing budget pressures were being reported, the Executive Director was pessimistic that there would be an end to the situation.
The Panel accepted that there is a national problem in respect of funding and that Social Care & Health is underfunded. Significant strides had been made over the last years and we have a good Social Care & Health Department. However, the authority should know whether it is overspending and messages should be sent to staff that the Executive Director had been let down and should not have been put in this position. The Director was advised to trust no one and assume nothing as this situation could not arise next year.
In conclusion the Panel
RESOLVED that
(i) more stringent action be taken to ensure that Social Care & Health balance their budget in future;
(ii) the budgetary control systems in Social Care & Health are weak and should be improved;
(iii) unforeseen overspends should not occur and the Executive Director for Social Care & Health should give an assurance that it will not happen again next year;
59 Minute No. Action
(iv) 9 people were responsible for the overspend be noted and that these employees should be facing the same pressure as the service director;
(v) the Executive Director for Social Care and Health be responsible for the Directorate budget; and
(vi) close scrutiny of this matter be continued.
OTHER DECISIONS MADE BY THE MAYOR AND CABINET
(i) Implementation of the Fairer Charging Regime in Social Care and Health
(ii) 6th Wave Sure Start Programme
(iii) HRA Business Plan and Housing Strategy 2002/03
RESOLVED that the decisions made by the Mayor and Cabinet on these matters be noted.
4 SELECT COMMITTEES’ WORK PROGRAMMES (page and Appendix
A table showing the overlaps with other Select Committees and Best Value Reviews and a copy of the Work Programme for the Creative Lewisham Select Committee were circulated at the meeting.
RESOLVED that
(i) the work programmes be agreed;
(ii) the actions to deal with the overlaps set out in the paper circulated at the meeting be agreed;
(iii) the Business Panel take on any roles that the Select Committees are unable to; and
(iv) the progress made by the Select 60 Minute No. Action
Committees on their programmes be reported to the Panel.
ADDITIONAL ITEM
5 APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIR
The Panel discussed the possibility of appointing a Minority group representative as Vice-Chair in June in line with advice from the Government, Comprehensive Performance Assessment Team and the IDea Peer Review Team.
The Panel agreed that Councillor Anderson should be appointed as Vice-Chair for the remainder of the municipal year, subject to the agreement of the Council.
The meeting ended at 8.50 p.m.
Chair
61 MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSED DEFICITS IN 2002-03
Key Decision YES Item No.
Ward
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION & CULTURE/HEAD OF LAW/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES Class Part 1 Date: 31 JULY 2002
1. Summary
The report advises the Mayor and Cabinet of the requests by schools for licensed deficits and seeks approval for deficits above £100,000. Deficits lower than £100,000 can be authorised by the Executive Director for Education and Culture.
2. Policy Context
Schools are not allowed to overspend their budget thus resulting in a deficit budget balance unless the LEA has approved an application from the school for a licensed deficit.
3. Recommendations
It is recommended that:
3.1 a licensed deficit for St. Joseph’s Academy of £159,415, repayable over five years, be approved;
3.2 a licensed deficit for Malory Secondary School of £351,670, repayable over five years, be approved and the school be asked to continue to seek ways of reducing the overspend to bring it within this balance; and
3.3 the other licensed deficits will be authorised by the Executive Director of Education and Culture in due course be noted.
4. Background
4.1 Schools are legally required to balance their budgets each year. Where a deficit is incurred, they must repay it in the following year. The only exception allowed is where the LEA has set up a “Licensed Deficit” or Loan 62 Scheme, and agrees that the school can repay the deficit over a period of up to five years.
4.2 The LEA operates a Licensed Deficit Scheme which enables schools to apply to the LEA to be allowed to go into deficit in the following instances:
- so that a large item of expenditure e.g. setting up an ICT room can be incurred now
- in order to pay back an unforeseen unlicensed deficit
- for schools in special measures – to implement their action plans
The school must agree to reduce their deficit over an agreed number of years until it is paid back (i.e. until the school’s budget balance becomes positive).
4.3 Unplanned deficits are a trigger for schools causing concern and usually arise when a school has suffered a major fall in roll thus leading to a reduction in their budget. Schools in this position need time to reorganise their staffing in order to reduce expenditure.
4.4 Licensed deficits are subject to a maximum of 10% of a school’s annual budget allocation, and the total of all licensed deficits must not exceed 40% of the total schools balances.
4.5 The Executive Director for Education and Culture has delegated authority to approve deficits of up to £100,000, but applications for amounts exceeding £100,000 must be approved by the Mayor and Cabinet. All authorised deficits will be reported to the Mayor and Cabinet.
4.6 Several schools have applied for licensed deficits during 2002-03, but only two exceed £100,000.
5. St Joseph’s Academy
5.1 The school incurred a deficit in 2001-02 of £159,415. This arose because of substantial expenditure on equipment and building improvements which were required to achieve the three year development plan from 2001 to 2004, following an OFSTED in March 2001. The school has indicated for some time that they believed that a licensed deficit would be required to allow them to complete the works, but it has only been received after the 2001-02 accounts were finalised.
5.2 The school has applied for a licenced deficit of £159,415, repayable over five years. This represents 8% of the school’s budget. It believes that it will be possible to reduce the deficit to £80,000 by the end of 2002-03 by restraining spending on staffing, premises and supplies and services. This 63 would mean that repayments in later years would be reduced to £20,000 per annum, allowing for more flexibility.
6. Malory Secondary School
6.1 Malory School was in special measures in 1995 and has carried forward an approved a licensed deficit of £300,000 from that date. Repayments of £50,000 per annum were programmed to start in 2000-01. The repayment was made in 2000-01.
6.2 During 2001-02, monitoring for the six month period from April to September 2001 indicated a potential overspend, and initial follow up was done with the school. The school indicated that there was no problem, as the matter was in hand. The school has shown itself able to manage its budget in previous years, though its returns have been erratic, so this was initially accepted.
6.3 The school asked for a cash advance in mid December, prior to the November return being received. A budget projection was carried out, and notified senior management immediately of the likelihood of a deficit in the order of £600,000 to £700,000. This was followed up with the school.
6.4 Internal audit was asked to report on the school’s financial position and procedures, and how the deficit had arisen. A report of findings was produced.
6.5 There were also problems with the implementation of the school’s accounting system. The LEA has supported the school in implementing a new accounting system and providing training to the school staff on the new system. Also the monitoring regime has been reviewed and further training has taken place of the schools staff and governors on budget management.
6.6 The school has a deficit at the end of 2001-02 of £603,606, in line with the prediction in December. The maximum permissible deficit for the school in 2002-03 is £351,670 (10% of the ISB budget).
6.7 The school has developed plans to reduce the deficit from £603,606 to £387,015 in 2002-03 and have therefore submitted a licensed deficit application for £387,015 repayable over the period 2003-04 to 2007-08. The repayment plan is being accomplished by some reductions in staffing and use of supply, but mainly by a review of other spending allocations eg major savings on stationery and printing after a review of procurement. The school will be reducing in size from next year, as the admissions limit has been reduced to 180. This means that the budget is likely to reduce, so the school is proposing that staff should be recruited on a short term basis, rather than permanent contracts, to avoid any future redundancies. 64 However, the licensed deficit applied for is £35,345 above the maximum permissible deficit. If the maximum licensed deficit were approved the school would be carrying forward an unlicensed deficit which they would need to address. The school is continuing to seek options to address this additional overspend.
7. Applications under £100,000
7.1 Five schools have applied for licenced deficits of under £100,000 to the Executive Director for Education and Culture. These will be submitted for approval and are as follows:-
Final Budget Amount Period Balance 01/02 Applied for £ £ Crofton School - 40,758 40,758 5 Years Kender Primary 26,737 13,000 2 years Sandhurst Infants 45,862 14,500 3 years School Sandhurst Junior School - 972 60,000 5 years St James's Hatcham C - 41,295 30,000 3 years of E Primary
Crofton, Kender and Sandhurst Infants & Juniors have applied for licensed deficits in the main to cover building works and St Jame’s Hatcham C of E has applied for a licensed deficit to cover an overspend as a result of unplanned staffing costs. The Licensed deficit applied for by St James’ Hatcham is £11,295 lower than their budget deficit at 31 March 2002 because they have already taken action to addressed the difference.
9. Financial Implications
Malory and St Joseph’s Academy have applied for licensed deficits of £546,430 combined. The deficits have already been incurred, so there will be no overall effect on schools’ balances.
The other five schools have applied for licensed deficits totalling £158,258. Some of this is already reflected in the schools’ balances where schools have already incurred deficits. Much, however, is for future capital projects. The effect on the schools’ balances of agreeing these licensed deficits will be £147,832, reducing the balances of £2,667,564 to £2,519,732.
10. Legal Implications
These are contained in the body of the report.
65 11. Equalities Implications
There are no specific equality implications arising from this report.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short Title Date File Location Contact Officer Exempt Inf. of Document
Licensed Deficit Scheme Education Finance Averil Donohoe for Schools with Laurence House Delegated Budgets
If there are any questions arising from this report, please contact Averil Donohoe, Financial Services, Education and Culture Directorate, telephone 020 8314 8365
66 MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title BEST VALUE REVIEW OF PUPILS OUT OF SCHOOL
Key Decision YES Item No.
Ward All
Contributors KEVIN SHEEHAN – HEAD OF STRATEGY AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW DIRECTORATE FOR EDUCATION AND CULTURE Class Part 1 Date: 31 JULY 2002
1. Pupils out of School Best Value Review
2. Summary
This report sets out the recommendations for approval by the Mayor and Cabinet arising from the Best Value Review of the services and strategy for pupils who are out of school.
3. Purpose of the report
3.1. In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999 the Council is required to undertake a Best Value Review of all its services over a five-year period from 1st April 2000.
3.2. The principle of best value is to ensure continuous improvement of services. Best Value Reviews (BVRs) are the principal means by which the Council considers new approaches to service delivery. As part of the Best Value process all Council services must be fundamentally reviewed every five years.
3.3. Regular pupil attendance is the responsibility of schools. The LEA’s role is to provide a framework and strategic direction to support schools in improving attendance and preventing exclusion. This BVR has focused on the effectiveness and impact of that strategy and support.
3.4. The Mayor and Cabinet are asked to consider the Review and approve recommendations outlined which will contribute to an improvement in the performance of the services under review and raise standards of achievement for Lewisham pupils.
67 4. Recommendations
That the Mayor and Cabinet agree
4.1. to the Council adopting the principles with regard to attendance set out in paragraph 11.1 of appendix 1 attached to this report.
4.2. the improvements common to all options for attendance set out in paragraph 12 of appendix 1.
4.3. to Option 3 outlined in paragraph 13.3. of appendix 1 subject to finalising agreement with secondary schools on the amount of finance to be devolved and subject to primary schools agreement to take part in a pilot scheme.
4.4. to the proposals set out in paragraph 14 to support good behaviour in schools and provisions for pupils out of school.
4.5. to endorse the improvements already put in place during the review as listed in paragraph 10.1 of appendix 1 to this report.
4.6. the improvement plan and timetable attached at appendix 3.
5. Background
5.1. Absence from school is a problem with several causes – the individual themselves, parenting and family, community and peergroup, curriculum and systems and processes for responding to absences. Absence and exclusion from school are associated with a higher risk of poor educational achievement, limited job prospects and criminal activity. The habit of irregular attendance formed during school age years is often carried into later life and the world of work leading to unstable/low levels of employability and ultimately social exclusion. The Government’s targets for attendance, authorised / unauthorised absence and permanent exclusions provide a challenge to the Authority to promote school attendance, prevent exclusion and provide better quality education for children who are being educated outside school.
5.2. The “Pupils out of School” review takes into account some of the services provided by the Pupil Services and School Attendance and Educational Psychology and Learning Support service. It considers the provision for pupils with statements of special educational needs for Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and the best way to take forward the related recommendations in the previous SEN review. This review has taken a challenging approach to these services and questioned whether they are meeting their objectives and providing benefits to the people of Lewisham. The existence of these services in their current form and 68 structure has been assessed as part of the fundamental challenge which BVRs must address.
5.3. Paragraph 4 of the attached paper “ Pupils out of School Best Value Review – Options for Consultation” (appendix 1) provides a detailed background of the services under review and the main focus of activity of those services.
6. The improvements required from the review
6.1. This Best Value Review involved a comprehensive scoping exercise to ensure that stakeholders had an input into the purpose and objectives of the review. The services in this review work in partnership with our schools in order to achieve outcomes that reflect our joint objectives. The following objectives were identified in the scoping document which was agreed by the Council’s Executive Committee.
• an increase in attendance and a reduction in authorised and unauthorised absence • a pupil exclusion rate which is consistent with good behaviour management and in line with the top quartile of similar LEAs • an appropriate offer (full time) for pupils out of school and their subsequent take up of the offer • an increase in the attainment levels of excluded pupils • a reduction in day time youth crime
7. The approach to the Review
The Review has followed the guidelines outlined in the Council’s Best Value Review Handbook. Paragraphs 3 and 6 of appendix 1 detail the comprehensive consultation process, diagnostic and evidence gathering exercise undertaken to inform the Review.
8. Summary of key findings
8.1. Overall Lewisham is not performing well on attendance and exclusion in comparison to other London LEAs, statistical neighbours and the National position. Trends in Lewisham have continued to decline over recent years when they have been getting better nationally and in London. The Review found evidence of
• ineffective and inefficient practice across the services covered • a lack of strategic join-up between services and with other external agencies • a lack of clarity within services as to their role and their objectives and poor focus on performance • considerable dissatisfaction among schools with the framework of support for both attendance and behaviour 69 • a lack of coherence and consistency in terms of the provision available for pupils excluded from school • a level of provision for excluded pupils that does not meet statutory guidelines
Paragraphs 7,8 and 9 of appendix 1 detail comprehensively the findings of the Review.
9. Consultation
9.1. This review has gathered and assimilated a broad range of evidence and consulted with stakeholders throughout the process. Consultation on the options which emerged from the Review have been extensive. A considerable amount of work was undertaken with headteachers and other key stakeholders and customers of the services. This involved assessing performance, brainstorming areas for improvement and critical analysis / reality checking of data and information collected. Several workshops with primary and secondary headteachers and school governors were held to assess the impact of current services and strategies, identify best practice/improvements and consider options. The Lifelong Learning Committee formally scrutinised the Review at the Scoping, Diagnostic and Options Appraisal stages and received informal reports on evidence gathered over the course of the Review. Chairs of school governing bodies and parent governor representatives were also consulted at various stages.
9.2. Meetings with staff in each of the services under review were held on several occasions to gather evidence, discuss findings and consider options emerging.
9.3. Contributions and input have also been received from Trade Unions and other partners such as the Youth Offending Team, the Head of Children’s Services, Connexions, the Youth Service, voluntary sector providers, the Health Service and the Metropolitan Police.
9.4. A random sample of parents of pupils who had been referred to the ESW service were surveyed for their views of the service. Consultation workshops with excluded pupils in the Pupil Referral Unit were held to ascertain their views and experiences of services.
9.5. An options paper was distributed to all stakeholders in the final stages of consultation (attached as appendix 1). The paper set out the objectives of the review and asked for comments on the options and proposals outlined.
10. Responses to the consultation
10.1. Response from schools 70 Schools were generally very receptive to the findings of the Review and there was widespread agreement on the need for change in the services under review and in the strategic approach to both behaviour and attendance. The option to devolve some resources to schools (option 3) for attendance received most support in terms of the likely positive impact upon outcomes for pupils throughout the consultation process. However, there were concerns raised about the proposed amount of funding to be devolved and schools indicated that there would need to be agreement on this before devolution takes place.
The proposal to develop more cohesive services to support behaviour and provision for pupils out of school was enthusiastically welcomed by schools. Specific proposals on New Woodlands, Brent Knoll and Anerley Schools were supported by the schools in question but the issue of ensuring that changes take place within a timeframe which each school can manage effectively was stressed.
10.2. Response from staff
Staff in each of the services under review broadly acknowledged that change was required to achieve better outcomes for pupils and improve Lewisham’s performance on attendance and exclusions. There wasn’t a consensus opinion from staff around the model to produce the best outcomes for pupils. Some of the findings of the Review were challenged by staff and some of the conclusions were disputed.
In general Education Social Workers preferred option 1 in relation to attendance. The response from staff with regard to the proposals for behaviour was mixed with some aspects welcomed while other issues received less support. The proposals on early intervention found approval from most staff. There were concerns about the detail of how this would be achieved. There were also views expressed that the transfer of EBD teachers to New Woodlands might not deliver the outcomes expected. The need to strengthen links with the School Improvement Team was also noted and agreed. The requirement to ensure that there is a cohesive response to these issues including the strategic input of all the stakeholder agencies was a view strongly held by most staff.
10.3. Response from Trade Unions
The NUT commented on the importance of assessing any proposals in relation to increased workload on teachers. There was also concern that PRU provision at Broad Oak would not be available from September 2002. The importance of timing the expansion of service at New Woodlands school was reiterated as was the need to consider fully provision for girls with EBD. There was concern that the work of the EBD specialist teachers was criticised unfairly. The recognition that services were not joined-up or 71 operating strategically was welcomed. The consideration of secondary EBD provision in the review was also something that the NUT had raised earlier as a concern.
Unison raised concerns that they did not feel they had been fully consulted during the scoping stage of the Review. They also expressed the view that the period of time to respond to the attached Consultation document (three weeks) was short. However, there was recognition that a considerable amount of consultation had taken place in the tlead up to the options paper. There was support for the notion of targeting resources effectively and strategically and the view expressed was that Option 1 in the consultation paper was the most effective way of doing this. There were also concerns about the balance of responsibilities with regard to schools and the LEA and the need to define these clearly. The change of job title proposed in the Review was not opposed but there were concerns that any revision to job descriptions / reorganisation should follow full Council procedures.
10.4. Response of other Stakeholders
Responses from the John Evelyn Centre, Positive Options and Lewisham College and other stakeholders positively welcomed the Review and the focus of attention on developing more coherent and joined up strategies to deal with the problems identified. The idea that each of these providers working closely together utilising their combined resource to provide a tailored response to individual pupils was strongly endorsed. Health partners have also endorsed the review and indicated that closer working relationships are likely to have a positive impact on outcomes for young people. The Police have been part of the review team throughout the process and have responded positively to the recommendations.
10.5. Response of the Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Committee
The LLL Committee scrutinised the Review at scoping, diagnostic and Options Appraisal stages. Their view was that the Review was of necessity challenging and that considerable change was required to deliver better outcomes for pupils. The Committee endorsed Options 2 and 3 on attendance and the proposal on behaviour and pupils out of school. There was a concern raised that “young carers” as a group had not been specifically covered in the Review and that they would need to be considered during the implementation stages. (see Appendix 3 for comments of the Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Committee).
11. Staffing Implications
The creation of central attendance teams, the devolution of resources to schools within a strict framework of challenge, monitoring and support and the expansion of provision at New Woodlands would require staffing 72 re-structures and reappraisal of Job Descriptions. These would be undertaken in line with the Council’s corporate procedures. Every effort will be made to work in partnership with staff, Trade Unions and schools to avoid job losses, and full use would be made where appropriate of the redeployment procedures, there is the possibility of a small number of redundancies. The recognised trade unions will be consulted in line with Council policy.
12. Financial Implications
12.1. The reorganisation of the existing ESW service will involve restructuring and reappraisal of job descriptions. The cost of the new structure will need to be ascertained together with possible redundancy costs. It is anticipated that this can be achieved within existing Education and Culture resources.
12.2. The recommended option involves the devolution of resources to schools. The exact amount to be devolved is still subject to negotiation with schools. It is anticipated that this can be achieved within existing Education and Culture resources.
12.3. The development of the PRU at Broad Oak is already underway and £1.05M of capital funding has been secured from the DfES to modify and refurbish the building. The revenue implications of full time provision have been assessed and built into Education and Culture’s budget from September 2002. The full year effect of this growth is being addressed as part of the current 2003/4 budget strategy.
12.4. The transfer of EBD provision from Anerley could potentially release the site for a future capital receipt.
12.5. The proposal to consider the development of Key Stage 3 EBD provision in line with best practice needs to be developed further. The potential revenue and capital implications will need to be considered fully. When future options for this proposal have been formed there will be a further report to the Mayor and Cabinet advising of any financial implications.
13. Legal Implications
13.1. The Best Value Review has been carried out in accordance with the Local Government Act 1999 and associated guidance which require the Council to conduct reviews of all its functions over a 5 year timetable to secure continuous improvement in the Council’s services.
13.2. Best Value Reviews are the principal means by which authorities consider new approaches to service delivery and set demanding performance targets for all services to secure continuous improvement. These reviews require the authority to challenge how and why the services is provided; 73 secure comparison with others across a range of relevant indicators; consult with service users and the community and to consider fair competition as a means for securing efficient and effective services.
13.3. Members should satisfy themselves that the Best Value Review Recommendations will enable the Council to provide Best Value in delivering its services through the proposed new arrangements and procedures for pupils out of school.
14. Crime and Disorder Implications
The link between truancy, pupil exclusion and daytime youth crime has been established by the Police and other agencies. There is also considerable evidence that criminal offenders have a history of poor educational achievement and truancy or exclusion.
The proposals outlined in this report will ensure better provision for pupils who are excluded from school and will target non-attendance at an early stage. They will contribute to better outcomes for pupils and will ensure a targeted response by all key agencies including the Police, Social Care and Health services. The consequence of better provision and a multi agency approach should be fewer incidences of crime and disorder in the Borough.
15. Equalities Implications
15.1. There are a disproportionate number of boys and African-Caribbean pupils excluded from mainstream provision. The Council’s Education Development Plan 2 now has specific priorities aimed at underachieving pupils and groups and behaviour /attendance. Both of these priorities have programmes to tackle the exclusion levels of boys and African- Caribbean pupils.
15.2. There is also evidence of high levels of exclusion and non-attendance of Looked after Children. As a result of this review this group of pupils will be targeted with specific support. There is now a “corporate parenting” team of officers from across services working closely together to ensure better outcomes for looked after children.
15.3. The review also highlighted the previous lack of pupil level data for non- attendance which makes it difficult to target effectively. This is being addressed as one of the improvements highlighted in the report.
16. Environmental Implications
There are no specific environmental implications arising out of this report.
74 17. Conclusions
The recommendations outlined in paragraph 4 are put forward because these represent the best practice found during the course of the Best Value Review. Account has been taken of the evidence gathered during the Review and the recommendations reflect models that have worked elsewhere. Lessons learned by other Council’s and stakeholders who have implemented similar models have been taken into account and built into the proposals. The comprehensive approach to consultation enabled the Review to consider stakeholders views throughout the process, in particular the concern to reach agreement with schools on the amount of funding to be devolved and the importance of piloting the devolution model in primary schools have also been accommodated in the recommendations. The added flexibility which Option 3 provides will further the thrust to share staff and resources strategically between primary schools for those who want it. It will also enable a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the approach in primaries. The importance of Concerns about implementing proposals in partnership have also been noted and built into the action plan.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Title of Committee Date File location Contact report Officer
Pupils out of Executive 12/9/2001 Committee Mike Brpwn School Cttee Section Review – Scoping Report
For further information on this report please contact Kevin Sheehan, Head of Strategy and Performance Review on 020 8314 8362.
75
MAYOR AND CABINET 31 JULY 2002 APPENDIX 1 ITEM NO.
Pupils Out of School Best Value Review – Options for Consultation
1. Improving services for pupils out of school
1.1. Lewisham is committed to and has a statutory responsibility to ensure that children of compulsory school age receive full time education. Now more than ever life chances and opportunities depend upon a good education.
1.2. We want Lewisham pupils to achieve the best possible results, performing well against national standards. In order to achieve this we must set and meet challenging targets for reducing levels of absence and exclusion. Our provision for pupils who are out of school for whatever reason should be of the highest quality and should meet the needs of those pupils.
1.3. We are committed to working in partnership with schools and other providers to provide high quality, socially inclusive provision to pupils drawn from across Lewisham communities. In order to achieve our aims we need to build on our relationships with other local agencies including Lewisham College, health, social services and the police. To this end we share many objectives and targets with our partner agencies.
1.4. Absence and exclusion from school are problems that have multiple causes. The solutions involve many agencies and partners working together cohesively to achieve shared objectives. In order to identify comprehensive solutions this Review has carried out an extensive series of consultation exercises with key stakeholders. This has included among others school headteachers and governors, staff from each of the key service areas, pupils who have been excluded and other partners such as the Youth Offending Team, the Head of Children’s Services, Connexions, the Youth Service, voluntary sector providers and the Metropolitan Police. This work has extended the length of time taken to undertake the Review but has resulted in a set of options and proposals which are robust and which stakeholders have influenced.
2. The purpose of the Best Value Review
2.1. The principle of best value is to ensure continuous improvement of services. Best Value Reviews (BVRs) are the principal means by which the Council considers new approaches to service delivery. As part of the Best
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Value process all Council services must be fundamentally reviewed every five years.
2.2. The “Pupils out of School” review takes into account some of the services provided by the Pupil Services and School Attendance and Educational Psychology and Learning Support service. It considers the provision for pupils with statements of special educational needs for Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and the best way to take forward the related recommendations in the previous SEN review. This review takes a challenging approach to these services and will question whether they are meeting their objectives and providing benefits to the people of Lewisham. The existence of these services in their current form and structure has been assessed as part of the fundamental challenge which BVRs must address.
2.3. The process of going through a Best Value Review is a robust and challenging one. The purpose is to identify improvements which will deliver better outcomes for pupils. This review does not question the integrity and commitment of officers working in the services under review. It is an assessment of the strategies and practice of the LEA, schools and other partners in dealing with pupils out of school.
2.4. Absence from school is a problem with several causes – the individual themselves, parenting and family, community and peergroup, curriculum and systems and processes for responding to absences. Absence and exclusion from school are associated with a higher risk of poor educational achievement, limited job prospects and criminal activity. The habit of irregular attendance formed during school age years is often carried into later life and the world of work leading to unstable/low levels of employability and ultimately social exclusion. The Government’s targets for attendance, authorised / unauthorised absence and permanent exclusions provide a challenge to the Authority to promote school attendance, prevent exclusion and provide better quality education for children who are being educated outside school.
2.5. Regular pupil attendance is the responsibility of schools. The LEA’s role is to provide a framework and strategic direction to support schools in improving attendance and preventing exclusion. This review is focused on the effectiveness and impact of that strategy and support.
3. The purpose of the Consultation
3.1. This review has gathered and assimilated a broad range of evidence and consulted with stakeholders throughout the process. Consultation on the options in this paper have been extensive. A considerable amount of work was undertaken with headteachers and other key stakeholders and
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc customers of the services. This involved assessing performance, brainstorming areas for improvement and critical analysis / reality checking of data and information collected. Several workshops with primary and secondary headteachers and school governors were held to assess the impact of current services and strategies and to identify best practice and improvements. We are now in the final stages when the options and proposals for improvement can be considered in this paper. The paper sets out clearly the objectives of the review and asks you to comment on the options and proposals and consider whether they will achieve those objectives.
3.2. You can respond to the consultation by writing to Kevin Sheehan, Head of Strategy and Performance Review, Lewisham Education and Culture, 3rd Floor Laurence Hse, 1 Catford Rd, London SE6 4RU or e mailing Kevin Sheehan at [email protected].
3.3. This final consultation period will last for over three weeks beginning on 17th June 2002 and finishing on 5thth July. Following this final stage of consultation the Review will prepare a paper with recommendations for a decision by the Council’s Mayor and Cabinet on the 17th July 2002.
4. Background
4.1. The role of the Pupil Services and School Attendance service is ensuring access to education for all pupils. This involves acting as advocate for pupils, parents and carers ensuring that access to an appropriate educational / curriculum offer is available to all pupils of a statutory age either in school or at alternative provision. The service includes a pupil referral unit (PRU), a team of Education Social Workers, an admissions and exclusions team.
4.2. The priority of the service is work with schools and other partners to raise the attainment, attendance and inclusion of those pupils who are disaffected, truanting or excluded. This involves making arrangements and provision for the education of children of compulsory age who are excluded, ill or otherwise not receiving a suitable education.
4.3. The Educational Psychology and Learning Support Service undertakes assessment of children with special educational needs and provides information and advice to parents, schools and pupils. The EBD team comprises specialist teachers and the full-time equivalent of 2.5 educational psychologists. The specialist teachers team offers assessment, intervention and advice with regard to pupils with reference to the revised Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, direct work with pupils, advice and information to parents, school development work, training and focused work with children at risk of exclusion. The educational
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc psychologists as part of the EBD team undertake training of teachers, teaching assistants, project work in primary and secondary schools and research.
4.4. There are specific attendance and exclusions targets in the Education Development Plan (and the Council’s Best Value Performance Plan) for 2002 and beyond. These targets are not currently being achieved and there is a gap between the performance of Lewisham and the top quartile of our statistical neighbours.
4.5. In January 2001 the District Audit undertook a review of Lewisham’s strategy for improving attendance and behaviour in schools and the partnerships established to achieve it. The review also considered the exclusion process and the timeliness and quality of alternative provision for excluded pupils. The report included a number of key areas for further review including one to use the best value review process to examine the role of the Education Welfare Service (Education Social Workers).
4.6. The LEA carried out a Best Value Review of Special Educational Needs in 2001. That Review identified the framework of support for the management of pupils with difficult behaviour as crucial to the success of schools and pupil achievement. It recommended that this area required further consideration and that the Pupils out of School BVR should undertake that work.
5. The improvements required from the review
5.1. This Best Value Review involved a comprehensive scoping exercise to ensure that stakeholders had an input into the purpose and objectives of the review. The purpose of conducting a Best Value Review is to bring about an improvement in the service or range of services under review. The services in this review work in partnership with our schools in order to achieve outcomes that reflect our joint objectives. The following objectives were identified in the scoping document which was agreed by the Council’s Executive Committee.
• an increase in attendance and a reduction in authorised and unauthorised absence • a pupil exclusion rate which is consistent with good behaviour management and in line with the top quartile of similar LEAs • an appropriate offer (full time) for pupils out of school and their subsequent take up of the offer • an increase in the attainment levels of excluded pupils • a reduction in day time youth crime
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 6. Diagnostic and evidence gathering – How the review was conducted
6.1. The review carried out an extensive fact finding and evidence gathering exercise aimed at establishing the baseline performance of services and assessing possible options for improvement. The following is a summary of the processes undertaken to carry out the diagnostic stage of the review.
6.2. Best Value Review team meetings
The BVR team meets on a regular basis to consider evidence gathered and to hear reports and feedback from officers who have been tasked to undertake work on behalf of the review. The team includes an internal and external challenger, service experts and a corporate BVR compliance officer. The role of the team is
• to initiate and agree a programme of work • assess the evidence and information gathered • provide a robust challenge • creatively brainstorm solutions and improvements • produce options for consultation • produce a BVR report with recommendations and an improvement plan
6.3. Benchmarking and statistical analysis
The team carried out a considerable amount of benchmarking analysis at individual school, London wide and national levels. Our performance was mapped against that of other local authorities, against the national averages and against statistical neighbours as defined by Ofsted.
6.4. Process mapping
Process mapping was undertaken to identify the course of action taken by services when cases of non-attendance and exclusion are referred to LEA services.
6.5. Process assessment in schools
Sample schools were selected and visited to assess different in-school approaches to behaviour management and attendance. Interviews were conducted with key staff within the schools and a report was compiled which assessed the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
6.6. Consultation with stakeholders
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc The review team carried out ongoing and extensive consultation exercises with key stakeholders including school headteachers and governors, staff from each of the key service areas, pupils who have been excluded, Trade Unions and other partners such as the Youth Offending Team, the Head of Children’s Services, Connexions, the Youth Service, voluntary sector providers and the Metropolitan Police.
A random sample of parents of pupils who had been referred to the ESW service were surveyed for their views of the service. Consultation workshops with excluded pupils in the Pupil Referral Unit were held to ascertain their views and experiences of the service.
6.7. District Audit report
The District Auditor carried out a strategic inspection of the services supporting behaviour and attendance in January 2001 which was critical of the LEA’s performance. During the course of the BVR the District Auditor revisited the original report and did an analysis of the improvement since the original inspection.
6.8. Ofsted reports
Ofsted reports on EBD special schools and the PRU were considered when assessing appropriateness of provision for excluded pupils and pupils with behavioural difficulties.
6.9. DfES visit to assess and advise on attendance
Lewisham’s published attendance figures for 2001 have caused concern at the DfES. Along with several other boroughs the LEA received a visit from a DfES consultant specialising in attendance in December 2001. The visit comprised meetings with headteachers, the school improvement team, officers in the ESW service and Heads of Service. Current systems and practices for dealing with attendance were audited.
6.10. DfES pilot study
In 2000 the DfES commissioned a pilot study into the possibility of delegating services supporting attendance to secondary schools. As part of the pilot scheme certain LEAs were asked to delegate their Education Social Workers (or Welfare Officers) to secondary schools. The results of the pilot study have recently been published and they have been taken into account by the review team.
6.11. Best practice and qualitative comparisons with different Councils
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Specific schools with a record of either good attendance / low incidences of exclusion or low attendance and high levels of exclusion were visited within Lewisham to assess best practice and impact upon pupil outcomes.
Other similar boroughs within London were also visited. The boroughs were visited because of their similarity to Lewisham, their nearness as a neighbour or because they were involved in the DfES pilot scheme.
6.12. Unit Costing and financial benchmarking
Information was gathered from published sources including Section 52 Financial Statements to identify cost comparisons with similar LEAs. LEAs were also surveyed by telephone to identify structures of support and numbers of staff involved.
6.13. External assessment of services
Expert consultants were engaged to assess and report on specific services and the effectiveness of different models of strategic support.
7. Main findings
7.1. Comparison within the LEA and with other LEAs (performance)
7.1.1. Overall Lewisham is not performing well on attendance and exclusion in comparison to other London LEAs, statistical neighbours and the National position. Trends in Lewisham have continued to decline over recent years when they have been getting better nationally and in London.
7.1.2. The LEA is now collecting data on fixed term exclusions. This data is not published nationally and it is therefore difficult to benchmark against other LEAs with any degree of accuracy. However, comparisons within borough are possible and again there is evidence of considerable variance between schools with similar characteristics.
7.1.3. Further analysis confirms that similar LEAs are more successful at reducing exclusions than Lewisham. There is also a wide variation between different schools with similar FSM characteristics within the borough. Examination of the statistics collected demonstrated that there was no direct link between indicators of social deprivation and performance on attendance and exclusions.
7.1.4. The review did find that African Caribbean / Black British pupils and Looked After Children experienced a higher level of exclusion than average. It was also clear that boys were much more likely to be
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc excluded than girls. It was not possible to determine whether any particular group of pupils experienced particular levels of non- attendance as this data was not available at the time of the review.
7.1.5 Details of total numbers of pupils out of school for other LEAs are not published and therefore difficult to identify. However, on visits to other LEAs and based on discussions with colleagues Lewisham’s provision is greater than most.
7.2. Service effectiveness
7.2.1. The effectiveness of a service refers to the degree to which it is achieving its defined purposes and objectives or outcomes. The comparisons in 5.1. above raise concern about effectiveness of some of the services covered by the review. The officers in these services are often working hard, conscientiously and with integrity but the services are not necessarily focussed on the outcomes which they should be. The Review uncovered a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that there was no link between key LEA strategies and targets and the work of the services in question. 7.2.2. The District Auditor comments in her report on school attendance (November 2001) and exclusions that “slow progress has been made in implementing many DA recommendations”. The report raises concerns about the lack of partnership working in developing and implementing a comprehensive Behaviour Support Plan. There is little evidence that the plan is used as a working tool. There is also evidence that data on attendance, exclusion and fixed term exclusion is being gathered but not being used when developing strategies and plans to tackle attendance and exclusion.
7.2.3. Consultation with officers in each of the services including the School Improvement Team confirmed that there was a lack of strategic join up and that information was not being shared across traditional professional boundaries. The result of this is that officers are often working in isolation and therefore the impact that they can have is limited.
7.2.4. The issue of the School Improvement Team’s (SIT) involvement was of particular concern. Individual officers in the ESW service, the EBD Team and the Educational Psychology Service did not formally report matters of concern or indeed good practice to the School Improvement Team or vice versa. There is evidence of individual officers raising particular concerns but no formal systematic approach. There was little evidence found by the Review that the link between pupil achievement and attendance/ exclusion was being addressed or considered at a strategic level. Considering the impact that poor attendance and exclusion has on individual, school and LEA objectives it is essential that staff and services
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc concerned work together strategically to maximise impact upon pupil outcomes.
7.2.5. The SIT is the service within the LEA which exerts the main influence upon the leadership, management and governance of schools and therefore they are critical to any whole school changes required.
7.3. Service efficiency
7.3.1. The term efficiency refers to the relationship between service inputs and outputs. It is a useful umbrella to assess the operational processes applied by services and to judge whether they are providing “value for money”.
7.3.2. The Review found evidence that there were targets and performance indicators at the highest level within the LEA and the Council relating to attendance and exclusion. The Education Development Plan (EDP) and the Council’s Best Value Performance Plan (BVPP) have indicators for the number of excluded pupils and for unauthorised absence. However these were not translated into performance targets for the teams of officers who deal with these matters further down in the organisation. There was little ownership of the targets by officers on the ground and business plans did not necessarily reflect the targets. The Behaviour Support Plan did not have any targets for attendance and exclusion. The EDP (1999- 2002) did have targets but there was no activity programme to deliver the targets.
7.3.3. There are no targets for individual schools in the current EDP. Service units do not work with schools to set joint targets and objectives. Individual officers who have responsibility for a specific set of schools therefore do not necessarily know what target they are working towards. Schools also don’t have a target which they have agreed with the LEA. The tendency is to work to demand in a very case specific way. There is no way of identifying whether an officer has been successful or not because the objectives for that officer have never been agreed. Resources are allocated where demand is highest – if a school has low attendance and behaviour management issues then that is where the resources will be allocated. There is no evidence of a robust approach to performance management. There is also a danger of perverse incentives when resources are allocated in this manner. There was no evidence that increased LEA officer allocation made a difference to outcomes in terms of attendance levels and behaviour at an overall school level. The EBD team is demand led i.e. schools receive a service on demand rather than resources being targeted strategically by the LEA.
7.3.4. The Review assessed the process followed when the ESW team receives a referral for a non-attending pupil. There is clearly some confusion between schools and the LEA as to the stage when this process should begin. The
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Review examined a sample of referral forms from schools and there was a wide variation in the quality of the details provided and in the amount of intervention which had already been undertaken. This lack of clarity between the role of schools and the role of the LEA causes considerable duplication of effort and waste of resource. As a consequence intervention such as a first court warning for a pupil who has breached the schools attendance guidelines takes longer than it might. There is also evidence from the process mapping that ESWs spend a long time on individual cases before instigating first and second court warnings. There is little evidence that this approach enables the most efficient deployment of resources. The lack of clarity regarding the role of officers in the LEA and the role of schools means that responsibility and accountability remains a clouded issue. The relationship between input and output is therefore not made and the tendency is to request greater levels of input (officer resource) without an assessment as to whether it will have any impact.
7.4. Equalities issues
7.4.1. The services supporting attendance and behaviour management in schools have a very important role to play in delivering the Council’s agenda on social inclusion. These services are aimed at improving the life- chances of the most vulnerable and excluded pupils. 7.4.2. The data available on individual non-attending pupils was sparse. It was not possible to assess whether there was a disproportionate number of pupils non-attending from a particlular group or ethnic background. Any strategies for improvement were therefore targeted widely and the specific impact on any group is not possible to assess.
7.4.3. There is better data on excluded pupils and it is clear that there are significant gender and race issues to be tackled if the number of exclusions is to reduce in the future. There are a disproportionate number of boys and African-Caribbean pupils excluded from mainstream provision. The Council’s Education Development Plan (EDP 1999 –2002) had a specific priority aimed at narrowing the attainment differential between underachieving groups and the average. It is not evident that the activities outlined in that EDP have achieved this objective. Any future programme to achieve this priority will need to include specific activities to tackle the exclusion levels of boys and African-Caribbean pupils.
7.4.4. There is also evidence of high levels of exclusion and non-attendance of Looked after Children. Although there are specific targets in the EDP 1999 -2002 for the attainment of these pupils there is little evidence of strategies linked to attendance and behaviour.
7.5. Information gathering and use
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc There is a large amount of pupil level data collected by the LEA which is used to set targets at school and LEA level. However, the use of this information to regularly assess performance and improvement around attendance and behaviour is sporadic and irregular. In order to intervene at an early stage this information needs to be collected and monitored regularly. The information is not being shared by services within the LEA, Social Care &Health, Regeneration and with partners external to the Council.
7.6. Service Users
7.6.1. There was considerable dissatisfaction expressed by school headteachers regarding the support they received from the LEA to support attendance and behaviour. There was a clear impression that Lewisham had provided good services in the past but that schools had moved on in their own capacity to deal with these matters particularly with the advent of learning mentors and initiatives such as “Excellence in Cities” and the “EAZ”. There was recognition that there was some good practice but a common view was that the service offer was currently outdated and was inconsistent in providing effective assistance to them. Concerns were expressed regarding the level of sophistication and innovation which is now required and the need to be strategic in the dissemination and sharing of good practice.
7.6.2. There was also considerable anxiety about the practicality of some of the work being carried out by the EBD team and the Educational Psychology Service. Headteachers felt that intervention was not always practical / solution based and was not strategic. There were views expressed by primary schools that interventions by the EBD team had been effective in the past but that their own intervention at stage 3/ School Action Plus are often at a higher level than the EBD team now offers. Secondary schools have now adopted in many cases comprehensive whole school approaches and do not feel the EBD service has anything to support them. There were also views regarding the need to look beyond the LEA and to partners in Health and the voluntary sector when levering in resources to address behaviour in particular.
7.6.3. In the Audit Commission Survey of schools undertaken in November 2001 the LEA’s framework of support for attendance and behaviour scored significantly worse than in the previous pre Ofsted inspection. Most other services in the LEA actually scored better marking these results as particularly significant.
7.6.4. Parents’ views were sought on the quality of the service they received from the ESWs by circulating questionnaires to a random sample who had
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc received a home visit from an ESW during the current academic year. 159 questionnaires were sent out and the return rate was a disappointing 14.47%. This reflects the experience of other LEAs who have undertaken similar exercises to get parental views. An analysis of the completed questionnaires from parents/ indicates that the casework undertaken by individual Education Social Workers (ESWs) was valued and seen as supportive.
However, the current volume and depth of casework has not impacted upon attendance outcomes for pupils as the published data shows a trend of increasing absence over the last three years.
8. Findings on framework of support for attendance and behaviour
8.1. Pupil attendance levels in Lewisham schools do not compare well with other inner-London boroughs or with the national average for attendance. The trend shows a decline in each of the last three years. The existing framework of support for schools is not impacting upon performance and change is required if the declining trend in attendance is to reverse.
8.2. There is a lack of clarity between the role of the ESW service and schools’. There is evidence of an overlap of activity and inefficient use of resources.
8.3. The ESW service is not making a positive impact upon school attendance and is poor value for money.
8.4. The LEA’s approach to attendance is not strategic and the issues are not seen as an integral aspect of school improvement and pupil achievement.
8.5. The ESW service does not currently have a child protection brief.
8.6. There is considerable dissatisfaction among schools with the existing arrangements and little evidence that good practice is being disseminated and shared.
8.7. Lewisham’s pupil exclusion rate does not compare well with other inner- London boroughs or with the national average. The overall trend shows a decline in performance over the last three years although the trend has improved in primary schools in the last year due to the focus of the BVR.
8.8. The LEA’s approach to behaviour management in schools is not strategic and the issue is not seen as an integral aspect of school improvement. There is considerable variance in the performance of schools with similar characteristics.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 8.9. The LEA’s services to support good behaviour are ineffective, poorly targeted and are not providing value for money.
8.10. The LEA’s services are considered to be overly bureaucratic and concerned with following process rather than problem solving. There is evidence that this approach results in later intervention and exacerbates problems.
8.11. The current level of provision for excluded pupils is inadequate and does not meet DfES requirements for full-time alternative provision although plans are on track to ensure standards are met by 2002.
8.12. The existing framework of support is not flexible enough and does not provide schools with an effective support mechanism to reintegrate pupils who have been excluded.
8.13. There is not enough focus on pre-exclusion support for individual pupils which would reduce the eventual number of pupils permanently excluded.
8.14. The links between the LEA’s services for behaviour management /excluded pupils and the Special EBD schools are not strong enough. The fact that Anerley School is located outside the borough does not help to integrate it with the rest of the LEA services for pupils with behavioural difficulties.
9. Findings regarding current provision for excluded pupils
9.1. Pupil Referral Unit (primary and secondary)
9.1.1. The Pupil Referral Unit has recently received a good Ofsted report with many commendations. There is good evidence of an integrated holistic approach to pupils with tailored programmes and multi agency support where appropriate. The unit currently occupies two sites and breath of provision is exceptional given the limitations of space and increasing pressure of pupil numbers attending. There are strong links between Secondary Schools and the PRU. The unit works in partnership with parents, schools and other agencies well to reintegrate pupils into mainstream provision where appropriate or provide progess routes into Further Education or other training.
9.1.2. The unit accepts pupils who have been permanently excluded from school and some pupils placed by the LEA to complete a statutory assessment for special educational needs. There are also pregnant schoolgirls, refugees and other non-excluded pupils attending. This results
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc in a population of pupils with a diversity of need. There are an increasing number of pupils with speech and communication difficulties or autistic spectrum disorder.
9.1.3. The provision for excluded primary pupils at Granville is inadequate. The building and accommodation is inappropriate and in a poor state of repair.
9.1.4. The DfES has published guidance November 2001 on the provision of educational services for children and young people with Medical Needs. The guidance sets out new minimum standards to be provided by schools and by the LEA. The LEA has reviewed its current arrangements in order to meet these new minimum standards. The guidance is clear that if an LEA’s arrangements are based upon a Tuition Service this will need to be registered as a PRU that deals exclusively for children with medical needs. Lewisham’s current arrangements whereby the PRU is registered for excluded pupils and children with medical needs will not be acceptable in the future.
9.2. Anerley Special School
9.2.1. The school is located outside the Borough which means that pupils have to travel a considerable distance to attend. Anerley was originally set up with a boarding facility which is no longer in use. Although the school has generated some links with partners in the health and vocational sectors there is a limited approach to multi agency working. Pupil attendance is low and the most recent Ofsted report raised significant concerns about the school and placed it in the category of “Serious Weaknesses”. The unit costs of a placement at Anerley are prohibitive and there is concern that the LEA is not achieving value for money in relation to the current deployment of resources.
9.3. New Woodlands School
New Woodlands has recently received an excellent Ofsted report which commented positively on the links the school has made with the mainstream primary sector. The school has also recently been awarded Beacon School status. There is considerable evidence of reintegration of pupils into the mainstream sector where appropriate and of outreach work to accommodate the reintegration.
9.4. John Evelyn, School House and Positive Options
9.4.1. The John Evelyn Centre focuses on pupils at risk of exclusion at Key Stage 4 and offers a broad and balanced curriculum which prepares pupils for progress to further education, work-related training or work. Its work is
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc highly valued by the secondary schools who use it. It is a good example of secondary schools working in partnership with other providers to keep pupils who might otherwise be excluded on school roll and accessing a broad curriculum.
9.4.2. School House focuses on pupils who are disaffected, school phobic or are refusing to attend mainstream schools. This provision is tailored to individual pupils and has a good record of successfully reintroducing pupils to the curriculum and to the discipline of attending on a regular basis.
9.4.3. Positive Options is a jointly funded Education and SC&H project offering part-time provision for pupils who are at risk of committing an offence or who are young offenders. Usually these young people will have failed to attend or be excluded for at least one term. Positive Options supports these young people by facilitating their access to a wide variety of community provision and Further Education. It has a good record of successfully managing to engage some of the most disaffected young people where other provision has failed.
9.5. General issues
9.5.1. There is a range of provision available for pupils who have been excluded or who are out of school for some other reason. The diversity of provision ensures that schools have routes available to them to offer alternative curriculum models for pupils who are not succeeding in or who have been excluded from mainstream.
9.5.2. The criteria used to refer a pupil to any of the above provision are vague in some cases and not published in any of the LEA’s strategic plans or documents. There is a danger that referral can be subjective in such circumstances and that the LEA’s approach to pupils lacks cohesion. Significantly the Behaviour Support Plan does not draw together the provision available for Pupils out of School from a variety of providers including Lewisham College and others in the Voluntary Sector in a holistic and strategic format.
9.5.3. A Pupil Referral Unit is not an appropriate placement for pupils with special educational needs nor can it provide a long-term education to meet the needs of pupils with statements of SEN. The unit currently provides for primary and secondary pupils.
9.5.4. There is currently a large list of pupils waiting to get into the PRU. We are not providing full-time education to all of the pupils currently attending and this is a DfES requirement by September 2002. To achieve this and the breadth of curriculum that is also required a substantial increase in current
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc capacity is necessary and consideration as to how our provision is structured overall.
9.6. Support for Schools in Managing Behaviour
There is a range of support operating from different locations and units and without any strategic overview in terms of what support should be provided and how it should be directed.
There is good evidence of reintegration work at both the PRU and New Woodlands. Both provide reintegration packages and have achieved a level of success. Schools have confidence in the practical advice and support they receive from experienced practitioners. There is limited capacity to expand and direct this under the current arrangements.
10. Improvements implemented during the review
10.1. Improvements in current practice
The following improvements have been identified during the review and are currently being implemented.
Improvement Expected outcome Develop priorities in the new EDP for Clear link between school behaviour and attendance. improvement and attendance/ behaviour Make attendance / exclusion and Attendance, exclusion and fixed term exclusion key indicators behaviour management become in LEA analysis of school key indicators and therefore a performance focus of attention for school improvement plans Develop individual targets for each Clear targets will provide a school around attendance/ performance framework within exclusion and fixed term exclusion which the school and the LEA can monitor improvement and allocate resources Work with schools to support them Will help to focus resources on in targeting interventions more identified problems effectively Develop a comprehensive Will ensure that the resources of Behaviour Support Strategy with the Council and the LEA are key partners and with clear working together towards the objectives same objectives. Will also ensure efficient use of resources. Collect data from schools with Regular collection and analysis of regard to attendance/ exclusion information will result in a quicker
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Improvement Expected outcome and fixed term exclusion on a identification of declining trends regular basis so that action can be and trigger a response from the targeted effectively and quickly LEA support network Install electronic registration systems Will provide more accurate and in secondary schools which don’t up to date information to enable have one. earlier intervention and better tracking of pupils. Conduct regular campaigns to Create clear expectations in the raise community awareness of their community with regard to the responsibility with regard to LEAs view on non-attendance and children’s attendance at school truancy Publicise successful prosecutions for Will send a message to the non-attendance in local press and community that the LEA is serious media about attendance and will take action if parents don’t act responsibly Target community development Challenge existing cultural work to address issues of behaviour tolerance of non-attendance and and attendance with parents and exclusion carers Ensure that funding for initiatives Recognition of links between aimed at related issues such as attendance, exclusion and wider community safety are linked to anti-social behaviour will require a strategies for attendance and multi agency response from the behaviour management in schools Council and its partners in the health, voluntary and law enforcement sectors. The outcome will be joined up initiatives that have specific objectives and targets. Conduct regular truancy patrols Will ensure that pupils who are not with Police. attending school are picked up and returned to school. Will reinforce the notion of parental responsibility for children’s attendance. Produce regular benchmarking Good practice identified and data and information for schools to shared will create a virtuous cycle identify and share good practice of improvement. Schools will be able to compare performance with similar schools and the National trends.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 11. Strategic Improvement Options for Attendance
11.1 Principles underlying roles and responsibilities in relation to pupil attendance
This paper is consulting on a range of options which will change the services provided by the LEA to support pupil attendance. In order to ensure that these proposals are effective it is essential to define clearly the respective roles and responsibilities of both LEA and schools with regard to pupil attendance. To aid this process it is useful to consider a set of underlying principles which help to identify respective responsibilities. The following is a set of principles which it is proposed that the LEA and schools should adopt –
• School attendance should be maximised for all pupils • Building capacity within schools to effectively support attendance is an important aspect of the LEA’s role • LEAs are responsible for setting borough wide targets and are accountable for ensuring that schools meet the targets • Parents have prime responsibility for a child’s attendance at school • Attendance is a school improvement issue and schools are responsible for maximising the attendance of pupils on their school roll • In order to maximise attendance it is necessary for all stakeholder agencies to work together including the LEA, the Police, Social Services, Health, Youth and Connexions services • Resources should be deployed in a targeted way and where possible, to intervene at the earliest stages to ensure the maximum impact and give pupils the best opportunity to achieve high standards
Will the principles outlined above provide a useful foundation to build a new framework of support for pupil attendance?
Are there other principles which should be considered?
12. Improvements common to all options
The following improvements are required to refocus the service on its primary purpose – school attendance. These improvements should be introduced immediately and will be common to all options.
1. In order to underpin the new arrangements the LEA will work with schools and other partners to develop a Code of Practice setting out expectations of good practice and strategies which schools should consider adopting. This will also detail clearly the monitoring, support
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc and challenge framework which the LEA will adopt in working with schools to improve attendance.
2. Reorganise the service and rationalise the job profile so that there is clarity around purpose of service. Change the title of the service to the School Attendance Service and rewrite job descriptions of officers in the service to focus on attendance and associated matters including Child Protection. Create a new Job Title of Attendance Officer.
3. Systematically analyse attendance data at group and pupil level as well as school level to ensure that the underlying causes of non- attendance are identified and dealt with appropriately.
4. Shift the balance from social work to a more strategic approach whereby the service is supporting and promoting improvement and excellence at school level. Change focus of service to provide advice, support, guidance and challenge on way schools are managing attendance.
5. Develop strategic link with School Improvement Team so that attendance is part of the LEA’s assessment of overall school performance.
6. Provide formal termly reports to Head of School Effectiveness, Directorate Management Team, Community Safety Partnership and Lifelong Learning Committee on effectiveness of service and impact of strategies.
7. Clarify roles and responsibilities of schools and new Attendance Service so that there is no overlap between casework being undertaken in schools and work being undertaken by LEA.
8. Develop a more efficient, streamlined and strategic approach to court work ensuring earlier and faster intervention where appropriate. Undertake responsibilities with regard to the issue of “Parenting Orders” and school attendance orders.
9. Clearly identify casework which will be undertaken by Attendance Service.
Comments are invited on the improvements outlined above. Are there other improvements which should be common to all options?
13. The Options
13.1. Option 1(including all the improvements outlined in paragraph 12.)
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 13.1.1.Continue to manage service centrally but change the focus of the service to concentrate on pupil attendance and child protection. Link specific officers to individual schools and set joint targets for attendance with schools and officers. Allocate resources on the basis of performance so that schools with low attendance receive focused support.
13.1.2.Utilise pupil level data to identify underlying trends of poor attendance and associated causes. Target resources effectively and strategically to tackle identified problems.
13.1.3.Introduce a performance management system in line with the LEA’s Peformance Evaluation Scheme allocating targets to individual officers which can be monitored regularly.
13.1.4.Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages • Provides a stable framework from which to progress • Changes focus of service to concentrate on performance and outcomes for pupils • Least disruptive in terms of organisational change of all options
Disadvantages • There is no evidence that the current model of service delivery can provide a catalyst for the necessary significant improvements in rates of attendance – even with the suggested amendments. • Social casework approach is high intensity and low impact. Maintaining current service structure will not provide the impetus to shift the balance to whole school work • The maintenance of the existing model will obscure the development of clear and defined roles and responsibilities between the LEA and schools • This option will not shift any resources to schools. There is considerable evidence to suggest that schools can use devolved resources more effectively to increase attendance by ensuring links with Learning Support Units, Learning Mentors and other pastoral support systems.
13.2. Option 2 – Reorganise service to create Central Strategic Attendance Team and a small centrally managed team to support attendance at primary and special schools devolving remaining resources to secondary schools. The average amount of funding devolved to an individual secondary school would be approximately £8,000. The transfer of resource from the LEA to schools would mean a reduction in staffing numbers in the current ESW service. There would be no automatic transfer of staff from the LEA to schools.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 13.2.1 Under this option secondary schools would assume responsibility for the management of resources to use strategically within their own school. They could integrate resources with other funding available to them to address issues of attendance and punctuality in their individual schools including home-school liaison. Under this option schools could combine other sources of funding available to them such as Excellence in Cities, EAZ and Standards funding with delegated resources to develop their own in school response to attendance and behaviour strategically. Schools would work within the framework of support, monitoring and challenge outlined in paragraph 12 to ensure that the devolution of funding is securing the necessary improvement in attendance.
13.2.2 The LEA would still retain a central Attendance Team focused on Court Work, Child Protection, the attendance of pupils out of school and working with Senior Management Teams in schools to facilitate the development of in school social inclusion teams. There would also be a key role involving auditing and monitoring of whole school systems and performance.
The LEA would continue to support primary and special schools by
• recruiting, inducting and training attendance officers and by providing regular professional supervision
• deploying attendance officers to primary schools based on an agreed formula
• providing casework with referred families including prosecution to ensure increased pupil attendance
• the introduction of a formal Attendance Panel for parents who have failed to secure an improvement in their children’s attendance despite attendance officer and school intervention
• providing INSET to school staff on attendance related issues including accurate registration
13.2.3 The transition from the current level of service to this new service for secondary schools would need to be carefully managed and schools would need to be supported throughout the process of change and realignment. Clear role definition and clarity around respective responsibilities would need to be worked through in partnership with schools during this transition. The devolution of resource would be underpinned by an agreement between the individual schools and the
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc LEA. The agreement would detail the respective roles, responsibilities and levels of support for both LEA and schools.
Under this option secondary schools would be responsible for
• developing a School Attendance policy • setting challenging targets to reduce unauthorised and authorised absence • Maintaining an “Attendance at Risk” register • planning and undertaking task centered case-work with children and families to bring about school improvement • developing procedures to support the attendance of vulnerable children e.g. Looked After Children • developing supportive plans to enable pupils to re-enter school following a long-term absence • providing support to staff in identifying pupils with problem attendance • developing supportive programmes for parents who want to support their child’s regular attendance and education • developing systems for monitoring and targeting support across the school
• providing half-termly attendance data to the LEA for monitoring purposes • providing accurate certificates of attendance and written evidence of attempts to resolve attendance problems with individual parents and pupils to enable prosecution should it be required. • providing attendance data on children looked after and other vulnerable groups or cohorts of pupils as required
The LEA would retain responsibility for ensuring procedures are in place to
• Provide guidance and support on good practice and advice on systems for managing attendance • audit and review schools’ systems for managing attendance and punctuality including checking that schools are following registration regulations • undertake its responsibilities with regard to child protection • identify schools’ absence trends and agree action plans to improve attendance to target levels with Headteachers and School Improvement Officers • check that schools are following the regulations for removing pupils from roll to ensure that pupils are not “lost” in the system • action prosecution of parents in Magistrate Court and applications for Education Supervision Orders in Family Proceeding Court
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc • organise and chair regular Attendance Panels either in Laurence House or in individual schools as a preliminary to prosecution • make applications for and delivery of Parenting Orders • implement and enforce Lewisham’s child employment by-laws including the issue pupil work permits and entertainment licenses • implement and fund borough-wide initiatives to reduce truancy in Lewisham schools e.g. publicity campaigns and joint truancy patrols with Police. • liaise with other agencies to support the attendance and educational achievement of vulnerable groups e.g. young offenders, children looked after, school-age parents and young carers • provide attendance related work for Lewisham pupils attending out of borough schools and pupils not on a school roll
13.2.3.1 Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
• Resourcing would be located at the point closest to the problem of poor attendance, enabling Governing Bodies and Headteachers to take decisions about strategy and staffing that meets local needs and circumstances • Schools could combine devolved resources with other sources of funding available to them such as Excellence in Cities, EAZ and Standards funding to develop their own in school response to attendance and behaviour strategically thus maximising impact. • The LEAs work in schools would facilitate the development of in- school social inclusion teams to support pupils experiencing a span of difficulties. • Secondary schools would have increased resource flexibility enabling them to develop creative and innovative approaches to tackling the problem • Very clear definition of role, responsibility and accountability for both LEA and schools • Devolution of resources would contribute to impetus to change service and focus the LEA attention on strategic and joined up support for schools • This model reflects the approach to other school improvement strategies where intervention is targeted and strategic (in proportion to need). It also reflects the approach taken with initiatives such as the “Behaviour Improvement Programme” where resources are located in schools to ensure that action is targeted effectively at a local level.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Disadvantages
• The distribution of resources to secondary schools will involve a major re-organisation of the ESW service and will have implications for those staff currently in the service • The LEA would remain accountable for driving up borough wide standards in attendance but would have transferred most of the resource to schools • The loss of operational capacity to accept individual case referrals (pre –court) from secondary schools will transfer more responsibility to schools • Primary schools would not benefit from the devolution of funds
13.3. Option 3 - Reorganise service to create Central Srategic Attendance Team and a small centrally managed team to support attendance at primary and special schools devolving remaining resources to secondary schools. Also devolve resources to pilot primary schools or groups of primary schools. The average amount of funding devolved to an individual primary school would be approximately £2,000. The amount devolved to a group of schools would depend on the size of the group (4 schools would get £8,000, 6 would get £12,000).
13.3.1 As with secondary schools the devolution of resource would be underpinned by an agreement between the individual /group of schools and the LEA. The agreement would detail the respective roles, responsibilities and levels of support for both LEA and schools. This model would seek to develop the idea of strategic groupings of primary schools where resources and staff could be shared to maximise impact, which is being pioneered in other areas within the LEA.
The various responsibilities for attendance related functions would be as detailed in Option 2 for secondary schools and for primary schools involved in the pilot.
13.3.2 The advantages and disadvantages are the same as Option 2 with some further advantages / disadvantages.
Further Advantages
• This option includes all the advantages outlined for option 2 above with the addition of flexibility around devolution for primary schools if they choose to be in the pilot • The added flexibility in this option would enable the transition from the current position to a more devolved position for primary schools to take place when individual schools felt they were ready for it and
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc had the structures / arrangements in place to tackle attendance effectively • This option enables the LEA to move to a more strategic role while retaining some flexibility in resource terms to identify and support the most troubled and troublesome non-attenders.
Further Disadvantages
• This option would involve more devolution of resources and therefore more organisational disruption.
Your comments are welcome on each of the above options.
Do you consider one option is more likely to have a positive impact on attendance than another is?
Is there anything missing from the options?
14. Strategic proposal to develop more cohesive services to support good behaviour in schools and provision for pupils out of school
14.1. The LEA’s support for behaviour needs to be considered alongside support for social inclusion, support for special educational needs and particularly provision for pupils with statements for emotional and behavioural difficulties. The LEA is accountable for reducing the number of fixed-term and permanent exclusions in line with Government targets and targets within the EDP. It is responsible for analysing data and targeting support to achieve maximum impact. It has a role in identifying groups of pupils most at risk of exclusion, for example, Black-Caribbean boys and pupils with SEN, and developing effective intervention strategies. The LEA has a responsibility for pupils at risk of exclusion (DfES Circular 10/99 and 11/99) and should be involved in agreeing and monitoring Personal Support Plans (PSPs).
14.2. This review has highlighted the need for Lewisham to refocus its policy and approach to behaviour support to ensure more resources are available to help schools and other partners to secure early intervention. Currently most resources are tied up to support a minority of children with extreme challenging behaviour.
14.3. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of this paper detail the findings of the Review in relation to the current support framework. The high levels of excluded pupils and the worsening trend over recent years are good indicators that services are not effective. The extensive consultation with schools and
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc other stakeholders confirmed that there was little confidence in the existing support framework and that services would need reconfiguring in order to have a positive impact. The effect of delayed intervention in relation to pupil behaviour results in greater problems as pupils advance through their school years. The support provided by the LEA is considered to be out-dated by many schools and lacks credibility. Behaviour has not been seen as central to the school improvement agenda in the past. There was particular concern that the support provided lacked practical grounding and that interventions were often weak. The lack of a strategic approach has resulted in poor targeting of resources and sporadic rather than planned intervention. There is also the issue that the current level of provision for excluded pupils does not meet DfES requirements. The placing of non-excluded pupils in the PRU (in particular those with statements of special educational need) is inappropriate and highlights the lack of cohesion surrounding current referral policy. The quality of provision across the PRU, Anerley Special School, New Woodlands Special School, the John Evelyn Centre, the Schoolhouse and Positive Options is inconsistent and there are differential levels of strategic join-up between these providers and other partners. This results in pupils accessing different levels of support based upon where they are placed rather than upon their individual needs.
14.4. This proposal therefore brings together the main elements which can contribute to the improvement in services and achieve better outcomes for pupils. In order to aid this process the following principles are proposed to underpin policy and help us collectively to produce robust solutions.
• The Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) should only provide for excluded pupils • For pupils excluded at Key Stages 1-3 appropriate interventions for the individual pupil should be for a period not exceeding two terms in all but the most exceptional circumstances and then reintegration should be made back into appropriate mainstream or special provision. • Excluded pupils at Key Stage 4 should receive broad and effective vocational provision • Resources should be deployed, where possible, to intervene at the earliest stages to ensure the maximum impact and give pupils the best opportunity to achieve high standards • Opportunities for those pupils educated outside of the borough to return should be maximised
14.6. Educational Psychology and Learning Support Services
Following the Best Value Review of Special Educational Needs the authority commissioned an independent review of the EPLSS in order to identify ways in which the service could support earlier intervention of pupils with special educational needs including pupils with emotional and
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc behavioural difficulties. It is proposed to implement the recommendations of that review. The current method of assessing pupils’ needs involves the use of psychometric assessments which take up a considerable amount of time. Schools often perceive that even after detailed psychometric testing, the results are soon regarded as out of date by Educational Psychologists (EPs) themselves. Rather than updating their findings through consultation with for example, the SENCO using school based test results and observations to confirm progress or otherwise, they are inclined to reassess at length. This current style of working means there is little time spent working with teachers in the classroom or working with schools at a systems level; for example looking at the way schools deliver SEN support.
These recommendations include Educational Psychologists increasing work with pupils and teachers in the classroom and further developing a problem solving approach. The emphasis will shift from providing statutory assessments to a wider range of work and will focus on earlier intervention. The EPs will take on a greater problem-solving role, intervening more and making use of the fresh eye they can bring to bear on intransigent situations. This approach will move the service from one that is perceived by some as a “gate-keeper” to one that is proactively supporting schools with difficult behavioural issues.
14.7. Key Stages 1 –2 – Developing the role of New Woodlands Special School
14.7.1 In June 2002 New Woodlands was awarded Beacon status having been identified in HMCI’s Annual Report as an outstanding special school. The many strengths of the school include the preventative work undertaken with primary pupils who are at risk of exclusion due to behavioural difficulties. The school has an excellent record of undertaking extensive work with such pupils and reintegrating them back into mainstream provision with support where appropriate. The practical support and experience provided by New Woodlands to other schools has a great deal of credibility and support within the primary sector. In accordance with its Beacon status it is proposed to extend the services provided by the school to include
• Temporary full-time provision for primary age pupils permanently excluded from school • Short-term intervention programmes for pupils at risk of exclusion • Outreach support to mainstream schools following appropriate training by staff to undertake this role
14.7.2 The LEA’s current support to mainstream schools for pupils with challenging behaviour is through the Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD) Specialist Team. The work of this team was considered in
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc the review of EPLSS and in this BVR. Paragraph 7.6.2 details the findings with regard to the EBD team and the need to reshape the service to provide more effective support for schools. In order to strengthen the team and improve its credibility it is proposed that 75% of this team be transferred to New Woodlands enabling the school to develop its extended role and maximising the impact of its outreach work. It is proposed that the remaining 25% of the EBD team transfer to the School Improvement Team to strengthen the team’s capacity to ensure a strategic approach to behaviour management across all schools.
14.8. Provision for excluded and pre-exclusion pupils at Key Stage 3
One of the issues highlighted during the Review was the inconsistent approach to pupils excluded at Key Stage 3 and the fact that there was little co-ordinated preventative work with pupils who are at risk of exclusion. It is proposed to retain the existing Bromley Rd PRU site to provide full-time education for excluded pupils at Key Stage 3 and to further develop the provision to provide pre-exclusion assessment and intervention for pupils at this Key Stage. The priority for this provision will be to provide effective short- term interventions not exceeding two terms and to re-integrate pupils into appropriate mainstream or special provision.
14.9. Development of Key Stage 4 vocational provision for disaffected pupils
14.9.1 This proposal builds upon the flexibility of the Government’s 14-19 policy. The vision is that pupils will have a bespoke programme based upon their needs. This proposal would ensure full time provision for all pupils excluded from school. The programme will consist of a core offer to be provided at Broad Oak PRU, John Evelyn Centre or Positive Options. Other components will be community placements, work experience and vocational taster programmes. Programmes will be accredited and will develop links with local employers to build progress routes to work and further training. Close links will be maintained with Lewisham College. Targets will be set for attainment and accreditation and performance will be monitored against targets. This provision will include increased multi- agency (including specialists in the field of mental health) work with individual pupils on site.
14.9.2 The Head of the PRU would be responsible for the development of links with all the other stakeholders and agencies (SC&H, Connexions, YOT, Metropilitan Police, Health etc.) working on issues around behaviour and exclusion. The PRU will work with schools and other partners to develop a shared ownership of criteria for referral between providers so that the framework of support is coherent and strategic.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 14.10. The future of Anerley School and provision for pupils with Statements of Educational Need for Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
The recent Ofsted inspection of Anerely highlighted the importance of developing a relevant curriculum for KS4 pupils with emotional and behavioral difficulties. The report raised significant concerns about the school and placed it in the category of “Serious Weaknesses”. The new flexibility of the 14-19 vocational curriculum facilitates a more tailored programme more closely matched to individual needs. The Broad Oak provision could provide an ideal base for students. The 14+ transitional review would be used to identify appropriate curriculum options and enable young people to plan for the last stage of their education and beyond. The young person’s Personal Advisor from the Connexions service would also be available to help plan this curriculum route. There would be clear pathways for the young person to progress after KS4 either through further training or work.
There would still be a requirement for the LEA to maintain EBD provision at Key Stage 3. The strategic reshaping of services outlined in these proposals provide the opportunity to integrate this provision within the cohesive structure outlined above. In particular it is proposed to consider how best practice at Key Stage 3 provision can build on the excellent EBD provision at new Woodlands School. This would offer better progression routes for KS2 EBD pupils as well as strengthening good practice within the system. It is expected that this will enable the LEA to move provision from Anerley School. The earliest possible date for this would be September 2003.
14.11. Transfer of responsibility for tuition of pupils with medical needs to Brent Knoll school.
Paragraph 9.1.4. highlights the need to reassess current provision for pupils with medical needs at the PRU (Hospital Service) in line with latest DfES guidance. The guidance indicates that a PRU can only provide for pupils with medical needs if it is registered exclusively to do so. Therefore Lewisham’s current arrangements whereby the PRU is registered for excluded pupils and children with medical needs will not be acceptable in the future. Brent Knoll school currently provides for children with complex medical needs. It has the expertise to deal with the new requirements to
• undertake early identification procedures • support medical referrals • develop personal education plans for pupils with medical needs • develop and support re-integration programmes • support pupils with medical needs working towards public examination
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc It is proposed to transfer the management of the Hospital Service to Brent Knoll enhancing the school’s capacity to undertake a wider role in providing support to mainstream schools across the borough.
Your comments are welcome on each element of the above proposal.
Do you consider this proposal will deliver better outcomes for all pupils?
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc MAYOR AND CABINET 31 JULY 2002 ITEM NO.
Appendix 2 - Pupils out of School Best Value Review Implementation Plan
Objective Task / Activity How will this be When will it Who will be responsible achieved? have happened for making it happen? by? Improve attendance Adopt and issue a set of Principles will be September 2002 Service manager for by implementing principles with regard to documented and “Pupil Services and “Attendance pupil attendance formally issued and School Attendance” Improvement Option” disseminated to all approved by Mayor stakeholders and Cabinet Reorganise existing ESW Restructure service and January 2003 Head of Pupil Services service in line with rewrite job descriptions. agreed option. Follow corporate reorganisation process. Develop a Code of Work on Code of Practice December 2002 Head of Pupil Services Practice setting out with schools and develop strategies which schools model which has should consider consensus. Distribute and adopting and which disseminate model to all details the monitoring, schools. support and challenge framework which the LEA will adopt.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Objective Task / Activity How will this be When will it Who will be responsible achieved? have happened for making it happen? by? Verify finances to be Central team to be fully April 2003 Head of Pupil Services devolved to schools in costed in line with new and Directorate line with agreed option job descriptions. Management Team to ensure transfer of Negotiation with schools resources which will regarding amount to enable new model of devolve. Allocation of service delivery to work resources to schools effectively. Devolve resources to Agreement reached with Beginning of Head of Pupil Services secondary schools. schools regarding April 2003 and Head of Resources appropriate amount of financial devolution in line with transfer of resources. Identify Primary Schools Schools will be asked to October 2002 Head of Pupil Services who wish to participate put themselves forward and Head of School in pilot devolution for pilot. Effectiveness project. Work with pilot primary Through strategic October 2002 – Head of Pupil Services schools to develop innovation group January 2003 and Head of School detailed operational Effectiveness model Devolve resources to Agreement reached with Beginning of Head of Pupil Services pilot primary schools schools regarding financial year and Head of Resources appropriate amount of 2003 financial devolution in line with transfer of resources.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Objective Task / Activity How will this be When will it Who will be responsible achieved? have happened for making it happen? by? Review / produce April 2003 – Head of Pupil Referral Behaviour Support Plan June 2003 Unit and Head of Pupil Services Review new model of April 2004 – Head of Pupil Services service delivery for June 2004 attendance
Improve exclusion Adopt and issue a set of Principles will be September 2002 Service manager for rate and provision for principles with regard to documented and “Pupil Services and pupils out of school by excluded pupils formally issued and School Attendance” implementing the disseminated to all proposal to develop stakeholders cohesive services to Develop referral Head of PRU and schools September 2002 Head of Pupil Referral support behaviour in procedures for pre- to work out agreed Unit schools and improving exclusion intervention process and criteria for provision for pupils out referral of school Change the approach Develop new protocols January 2003 Head of Pupil Services of the Educational for assessment. and Principal Psychology Service to Strengthen managerial Educational ensure earlier emphasis on speed of Psychologist intervention and assessments to free up proactive support for resources to take on schools with difficult problem solving role behavioural issues within schools.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Objective Task / Activity How will this be When will it Who will be responsible achieved? have happened for making it happen? by? Develop New Transfer of resources to September 2002 Head of Pupil Services Woodlands School to New Woodlands to and Headteacher of provide full time enable provision for New Woodlands provision for excluded pupils. New Woodlands to School primary pupils. increase staffing resources in line with requirements. Develop New Early intervention work January 2003 – Headteacher of New Woodlands School to undertaken by April 2003 Woodlands School provide short term experienced teachers intervention having been freed up by programmes for pupils at transfer of EBD to New risk of exclusion. Woodlands. Develop New Outreach work Feb –July 2003 Headteacher New Woodlands School to programme agreed in Woodlands School provide outreach consultation with intervention and support mainstream schools. to mainstream schools.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Objective Task / Activity How will this be When will it Who will be responsible achieved? have happened for making it happen? by? Develop Bromley Road Resources have been set October 2002 Headteacher PRU and PRU site to provide full aside within E&C budget Head of Pupil Services time provision for to expand provision. Staff excluded Key Stage 3 will be recruited to pupils and pre-exclusion provide increased tuition assessment / and pastoral support. The intervention for Key unit will work closely with Stage 3 pupils. schools and partner agencies in Health / Social Services / Police etc. to ensure a multi agency approach. Develop Key Stage 4 Broad Oak, John Evelyn September 2002 Head of Pupil Services vocational provision. and Positive Options to for full time Head of PRU work together coherently provision. Head of John Evelyn to ensure bespoke Centre programmes for individual Fully Manager of Positive pupils. Full time provision operational Options for all excluded pupils to multi agency be introduced. Expansion service by of capacity at Broad Oak January 2003. and John Evelyn. Move provision for Key Individual pupils assessed September 2002 Head of Pupil Services Stage 4 provision from at 14+ assessment and – January 2003. Head of Anerley School Anerley to provide appropriate curriculum Principal Educational integrated individual routes identified for them Psychologist
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Objective Task / Activity How will this be When will it Who will be responsible achieved? have happened for making it happen? by? programmes for pupils via Broad Oak and other via vocational route providers. Develop proposal for Assess options to create November 2002 Head of Pupil Services new Key Stage 3 EBD appropriate Key Stage 3 Head of Resources provision within the provision and identify Borough. resources required. Costed proposals / Options fully investigated December 2002 Head of Pupil Services Options for new Key and capital and revenue Head of Resources Stage 3 EBD presented implications taken into to Mayor and Cabinet account Consultation on Consultation will take January to April Head of Pupil Services proposals for new Key place with all 2003 Stage 3 EBD provision stakeholders Key stage 3 EBD Premises located and 2004 Head of Pupil Services provision available appropriate within the Borough building/premises works undertaken. Staff and Resources recruited / identified and in place.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc MAYOR AND CABINET 31 JULY 2002 APPENDIX 3 ITEM NO.
Consultation response by lifelong learning select committee to pupils out of school best value review
1. Purpose of the Report
To present the views of the Lifelong Learning Select Committee on this Council’s Best Value Review for Pupils out of School.
2. Recommendation
(i) To take into consideration the view of the Lifelong Learning Select Committee outlined in sections 4 – 6 in this report in relation to the Best Value Review for Pupils Out of School.
(ii) To respond to the Select Committee at their next meeting in September.
3. Background
On 3 July 2002, the Lifelong Learning Select Committee considered the report attached as an Appendix.
4. Best Value
As part of Best practice, the committee applied the 5 C’s of Best Value.
Challenge
Members considered that the review had been challenging. The District Audit office as part of their work had made an additional external challenge. Strategic inspection of services supporting behaviour and attendance in January 2001had been made. The report had been critical but accepted that some progress had been made.
There were internal challenges. Officers had looked at the way services had been provided and their location. Options for improvement had been considered and the old style had been challenged.
Consultation
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 113 The committee were pleased that there had been wide consultation. It was considered, however, that parents who had not had children excluded could have been consulted. Some newly elected members considered that they did not have previously circulated data and therefore, did not have all possible information.
Comparing
It was agreed that a wide variety of data had been compiled but had not always matched up figures for maximum information.
Specific schools with a record of either good attendance/low incidences of exclusion or low attendance and high levels of exclusion were visited within Lewisham. Other similar boroughs within London were also visited. The Boroughs were visited because of their similarity to Lewisham their nearness as a neighbour or because they were involved in the DfES pilot scheme.
The results of investigations were well documented and tabled. Members agreed that the comparisons had been an important part of the review.
Competition
The committee did not feel this was a strong element of the review. However, the committee noted that a Benchmarking exercise had been undertaken, performance within the Council had been considered and officers had recognised the urgent need to improve the services for pupils out of school.
Collaboration
The committee agreed that this is closely linked with ‘consultation’, the review team worked with internal directorates and colleagues for example, audit Youth offending team scrutiny committee and with external organisations including • Police • Health Services • Voluntary Sector
5 Strategic Improvement Options for Attendance
Members considered that the role of young people was important and when considering options for improvement, the views of young people should be sought to ensure that they are fully involved.
Children as carers had been omitted from the report. These children need support from this authority and their school. c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 114 Children have a right to education. Both attendance and punctuality should be addressed.
6. Improvements common to all options
Members agreed that there should be delineation between SEN and exclusion
Transfer from primary to secondary school – information should be passed on as soon as possible to ensure that any problems with attendance could be picked up as soon as possible. The situation should be monitored within three weeks.
7. Options
Option 1
The Committee did not endorse this option. The services needed to change in order to improve performance
Options 2 & 3
The Committee endorsed both options but tended to favour option 2 because this model had been successfully employed within other authorities.
The committee broadly endorsed the proposals outlined in section 14 of the review.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 115 Meeting MAYOR & CABINET
Title of Report: Item No. BEST VALUE – SCOPES OF THE 2002/03 BEST VALUE REVIEWS
Key decision Date decision to be made: Yes 31st July 2002
Contributors: Agenda – CHIEF EXECUTIVE Part I
1. Purpose of Report
To provide context to the Best Value review scoping reports contained in Appendices A to E.
2. Summary & Recommendations
Members are asked to consider and agree the scopes of the following Best Value reviews:
• Improving awards, benefits and concessions (Appendix A) • Making Lewisham a cleaner, greener place, (Appendix B) • Improving Lewisham’s streets, estates & parks. (Appendix C) • Creating a better informed Lewisham (Appendix D) • Making Lewisham a safer place (Appendix E)
3. Changing our approach to Best Value
Each year, the Council seeks to improve its approach to delivering Best Value. As a result, some changes have been made in the way reviews are completed. These include:
• Completing a smaller number of larger cross-cutting reviews • Providing full time project management support to drive the reviews forward and • Setting tighter timescales to ensure reviews dovetail with the service and financial planning programmes.
4. Scoping the Best Value Reviews
4.1 Evidence emerging from national studies suggests that the agreeing the parameters or scope is key to determining the success of the project. Local experience would seem to support this view and therefore
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 116 considerable effort has been made to successfully complete this part of the review.
4.2 A successful exercise will ensure the scope of the review is properly balanced. The scope must be sufficiently broad enough to:
• Achieve economies of scale • Attract the interest and engagement of external partners • Ensure appropriate links are made between related services
and sufficiently narrow to: • Ensure the project is completed on time • Maintaining a focus on the key issues • Produce a realistic improvement plan
5. Progress of the 2002/03 Best Value Reviews
5.1 Initial progress has been made on all but one of the 2002/03 round of Best Value reviews. Project teams have been established and project managers have been allocated to each review. Kick-start sessions have been held to launch each review and significant background information has been collected. It is from this work that the scoping reports have been produced. The exception is that of the Community Development review where staff sickness has necessitated a review of the timetable.
5.2 As the scoping exercise is key to the success of the project, the reports contained on the agenda have been subject to a significant degree of ‘challenge’. As such, the reports have been considered by:
• Corporate Best Value Group • EMT • Chief executive in discussion with Project Chairs & Managers • Lead members
5.3 Amendments made as a results of these discussions have been incorporated in the appendices below
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 117 MEETING Mayor & Cabinet ITEM No. REPORT TITLE Best Value Review for enhancing the Benefits and Awards Services in Lewisham – Scoping Document KEY DECISION Yes – To agree the Scope for the Best Value Review for enhancing Benefits and Awards Services in Lewisham CONTRIBUTORS Executive Director for Resources & Deputy Chief Executive
CLASS Agenda Part 1 DATE 31st July 2002
POLICY CONTEXT
1.1 The Local Government Act 1999 requires authorities to make arrangements to ensure the continuous improvement of services with regard to a combination of the 6 E’s of Best Value. These are Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Equalities and Environmental Impact. Lewisham Council has also decided to focus on Electronic Service delivery to reach our 100% target by April 2004.
1.2 The Council has recently reassessed and revised its five-year review programme, which now consists of fewer, broader and more thematic reviews. The review for enhancing the Benefits and Awards services in Lewisham, is one of 6 ‘cross- cutting’ thematic Best Value Reviews being undertaken by the Council in 2002/03.
1.3 All Best Value Reviews programmed for 2002/03 will be subject to external inspection on completion.
2 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
2.1 To seek the Mayor and Cabinet approval on the scope and project plan for the Best Value Review for enhancing the Benefits and Awards services in Lewisham.
3 RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Mayor and Cabinet agree:
3.1 The scope of the review as set out in paragraph 4.1.
3.2 The project plan, key milestones and the intended completion date for the review as set out in paragraph 4.2.3 of this report.
4 BACKGROUND
4.1 Scope of the Best Value Review
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 118 4.1.1 The Benefits and Awards services contained within the scope of this review are principally administered by three directorates in the Lewisham Council. These are namely the Resources, Education & Culture and Social Care & Health Directorates.
Aims and Objectives of the Review
4.1.2 The broad aims of this project is to submit all the services under review to the 6 E’s, and the 5 C’s (Challenge, Consult, Compare, Compete and Collaboration) of Best Value. This is intended to result in recommendations and an improvement plan for measurable, sustainable and continuous improvements in these services over the next five-year period and beyond. In summary, these broad aims are to: • Raise the awareness and accessibility of benefits and awards services across all of our diverse communities within Lewisham. • Be outward looking and fully investigate the scope for achieving scale economies in service provision and delivery. • Be open to challenge in the way that services are delivered, ensuring that direct and indirect benefits can be achieved. • Explore ways of using information technology as an enabling factor to improve the delivery of services, making them easier to access.
Benefits Statement 4.1.3 Through achieving the aims and objectives of this review, realisation of the potential benefits are: • Improving Performance – To establish effective arrangements that ensure that Lewisham’s performance, in terms of all Benefits and Awards services indicators is the best in London (at least top quartile) by no later than 31st March 2007. • Improving Cost Effectiveness – To result in a demonstrable and beneficial impact on the processes, administration and delivery of these services to secure value for money. • Increasing Accessibility and Understanding and encouraging Take-up – To ensure goal congruence with the Council’s Social Inclusion and Equality Policy objectives. • Creating a Seamless service for the customer – To be achieved through the focusing on creating synergies and developing joined up working arrangements.
4.1.4 The review will examine key aspects of the Council’s Benefits and Awards services. The service areas to be covered are as follows:
• Housing Benefits and Council Tax Benefits ⇒ Landlords (Private and Council), Housing Associations and Hostels ⇒ Private Tenants c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 119 ⇒ Council Tenants ⇒ Home Owners ⇒ Overpayments Administration ⇒ Appeals ⇒ Preventing, Detecting and Prosecuting Fraud
• Pupil and Student Financial Support ⇒ Travel Allowances ⇒ Clothing Allowances ⇒ Free School Meals ⇒ Student Loans and Grants ⇒ Education Maintenance Allowance
• Financial Assessments Service ⇒ Administration of means testing clients for Residential and Nursing Care
Defining the scope
4.1.5 The scope of this review was initially determined by the Corporate Best Value Team to encompass 3 service areas, these being Benefits, Awards and Concessions. Following rigorous scrutiny of the initial scope by the Cabinet Member for Resources, Chief Executive, and Executive Management Team, the scope has been amended to remove the Concession service elements and now to include the ‘administration of means tested benefits for clients being financially assessed for residential and nursing care services’. The Financial Assessments Service is administered and managed by the Social Care & Health Directorate (SC&H).
4.1.6 The SC&H Directorate administer the largest proportion of concession services in Lewisham1, with the main element being Freedom travel passes. The two client groups that are eligible under the scheme are older people (as an automatic entitlement) and disabled people (subject to the SC&H adult eligibility criteria, which is currently being reviewed as a separate directorate project).
4.1.7 Freedom travel passes for older people are currently administered, processed and issued by the Post Office, with the Council having limited involvement. The Council’s main association with this service is centred on the assessment, administration and issuing of travel passes to disabled people. This is predominantly a Social Worker assessment function and does not strategically fit with the theme being explored in the Benefits and Awards services, which are ostensibly self-contained services, with the main driver centred on the performance of the processes.
4.1.8 It would appear that Concession services as a thematic service area would be more strategically placed in one of the subsequent SC&H driven reviews, such as
1 Education & Culture also manage Leisure Services Concessions. This falls outside the scope of this review and is to be considered as part of the Leisure Services BVR in year five of the current programme. c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 120 Improving Health & Promoting Independence (Year 4) or Getting around Lewisham – Transport Services (Year 5).
4.1.9 There are some other linked services that have been specifically excluded from the scope of this review and will therefore not be considered. This is either because they have been covered in part, in previous reviews or are to be examined as a part of thematic reviews scheduled later in the current 5-Year Best Value Review Programme.
4.1.10 These specific service areas are as follows:
• Taxi-cards and Door-to-Door Transport Services • Aids and Adaptations for older and disabled people • Blue Badges and Parking Bays for disabled people
4.1.11 The services outlined in paragraph 4.1.10 will be considered within the scope of subsequent year thematic Best Value Reviews, which have been provisionally programmed in for the next two years. These reviews will also have specific links with some services contained in the scope of review for enhancing Benefits and Awards.
4.1.12 These subsequent years reviews are: • Lewisham’s Year 4 – Best Value Reviews: ⇒ Improving Health and Promoting Independence ⇒ Financial Services (including Revenue Services and Audit & Special Investigations)
• Lewisham’s Year 5 – Best Value Reviews: ⇒ Getting Around Lewisham – Transport Services ⇒ Promoting Urban Renewal (including Housing Strategy) ⇒ Refugees and Asylum Seekers ⇒ Improving Contact and Communication with the Council (including Accessible Services) ⇒ Leisure Services
4.2 Management of the Review 4.2.1 This Best Value Review is being managed and steered by the review team and is currently on target for completion by the end of September 2002. However, this is now considered to be a tight time-scale, given the recent inclusion of Social Care & Health means tested benefits for clients being financially assessed for residential and nursing care. The Project Manager will continue to review the project plan and key milestones on a regular basis and provide notification of any significant changes to the scheduled completion date.
4.2.2 The team meets fortnightly to update and report progress and plan future action. This will ensure that the review delivers on time and provides appropriate and
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 121 specific recommendations and an implementation plan, which are measurable and sustainable over the medium term.
4.2.3 Key Milestones – The key milestones for this review have been set out in the following table, and a more detailed account is maintained and regularly reviewed and updated by the Project Manager, illustrating how the review is being managed.
4.2.4 The key stages and milestones planned for the project are as follows:
STAGE KEY MILESTONE DATE
1 Scope & Project Plan Kick-start session and development 18th Mar ‘02 of the project scope
2 Scope & Project Plan Report signed off by the Mayor & 31st July ‘02 Cabinet
3 Diagnostic Information gathering, analysis 9th Aug ‘02 and initial options appraisals 4 Options Internal Report to the Best Value 23rd Aug ‘02 Review Group, and Executive Lead
5 Options & Review end and report signed off 25th Sept ‘02 Recommendations by the Project Sponsor & Mayor
6 Recommendations and Report signed off by the Mayor & Oct/Nov ‘02 Improvement Plan Cabinet
4.2.5 Reporting arrangements – To ensure that sufficient scrutiny and member involvement takes place throughout the review process, progress on the review in standard format reports is and will continue to be made as follows: • Monthly to the Corporate Best Value Review Group • Monthly to the Project Managers Group • Bi-monthly to Mayor & Cabinet • On request to the Executive Lead
4.2.6 The Review Team
The review team comprises the following members and is organised in accordance with the Lewisham Council’s Best Value guidance, with each representative having key roles and specific responsibilities.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 122 ROLE RESPONSIBLE
Sponsor (Executive Lead) Councillor Dave Whiting, Cabinet Member for Resources Chair Ralph Wilkinson, Head of Public Services Project Manager Selwyn Thompson, Resources Service Managers June Banister, Mick Lear, Tracey Leon- (Resources) Cutler Service Managers (Education & Vic Campbell-MacDonald, Ronan Morrice Culture) Service Manager (Social Care Lynne Cheesman & Health) Internal Challenger Russell Hudson, Regeneration Compliance & Project Support Clare Barron, Resources Equalities Carol Cambridge, Resources External Challenger Diana Wade, Hyde Housing Association
5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 There are some direct costs incurred in carrying out the review process, principally on carrying out consultation exercises. These have been detailed in the Resource Plan, which is contained in a separate document (Project Initiation Document) maintained by the Project Manager.
5.2 The indirect costs of this review largely consist of officer time, and are being monitored closely on a monthly basis by the Project Manager.
5.3 The total cost of the review process and review implementation will be covered in later reports to the Mayor and Cabinet.
6 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Local authorities are obliged to make arrangements to ensure the continuous improvement of services in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1999. The Council has drawn up a planned cycle of service reviews in order to comply with the legislation and this review should be conducted in accordance with that plan.
7 CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
7.1 The review will cover crime and disorder issues, with regards to all benefits and awards services being covered in the project scope. The Council is committed to preventing, detecting and prosecuting fraudulent activity to safeguard taxpayers money, whilst ensuring that those people in need of financial support are given their entitlement accurately and promptly.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 123 8 HUMAN RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
8.1 There are no human resources implications arising directly from this report. An indication of the human resources implications of the review will be considered as part of future reports on options and recommendations. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 The impact of the review on the environment is one of the 6 E’s of Best Value. The environmental issues are being considered as part of the overall review process.
10 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
10.1 The Equalities implications are one of the 6 E’s of Best Value. This Review is being supported by a former member of the Council’s Equalities Unit, who will provide guidance and advice in relation to equalities issues. As part of the review process, the Team has conducted an audit of the services covered in the scope of this review against the new equality standard, the results from which are being used to inform the review process.
11 BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short title of document Date of Location Reference Contact document Officer Equalities Sub Committee – 9th Jan 2002 Governance N/A Clare Weaser Lewisham’s Performance Support Plan 2002/03 Executive Committee – Best 20th Feb 2002 Governance N/A Mike Brown Value Reviews: Information Support Item
For more information about this report, please contact Ralph Wilkinson, Head of Public Services on 020 8314 6040 or Selwyn Thompson, Assistant Strategic Finance Consultant on 020 8314 6932.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 124 MEETING Mayor & Cabinet ITEM No. REPORT TITLE Best Value Review Making Lewisham a cleaner, greener place – Waste Managment – Scoping Document KEY DECISION Yes – To agree the Scope for the Waste Management Best Value Review. CONTRIBUTORS Executive Director for Regeneration
CLASS Agenda Part 1 DATE 31st July 2002
POLICY CONTEXT
The Local Government Act 1999 requires authorities to make arrangements to ensure the continuous improvement of services with regard to a combination of Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Equalities and Environmental Impact. Lewisham Council has also decided to focus on Electronic Service delivery to reach our 100% target by April 2004.
The Council is required to carry out a fundamental review of its services. The review for “Making Lewisham a cleaner and greener place – Waste Management” is one of 6 ‘cross-cutting’ thematic Best Value Reviews being undertaken by the Council in 2002/03.
All Best Value Reviews programmed for 2002/03 will be subject to external inspection on completion.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
To seek the Mayor and Cabinet approval on the scope and project plan for the Best Value Review for “Making Lewisham a cleaner and greener place – Waste Management”.
RECOMMENDATIONS That the Mayor and Cabinet agree:
The scope of the review as set out in paragraph 4.1.
The project plan and the intended completion date for the review are as set out in paragraph 4.2.3.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 125 BACKGROUND. Scope of the Best Value Review The review will examine all key aspects of the council’s waste management. It will investigate the council’s role, strategy, management arrangements, contracts and informal agreements, performance and associated costs around waste minimisation, recycling, collection and disposal. The review will include an examination of each of the following service areas: • Domestic Waste • Trade Waste, including the Blackheath Glass Scheme and the supply side opportunities • Market Waste (Lewisham, Deptford & Catford) • Fly tips and dumping • Enforcement • Lumber collection, on and off council estates • Street Cleansing, i.e. the disposal of arising • The Civic Amenities Site • Recycling Banks • Kerbside recycling • Green Waste including Grounds Maintenance waste and pilot kerbside schemes • Waste disposal, SELCHP & Non SELCHP • Funding opportunities including Landfill Tax Credits • MRF (Material Recycling Facility)
The review will not look at: • Hazardous and Clinical waste, because of their specialist nature or • The council’s own office waste as this is currently being examined under a separate exercise.
Aim and objectives of the review
To work with citizens, partners and other key stakeholders to develop a 5-year waste strategy, with clear objectives, service standards and a ‘SMART’2 action plan for delivery.
To ensure that services and all contractual/informal arrangements for the collection and disposal of waste are the most efficient and cost effective.
To establish effective arrangements that ensure Lewisham’s performance, in terms of waste management, is among the best in London (at least top quartile), by no later than 31 March 2007 and meets or exceeds statutory minimisation and recycling targets within the given time-scales.
2 SMART = Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Resourced, Time-framed c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 126 To involve local people and other key stakeholders in decisions on waste and work with them to establish clear service standards and promote and develop effective local arrangements for waste minimisation and recycling.
To fully investigate the opportunities and benefits of extended partnerships, consortia and working with community groups.
To work with local businesses to raise awareness of sustainable waste management, assist businesses to improve their waste management and reduce waste generated.
To establish effective processes, systems and controls that provide clear and timely management information on performance, costs, income/expenditure/budgets, volumes/trends/projections, complaints and customer satisfaction.
The purpose of this best value review is to make a real, positive and demonstrable difference to the service on the ground, over the next five years. The review team will produce recommendations and an improvement plan to get services to be the best in London with regard to the six 'E's of: • Economy, • Efficiency • Effectiveness • Equalities • Environmental Impact • Electronic Services, 100% on-line by 2004
To ensure the review is undertaken in accordance with best value requirements, the five 'C's and Council's review programme and methodology. The five 'C's • Challenge • Consult • Compare • Compete • Collaboration
Benefit Statement, The benefits of this review will be:
A waste and sustainability strategy to ensure the development of services which meet current user needs and anticipates future needs, delivered within the budget allocation.
An, ambitious, innovative, resourced and sustainable improvement plan which will drive forward the Council's management of waste for the next five years and beyond.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 127 Arrangements that are efficient and cost effective with clear, accurate and meaningful management information about each element of the service in terms of volume, performance and cost.
Enhanced engagement with citizens, partners and other key stakeholders and further establishes the council’s role as a community leader and steward of the local environment.
Management of the Review
This will be managed and steered by the review team and is scheduled for completion by 25th September 2002. The team meets weekly to update and report progress and plan future action. This will ensure that the review delivers on time and provides appropriate and specific recommendations and an implementation plan, which are measurable and sustainable over the medium term.
Key Milestones – The key milestones for this review have been set out in the table below.
The key stages and milestones planned for the project are as follows:
STAGE KEY MILESTONE Timescale 1 Scope & Project Plan Kick-start session and Completed end of May 1st Stage Inspection 2002 2 Scope & Project Plan Scope & Project Plan 31st July 2002 signed off by Mayor and Cabinet 3 Diagnostic Information To be completed by mid gathering and August 2002 Diagnostic 4 Diagnostic & Options Diagnostic analysis Before the end of August and initial options appraisals 5Options & Options and September 02 Recommendations Recommendations report signed off by Mayor and Cabinet 6 Recommendations Improvement Plan October ‘02 and Improvement signed off by Plan Executive
Reporting arrangements – To ensure that sufficient scrutiny and member involvement takes place throughout the review process, progress on the review in standard format reports will be made as follows:
• Monthly to the Corporate Best Value Review Group • Monthly to the Project Managers Group c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 128 • Bi-monthly to Mayor and Cabinet • On request to the Executive Lead
The Review Team
The review team comprises the following members and is organised in accordance with the Lewisham Council’s Best Value guidance, with each representative having key roles and responsibilities.
ROLE NAME Review Sponsor Cllr Chris Best Cabinet Member for Environmental Services Chair of the Review Pat Hayes Internal Challenger Cathy Rooney Internal Challenger (Finance) Richard Ellis Head of Service Nigel Tyrell Service Manager Rachel Goldsmith Service Manager Michael Bryan Service Manager Beth Sowden Compliance and Project Support Robert Marsh External Challenger Keith Reily OYNX External Challenger Stephen Mcdonnell, GLA External Challenger Ben Metz, London Community Recycling Network BEM & Quality Advisor Wendy Nicholas Equalities Advisor Yasmin Ahmed Project Manager Mark Baptist
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There will be some direct costs incurred in carrying out the review. These can be met from existing budget allocations. The indirect costs of this review will largely consist of officer time, and will be monitored closely on a monthly basis by the Project Manager.
The total cost of the review process and review implementation will be covered in later reports to the Mayor and Cabinet meeting and Executive Committee.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local authorities are obliged to make arrangements to ensure the continuous improvement of services in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1999. The Council has drawn up a planned cycle of service reviews in order to comply with the legislation and this review should be conducted in accordance with that plan.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 129 CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS The review will cover crime and disorder issues, with regards to enforcement across each service area within the scope of the review.
HUMAN RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS There are no human resources implications arising directly from this report. An indication of the human resources implications of the review will be considered as part of future reports on options and recommendations.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The impact of the review on the environment is one of the 6 E’s of Best Value. The environmental issues will be considered as part of the overall review process.
EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS The Equalities implications are one of the 6 E’s of Best Value. This Review is being supported by an officer from Regeneration’s Equalities Unit, who will provide guidance and advice in relation to equalities issues. As part of the review process, the Team will conduct an audit of the services covered in the scope of this review against the new equality standard.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short title of document Date of Location Referen Contact document ce Officer Equalities Sub 9th Jan Governa N/A Clare Committee – 2002 nce Weaser Lewisham’s Support Performance Plan 2002/03 Executive Committee 20th Feb Governa N/A Mike – Best Value Reviews: 2002 nce Brown Information Item Support
For more information about this report, please contact Pat Hayes, Executive Director for Regeneration on 020 8314 8001 Mark Baptist, Best Value Review Project Manager on 020 8314 6829
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 130 MEETING Mayor & Cabinet ITEM No. REPORT TITLE Best Value Review - Improving Lewisham’s streets, estates and parks – Scope and project plan
KEY DECISION Yes – To agree the Scope and project plan for the ‘Streetscene’ Best Value Review. CONTRIBUTORS Executive Director for Regeneration
CLASS Agenda Part 1 DATE 31st July 2002
POLICY CONTEXT The Local Government Act 1999 requires authorities to make arrangements to ensure the continuous improvement of services with regard to a combination of Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Equalities and Environmental Impact. Lewisham Council has decided to also focus on Electronic Service delivery to reach its target of 100% of all services available electronically, by April 2004 target.
The Council is required to carry out a fundamental review of its services. The review for “Making Lewisham a cleaner and greener place – Improving Lewisham’s streets, estates and parks” is one of 6 ‘cross-cutting’ and thematic Best Value Reviews being undertaken by the Council in 2002/03.
All Best Value Reviews programmed for 2002/03 will be subject to external inspection.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT To seek the Mayor and Cabinet approval on the scope and project plan for the Best Value Review for “Making Lewisham a cleaner and greener place” – “Improving Lewisham’s streets, estates and parks”.
RECOMMENDATIONS That the Mayor and Cabinet agree:
The scope of the review as set out in paragraph 0.
The project plan and the intended completion date for the review are as set out in paragraph 0.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 131 BACKGROUND. Scope of the Best Value Review
The review will examine all key areas associated with the maintenance, well being and improvement of streets, estates and parks. It will investigate the council’s role, how it develops policy, lobbies with external agencies, works with partners, engages with the community and helps educate pupils and citizens. The review will explore each of the following service areas: • Street sweeping, (inc. washing, mechanisation) • Weed control • Market cleaning • Car park cleaning • Caretaking (estates and communal grounds, not inside blocks) • Play areas on estates • Pest control (inc. pigeon proofing railway bridges) • Graffiti and fly-poster removal • Cleansing of private shop frontages • Encroachment by traders • Environmental enforcement • Abandoned and untaxed vehicles (on streets and estates) • Railway stations and utilities land/property
• Parks and Grounds maintenance service (Glendale contract) • Arboricultural services • Allotment service • Nature conservation
The review will not look at street lighting or highway maintenance (including potholes) which will be covered by the ‘Getting around Lewisham - Integrated Transport reviews’ to be carried out in 2004/5. The Waste review will explore lumber collection, fly tips and dumping.
AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW
The purpose of best value reviews is to make a real, positive and demonstrable difference to the service on the ground over the next five years and beyond. To achieve this the review will produce recommendations and an improvement plan to get services to be among the best in London with regard to the six 'E's i.e. • Economy, • Efficiency • Effectiveness • Equalities • Environmental Impact • Electronic Services, 100% on-line by 2004
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 132 To ensure the review is undertaken in accordance with best value requirements, the five 'C's of Best Value and the Council's own review methodology. The five 'C's:
• Challenge • Consult • Compare • Compete • Collaboration
To ensure that arrangements for the cleansing service, are among the most efficient and cost effective.
To ensure that arrangements for the management of abandoned and untaxed vehicles are efficient, cost effected and sustainable within existing budgets.
To establish arrangements that ensure Lewisham’s performance is among the best in London (at least top quartile), by no later than 31 March 2007 and meets or exceeds any statutory targets within the given time-scales.
To involve local people and other key stakeholders in decisions about the services under review.
To establish effective processes, systems and controls that provide clear and timely management information on performance, costs, income/expenditure/budgets, volumes/trends/projections, complaints and customer satisfaction.
BENEFIT STATEMENT. The benefits of this project will be:
An, ambitious, innovative, resourced and sustainable improvement plan which will drive forward the Council's management of its streets, estates and parks for the next five years and beyond.
Better and clearer information about each service area, about volumes, performance, etc. Services effectively managed within the given budget allocation.
KEY STAGES AND MILESTONES The key stages and milestones for this review have been set out in the table below.
STAGE KEY MILESTONE Timescale 1 Scope & Project Plan Kick-start session and Completed end May 1st Stage Inspection 2002 2 Scope & Project Plan Scope & Project Plan 31st July 2002 signed off by Mayor c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 133 and Cabinet 3 Diagnostic Information To be completed by mid gathering and August 2002 Diagnostic 4 Diagnostic & Options Diagnostic analysis Before the end of August. and initial options appraisals 5Options & Options and September ‘02 Recommendations Recommendations report signed off by Mayor and Cabinet 6 Recommendations Improvement Plan October 02 and Improvement signed off by Plan Executive
REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS – To ensure that sufficient scrutiny and member involvement takes place throughout the review process, progress on the review in standard format reports will be made as follows:
• Monthly to the Corporate Best Value Review Group • Monthly to the Project Managers Group • Bi-monthly to Mayor and Cabinet • On request to the Executive Lead
THE REVIEW TEAM The review team comprises the following members and is organised in accordance with the Lewisham Council’s Best Value guidance, with each representative having key roles and responsibilities.
ROLE NAME Review Sponsor Cllr Chris Best Cabinet Member for Environmental Services Chair of the Review Nigel Tyrell Internal Challenger To be confirmed Service Manager John Thompson Service Manager Kevin Moore Service Manager Emma Broom Service Manager Gerry McAneney BEM & Quality Advisor Kevin Goodhew Compliance and Project Support Steve Luckham External Challenger To be confirmed Equalities Advisor Yasmin Ahmed Project Manager Mark Baptist
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 134 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The review will incur some direct costs that can be met from the existing Best Value review budget.
The indirect costs of this review will largely consist of officer time, and will be monitored closely on a monthly basis by the Project Manager.
The total cost of the review process and review implementation will be covered in later reports to the Mayor and Cabinet meeting and Executive Committee.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local authorities are obliged to make arrangements to ensure the continuous improvement of services in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1999. The Council has drawn up a planned cycle of service reviews in order to comply with the legislation and this review should be conducted in accordance with that plan.
CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS The review will cover crime and disorder issues, with regards to enforcement across each service area within the scope of the review.
HUMAN RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS There are no human resources implications arising directly from this report. An indication of the human resources implications of the review will be considered as part of future reports on options and recommendations.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The impact of the review on the environment is one of the 6 E’s of Best Value. The environmental issues will be considered as part of the overall review process.
EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS The Equalities implications are one of the 6 E’s of Best Value. This Review is being supported by an officer from Regeneration’s Equalities Unit, who will provide guidance and advice in relation to equalities issues. As part of the review process, the Team will conduct an audit of the services covered in the scope of this review against the new equality standard.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 135 BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short title of document Date of Location Referen Contact document ce Officer Equalities Sub 9th Jan Governa N/A Clare Committee – 2002 nce Weaser Lewisham’s Support Performance Plan 2002/03 Executive Committee 20th Feb Governa N/A Mike – Best Value Reviews: 2002 nce Brown Information Item Support
For more information about this report, please contact Pat Hayes, Executive Director for Regeneration on 020 8314 8001 Mark Baptist, Best Value Review Project Manager on 020 8314 6829
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 136 MEETING Mayor and Cabinet ITEM No. REPORT TITLE Best Value Review “Creating a better informed Lewisham – Scoping Document KEY DECISION Yes – To agree the scope for the Best Value Review for “Creating a better informed Lewisham” CONTRIBUTORS Executive Director for Resources and Deputy Chief Executive CLASS Agenda I DATE: 31 July 2002
POLICY CONTEXT The Local Government Act 1999 requires authorities to make arrangements to ensure the continuous improvement of services with regard to a combination of Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Equalities and Environmental Impact. Lewisham Council has also decided to focus on E Service delivery to reach our target of 100% by 2004. The Council is required to carry out a fundamental review of all its services every five years. The “Creating a better informed Lewisham” review is one of six “cross cutting” thematic Best Value Reviews being undertaken by the Council in 2002/03. Best Value Reviews are subject to external inspection on completion of the review. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To seek the Mayors and Cabinets approval on the scope and project plan for the Best Value Review “Creating a better informed Lewisham”.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 137 RECOMMENDATIONS That the Mayor and Cabinet agree: The scope of the review as set out in paragraph 4.3 The project plan and the intended completion date for the review as set out in paragraph 4. BACKGROUND Scope of review The “Creating a better informed Lewisham” is a cross cutting review looking at how we communicate both internally and externally. Communication is something carried out Council wide. The review is therefore not concerned with particular services; instead it will look at the different ways in which stakeholders of the Council (both internal and external to the organisation) communicate. The review will subject the ways in which we communicate to the 5 C’s and 6 E’s of Best Value and will ultimately come up with a set of recommendations and an improvement plan for measurable, sustainable and continuous improvement for communication over the next 5 years.
The aims and objectives of the review are to:-
• Identify and improve current methods of communication to ensure that all stakeholders of the Council, both internal and external, are kept properly informed. This will also include the identification of new methods of communicating, designed to offer our audiences the widest possible range of ways to interface with the council. This will not only enhance the image of the Council but increase public confidence in the organisations ability to provide appropriate and timely information. • Identify and analyse the links between consultation and communications strategy and activity • Improve the image of the customer interface ensuring what is communicated and how it is communicated at front line points provide a positive image of the Council. • Improve the accessibility of information, in line with the Council’s Social Inclusion and Equality Policy objectives. • Improve the cost effectiveness of the way in which we communicate and identifying ways to procure services more effectively. • Redefine a corporate identity to establish consistent standards.
The review will cover the following areas:-
• Internal Communications - how staff are kept informed, involved and motivated via briefings and staff magazines etc, how this knowledge is managed the effectiveness of methods of communication and identification of other potential methods of communication. c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 138 • External Communications – the major ways in which the Council communicates externally directly and indirectly, with residents and the wider community and the standards that exist to support these areas. This will include the media, Lewisham Life, area networking and all forms of direct interface with the Council. • Image of the customer interface – what is communicated and how it is communicated in front line points by the quality and character of both the reception areas and the approach of front line staff. • Accessibility of information – how accessible and understandable is our information and communication in general and what does the Council do to ensure that the adaptations are made to meet the changing needs of the Community. • Presenting a positive image of Lewisham- how does the Council ensure that it presents a relevant, positive image of itself e.g. branding, positive media coverage, marketing, good internal communication. • Web and intranet – what information does the Council currently include, in what format and what should be changed to ensure that the web and intranet are informative, up to date, accessible, appealing and helping the Council to maximise the number of service delivered electronically from 2004. • Communications and Marketing - the strategic direction and support provided by The Communications and Marketing Unit to members, officers and other stakeholders. • Procurement of services – how does the Council currently procure marketing services e.g. design and printing and how could these be more effectively procured. This will include exploring the possibility of entering into corporate contracts for services secured at directorate level.
The scope of the review has been drawn up by the review team, expanding on the initial ideas put forward by the Corporate Best Value Team. In addition criticisms of Best Value Reviews of communication in other authorities (as indicated in inspection reports) were considered to ensure the same mistakes weren’t repeated with this review.
Management of the review
The review will be undertaken by the review team and is scheduled for completion Late September. Fortnightly team meetings are held to report on progress and to plan tasks for the future. In addition awaydays will be scheduled at certain milestones throughout the review.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 139 A project plan has also been drawn up and will be used to monitor progress and identify potential slippage so as corrective action can be taken. Bi monthly reports will also be submitted to the Mayor and Cabinet Board. The key milestones of the review are identified in the table below and are also included in the PID.
STAGE KEY MILESTONE DATE Scope Report signed off by the Late July Mayor and Cabinet Diagnostic Internal report to the Best Late August Value Review Group Options Internal report to the Best Mid Value Review Group September Recommendations Report signed off by the Late and Improvement Executive Committee September Plan
The Review Team The review team is detailed in the table below and follows the format detailed in Lewisham’s Best Value Guidance. Further detail on the role of team members is contained in the PID.
ROLE RESPONSIBILITY Sponsor Cllr Alyson McGarigle – Cabinet Member for Culture Chair Fiona Nicol – Head of Communications Project Manager Annabel Adams – Resources Service Managers Richard Rose – Chief Executives Von Edomi – Chief Executives Internal Challenger Kevin Sheehan – Education & Culture Critical Friend Mary Lynch – Regeneration Compliance & Liz Hakim – Resources Project Support Equalities Elizabeth Scalter – Resources External Challenger Marina Pirotta MPC Ltd (NB subject to funding being agreed) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There will be direct costs incurred in carrying out the review process the exact value of which are currently being determined. The costs will be met from the Corporate Best Value budget. The total cost of the review and recommendations will be reported to the Mayor and Cabinet in subsequent reports. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Local authorities are obliged to review services in accordance with a statutory 5-year cycle in order to comply with the requirements of the Local Government c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 140 Act 1999. The Council has drawn up a planned cycle of service reviews in order to comply with the legislation and this review should be conducted in accordance with that plan. CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS There are currently no direct crime and disorder implications identified with this review. Any implications identified in the future will be reported on in subsequent reports. HUMAN RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS There are no human resource issues arising from this report. Any human resource implications arising from the review will be reported on in subsequent reports. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The impact of the review on the environment is one of the 6 E’s of Best Value. The environmental issues will be considered as part of the overall process.
EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS Equalities implications are one of the 6 E’s of Best Value. The review is being supported by a member of the Council’s equalities unit who will provide guidance on equalities issues throughout the review. As part of the review process an audit of communication will be undertaken against the equality standard. BACKGROUND PAPERS None
For more information about this report please contact Annabel Adams, Group Manager Strategic Finance and Advice on 020 8314 3589.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 141 MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title CONSULTATION RESULTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INTRODUCTORY TENANCIES AND TENANCY CHARGES Key Decision YES Item No.
Ward All
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR REGENERATION/HEAD OF LAW
Class Part 1 Date: 31 JULY 2002
1. Summary
1.1 The report details consultation on the proposal to change the existing Tenancy Agreement for secure Council tenants to strengthen various elements, particularly with regard to responsibilities and nuisance issues, and asks members with due regard to the views expressed to consider adopting these changes with effect from 1st October 2002.
1.2 The report also details the proposal to create Introductory Tenancies for all new tenants as from October this year, which would positively reinforce to new tenants the standards of conduct required and aim to create a culture where tenants are fully aware of their responsibilities. These proposals were consulted on with a range of stakeholders, including secure council tenants, applicants on our housing register and agencies involved in anti-social behaviour, along with voluntary agencies who provide legal and other advice. A majority of those responding were in favour of the creation of this type of tenancy and the report asks members approval to create these new tenancies.
2. Purpose
To report back on the results of consultation and to seek approval to make the changes to the existing Tenancy Agreement, and to implement Introductory Tenancies.
3. Recommendations
The Mayor is asked to –
3.1 consider the views of secure tenants following the consultation on the changes to the existing Tenancy Agreement, as shown in detail in Appendix B;
3.2 agree that Officers implement these changes with effect from 1st October c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 142 2002, and that all secure tenants are given 4 weeks notice of these changes;
3.3 consider the views of tenants, housing applicants and other stakeholders following the consultation on Introductory Tenancies as shown in detail in Appendix C; and
3.4 agree that Officers implement this type of tenancy as from October 2002.
4. Narrative
4.1 Policy Context: Under the Housing Act 1985, all tenancies of Council properties are secure tenancies (with some limited exceptions). Secure tenancies can only be terminated against the wishes of the secure tenant by a County Court Order. The 18 grounds for terminating such tenancies are set out in the Housing Act 1985 and cover a range of matters from rent arrears and causing nuisance or annoyance to neighbours to redevelopment reasons. However, even where an authority has satisfied the court that a ground for possession exists, the court has discretion whether or not to order possession on the basis of whether it is reasonable to do so in 14 out of the 18 grounds.
4.2 The Housing Act 1996 Section 124 gives local authorities discretionary powers to establish introductory tenancy schemes. If an authority decides to establish a scheme, then all new tenancies granted by the authority which would otherwise have been secure tenancies will be introductory tenancies (subject to certain exemptions). The Council’s election to operate the scheme could be revoked at any time, without prejudice to the Council re-establishing a new scheme in the future. If the scheme were revoked, introductory tenants would automatically be converted to secure tenancies.
4.3 Currently there are two key documents issued by Government for consultation that relate to the two issues contained in this report. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM, previously the DTLR), are currently seeking views on enabling all social landlords (including RSL’s) being able to undertake a range of measures to combat anti-social behaviour, through their proposals contained in “Tackling Anti-social Behaviour” consultation document. Whilst some of the proposals are unlikely to come into effect for some time, the documents relay the priority the Government is giving to dealing with anti-social behaviour issues, the creation of introductory tenancies is completely within the policy background to the current consultation documents.
4.4 In addition to this, the Law Commission are consulting all social landlords on a range of proposals to create one ‘social’ tenancy – instead of the current arrangement of secure and assured tenancy; along with strengthening items in relation to what they call ‘type 2’ tenancies which c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 143 include the private sector. Again, it is unlikely that these proposals will come into effect for some time, and they do not contradict the proposals for Lewishams’ Tenancy Agreement at this time.
4.5 Existing Tenancy Agreement . The current Tenancy Agreement was last reviewed and consulted on in 1999 with minor changes being made and implemented in October 2000. A number of small amendments that Officers considered would strengthen the existing Agreement, and therefore required consultation with all secure council tenants. Members agreed on 3 April 2002, to delegate approval of the minor amendments to the Executive Director of Regeneration and the Head of Law, for consultation purposes, the amendments are contained in Appendix A.
4.6 The amendments strengthen a range of issues across the Tenancy Agreement from clarifying responsibilities especially with regard to vacating a property, through to addressing specific issues around potential nuisance – abandoned vehicles and infestation.
4.7 Introductory tenancies were originally introduced to help authorities tackle nuisance and anti-social behaviour. However, in practice they can also be used to tackle other breaches of tenancy such as rent arrears or damage to property. Introductory tenancies alone will not prevent nuisance and intimidation but they can be an effective element within an authorities overall strategy for tackling anti-social behaviour.
4.8 To date, about a third of all authorities operate an introductory tenancy scheme. Whilst the number of tenants that are evicted during the ‘trial period’ is small, many authorities have found introductory tenancies very useful in positively reinforcing to new tenants the standards of conduct required and in creating a culture where tenants are fully aware of their responsibilities.
4.9 On 3 April 2002 Executive Committee agreed to consult a range of stakeholders on the creation of an introductory tenancy scheme in Lewisham. Introductory tenancies enable a tenancy to be ended by the courts in its first 12 months if the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement, without the Council having to prove the grounds for possession in a court of law. This scheme would apply to all new council tenancies in Lewisham with limited exceptions, relating largely to where the new tenant was a secure or assured tenant of a registered social landlord immediately prior to the grant of the new tenancy.
4.10 If no action is taken within the first 12 months, the tenancy would automatically become a secure tenancy.
4.11 The Differences between Introductory and Secure Tenancies
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 144 Introductory tenancies have similar but not the same statutory rights as secure tenants. The differences are summarised in the table below:
Legal Right Secure Introductory tenants tenants Right to succession Y Y Right to repair Y Y Right to be consulted on housing YY management issues Right to assign Y Y Right to Buy Y N – but the IT period counts towards the discount. Right to take in lodgers Y N Right to sublet Y N Right to improve Y N Right to exchange Y N Right to transfer to a new landlord Y N Right to be consulted on decision YY to delegate housing management
Right to participate in housing YY management contract monitoring
However, it is possible to grant approval on a discretionary basis to requests from introductory tenants to improve their property, exchange tenancies and take in lodger’s.
4.12 Ending an Introductory Tenancy
4.12.1 If a scheme were to be established, clear guidance would be produced for staff on the type of breaches of tenancy that might lead to action being taken to end the tenancy. Arrangements would also be put into place to assist those who are vulnerable or have special needs and to ensure that introductory tenants themselves are not subject to discriminatory complaints.
4.12.2 To bring an introductory tenancy to an end an authority must first serve a notice of possession proceedings on the tenant stating the reasons for the action and the date after which proceedings may commence.
4.12.3 Where a decision to end the tenancy is made, the tenant has the right to have this decision reviewed by an officer senior to the one who made the decision to evict. There are regulations in place that authorities must apply when conducting a review. If the review upholds the original decision, the authority may commence proceedings for possession. Once c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 145 the court proceedings to end the tenancy have commenced, the ‘trial period’ is extended until the courts have determined the application
4.12.4 Providing that the court has satisfied itself that the notice and review procedures have been followed correctly, the court must grant possession of the property.
5. Consultation
5.1 Following approval in April by Executive Committee to consult, Officers commenced a series of consultation to engage stakeholders views. The consultation on these two issues is described below, along with a summary of the feedback.
5.2 Proposed Tenancy Agreement changes:
Views of all secure council tenants were sought through a direct mailing exercise in late May to all 29,895 households, asking for responses by 1July 2002. A significant number responded, higher than previous returns, with 132 responses, of which 75% were in favour of the proposed changes, 8% against, and some 17% expressed views that were not directly related to the consultation.
Views are summarised in Appendix B, along with a response from the Head of Housing to specific issues raised.
5.3 Creation of Introductory Tenancies:
The consultation included inviting views from a number of stakeholders, existing secure tenants, applicants on the housing register, along with a number of agencies who could have views, including the police. This was undertaken through a direct mailing exercise in late May with responses to be returned by 1 July 2002.
Of the various stakeholders responding to this issue –
Secure tenants responding to the tenancy agreement change also responded to this issue, with 75% in favour of the creation of Introductory Tenancies, 8% were against, other responses were not directly related to the consultation.
Applicants on the housing register responded with 77% in favour, 2% against and 21% not relating directly to the issue, in all 296 applicants, which is 6% of the overall register.
Other respondents included the police, law centre and voluntary agencies working in this field, a majority were in favour.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 146 Details of the responses are contained in Appendix C, along with a response from the Head of Housing to issues that were raised in the individual responses.
6. Proposals
6.1 Tenancy Agreement. The Mayor is asked to consider adopting the proposed changes, taking due regard of the views expressed of secure council tenants as show in Appendix B, of which the majority are in favour of the changes. If agreed, these changes could be implemented with effect from 1 October 2002, as part of the implementation process, all secure tenants would be given the statutory 4 weeks notice of these changes.
6.2 Introductory Tenancy. The Mayor is asked to note the views expressed by the various stakeholders, of which a majority were in favour of the proposal to create introductory tenancies. If agreed, these tenancies could be brought into effect from October this year.
6.3 Project planning has been put into place to be able to deliver Introductory Tenancies in the timescale suggested, this includes development of the in-house ICT systems, procedure manual updates, staff training, and revised documentation including the Tenancy Agreement itself for this purpose. Along with putting in place robust procedures to ensure that there are effective safeguards for residents who are on an Introductory Tenancy, and an Appeal mechanism if action was taken again them. This planning has been undertaken by officers in conjunction with legal services. Due regard has been taken of previous legal cases, the Human Rights Act and the implications of the Race Relations Amendment Act.
7. Environmental implications
There are no specific implications.
8. Financial implications
There are no specific implications to this report. The development of Introductory Tenancies, the consultation on both issues and the implementation can be contained within existing budgets.
9. Legal Implications
9.1 Secure tenants are entitled to be consulted on significant changes in housing management. The consultation must be in accordance with the Council's consultation scheme published pursuant to section 105 of the Housing Act 1985. Under the Tenants’ Participation Compact, the Executive has recently amended the previous consultation scheme. The consultation process used was targeted at all secure tenants and will c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 147 meet the Council's obligations under the Housing Act 1985 and go further to include other interested individuals and organisations.
9.2 Adequate safeguards will need to be put in place to protect the interests of the vulnerable and socially disadvantaged, as well as to monitor and assess the impact of the policy on the Council's obligations under its community safety plan, and under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
10. Human Rights Act
10.1 The compatibility of introductory tenancies with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has already been tested (R v Bracknell Forest DC & Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions, ex parte Johns & Anor, 2001). The judgement ruled that the introductory tenancy regime was not incompatible with - Article 6 (right to a fair trial); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
10.2 The decisions to serve a notice of possession proceedings and any subsequent review decision must be in accordance with sound administrative law and natural justice principles, and are therefore capable of being judicially reviewed.
11. Equality Implications
11.1 As previously outlined, safeguards will be put into place to protect the interests of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups who may get a tenancy with Lewisham.
11.2 However, in general terms the Introductory Tenancy will build upon Lewisham's vision of better quality homes and safer communities, particular for those who may be the target of anti-social behaviour.
12. Conclusion
12.1 Following consultation on both items, it is concluded that views expressed by secure council tenants show a majority are in favour of the changes to tenancy agreement. In respect of the creation of introductory tenancies, again views expressed by the range of stakeholders including applicants on the housing register, show a majority in favour of progressing this.
12.2 It is recommended that the Mayor considers the adoption and implementation of the tenancy changes taking due regard of tenants views; and agree the creation of introductory tenancies.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 148 BACKGROUND PAPERS
Consultation on Introductory Tenancies and proposed Tenancy Agreement changes -Executive Committee Report 3 April 2002
If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Lynch, Head of Housing Policy, 020 8314 6407, or Peter Ghin, Project Manager 020 8314 9984.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 149 MAYOR AND CABINET 31 JULY 2002 APPENDIX A ITEM NO.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO TENANCY AGREEMENT
Section B: General Conditions
Change paragraph 4 from:
4. If, when you die, someone has a right to succeed to the tenancy, they must write and tell us right away.
To:
4. You must notify the Council in writing within 28 days of any long-term change in the persons who are living in the property. Other members of the household should let us know if the tenant dies. If, when the tenant dies, someone thinks they may have the right to succeed to the tenancy, they must write and tell us within 28 days and we will then assess their circumstances.
Change the last sentence in paragraph 6 from:
6. You are absolutely prohibited from assigning the tenancy except in the following circumstances: (a) by way of mutual exchange; (b) under a property adjustment order obtained in matrimonial proceedings; (c) to a person qualified to succeed to the tenancy in the event of your dying; - . (d) under an order made in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Children’s Act 1989. In situation (a), you must obtain the Council’s previous written consent to the assignment; this consent will not be unreasonably refused. In situation (b) and (c), the Council must be notified of the change and the details of the new tenant.
To: In situation (b), (c) and (d), the Council must be notified of the change and the details of the new tenant.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 150 Section C: Return of Keys
Paragraph 3 - currently says:
3. You must leave the property clear of rubbish and belongings. Any goods or belongings left in the property after the tenancy has been terminated will be removed and disposed of as appropriate. The Council will charge you for the cost of removing and disposing of any rubbish, goods or belongings.
Add the following wording to end of paragraph 3:
If you request the Council to store items of furniture or goods from your home, we will do so for up to 28 days before disposing of them. If furniture and goods are found in your home after you have left, the Council may exercise its discretion to store such property for a period up to 28 days, after which it will be disposed of. The Council will charge you for the cost of storage.
Add the following two paragraphs
4. The Council reserves the right to recover all repair costs incurred as a result of damage, to your property.
5. In the event you end your tenancy, or abandon your property, leaving other persons in occupation who have no legal right to be there, the Council has the right to recover from you any loss of rent and legal costs spent in evicting these people.
Section E: Tenants' right to information
Add new sentence at end of paragraph 2
2. You are welcome to inspect information held on your housing file in accordance with relevant legislation. You cannot insist on obtaining details of information, which, by reason of its nature, is exempt from disclosure (e.g. information provided by or relating to other tenants). No charge will be made for inspecting your file.
Add A charge may be levied for copying documents from your file.
Section F: c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 151 Neighbourly Conduct
Add a new paragraph in section 1. Tenants' responsibility:
1.4 You must not run a business or trade from your home without first obtaining written permission from your local housing office. We will not refuse permission unless we feel that the business is likely to cause a nuisance to other people, or damage your home or adjacent property. If we do give permission to run a business from your home and it causes a nuisance, we will withdraw permission. Change paragraph 4.3 of section 4. Motor vehicles
3.3 You, or any person living in or visiting your home, must not in the locality, park an untaxed or unroadworthy vehicle except in a garage or on your personal driveway.
Add the following at end of paragraph 3.3.
If circumstances arise that you have good reason to store an untaxed vehicle on council property, then you must obtain the Council’s written consent for such storage. Such consent will not be unreasonable withheld provided you:
• prove that a SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) declaration has been sent to the DVLA; • a copy of that declaration is forwarded to the housing office and the Councils’ abandoned vehicles section; and • a copy of the declaration is clearly displayed on the driver’s side of the vehicles’ dashboard.
If any of these conditions are not met the vehicle will be treated as untaxed, and may be removed and destroyed.
Add new paragraph under section 5. Animals
5.6 You, or any person living in or visiting your home, must not feed pigeons, squirrels and other vermin either at the your home or in the communal areas.
Section G: Repairs, works of improvement and cleansing
Add new sentence to end of paragraph 2
2. You must give all authorised employees and agents of the Council (subject to them producing evidence of identity) all reasonable access to your home to inspect or carry out any work, including improvement work, that may be necessary to the property or in the interests of other or future tenants and at all times must co-operate with the Council’s caretaking, maintenance and cleaning staff in the performance of their duties. The Council will give at least 24 hours’ notice of its c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 152 intention to enter the property except in cases of emergency when forcible entry may be required.
Add The Council will be entitled to recover from you any costs associated with your failure to provide reasonable access for such works.
Section H: Care of dwelling
Change paragraph 3 from
3. You must pay the Council any expenses it incurs in carrying out any repairs or special cleaning or clearance arising from your breach of this section.
To:
3. You must pay the Council any expenses or loss of rental income it incurs in carrying out any repairs or special cleaning or clearance arising from your breach of this section.
Add two new paragraphs -
6. You must not keep inflammable materials, liquids or gases in your home other than may be reasonably required for domestic use or do anything, which might cause a fire, flood or other damage to your home or nearby properties.
7. You must not use or store dangerous or offensive substances in the communal areas or garden of your home.
Section I Improvements and decorations
Change paragraph 1.(d) from:
1. (d) Any damage caused to the property, or neighbouring property or communal areas or services of the Council is repaired by you to the satisfaction of the Council or repair of such damage is paid for by you.
Change to:
1 (d) Any damage caused to the property, or unauthorised alterations to the property, neighbouring property or communal areas or services of the Council is repaired by you to the satisfaction of the Council or repair of such damage is paid for by you. c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 153 Insert a new 'notes' section at the end of the Tenancy Agreement - the following notes will be inserted:
Note: i. Any correspondence with the London Borough of Lewisham in relation to your Tenancy Agreement should be made via your local housing office, as below (or otherwise advised):
………address to be filled in………. ii. The definition of Council in this document covers all managing agents who may from time to time manage homes or repair contracts on behalf of the Council. iii. The period of 'a week' in this Agreement for rent and tenancy purposes is from Monday to Sunday inclusive.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 154 SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES TO PROPOSED CHANGES OF TENANCY CONDITIONS Tena Section nt ref. Views expressed Comments from Head of Housing no. As the Council usually relies on household/family Felt that it would be better if the Council members to inform them of any deaths, it is not sent a letter to the bereaved if the 28-day possible for the Council to send letters stating that T4 period had elapsed and no contact was the 28-day notice period has ended. The onus will made (regarding the right to succeed) always remain with the household/family and extend it a further 14 days. members to inform of any individual’s rights to succeed the tenancy. B 4 According to the Housing Act 1985 Section 87, a T59 Does not agree that the Council should person can only succeed a tenancy after the assess eligibility of individuals wanting to tenant’s death if: succeed a tenancy. a) they are the tenant’s spouse, or b) they are another member of the tenant’s family that has resided with the tenant throughout the period of 12 months ending with the tenant’s death. The local manager, however, may use their discretion in some cases, which is why it is important that the Council perform an assessment.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 155 B6 - No comments received. -
Under the Local Government Miscellaneous T37 Felt that tenants should not be charged Provision Act 1982, the Council has a legal duty to C3 for the cost of storage unless they had store valuable goods for a period of a calendar specifically asked for their goods to be month and 1 day. It is therefore feasible for the stored. Council to request a reasonable fee from a tenant whose goods have been stored and they would like returned.
Under the current tenancy agreement, tenants T108/ Concerned that tenant may be asked to and visitors to the property are required to not C4 T128 pay for damages not caused by them or cause or allow damage to their property or as the result of an accident. surrounds. Where there has been a clear breach of this clause, the Council should reasonably expect to recoup the costs of any repairs. The local manager will always exercise discretion where accidents and the like are concerned.
C5 - No comments received. -
The Council would expect that in most instances T5 Queried how much the charge would be. only a nominal fee would be requested. E2 Concerned about vulnerable tenants T128 that may not be able to visit a local office In these instances, a home visit could be arranged to view their files. with the Housing Services Officer.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 156 Should the Council find a tenant in breach of this T102 Concerned that there was no stated clause and the tenant not rectify this immediately, F1.4 penalty for breach of this clause, proceedings for eviction would be instigated. No expected the Council to have the immediate sanction for eviction could legally be sanction of immediate eviction. granted – due process would have to be demonstrated to the courts for eviction to be agreed by the Courts.
F3.3 - No comments received. -
F5.6 T10 Agrees that feeding of pigeons is a major - concern.
Pigeons have been included in this item of the 5.6 cont’d T60 Does not consider squirrels and pigeons tenancy agreement as they are known to carry a vermin and doesn’t see what harm they disease known as psittacosis which can be cause. transmitted to humans, creating flu-like symptoms and, in rare cases, causing death. Squirrels are widely known to cause damage to properties, often nesting in roof spaces and chewing through electrical cables amongst other things. It is in this context that these animals are considered vermin. Understands the need for this addition, The Housing service accepts that the feeding of T94 but wishes to point out that feeding these these animals can sometimes perform an animals is, for some elderly people with important social function for some tenants, limited social contacts, an important part particularly the elderly. Consideration will be of their lives. Would like the Council to be given where this action does not cause a sensitive to this. nuisance or pose a threat to others. c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 157 In most instances the Council will give more than T94 Believes 24 hours notice is insufficient, 24 hours notice if it requires access to a tenant’s G2 should be a minimum of 7 days. home – this is stated as an absolute minimum. In any case, the Council is only authorised to force entry to a property in the case of an emergency, and generally needs the tenants permission. Because culpability cannot always be established readily in cases of forced entry, it would be T128 Believes that if entry is forced, the Council counter productive to state any hard and fast should be liable for any repair costs not rules here. Much is dependent on the events that the tenant and that this should be stated resulted in the forced entry being required. There in the agreement. is also the further complexity of possible insurance claims in this situation which is why these cases are often dealt with using local discretion after the matter has been investigated.
H3 - No comments received. -
H6 - No comments received. -
H7 - No comments received. -
The current tenancy agreement stipulates that T4 Believes that the Council should include a tenants must provide the Council ‘reasonable I1 clause to allow it to inspect any access’ to their home. This is sufficient regulation, alterations with 48 hours notice. should the Council wish to carry out an inspection of any alterations/improvements to a dwelling.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 158 Note: i - No comments received. -
As external providers manage over 30% of the T100 Disagrees with ‘managing agents’ being Council’s homes, it is essential that the definition of Note: ii incorporated in the definition of the ‘council’ - for the purposes of this document - be Council because of their experience extended to include these agents – who include under the management of one of the registered social landlords, housing managers and agents. tenant management organisations. Any concerns regarding the management of individual’s homes by these providers should be directed via the established complaints procedure.
Note: iii - No comments received. -
General T72 Agrees with the changes and sees them Comments as improvements to tighten up any - loopholes. - T89 Found it fair and well balanced.
T102 Found some of the language used to be Where possible plain English has been used and too ‘legalised and will elude many’. jargon avoided. Unfortunately as the Tenancy Agreement is a legal document some legal terminology is unavoidable. T90 Found the changes fair and reasonable. -
General Comments Cont’dc:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 159 Felt that changes would create more T5/T02 bureaucracy and that the Council should - focus on using their existing powers more effectively. T10 Found the changes excellent and necessary in existing times. -
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 160 SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES TO PROPOSED USE OF INTRODUCTORY TENANCIES
Sou Ref. Views expressed Comments from Head of Housing rce no. Felt it was a good idea, providing the Council Perhaps understandably, a number of tenants/ would not unnecessarily penalise any applicant applicants have raised concerns that some that neighbours may be victimising because of individuals may seek to use the introductory A HA race or colour. tenancy scheme to victimise others. Whilst this Concerned that people may lie, in order to get type of behaviour cannot be discounted, it is HA47 someone thrown out. important to point out that before the Council A would begin possession proceedings against an introductory tenant, the alleged perpetrator will As above. Fears reprisals from neighbours who have had ample opportunity to recount their A HA108 don’t like other tenants. version of events and produce any evidence to Feels it will encourage people to victimise support their case. Once the possession order has SC T6 others according to race etc. been served, the Council is required by law to hold an internal review of the decision. The Believes that introductory tenancies may bring introductory tenant will be encouraged to attend prejudice to individuals – should have the same this review and will have the option of being SC T119 tenancy for all. represented by legal council at the hearing. Each complaint against an introductory tenant for Asks how the Council can be sure that the breach of tenancy would be investigated reports of tenancy breaches are fair and thoroughly and in accordance with internal SC T44 unbiased. Points out that they may be open to procedures. Both parties would be given abuse. opportunities to meet with Council staff to discuss their case and to put forward any relevant c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc evidence. An eviction would only ever be carried 161 out when there has been clear breach of the tenancy agreement which the tenant has failed to rectify over an acceptable period of time. Would like to see an ‘exhaustive investigation’ into complaints so that it is not used for personal SC T117 dislikes/arguments. Concerned about how investigations into SC T21 antisocial behaviour would be undertaken. A HA77 Feel is may lead to unfair eviction, suggests a A points system, while an interesting idea, is not points deduction system, similar to that for a currently an option that the Council can drivers licence. legitimately pursue. Thinks that as part of the scheme, tenants The tenant is already obliged, under Section H should be made to maintain their properties to (Care of Dwelling) of the Tenancy Agreement, to A HA18 an acceptable standard. keep their home in a clean and tidy condition. Believes that with the increase in complaints regarding antisocial behaviour, the scheme is a No comment A HA49 good idea. Asks whether tenants of a block will get a say in Allocations to Council properties is udertaken HA83 who is offered a tenancy in their block. through formal procedures to ensure fair A treatment of all those applying to be housed, and does not include a ‘vetting’ process by other residents in the locality. We have explored methods of reward previously A HA86 Says the Council should look at ways to reward in discussion with tenant representatives, and will good tenants. continue to investigate methods that might be applicable.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 162 Asks why it took the Council 6 years to bring We have continued to take a measured HA91 Introductory Tenancies in (referring to the 1996 approach to tackling anti-social behaviour, and A Housing Act amendment that made them have used a variety of methods to combat this legal). issue, including reviewing the Tenancy Agreement and our procedures on a regular basis.
Says that tenancies should be reviewed after We do undertake regular monitoring through our A HA108 every 4-5 years ‘to keep tenants in check’. Tenancy Checks procedure, home visits and other liaison with individual tenants.
Welcomes the scheme but feels that it may Understandably this could be one of the HA111 increase the numbers of people made outcomes, however, the implementation of A homeless. Introductory Tenancies is about setting a culture in the early days of a tenancy to address roles and responsibilities at this stage.
Asks what will happen to those who fail the 12- Most case failing to meet the requirements of the A HA191 month trial period. tenancy are likely to be in some form of legal process before the 12 month period, whilst this is in process the Introductory Tenancy would continue and they would not automatically revert to becoming a Secure Tenant.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 163 Feels the scheme is a good one and that future HA143 tenants should not be concerned by its A introduction. - Believes the scheme will ‘stamp out’ all forms of A HA173 antisocial behaviour. - Thinks that the Council should extend the HA198 introductory period but also take peoples A individual circumstances into account. - A HA206 Feels that the trial period should be 5 years and not 1year. - A HA208 Feels that the trial period should be 48 months. - Agrees with the scheme as it will speed up SC T1 eviction proceedings. - Thinks that the initial trial period too short to be SC T2 effective, and should be extended to a minimum of at least 2 years, if not longer. - Feels that it is a very good idea and will make SC T16 people good neighbours. - Thinks that introductory tenancies are a way of The introductory tenancy scheme is not designed SC T20 discriminating against council tenants and to discriminate against council tenants rather to means that secure tenants could be ‘set up’. protect reasonable, law abiding tenants who are the victims of persistent antisocial behaviour.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 164 Once introductory tenants have been granted T42 Asks what happens if tenants misbehave after secure tenancies, they will have the same rights SC the 12-month period has ended. and obligations as any other secure tenant. Therefore any breaches will be dealt with according to Housing Service’s internal procedures for secure tenants, depending of the nature of the breach and in line with the Tenancy Agreement. Believes the tenancy should become secure SC T69 the moment the keys are handed over. No comment. Says that so much misery is caused by bad neighbours and believes it should be much No comment. easier to remove ‘nuisance people’ no matter SC T93 how long they have been a tenant.
Has no doubt that introductory tenancies are No comment the best way forward to ensure tenants behave SC T111 civilly to one another. The Crime and Disorder Act defines antisocial Agrees but queries what the definition of behaviour in terms of its impact or likely impact on SC T114 antisocial behaviour is. victims as well as the actions of the perpetrator. It states that a person could be liable for an Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO) if he or she,‘has acted…in an antisocial manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household.’ Supports the proposal as it seems a sensible c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 165 P O1 way of protecting law abiding and decent No comment. residents from the criminal and antisocial elements within our community.
Believes that ‘introductory tenancies are Our experience has been to utilise all the possible O3 unsatisfactory not only in that unsatisfactory legal options open to us to deal with anti-social LL behaviour could be dealt with by ordinary behaviour, the experience of other Councils’ using C possession proceedings for breach but also in this type of tenancy has proved in some cases to that the decision to seek possession put the be a deterent and to assist with setting an council in a quasi judicial position in its own acceptable standard of behaviour. case’. Where vulnerable members of the community CS O2 Asks whether special consideration will be given may be failing to maintain their introductory to more vulnerable groups within the tenancies, the Housing Service will always seek to O community as they may have particular provide as much support as possible by working difficulties settling into new properties. alongside any support agencies the tenant may be known to (with the tenant’s consent) and our own Supported Housing team. Eviction proceedings against vulnerable introductory tenants will usually only be commenced once all other avenues have been exhausted. States that introductory tenancies should be The Council will continue to use it discretion in CSO O2 seen as an additional option for appropriate appropriate cases, and does not intend this to be use and not the automatic response to any an automatic response, but a possible method to antisocial behaviour by introductory tenants as resolve the situation if other mechanisms fail to this will work against the Council’s social address the issue. inclusion agenda. The Council will still have to prove that due E190 O4 Fears that a ‘fast track’ eviction procedure process has been followed before the Courts will c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 166 could prevent introductory tenants realising grant a possession order. The introductory tenant their rights as they will not have the added will always be encouraged to attend internal protection of the usual court procedure. review proceedings so that they can put forward their arguments against the eviction. All tenants who are served with a Notice of Proceeding for Possession will receive a leaflet explaining their rights as an introductory tenant and where they should go for advice. Ultimately, they will also be entitled to pursue a judicial review should they feel the Council has acted without just cause.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 167 c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 168 MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title PEPYS ESTATE COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER
Key Decision YES Item No.
Ward EVELYN
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR REGENERATION/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES & DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE/HEAD OF LAW Class Part 1 Date: 31 JULY 2002
1. Summary
This report is one of a series of reports concerning the Council’s intentions for the regeneration of Pepys Estate. Earlier reports, considered by the Executive Committee started with the results of a review of the Pepys Estate Action programme and considered proposals for how Aragon Tower might be disposed of and the results of an invitation for private sector interest in the purchase of the block. Other reports dealt with a proposal that Hyde Housing Association become development partners for the demolition of five blocks on the estate and their replacement with new build social housing and the decanting of the various blocks concerned to allow both elements of the scheme to proceed. The last report looked at the results of a statutory consultation exercise of secure tenants of the blocks, a necessary step to getting the approval of the Secretary of State for the redevelopment scheme, which would, in turn, give the Council the powers to obtain possession of tenancies in cases where it did not prove possible to rehouse tenants by agreement. Proceeding with the scheme will entail the repurchasing of all properties in the blocks sold under the Right to Buy and this report is the first step in acquiring the powers to achieve that where agreement on repurchase cannot be achieved.
2. Purpose of The Report
This report seeks authority to make a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) and to proceed with all necessary statutory procedures to obtain confirmation of the CPO for the acquisition of all rights and interests in Aragon Tower, Limberg House, Marlowe House and Millard House.
3. Recommendations
3.1 That the Mayor resolves to make a Compulsory Purchase Order under Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 for the acquisition of Aragon Tower, c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Limberg House, Marlowe House and Millard House, shown on the accompanying plan in heavy black edging, together with all rights and interests in the land.
3.2 That the Mayor authorises the Head of Law, Head of Housing and Head of Property & Development Officers to take such action as may be necessary to make, obtain confirmation of and effect the CPO and to acquire all interests under it.
4. Background
4.1 Following a review of the original plans for Pepys Estate Action and after extensive consultation with residents, the then Housing (Urgency) Sub Committee resolved to dispose of Aragon Tower and to sell Barfleur, Limberg, Marlowe and Millard Houses and Dolben Court to a Housing Association for demolition and subsequent new build social housing. The money earmarked for the refurbishment of these blocks was to be recycled to carry out further works on the rest of the estate.
This change to the original programme was subsequently endorsed by the Government Office for London. On 21 November 2001 the Executive Committee gave its in principle approval to the proposed redevelopment scheme on the estate, comprising the disposal of Aragon Tower to the private sector and new build by Hyde Housing Association on the site of the other five blocks, and authorised officers to carry out statutory consultation with affected secure tenants under Part V, Schedule 2, Housing Act 1985. On 20 February 2002, having fully considered the outcome of the statutory consultation exercise, the Executive Committee confirmed its wish to proceed with the redevelopment scheme. Copies of the reports to the Executive Committee dated 21 November 2001 and 20 February 2002 (which include full details of the scheme and the results of the consultation exercises) are available for inspection in the members’ room.
4.2 The majority of the estate was constructed in the 1960s and comprises three 24 storey tower blocks and a mixture of three and eight storey maisonette blocks. Additionally there are four historic Georgian terraces and some flats and houses built five years or so ago by Family Housing Association.
4.3 Though the original intention had been to refurbish these blocks under the original Estate Action programme there is currently no funding available for this purpose. Given the other commitments in the capital programme and the relatively generous level of investment that has taken place on Pepys in recent years compared with the rest of the borough it is thought unlikely that funding will be available in the foreseeable future. In any case, refurbishment of some of the blocks would not address some of the fundamental design problems affecting certain buildings on the estate c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc such as unusable underground garages. The proposed disposal of Aragon Tower to the private sector and the Hyde proposed redevelopment for social rental and shared ownership would lead to a more comprehensive regeneration of the estate and significant diversification of tenure.
4.4 The properties in the affected blocks have a number of problems in terms of design and condition. Two of the blocks are built over underground garages which are long disused and a focus for anti social behaviour. The problem of these garages, which present a bleak and oppressive frontage to the main route through the estate to the river, cannot be addressed while the blocks are standing. Existing pedestrian routes onto the estate are confusing and lead onto unwelcoming car park and garage areas at ground level and public spaces at a raised level. The existence of these raised areas is difficult to appreciate from the lower level and they are accessible only via steps or ramps. This makes access for wheelchairs, prams or cycles arduous or impossible. All the blocks have communal entrances shared by between 32 and 144 households, which is generally accepted as far more than the maximum number that can reasonably be expected to take ownership of them. All the blocks also feature long internal corridors giving access to individual dwellings and these are, at best, oppressive and alienating. Attempts to improve similar corridors in other blocks on the estate have not been successful. The properties suffer from a number of problems that are frequently found in properties of this vintage: lack of security, with little natural overlooking of communal areas, noise transmission between dwellings, poor thermal insulation and condensation and dampness. Four of the blocks have windows that are beyond the end of their useful life. Four of the six blocks have no ground floor accommodation and thus there is no capacity to provide private secure gardens, an invaluable asset to family accommodation.
4.5 The Council holds the freehold interest in all the blocks that are the subject of the proposed CPO. However, there are a number of units in the blocks which have been sold under the Right To Buy scheme. Negotiations to buy back these units by agreement have commenced and are on-going but if agreements cannot be reached, the Council will have to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire them. The CPO would include all leasehold and other interests in these units, including rights of access and egress and all other rights and interests affecting the land. It will also include all secure tenancies and all properties where tenants have served notice under Section 122 of the Housing Act 1985 to exercise the Right to Buy.
4.6 All of the leasehold interests in Dolben Court and Barfleur House have been reacquired and secure tenants rehoused by agreement. Phase 1 of Hyde’s demolition and rebuild works has begun, with demolition being completed this summer, and new units should start to be completed in February 2004 and phased in over a 6 month period. Phase 1 of the c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc proposed scheme can take place as a stand alone development in the event that the remainder of the scheme could not take place for any reason.
4.7 Phase 2 of Hyde’s proposed scheme would be on the site of 1-32 Limberg House and is expected to start in summer 2003 subject to vacant possession being available. Phase 3, on the sites of 1-53 Marlowe House and 1-53 Millard House would be expected to start in summer 2004, again subject to vacant possession
4.8 Terms for the disposal and development/refurbishment of Aragon Tower have been agreed on the basis that the parties will initially enter into a conditional contract for the sale of the block to the proposed purchaser/developer. The contract will be conditional upon the following:
a) the purchaser obtaining planning permission for the proposed scheme;
b) the Council obtaining Ministerial confirmation of any CPO (If necessary) and consent to the disposal;
c) the Council obtaining vacant possession of the building.
Completion of the sale of the property would then take place once the conditions have been satisfied. On completion of the sale the purchaser would enter into obligations to carry out the approved redevelopment scheme within up to two years. It is therefore hoped that the first of the new units would be available by June 2005 although this is subject to vacant possession being obtained within a reasonable period.
4.9 Initial approaches were made to leaseholders in all phases in February 2000, with a view to trying to buy by agreement. These negotiations are ongoing and will continue even after the CPO has been made as the Council will wish to acquire by agreement if possible. The Council has already repurchased seven units and terms have been agreed on a further two. However, it has not been possible to agree terms with the other leaseholders to date and Right to Buy applications have been received in respect of other units within the affected blocks. The Council has to continue to process these applications until possession can be obtained against the secure tenants under ground 10A Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 (see paragraph 5.2 below) and the interests created by the RTB applications would also be included in the CPO.
4.10 If the Council is unable to buy back all of the sold units by agreement, the future of the programme will be put in serious jeopardy as it is not possible to rebuild while the blocks are still occupied and funding normally has to be spent in the year that it is allocated. In addition, the prospective c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc private sector purchaser of Aragon Tower will require vacant possession of the block before it would complete the purchase and proposed refurbishment of the block.
4.11 The Executive Committee, on 26 July 2000, approved rehousing arrangements for homeowners whose homes are being bought as part of this programme. Owner occupiers were to be rehoused in accordance with the Estate Action decant policy, which allows for up to two offers to be made within the leaseholder’s choices of Neighbourhood and choices of property type (subject to availability and requirements). However, leaseholders who purchase their homes under RTB applications made after 26 July 2000 are not covered by these arrangements. In accordance with its obligations under section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, the Council will secure that any residential occupants of these properties who are displaced by the compulsory acquisition are provided with suitable alternative accommodation where such accommodation is not otherwise available to any such occupants on reasonable terms.
4.12 Home Loss Payments equivalent to 10% of the market value of properties (up to a maximum of £15,000) are paid to resident owners who have been in residence for at least 1 year as well as disturbance payments to cover professional fees and removal costs etc
5. Consultation
5.1 There was widespread consultation with tenants and leaseholders during the review of Pepys Estate Action in 1998/9 with meetings and exhibitions about possible options. This culminated in an independent survey of the residents, with a 65% response rate, and of the four options presented, there was a majority in favour of the disposal of Aragon Tower and demolition and redevelopment of the five blocks. Consultation continued in 2000/1 with a group of residents to develop the design of the Hyde scheme in an attempt to get the best fit between what residents saw as being in their best interests and what Hyde and the Council saw as making best use of this riverside site
5.2 There has also been a round of statutory consultation with the secure tenants in the affected blocks, with a view to being able to obtain possession through the courts of properties subject to secure tenancies where it is not possible to rehouse the tenants by agreement. The ground for possession that the Council would need to use in such cases is ground 10A Schedule 2 Housing Act 1985 and the Council would have to demonstrate that the property concerned is part of a redevelopment scheme approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this ground. Prior to applying to the Secretary of State for approval of such a scheme, the Council is required to consult with secure tenants affected by the scheme. In the case of this scheme that statutory consultation took place in December and January, with the results being reported to the Executive Committee on 20 c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc February 2002, when the Committee approved the proposals for the 6 blocks as an overall redevelopment scheme and instructed officers to proceed with the application to the Secretary of State for approval of the scheme.
5.3 Though not a statutory requirement for the purposes of the Ground 10A consultation process, a similar consultation exercise was also carried out with leaseholders in the affected blocks and the results of that were reported to the Executive Committee at the same time.
5.4 Ministerial approval of the redevelopment scheme for the purposes of Ground 10A was received on 9 July 2002. This means that the Council can now seek possession orders through the courts against tenants who it has not been possible to rehouse by agreement.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 At the time of writing this report 10 properties, other than those already reacquired, have been sold under the RTB and there are currently two properties with live applications in for Right to Buy. Further RTB applications could be submitted at any time. The sold properties will need to be reacquired at full market price to progress the programme. Provision has been made in the capital programme for this purpose. However, actual purchase prices may fluctuate over time from the provision made, given the buoyancy of the property market at the present time.
6.2 In addition, the leaseholders will be entitled to home loss and disturbance payments and the Council will have to bear reasonable legal and surveyor’s fees.
6.3 The overall cost to the Council in obtaining vacant possession of the six blocks is estimated at £2,329,000. Of this £959,000 has been paid from the Pepys Estate Action budget and a further £243,000 was paid from the capital programme after Pepys Estate Action was completed on 30 September 2001. Provision for the balance was made in the capital programme by the Executive Committee 19 December 2001 with the costs coming from eventual capital receipts.
6.4 Delays which could occur in securing vacant possession of the properties affected if the Council does not make use of its compulsory purchase powers could potentially delay the construction programme and could lead to increased costs or even put it at risk. This could in turn result in the Council finding itself still owning a number of blocks in need of refurbishment with no financial provision to carry it out.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 7. Legal Implications
7.1 The Council has power under the Housing Act 1985 to acquire land for the provision of housing accommodation. This power is available even where the land is acquired for onward sale to another person who intends to develop it for housing purposes. The 1985 Act also empowers local authorities to acquire land compulsorily (subject to authorisation from the Secretary of State) but only where this is in order to achieve a qualitative or quantitative housing gain and the Council would have to demonstrate such gain when seeking SoS confirmation of any CPO.
7.2 Once the order is made, it must be notified to relevant persons and publicised, following which it will be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation. Any person may object to an Order and, if an objection is made and not withdrawn, a public local inquiry is required to be held. Any public Inquiry will be conducted by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State who will hear evidence from any persons objecting to the Order and from the Council. The Inspector would then submit a report on the Public Inquiry and his/her recommendations to the Secretary of State who would then decide whether or not to confirm the Order. Before confirming the Order the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that there are no planning obstacles to the implementation of the scheme, that the Order would achieve a qualitative or quantitative housing gain and that there is a compelling case for the CPO in the public interest.
8. Human Rights Act 1998 Implications
8.1 This Act came into force on 2 October 2000. The Act effectively incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law and requires all public authorities to have regard to Convention Rights. In making decisions Members therefore need to have regard to the Convention. The rights which are of most relevance to local authorities are summarised in Appendix A to this report.
8.2 The rights that are of particular significance to Members’ decision in this matter are those contained in Articles 8 (right to respect for private life and home) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions).
8.3 Article 8 provides that there should be no interference with the existence of the right except in accordance with the law and, as necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the economic well-being of the country, protection of health and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 1 of Protocol 1 provides that no-one shall be deprived of their possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law, although it is qualified to the effect that it should not in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc laws as it deems necessary to control the uses of property in accordance with the general interest.
8.4 In determining the level of permissible interference with enjoyment, the courts have held that any interference must achieve a fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the rights of individuals. There must be reasonable proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued. The availability of an effective remedy and compensation to affected persons is relevant in assessing whether a fair balance has been struck.
8.5 Therefore, in reaching their decision, Members need to consider the extent to which the decision may impact upon the Human Rights of affected residents and to balance these against the overall benefits to the community which the overall Pepys redevelopment scheme would bring. Members will wish to be satisfied that interference with the rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 is justified in all the circumstances and that a fair balance would be struck in the present case between the protection of the rights of individuals and the public interest.
8.6 It is relevant to consideration of this issue that, should the scheme proceed, displaced occupiers would be offered re-housing in accordance with the Council’s re-housing policy. In addition, owners will be entitled to receive market value for their properties as well as home loss payments and reimbursement of professional fees and removal expenses.
9. Environmental Implications
The new homes to be built by Hyde will be more thermally efficient than the existing ones and hence, apart from being cheaper to heat, will generate less greenhouse gases It is understood that improved thermal performance will also feature in the private sector proposals for Aragon Tower.
10. Implications for Law & Disorder
The Hyde redevelopment is planned to meet the police’s Secured by Design standards and should lead to a reduction in crime and the fear of crime. The prospective purchaser of Aragon Tower has indicated that its proposals for the building will include measures for improved security.
11. Equality Implications
The Hyde scheme will provide a much more attractive built environment than the blocks it will replace as well as providing the thermal and security improvements referred to earlier. This will be of benefit to the tenants of the new social housing, many of whom are likely to be disadvantaged. c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Conclusion
The Council has, over a long period of time, been considering the question of the regeneration of Pepys Estate and has listened to arguments from residents opposed to and residents in favour of the scheme. After carefully considering the arguments the Council has consistently returned to the view that it wished the scheme to proceed and the recommendations of this report give the Council the opportunity to use the powers it will need to allow that to happen.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short Title Date File File Contact Exempt of Document Location Ref Officer Inf.
Report to Exec. 26.7.00 Gov. Minute M Brown N/A Cttee Support Book
“ 21.11.01 “ “ “ N/A
“ 20.2.02 “ “ “ N/A
If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Lynch, Head of Housing Policy 020 8314 6407, or Bob Watts, Principal Lawyer, 020 8314 7368
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc MAYOR AND CABINET 31 JULY 2002 APPENDIX A ITEM NO.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT (1998) IMPLICATIONS
Article 2 - The right to life
Article 3 - The right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Article 5 - The right to liberty and security
Article 6 - The right to a fair trial
Article 8 - The right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence
Article 9 - The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10 - The right to freedom of expression
Article 11 - The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others
Article 14 - The right to freedom from discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, or political opinion
Article1 of Protocol 1 - The right for every person to be entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions
Article 2 of Protocol 1 - The right to education
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title STREET CRIME ACTION PLAN
Key Decision YES Item No.
Ward
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR SOCIAL CARE & HEALTH/HEAD OF LAW/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES Class Part 1 Date: 31 JULY 2002
1. Summary
Lewisham is one of 15 London boroughs that come within the Home Office Safer Street Initiative to tackle street crime. As part of this, the Lewisham Community Safety Partnership was required to submit a plan detailing the range of interventions proposed within the Borough. Original plans were submitted during the election period. The Plan is now submitted for members to approve the local authority contribution.
2. Purpose
Lewisham’s Street Crime Action Plan contains a wide-range of interventions many that, in whole or part, involve the local authority. The Plan is attached as part of the closed agenda as some of the information relates to operational policing matters. Approval is sought because of the importance that the Council has given to crime reduction and street crime in particular.
3. Recommendations
It is recommended that the attached street crime action plan be agreed.
4. Narrative
4.1 Street Crime
4.1.1 Metropolitan Police Service classification uses the term ‘street crime’ to refer to personal robbery (where possessions are obtained by force or threat of force) and snatch (where possessions are snatched without threats or the use of violence). Clearly in some cases the distinction between these offences will be a fine one.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 4.1.2 The Home Office, for the purpose of Safer Streets, has defined street crime to also include car-jacking and firearms offences. Fortunately, there have been no reported car-jacking in Lewisham and fire-arms have not generally been linked to robbery. The emphasis in Lewisham is therefore heavily on personal robbery and snatch. There is an obvious communication issue as the general public is likely to have a wider definition of street crime that may include anti-social behaviour and other misdemeanours.
4.2 Crime Figures The Lewisham Crime Audit 2001 reported that personal robbery had increased by 74.1% in the three years since the last audit in 1998 and that this increase followed several years of declining personal robbery. During 2001/2 there was a further increase of 31.7% to 1,767. The graph attached at Appendix A shows personal robbery figures for the last 24 months.
4.2 ‘Safer Streets’
4.3.1 The Home Secretary has identified 10 metropolitan areas that had seen significant increases in street crime. These areas form part of the Safer Streets Initiative. London was the most important of these and within London 10 boroughs were prioritised. Lewisham was not one of these boroughs but became involved when a further five were added in April of this year.
4.3.2 Safer Streets has been given a high political profile. The Prime Minister chairs weekly reviews of progress and Home Office ministers are closely involved. A new body, the London Street Crime Management Board has been recently established to co-ordinate both the criminal justice system’s role and that of the borough based crime and disorder partnership. It is chaired by Deputy Commissioner Ian Blair and reports to John Denham. Lewisham’s Chief Executive has been asked to join the Board.
4.3.3 There has, not surprisingly, been an emphasis on policing with increased resources to target ‘hot-spots’ and the use of high-visibility policing. The courts have also been instructed to take a tough approach to those convicted of street crimes. These and other measures seem to have been effective in reducing the number of offences committed in the Safer Streets boroughs including Lewisham.
4.3.4 The range of interventions in the borough goes much wider than this and a preventive approach and one that diverts those caught offending into legitimate activities is seen as a more sustainable approach in the medium and long-term. Additional funding has been made available from a number of sources but key are: • Children’s Fund (DoH); • Behaviour Improvement Programme (DfES); c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc • Communities Against Drugs (Home Office); • Youth Justice Board Details of how these interventions will support street crime reduction are detailed in the attached Plan.
4.3.5 Whilst Safer Streets has to date been effective at turning around street crime at a local and national level, sustainability may be more difficult. Resources currently directed to tackling street crime may come under pressure if other areas see increasing crime, and there are some indications that burglary is increasing. There is also the long-term impact of custodial sentences on young people many of who are identified as having mental health and emotional problems. There in an issue in-regard to providing secure places for such young people. There is a wider issue in regard to the future criminal careers of those receiving custodial sentences as a result of the street crime initiative.
4.3.6 Whilst these are concerns they do need to be placed in the context of the impact of street crime on its victims. Further, there is the risk that young people will become involved in street crime where it is seen that sanctions are not effective and may also graduate to a more entrenched offending career if unchecked.
5. Financial Implications
All initiatives contained within the action plan will be financed through either existing resource commitments or through additional external funding.
All expenditure will be regularly monitored to ensure value for money and compliance with the requirements of external funders.
6. Legal Implications
The Local Government Act 2000 empowers the local authority to do anything which it considers likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of all or any persons within the local authority’s area.
There may be some interference with individuals' human rights arising from certain actions proposed in the plan. Such interference may be justified where it is lawful, and is necessary in the interests of public safety, the prevention of disorder and crime and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Sharing of information should be in accordance with the principals set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. Members of the Community Safety Partnership are signatories to an information sharing protocol that sets out
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc the circumstances and procedures for exchanging sensitive personal data.
Members will need to have due regard to the Councils' general duty under the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, including the need to assess the likely effects of policies prior to introduction, and how the policies will promote equality of opportunity and good race relations, and do not lead to direct or indirect discrimination. This act further imposes a duty to consult, monitor and publish the results of such analysis on an annual basis..
7. Crime and Disorder Implications
Tackling street crime is a priority within the Borough’s crime reduction strategy “Lewisham: All Together a Safer Place”. The Borough is also committed to a local Public Service Agreement (PSA) to reduce robbery (both personal and commercial) to below 1,134 by the year 2003/4.
8. Equalities Implications
8.1 Both the victims and perpetrators of robbery in Lewisham are disproportionately young. There is also some evidence that there is a link between exclusion and offending. Young black men are disproportionately represented among those accused of robbery which is likely to be due to a mixture of factors.
8.2 There is also concern that increased policing of young people could have negative effects of young people especially from black and ethnic minority communities.
8.3 The Plan contains programmes to work specifically with young black men involved in offending and to develop knowledge about this issue. There is also an element of the plan that focuses on communication with black and ethnic minority communities. Wider communication strategies also aim to reassure older age groups that the risk of being the victim of street crime is relatively low and to advise all residents or visitors to the borough on sensible precautions to minimise risk.
9. Environmental Implications
There are limited direct implications but Lewisham Citizens Panel and Residents Survey 2000 both identified transport, particularly stations, as places that they felt unsafe especially at night. Reduced street crime may contribute to reduced fear of crime and result in greater use of public transport. In the longer term this may have implications for the wider regeneration of the Borough.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 10. Conclusion
The Street Crime Action Plan contains a range of activities aimed to turnaround the increase in street crime seen over the last couple of years as well as providing preventive and diversionary measures to sustain recent decreases.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
None
For further information please contact Steve Harrison Community Safety Team Manager, Lewisham Town Hall, Catford, SE6 4RU on 020 8314 8699 or [email protected].
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title RESPONSE TO LIFELONG LEARNING SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON SCHOOL CATERING Key Decision NO Item No.
Ward
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION & CULTURE
Class Part 1 Date: 31 JULY 2002
1. Purpose
The purpose of this report is to respond to the recommendations of the Lifelong Learning select committee on school catering.
2. Recommendation
To agree the response to be made to the Lifelong Learning Select Committee.
3. Response to Recommendations
3.1 The Executive Committee received a report from the Lifelong Learning Select Committee on 3rd April detailing its recommendations following scrutiny of the operation of the school catering contract. The Committee heard from representatives of Scolarest, school governors and received a report from the Head of Resources for Education & Culture.
3.2 Detailed below are the recommendations of, and responses to the Lifelong Learning Select Committee.
3.2.1 There is a need for clear operating procedures between the client and schools.
Procedures do already exist between the client and the schools however these have not been widely circulated in the past to governors and Headteachers, they have been communicated to the school secretary / Senior Administrative Officer. These procedures will be reviewed and circulated to Heads and Governing bodies.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 3.2.2 There is a need for an improved mechanism for customer feedback
Although there is a mechanism for customer feedback it is clear that this procedure needs to be reviewed and operated more rigorously. The complaints procedure is detailed in the client/school operating procedures. There is also a process now in place where a random selection of schools are telephoned on a daily basis and asked about the service they have received. As part of the performance monitoring visit a questionnaire is left for the school to complete. However these processes do not appear to be widely known and need to be effectively communicated to Head teachers and Governors.
3.2.3 Feedback should be sought from those opting for a packed lunch rather than having a school dinner, particularly those who are eligible for a free school meal.
No mechanism currently exists for this to happen. Officers will examine ways to obtain this feedback with the view to setting up a procedure.
3.2.4 There needs to be more frequent reporting on the performance of the contract, in particular customer satisfaction and the nature and frequency of complaints.
It is possible to provide monitoring information on the monitoring of the contract and the customer satisfaction from complaints received.
3.2.5 The current complaints service should be clarified to schools and governors. Schools should always receive an acknowledgement of their complaint and what action was taken as a response.
Agreed. There is a current complaints procedure which does not appear to be widely communicated, particularly to governors . This will be rectified. It is also agreed that all schools should receive an acknowledgement of their complaint and a response on action taken.
3.2.6 There is a need for training of all new staff, not only in terms of the skills relating to the job but also in terms of the interaction with pupils
Training of the catering staff is the responsibility of Scolarest. Section 11.2 of the contract states that the contractor shall employ…such persons as in its reasonable opinion …are skilled,honest and suitably qualified and experienced in the work which they are to perform.. The issue of suitability of staff will be raised with Scolarest.
3.2.7 The drop in free school meals being taken needs to be investigated to distinguish I) the effect of a fall in numbers eligible due to increasing employment and other measures to reduce poverty, from ii) the effect of a fall in uptake of free meals among those eligible. c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Initial investigations into the drop in free school meals has been carried out. Attached is an analysis showing the change in free school meal eligibilty since 1998/99 to 2001/02. This shows that as a percentage of school roll eligibility of primary meals had dropped between 1999/00 and 2000/01, whilst take up of these meals had increased in 1999/00 but have subsequently fallen. In the secondary sector elligibility has steadily increased and take up of these meals increased in 1999/00 but has steadily fallen since that date.
3.2.8 There should be investigation into whether the council is getting value for money in relation to the prices charged in the cafeteria.
Comparisons will need to be carried out against prices charged in the cafeteria of schools in other boroughs. Some initial market testing has been done but there needs to be comparisons made with similar services. We are part of the London Boroughs client catering group and will be seeking to obtain up to date information about prices charged in other boroughs.
3.2.9 As a Select Committee difficulties was experienced, in particular issues of confidentiality and legal restraints, in relation to the public scrutiny of an external contract the Council has entered into. This needs to be addressed so that there is some element of transparency in the scrutiny process.
Legal and Strategic Resources have drafted a protocol to deal with the scrutiny of contracts by overview and scrutiny committees. This protocol sets out guidelines for the examination of contracts which aim to balance openness with legal rights concerning commercially sensitive information.
3.2.10 The Executive may wish to review what can be learned from this experience for drawing up of future contracts with external service providers. In particular, the committee would like to raise the issue of the way in which the terms of contracts may affect the ability of the new overview and scrutiny function to be as effective at scrutinising externalised functions as it can be with those carried out in-house.
Agreed.
4. Financial Implications
There are no financial implications arising as a direct result of this report.
5. Legal Implications
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 5.1. Any review by Members of the performance of a service being carried out by an external contractor must have regard to the contractual framework.
5.2. The contract provides for monitoring of the performance by the Contractor which includes customer satisfaction surveys and a complaints procedure. The provision relating to customer satisfaction surveys is limited to bi-annual surveys .
5.3. The Contractor is obliged to keep a register of all complaints including those arising out of customer satisfaction surveys which have to made available for inspection by the authorised officer. The register must show what action was taken by the Contractor in relation to each specific complaint. This information can be made available to the schools.
5.4. If a complaint is verified by the Authorised Officer, a Defective Service Notice can be issued requiring rectification within a specific timescale. If not rectified this can lead to targeted inspection and ultimately termination of the service in that location . This latter remedy is only available where the service as a whole is very poor so that the performance scoring is very low.
5.5. The proposals for additional surveys and an improved complaints process is likely therefore to require a variation to the contract which has to be by agreement. This may have cost implications. The Council could carry out additional surveys independent of the contract provisions and if they indicated that the contractual arrangements for surveys were insufficient, use the results for negotiating variations to the contract procedures.
5.6. In relation to the proposed comparison of cafeteria prices in schools with those of appropriate comparators, the contract does not provide for benchmarking of costs or income. Thus whilst such an exercise may show whether the Council is receiving value for money in relation to this service, it may not be possible to agree a lowering of prices with the Contractor. It could be used for negotiation.
6. Crime and Disorder Implications
There are no crime and disorder implications arising as a direct result of this report.
7. Equalities Implications
There are equalities issues associated with the provision and take up of FSM. The authority has a duty under s512 of the Education Act 1996, to c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc provide any child who is eligible with a free school meal.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short Title Date File File Contact Exempt of Document Location Ref Officer Inf.
LLL Select 3.4.02 Gov. Minute Ian Williamson No Committee Support Book Recommendations – Report to Exec. Committee
If there are any queries on this report please contact Janet Senior, Education & Culture, extension 48554.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title SOCIAL INCLUSION AND EQUALITIES BUDGET 2002/03
Key Decision YES Item No. 13
Ward
Contributors POLICY & PARTNERSHIPS UNIT/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR FINANCE
Class Part 1 Date: 31 JULY 2002
1 Summary and Purpose
1.1 This report seeks the agreement of the Mayor and Cabinet to the proposed spend on the Social Inclusion and Equalities Budget. The report sets out a brief history of the use of the budget in previous years, the budget available for 2002/03 and a summary table of proposed spend to deliver the Council's key Social Inclusion and Equality targets. It gives members options for the spend of the monies available. Within the report proposals for four grants to community organisations are identified for consideration. Appendix 1 sets out the proposed spend and expected outcomes. Appendix 2 gives details of the grants to community based organisations.
2 Recommendations
2.1 The Mayor and Cabinet are asked to agree in principle the proposals for spend on this budget as outlined in items 1 - 22, paragraph 5.4. This totals £176.6k and is detailed in appendix 1. 2.2 Members are asked to agree immediate funding of items 1 - 14 totalling £116.4k and outlined in paragraph 6.7 - 6.8. 2.3 Members are asked to delegate to the Executive Director of Resources the release of monies itemised as 15 - 22 in paragraph 5.4 subject to funding being available later in the year,
3 Background
3.1 An equalities development budget has been in existence since the mid eighties. In 1999 the creation of the social inclusion post had an additional associated budget. Both have been managed from the Policy and Partnerships Unit.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 3.2 Following a review in 1999, the equalities budget has moved from a source of community group pump priming, to funding a more developmental resource to enable the Council to deliver its equalities priorities. It has retained a small grants function where such money can enable the community to more effectively deliver the Council's agenda and also act as a trigger to draw down additional resources.
3.3 In 1999 the social inclusion budget was established. This budget has been used to pump prime work in areas such as neighbourhood wardens, young people's homelessness and research into the over representation of black children in care.
3.4 Since the political management changes early in 2000, the spend of the budget has been discussed with the lead member for Social Inclusion and agreed by the Executive.
3.5 Due to increasing budget pressures for the Council in recent years, this budget has been regularly reduced to contribute to overall budget savings.
4 Example of the use of the budget between 2000 - 2002
4.1 The following give some examples of the use of the Social Inclusion and Equalities Development budgets over the last two years: • provide a pilot supported housing service for vulnerable young people to maintain their tenancies. Project successful with learning fed into the development of a wider homeless strategy to be delivered in early 2003 • fund research to investigate the over-representation of black & minority ethnic children on the child protection register and in the looked after population. Results are due in December 2002 and will be fed into the policy process • test whether the council is meeting the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and meeting the needs of disabled customers through mystery shopping exercise which has led to improvements in front line service delivery to disabled citizens • provide three-year pump priming funding for a survivors-led borough- wide domestic violence network. This has developed survivors-led support groups, training and development for moving on. The pump priming has acted as a catalyst to draw down additional New Deal for Communities monies for work with children experiencing domestic violence. • evaluate the pilot government-funded neighbourhood housing warden scheme which has led further government resources for warden schemes in two other parts of the borough. • resource the borough festivals programme which enables community capacity building for local citizens in a wide range of equalities' areas c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc such as Black History Month, International Women's Week, Refugee Week, International days of disabled people and older people, Gay Pride.
5 Spending for 2002/03
5.1 The budget available this year is £226.6k. This represents a reduction of 18% from the 2001/02 budget. Members are aware of the need to find in- year savings in 2002/03 in order to balance the overall Council budget. The target for in-year savings from this budget is £50k. A target of 12.2% savings from this budget has been identified for 2003/04. Any proposed commitments which have an implication beyond 2002/03, have been identified and can be accommodated within the likely shape of the budget in 2003/04.
5.2 Mainstreaming social inclusion and equalities into all the Council's functions is a key priority for 2002/03 and the social inclusion and equalities budget proposals assist in making that a reality. Working in partnership with agencies and community groups can bring added value in relation to the Council's duty to promote the well being of the community. In particular the Race Strategy Partnership post will support work with partners in delivering a co-ordinated response to common duties and responsibilities under the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000. In addition, grants to support key projects in the community provide value for money in relation to both service development and delivery and in relation to wider community capacity building.
5.3 Members are asked to consider the options for the 2002/03 budget as set out below and agree a way forward.
5.4 The following summary table lists all the potential activities and grants for this budget. These demands make the budget over subscribed. The packages set out below give members three options for the spend of the budget.
Numbe Brief description Amount £k r 1 Consultation on draft Equality Policy and three- year 25 plan to reach level 3 of equality standard 2 Audit and external validation 7.4 3 Publication requirements for Equality Standard and 7 RRAA 4 Publication of Community Wealth Conference report 3 5 Publication and launch of Ageing Strategy 5 6 Second year of three-year funding to 170 Centre DV 10 work
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Numbe Brief description Amount £k r 7 Contribution of the Council to the New Cross Fire 3 stained glass widow ceremony. 8 Contract to provide information in other formats: 10 DDA compliance 9 Race Strategy Partnership worker, six months salary 21.5 (including on costs) 10 Budget for RSP worker 4.5 11 Grant to Older Women's Network Life Long Learning 10 research to enable draw down of other funds 12 Support to Lesbian and Gay panel Shout Out 5 campaign 13 Fees for young lesbian and gay health research 2
14 Partner contribution to Young Lesbian and Gay 3 health conference Sub total 116.4 15 Resources to support the work of the equalities 5 forums 16 Specific hate crime reporting training 5 17 Contribution to community festivals budget 30 18 Grant to Deptford Community Radio: contribution to 0.75 match funding for drawing down GOL funds 19 Develop and publish toolbox on homophobic 2.5 bullying in schools. 20 External expert support for publishing base line data 4.5 on web Sub total 164.15 21 Millwall Kick Racism out of Football event 3 22 Research into the needs of women Refugee and 9 Asylum Seekers Sub total 176 23 Support the development of an accessible 23 information symbol assisted project for people with learning disabilities 24 Develop a social inclusion 'Patients as Teachers' 9 project 25 Annual contribution to Better Gov. for Older People 1 network 26 International Women's Week event for staff and 3 community 27 Contribution to diversity champions network 0.75
Total request 214
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc Numbe Brief description Amount £k r Adjusted budget (based on in-year savings £50k) 176.6 Excess of requests over availability 38
5.5 The total of requests against the budget is £214k. When in-year budget savings, currently proposed at £50k (but they may increase) are taken into account, there is an excess of requests over availability of £38k. Options set out below itemise how members may take these requests forward.
6 Options
6.1 Members are advised that a number of factors need to be taken into account when making decisions on this budget: the Council's social inclusion and equality priorities and commitments already made. In addition members should note that the proposals for funding fall into three areas: work to take forward core priorities, publications and documentation to support this and development and grant aid to meet commitments which deliver members objectives and have benefit to the wider community.
Key social inclusion and equality priorities
6.2 Achieving level 3 on the equality standard is one of the top ten key targets of the Council. Implementing the standard will enable the Council to mainstream gender, race and disability issues across all council services. It is expected that impending legislation in 2003 and 2006 will see sexual orientation and age included.
6.3 All public sector agencies have a new duty to positively promote good race relations under the Race Relations Amendment Act 2002. They are required to publish a three-year Race Equality Scheme in which is set out the way each agency will carry out its duties under the Act. This offers opportunities for close working with public sector partners in Lewisham to promote a common agenda and identify areas for joint development and work.
Specific commitments
6.4 Both nationally and locally it is recognised that local people can and do play a key role in developing and supporting the regeneration and well being of the community. The Council has developed a wide programme of community renewal and involvement recognising that local people themselves are often best placed to deliver and manage their own change and development. The Council plays a major role in using their c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc budgets to enable groups to draw down funds from a wide range of government programmes and charitable sources.
6.5 Within this context, the Social Inclusion and Equalities budget has contributed to other directorate plans and programmes enabling them to ensure an inclusive approach. In addition, members have wanted to retain the option of making grants to community groups where it can be demonstrated this will provide value for money and a more effective outcome than Council delivered programmes. Examples of this are the Council's support of community festivals and specific grants to community groups covering equalities areas. Members have set out their commitments in this area in the 2002/03 Performance Plan.
Option one
6.6 This option takes forward items 1 - 14 totalling £116.4k on the summary list in paragraph 5.4 above. It identifies funding to meet the core social inclusion and equalities development agenda. It focuses on the work the Council must do to achieve level 3 of the equality standard and to comply with duties under the Race Relations Amendment Act. It also sets out commitments already made from 2001/02 and carried over into this year. It proposes two grants to community groups which will enable them to draw down match funding opportunities.
6.7 The package does not include smaller items. It holds back the balance of the budget totalling £110.2k to meet reductions over and above those currently set. Should further reductions be required this will mean that work to take forward some parts of the social inclusion and equalities agenda will not take place.
6.8 This option delivers key performance plan promises and savings of £110.2k.
Option two
6.9 This option takes forward items 1 - 20. In addition to the above, agreeing items 15 - 20 would enable members to support key equality and social inclusion activities and programmes. For example, the community festivals, and action to redress homophobic and other hate crimes.
6.10 This option gives members budget savings of £62k. This is £12k over the target set. Should members only require £50k from this budget for savings, then this option would enable £12k to be available to respond items 21 and 22 as listed above or new and emerging issues.
Option three
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc 6.11 This option takes in items 1 - 22. In addition to the above items, it includes resources to fund the annual kick racism out of football event at Millwall and research into the needs of women Refugees and Asylum Seekers. If members are not able to agree these funds, officers would hope to be able to identify alternative sources of funding. For example, early notice to Millwall Community Group will enable them to approach other funders for this event. With regard to the research, alternative staff resources may be available to take forward this project in 2003/04.
6.12 This option would secure the budget savings target of £50k but would not give any leeway to enable members to respond to new or emerging issues during the year.
Proposals not funded
6.13 Had sufficient budget been available items 23 - 27 would have been recommended for funding. However as funds are not available these items will not now be funded.
7 Financial Implications
7.1 The budget available for social inclusion and equality development work in 2002/03 is £226.6k. This represents an 18% reduction from 2001/02 budget.
7.2 As reported in paragraph 5.1, due to in-year budget pressures within Resources (Chief Executive's office) Directorate, a figure of £50k has been proposed for this area. Members should note that this may change as final decisions for in-year savings will not be taken until the autumn.
7.3 Members are advised that in light of budget pressures, it is prudent to proceed by agreeing priority items 1 - 14 in paragraph 5.4 immediately and to agree items 15 - 22 subject to funding being available later in the year.
7.4 These report deals with 2002/03 budget. Work is ongoing to develop the 2003/04 budget. The ongoing commitment in 2003/04 if members agree this budget is £99.4k. These commitments can probably be contained within the likely shape of this budget in 2003/04.
8. Legal Implications
8.1 The Local Government Act 2000 empowers the local authority to do anything which it considers likely to achieve the promotion or c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of all or any persons within the local authority's area.
8.2 Members will need to have due regard to the Councils' general duty under the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, including the need to assess the likely effects of policies prior to introduction, and how the policies will promote equality of opportunity and good race relations, and do not lead to direct or indirect discrimination. This act further imposes a duty to consult, monitor and publish the results of such analysis on an annual basis.
9. Crime and Disorder Implications
9.1 Decisions to fund items 6, 12, 16, 19 and 21 of paragraph 5.4 above will contribute to supporting citizens who are victims of racial harassment, homophobic abuse and domestic violence.
10Equalities Implications
10.1 This report discusses proposals for spending the Council's dedicated budget for Social Inclusion and Equality work. It takes forward objectives in relation to all the Council's equality priorities, valuing diversity, challenging harassment, widening access, achieving lesbian and gay equality, challenging ageism and promoting women's equality. Equalities groups are often the most disadvantaged and socially excluded members of the community.
10.2 In relation to the Council's duties under the Race Relations Amendment Act, resources have been identified that will challenge racial discrimination, promote equal opportunity and to promote good relations between equalities groups.
Challenge Resources recommended to discrimination *facilitate training on hate crimes *research the needs of Refugee and Asylum Seeking women *fund the post of Race Strategy Partnership development officer Promote Equal As above Opportunity Promote good As above relations between groups
11. Environmental Implications
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc This report has no specific environmental implications
12. Conclusion
12.1 The Social Inclusion and Equalities Development and Grants budget enables members to develop programmes and activities to improve service development and delivery for some of the most disadvantaged people in Lewisham. It delivers on agenda items core to the Council's business, mainstreaming, legislative compliance and community empowerment. It will enable the Council to achieve the Equality Standard target set by members in the Performance Plan. It recognises, through grant aid, that community groups are often better placed than the Council to manage service change and development.
12.2 The Council faces substantial budget pressures in 2002/03 and 2003/04. Three options for the spend of the 2002/03 budget have been outlined. All options meet the baseline target savings of 50k which represents 22% of the budget. Options one and two offer savings above the target. The implications of each option have been detailed in paragraphs 6.9 - 6.13 of the report.
13. Background documents and originator
There are no relevant background documents.
c:\documents and settings\webadmin\desktop\myr_cab_ag_31july02.doc