Youth Zone PDF 341 KB

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Youth Zone PDF 341 KB Assets, Regeneration and Growth Committee 30 November 2015 Title Youth Zone Report of Commissioning Director for Children and Young People Wards Burnt Oak Status Public Urgent No Key Yes Appendix A – OnSide Options Appraisal Enclosures Appendix B – Site Plan Appendix C – OnSide Business Case Sam Raffell, Commissioning Lead – Children and Young people Officer Contact Details Email: sam.raffell@barnet.gov.uk Tel: 020 8359 3603 Summary On 7 September 2015 the Assets, Regeneration and Growth Committee agreed to give in principle support for the development of a Youth Zone to be built in either Burnt Oak or Colindale and for up to £4.2m of infrastructure reserves to be invested in the Youth Zone project. This paper builds on the previous committee report, outlining the preferred site for the Youth Zone being part of the Montrose Playing Fields (“the Site”). The Report seeks authority for the Chief Operating Officer in consultation with the Chairman of the Assets Regeneration and Growth Committee to take subsequent decisions having regard to the best interests of the Council in relation to settling the detailed terms of the lease and any agreement for lease for the Youth Zone with the agreement and lease terms being submitted for final approval by a future ARG Committee. An options appraisal (Appendix A) was undertaken to establish the most suitable site for the Youth Zone within the wards of Colindale or Burnt Oak. Based on set criteria it is recommended that the Youth Zone is developed on a site (“the site”) comprising part of the Montrose Playing Fields. Recommendations That the Committee: 1. Approves the preferred location, Montrose Playing Field, is the most suitable site for Barnet Youth Zone, allowing OnSide (‘the developer’) to move the project forward. 2. Agrees the core principles outlined as a framework for developing the lease agreement between the Council and on OnSide for Barnet Youth Zone 3. Agrees to delegate to the Chief Operating Officer in consultation with the Chairman of the Assets Regeneration and Growth Committee authority to take subsequent decisions in the best interests of the Council to settle the detailed terms of the proposed lease with OnSide with the final terms of that lease being submitted to a future Assets Regeneration and Growth Committee for final approval. 1. WHY THIS REPORT IS NEEDED 1.1 Youth Zones are state-of-the-art centres open seven days a week that offer activities and opportunities to all young people between the age of 8 and 19 years old and up to 25 years old for people with disabilities. The Youth Zone offers an opportunity to give young people in these areas the opportunities to gain confidence, increase employability and improve their health and wellbeing. 1.2 The report is required to seek approval from the Committee to develop a Youth Zone on the proposed site being part of Montrose Playing Fields (site plan in Appendix B) based on the OnSide options appraisal of potential sites within the London Borough of Barnet, undertaken in collaboration with the Council as referred to at Appendix 1. This recommendation builds on the Committee’s resolution of 7 September 2015 to give in principle support for the development of a Youth Zone in the west of the borough, within the wards of Burnt Oak or Colindale. 1.3 The Site plan (attached in appendix B) is indicative only and designed to illustrate to Committee members the proposed location of the Site. There is the possibility of minor changes to the Site plan as part of the detailed design, site investigation and feasibility. This flexibility is required to ensure the development of the Site is on the most suitable part following site investigations and detailed design as well as ensuring it integrates effectively into the wider redevelopment of Montrose Playing Fields as part of the Colindale Park Improvements Project. 1.4 This report outlines the high level core principles agreed between the Council and OnSide as a framework for lease negotiations for the site. If agreed, the core principles will guide the formation of the final lease, with officers developing the detail of the legal documentation in the best interest of the Council and having regard to any requirements pursuant to s 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 ( best value) and any procurement aspects. 1.5 By the Council agreeing to resolve to approve the above recommendations this will allow for Onside (the developer) in collaboration with Council officers, to move the project forward, [undertaking statutory considerations], site investigation, feasibility checks and detailed design and taking the proposal through the planning process [More details on next steps are outlined in section 4 – Post Decision Implementation]. It is not intended that the Council will be involved directly in undertaking any procurement activity. 1.6 A report will return to Assets, Regeneration and Growth Committee in the Summer of 2016 with the terms of the final lease for approval being sought then together with any other relevant matters required to enable any agreed lease proposal to be given effect, including ancillary documentation and business case for the development of the proposal. The issues which the Council may need to have regard to at this later stage would include whether the Site should be declared surplus to requirements and appropriated either under s 226 of the TCPA or s 122(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the consideration of the outcomes of any public advertising as the Council may be required to undertake in respect of any proposed appropriation and/or disposal of the Site by way of long lease given the Site is public open space, together with any impact resulting on the terms of the proposal given the requirements that the Council has to adhere to emanating from s 123 of the Local Government Act (to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable). 2. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 The Youth Zone offers a unique opportunity for Barnet. With the significant pressures on the Council’s budget, the Youth Zone project offers an opportunity to develop one of the first Youth Zones in London. The proposal offers an improvement in the current level of support, activities and opportunities for children and young people in the borough with the services to be operated and financed independently of the council. The proposal allows the Council to commission a service for young people in one of the most deprived areas of the borough with no on-going revenue funding from the Council budget. 2.2 Montrose Playing Fields as preferred site 2.3 OnSide, in collaboration with Council has undertaken an Options Appraisal across a range of potential sites across the Borough to ascertain the optimum location for a successful youth facility within Barnet. 2.4 OnSide have drawn up a clear set of criteria to establish which locations are most suitable for the Site. These are; Neutrality – A Site which is considered ‘neutral ground’ by a large number of young people. Accessibility – Ensuring the Site is accessible, especially for disadvantaged children and young people. It is vital that young people can access the Site by foot or public transport. Prominence – It is important people know where the Site is and it can make an important statement to young people that they are valuable members of the community. 2.5 The options appraisal also takes into account the Committee’s prior approval to build a Youth Zone in the west of the borough, within the wards of Burnt Oak or Colindale. The options appraisal, undertaken by OnSide includes sites outside this location as initial site visits were undertaken prior to the 7th September 2015 Committee decision to build within the designated wards. 2.6 The table below summarises the findings from each site assessment as well as the final score as against a maximum score of 20 against the set criteria. For detailed conclusions please see appendix A. Site Size Summary Score Canada Villa 2,550m2 Low score in regard to 10 accessibility and the site is not large enough to accommodate a Youth Zone Finchley Youth 486m2 The site is not large enough to 9 Theatre accommodate a Youth Zone Grahame Park 5,000+m2 Conclusion that the site is not 9 suitable due to a low score on accessibility, a lack of neutrality and large parts of the area are already earmarked for development Montrose 5,000+m2 The site is within close proximity 16 Playing Fields to Burnt Oak (6 minutes) and Colindale (10 minutes) underground stations. The park is a more neutral location than Grahame Park but is accessible for young people from this location. Woodcroft Park 5,000+m2 The site is large enough to 13 accommodate a Youth Zone and is accessible, although it is further from Burnt Oak and Colindale underground stations than Montrose Playing Fields. 2.7 OnSide and the Council believe that the Site being located on part of Montrose Playing Fields is the most suitable location to develop a new Youth Zone. Accordingly the recommendation is to agree further work on this option to develop the design of the new building and the start of the process of taking the project through the necessary statutory considerations and feasibility checks. 2.8 The key reasons the Site is believed to be the best site for a Youth Zone within this area are; Neutrality – Park settings tend to be seen as neutral territory by young people and this corner of the playing fields is equidistant between Burnt Oak and Colindale and is within walking distance of the heart of the Grahame Park Estate.
Recommended publications
  • Barnet Youth Zone - Site Option Appraisal
    Barnet Youth Zone - Site Option Appraisal The purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of the suitability of various sites, in and around the London Borough of Barnet, which have been identified as potentially available for construction and operation of a world-class youth facility. Five sites are considered. All were suggested by Barnet Borough Council. Background A location for a successful youth facility of this type is obviously likely to be influenced, in part, by various practical issues such as site availability/constraints and economic considerations and there may be no single formula for success. However, based on the successful operation of OnSide’s existing Youth Zones (and the unsuccessful operation of badly sited facilities elsewhere), OnSide strongly recommends three major criteria in terms of location. 1. Neutrality A significant feature of the success of the OnSide Youth Zones is their location in town or city centres. This is considered ‘neutral ground’ by the large numbers of young people using the facilities. Locating a Youth Zone outside the town or city centre risks it being viewed as ‘on someone else’s patch’, making it potentially popular with young people in the locality but completely inaccessible to others. By contrast a central location does not bring any of the territorial issues that can hinder positive engagement in less central locations. This is a crucial feature and can make the difference between a project’s success and failure. It is, of course, necessary to refine the definition of “central” when considering appropriate sites in major cities and London Boroughs but it remains essential to find neutrality in a suitable location.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation Report Neighbourhood Planning Capacity
    Evaluation Report Neighbourhood Planning Capacity Building in Deprived Areas December 2015 - June 2016 Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... 0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2 Background ................................................................................................... 2 Objectives of the programme ........................................................................ 3 Programme design and delivery ................................................................... 3 Programme learning ..................................................................................... 5 Section 1: Research and learning methodology ............................................. 0 Our approach ................................................................................................ 0 Research methods ......................................................................................... 0 Limitations of research methods .................................................................... 2 Section 2: Selection process and six pilot areas ............................................. 3 Section 3: Overview of training and capacity building ................................ 6 Facilitator support ......................................................................................... 6 Training design workshop ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Item 5
    Written Answers to Questions Not Answered at Mayor's Question Time on 12 October 2017 The cost of Brexit Question No: 2017/4095 Fiona Twycross How much has the cost of living in London increased since the Brexit referendum? Oral response Refusing to Re-License Uber Question No: 2017/3896 Andrew Boff How much influence did you have on the decision not to re-license Uber? Oral response New housing policies Question No: 2017/3938 Sian Berry How will the new measures announced in your draft Housing Strategy preserve and increase genuinely affordable homes in London? Oral response London's Population Growth Question No: 2017/4102 David Kurten Does the Mayor consider that a projected increase in London's population to 12 million by 2050 is unsustainable? Oral response Modern Day Slavery Question No: 2017/3996 Jennette Arnold What measures are the Metropolitan Police taking towards ending Modern Day Slavery in London and how many prosecutions have been undertaken by the Met and CPS? Oral response Page 1 Borough mergers and response times Question No: 2017/3917 Steve O'Connell How will you ensure that response times in the new merged borough commands remain at satisfactory levels? Oral response London Sustainability and Transformation Plans Question No: 2017/4065 Joanne McCartney The King's Fund and Nuffield Trust's recent independent report found that London's Sustainability and Transformation Plans to reduce hospital use and cut the number of beds on the scale proposed were "not credible". Do you share this assessment? What more needs to be done to ensure our NHS can continue to deliver high quality health services? Oral response Disproportionality in BAME individuals in the CJS Question No: 2017/3995 Jennette Arnold In David Lammy's recent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for BAME individuals in the Criminal Justice System, he made a recommendation for you to review the Trident Matrix to examine the way information is gathered, verified, stored and shared with specific reference to BAME disproportionality.
    [Show full text]
  • Step Free Tube Guide
    How to plan a Tube 123456789 Chalfont & High Barnet Cockfosters Epping Step-free sample journey: A Watford C and DLR journey How to use this map Chesham Latimer Theydon Bois Sudbury Town to Borough B Totteridge & Whetstone Oakwood A Step-free eastbound only B 1 Check your starting and destination This map only shows stations where you can Debden A B Step-free eastbound only stations, plus any connections using the get between the platform and street step-free We have chosen a complex journey which Croxley Southgate B A A Woodside Park Loughton symbols shown in ‘How to use this map’. or change between lines step-free. We have includes all the symbols to show their Amersham Chorleywood Step-free C Then refer to the index overleaf for shown in a lighter shade all other Tube stations. meaning. southbound only B Stanmore Edgware Mill Hill East Arnos Grove Buckhurst Hill A Rickmansworth Moor Park B West Finchley A Stations where you can get between the Sudbury Town Step-free southbound only Roding additional details of access and Find on the map and check Harrow & platform and street step-free are marked with a Northwood A Burnt Oak Bounds Green Valley Chigwell connections at each station. You may the How to use this map section and West Ruislip Wealdstone Canons Park also wish to refer to the Sample journey coloured symbol and a letter. The colour and Index. As the Index shows you will have to Step-free Northwood Hills eastbound only Colindale A Finchley Central Wood Green box in the third column letter show the size of the step and gap Hillingdon Ruislip get on to the Piccadilly line eastbound Pinner A Grange Hill between the platform and the train, as follows: Ruislip Queensbury Woodford B B 2 Check that you can manage the step and platform (trains towards Acton Town) via A A A Manor A Kenton Hendon Central East Finchley Turnpike Lane Step North Harrow Hainault gap from the platform to the train, which Step Station Approach ( B step 153mm/gap Eastcote Seven Blackhorse can be up to 323mm (12.7 inches) for the The step between the platform to the train 107mm).
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Tube
    123456789 Chesham Chalfont & High Barnet Cockfosters Latimer Epping Watford Tube map D C B A 5 Oakwood Theydon Bois Totteridge & Whetstone Loughton Debden Amersham Croxley Southgate Chorleywood Woodside Park Buckhurst Hill Rickmansworth Stanmore Edgware West Finchley A Moor Park Harrow & Arnos Grove A Wealdstone Mill Hill East Roding West Ruislip Northwood Burnt 4 Finchley Central Valley Chigwell Northwood Canons Park Oak Bounds Green Hills Colindale 6 Hillingdon Ruislip East Finchley Grange Hill Queensbury Wood Green Woodford Ruislip Manor Pinner Bakerloo Hendon Central Hainault 5 Uxbridge Ickenham Highgate Seven Blackhorse Eastcote North Harrow Kenton Turnpike Lane Central Kingsbury Brent Cross Sisters Road Fairlop Harrow- Preston South Circle on-the-Hill Road Archway Barkingside Ruislip Rayners Lane Golders Green 3 Manor House Tottenham Walthamstow Woodford District Gardens Hale Central 4 Newbury West Harrow Northwick Neasden Hampstead Hampstead Gospel Tufnell Park Park East London South Park Wembley Heath Oak Dollis Hill Snaresbrook Redbridge Upminster Ruislip South Kenton Park Arsenal Hammersmith & City Finchley Road Finsbury Upminster Northolt South Harrow Willesden Green Kentish Kentish B North Wembley & Frognal Holloway Park Wanstead Gants Bridge B Jubilee Belsize Park Town West Town Road Hill Wembley Central Kilburn Leytonstone Sudbury Hill Brondesbury Caledonian Road Metropolitan Sudbury Hill Harrow Stonebridge Park West Chalk Farm 150m Park Hampstead 200m Hornchurch Harlesden Camden Caledonian Dagenham Northern Greenford East Sudbury Town Camden Town Road Road & Hackney Hackney Elm Park Piccadilly Willesden Junction Kensal Rise Brondesbury Finchley Road Barnsbury Canonbury Central Wick 3 Leyton Kensal Green Swiss Cottage Victoria Alperton Mornington Highbury & Dagenham Queen’s Park St. John’s Wood Crescent Dalston Homerton Waterloo & City King’s Cross Islington Kingsland Heathway St.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendation: Approve Subject to S106
    Location 100 Burnt Oak Broadway Edgware HA8 0BE Reference: 19/1049/FUL Received: 21st February 2019 Accepted: 11th March 2019 Ward: Burnt Oak Expiry 10th June 2019 Applicant: c/o Agent (Aaron Zimmerman - MRPP) Demolition of existing building and erection of a mixed use building between four and twelve storeys high, comprising of 100 residential units with 1718.8sqm of Class A1/D2 uses at lower ground, ground floor and part first Proposal: floor levels. Associated amenity space, refuse storage, cycle stores and provision of 4no. disabled parking spaces at lower ground floor level (with space for an additional 6 as needed). Recommendation: Approve subject to s106 AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control or Head of Strategic Planning to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chairman (or in his absence the Vice- Chairman) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the Committee) RECOMMENDATION I: The application being of strategic importance to London, it must be referred to the Mayor of London. As such, any resolution by the committee will be subject to no direction to call in or refuse the application being received from the Mayor of London. RECOMMENDATION II: That the applicant and any other person having a requisite interest be invited to enter by way of an agreement into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any other legislation which is considered necessary for the purposes seeking to secure the following: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Priority Order List Mayor's Question Time Wednesday 18 December 2013
    Agenda Item 5 PriorityOrderList Mayor'sQuestionTime Wednesday18December2013 ReportNo:5 Subject: QuestionstotheMayor Reportof: ExecutiveDirectorofSecretariat QuestionsnotaskedduringMayor’sQuestionTimewillbegivenawritten responsebyMonday23December2013. "Fitforthefuture"programme QuestionNo:2013/4865 ValerieShawcross Isthe"fitforthefuture"programmeofstaffingcutstostationsaffectedbythisyear'sfare decision? Olympic TransportLegacy QuestionNo:2013/4711 RichardTracey WhatprogresshasbeenmadeinmakingtheJavelintrainservice,whichwassosuccessful duringtheOlympics,availabletoLondonersusingtravelcardsandOystercards,as recommendedbytherecentHouseofLordsSelectCommitteereport? Tackling excesswinterdeathsandfuelpoverty QuestionNo:2013/4637 JennyJones WhatimpactwilltheGovernment'sdecisiontoscalebacktheEnergyCompanyObligation haveonyourplanstotackleLondon'senergyinefficientandhardtotreathomes? Making CyclingSaferinLondon QuestionNo:2013/5263 CarolinePidgeon WhatactionareyounowtakingtomakecyclingsaferinLondon? Page 1 Juniorneighbourhoodwardens' scheme QuestionNo:2013/4709 RogerEvans SouthamptonCouncilhasajuniorneighbourhoodwardensscheme,wherebyyoungpeople agedseventotwelvehelplookafterthehousingestatesonwhichtheylive.Wouldyou considerpilotingasimilarschemetoencourageyoungpeopletoshareintheresponsibility fortheirneighbourhoods,throughactivitiessuchaslitter-picking,gardeningandpainting? Risingfuelbills QuestionNo:2013/4866 MuradQureshi WhatwouldLondonersbenefitfrommost,cutstogreenleviesthatfundthewaronfuel povertyora20-monthenergypricefreeze?
    [Show full text]
  • (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 19/09/2017
    MEETING PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE AND TIME TUESDAY 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 AT 7PM VENUE HENDON TOWN HALL, THE BURROUGHS, LONDON NW4 4BG TO: MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMITTEE (Quorum 3) Chairman: Councillor Melvin Cohen LLB Vice Chairman: Councillor Wendy Prentice Maureen Braun Tim Roberts Mark Shooter Claire Farrier Agnes Slocombe Laurie Williams Eva Greenspan Stephen Sowerby Jim Tierney Substitute Members Anne Hutton Dr Devra Kay Sury Khatri Reema Patel Gabriel Rozenberg Hugh Rayner Philip Cohen Arjun Mittra Shimon Ryde John Marshall Please note that the below agenda may not reflect the order in which items will be heard at the meeting. You are requested to attend the above meeting for which an agenda is attached. Andrew Charlwood – Head of Governance Governance Service contact: Jan Natynczyk jan.natynczyk@barnet.gov.uk 020 8359 5129 Media Relations contact: Sue Cocker 020 8359 7039 ASSURANCE GROUP ORDER OF BUSINESS Item No Title of Report Pages 1. Minutes of the last meeting 5 - 10 2. Absence of Members 3. Declarations of Members' disclosable pecuniary interests and non- pecuniary interests 4. Report of the Monitoring Officer (if any) 5. Addendum (if applicable) 6. Plot 299, 128 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 4AX (Colindale 11 - 26 Ward) 7. Cricklewood Railway Yard, Land Rear of 400 Edgware Road, 27 - 84 London. NW2 6ND (Childs Hill Ward) 8. Millbrook Park Fomer Inglis Barracks Mill Hill NW7 1PX (Mill Hill 85 - 124 Ward) 9. Site Known as the Dixon's Site, South of the Holiday Inn on 125 - 140 Templefield Avenue and to the East of the Brent Cross Retail Park. (Golders Green Ward) 10.
    [Show full text]
  • 1/01 Bentley Priory, the Common, Stanmore, Ha7 3Hh
    SECTION 1 – MAJOR APPLICATIONS Item: 1/01 BENTLEY PRIORY, THE COMMON, P/1840/11 STANMORE, HA7 3HH Ward: STANMORE PARK FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO BUILDING 7 AND CONVERSION TO 5 DWELLINGHOUSES; EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS (AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING PERMISSION P/1452/08CFU DATED 16/09/2010 TO PROVIDE 2 ADDITIONAL DWELLINGHOUSES, ENLARGEMENT OF FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION AND AMENDMENTS TO EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS) Applicant: City & Country Homes Ltd Agent: Harvey S Fairbrass Case Officer: Nicholas Ray Statutory Expiry Date: 07-SEP-11 Item: 1/02 BENTLEY PRIORY, THE COMMON, P/1909/11 STANMORE, HA7 3HH Ward: STANMORE PARK LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND ADDITION OF FIRST FLOOR TO BUILDING 7 TO PROVIDE 5 HOUSES (2 ADDITIONAL UNITS TO PLANS APPROVED BY P/1452/08/CFU) Applicant: City & Country Homes Ltd Agent: Harvey S Fairbrass Case Officer: Lucy Haile Statutory Expiry Date: 02-SEP-11 RECOMMENDATIONS GRANT planning permission and listed building consent for the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to conditions. REASON The amended proposal constitutes appropriate redevelopment of a major developed site in the Green Belt and the additional development proposed would not be detrimental the openness of the site or the special interest of the listed building. It is considered that the proposal complies with all relevant policies and the associated impacts that could arise from the development would be adequately ameliorated through the use of appropriate planning conditions. The development therefore does not have any significant visual, transport, amenity or other impact that would warrant refusal of planning permission. The proposed development would preserve the architectural and historic interest of the listed building.
    [Show full text]
  • 104A Burnt Oak Broadway Edgware HA8 0BE
    Location 104A Burnt Oak Broadway Edgware HA8 0BE Reference: 19/3906/FUL Received: 15th July 2019 Accepted: 17th July 2019 Ward: Burnt Oak Expiry 11th September 2019 Applicant: Mr C/O Agent (Mr Patrick Daly – MRPP) Retention of basement and redevelopment and re-provision of new two Proposal: storey building for flexible A1/A3 floorspace. Recommendation: Approve subject to s106 AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control or Head of Strategic Planning to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chairman (or in his absence the Vice- Chairman) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the Committee) RECOMMENDATION I: That the applicant and any other person having a requisite interest be invited to enter by way of an agreement into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any other legislation which is considered necessary for the purposes seeking to secure the following: 1. Paying the council’s legal and professional costs of preparing the Agreement and any other enabling agreements; 2. All obligations listed below to become enforceable in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority; 3. All necessary works to the public highway under section 278 of the Highways Act to facilitate the implementation of the development in agreement with the Local Highways Authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Growth Strategy Delivery Plan
    Growth Strategy Delivery Plan The delivery plan sets out of the projects and programmes that the council will focus its energies on delivering the Growth Strategy either directly or with partners. The programme is indicative and will be updated annually as noted in the Growth Strategy. Structure of the delivery plan It is structured to mirror the two key aspects of the approach to growth, the first being the 5 themes and their 20 objectives, and then the second being the 3 spatial areas and their identified list of priority projects. It is recognised that there would be the potential for some overlap in the delivery plan between the themes and the spatial areas; therefore, specific deliverables have been included under the themes and objectives if they relate to an area-wide or boroughwide matter; with deliverables that are generally related to a specific location within the borough being included within the areas and projects section. This delivery plan recognises that the council broadly has three main roles / mechanisms for securing delivery of outcomes, in relation to the 5 themes these three roles have been further explored: Policies – Through statutory and non-statutory policy-making processes the council can influence and guide the behaviour of landowners, developers, businesses and residents. Partnerships – Through formal and informal partnerships and networks the council can encourage work towards the delivery of specific outcomes. Direct Delivery – As a commissioner and deliverer of services, and also as a landowner and developer of housing and other developments the council can specifically deliver outcomes. Resourcing the delivery plan The council’s budget for 2020/21 recognises the step change in approach and resourcing is required to unlock the benefits of growth by delivering the outcomes envisioned within the Growth Strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Answers to Questions Not Answered at Mayor's Question Time on 12 October 2017
    Written Answers to Questions Not Answered at Mayor's Question Time on 12 October 2017 The cost of Brexit Question No: 2017/4095 Fiona Twycross How much has the cost of living in London increased since the Brexit referendum? Oral response Refusing to Re-License Uber Question No: 2017/3896 Andrew Boff How much influence did you have on the decision not to re-license Uber? Oral response New housing policies Question No: 2017/3938 Sian Berry How will the new measures announced in your draft Housing Strategy preserve and increase genuinely affordable homes in London? Oral response London's Population Growth Question No: 2017/4102 David Kurten Does the Mayor consider that a projected increase in London's population to 12 million by 2050 is unsustainable? Oral response Modern Day Slavery Question No: 2017/3996 Jennette Arnold What measures are the Metropolitan Police taking towards ending Modern Day Slavery in London and how many prosecutions have been undertaken by the Met and CPS? Oral response Borough mergers and response times Question No: 2017/3917 Steve O'Connell How will you ensure that response times in the new merged borough commands remain at satisfactory levels? Oral response London Sustainability and Transformation Plans Question No: 2017/4065 Joanne McCartney The King's Fund and Nuffield Trust's recent independent report found that London's Sustainability and Transformation Plans to reduce hospital use and cut the number of beds on the scale proposed were "not credible". Do you share this assessment? What more needs to be done to ensure our NHS can continue to deliver high quality health services? Oral response Disproportionality in BAME individuals in the CJS Question No: 2017/3995 Jennette Arnold In David Lammy's recent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for BAME individuals in the Criminal Justice System, he made a recommendation for you to review the Trident Matrix to examine the way information is gathered, verified, stored and shared with specific reference to BAME disproportionality.
    [Show full text]