Open Agenda
Overview & Scrutiny Committee Monday 20 October 2014 7.00 pm 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH
Membership Reserves Councillor Gavin Edwards (Chair) Councillor Evelyn Akoto Councillor Rosie Shimell (Vice-Chair) Councillor Maisie Anderson Councillor Anood Al-Samerai Councillor James Barber Councillor Jasmine Ali Councillor Dan Garfield Councillor Catherine Dale Councillor Jon Hartley Councillor Karl Eastham Councillor Hamish McCallum Councillor Tom Flynn Councillor David Noakes Councillor Rebecca Lury Councillor Martin Seaton Councillor Claire Maugham Councillor Bill Williams Councillor Adele Morris Councillor Kieron Williams Councillor Johnson Situ
Education representatives Reverend Nicholas Elder, Church of England Diocese Lynette Murphy-O'Dwyer, Archdiocese of Southwark Abdul Raheem Musa, Parent Governor Representative George Ogbonna, Parent Governor Representtaive
INFORMATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
Access to information You have the right to request to inspect copies of minutes and reports on this agenda as well as the background documents used in the preparation of these reports. Babysitting/Carers allowances If you are a resident of the borough and have paid someone to look after your children, an elderly dependant or a dependant with disabilities so that you could attend this meeting, you may claim an allowance from the council. Please collect a claim form at the meeting. Access The council is committed to making its meetings accessible. Further details on building access, translation, provision of signers etc for this meeting are on the council’s web site: www.southwark.gov.uk or please contact the person below. Contact Peter Roberts on 020 7525 4350 or email: [email protected]
Members of the committee are summoned to attend this meeting Eleanor Kelly Chief Executive Date: 10 October 2014
Overview & Scrutiny Committee
Monday 20 October 2014 7.00 pm 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH
Order of Business
Item No. Title Page No.
PART A - OPEN BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
2. NOTIFICATION OF ANY ITEMS OF BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR DEEMS URGENT
In special circumstances, an item of business may be added to an agenda within five clear working days of the meeting.
3. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS AND DISPENSATIONS
Members to declare any interests and dispensations in respect of any item of business to be considered at this meeting.
4. MINUTES 1 - 9
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the open section of the meeting held on 8 September 2014.
5. CALL-IN: NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING - DESIGNATION OF A 10 - 48 NEIGHBOURHOOD AREA IN BERMONDSEY
Call-in Cover Report
Report to Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport (20 August 2014)
Appendix A: Summary of consultation responses
Appendix B: Map showing BVAG and BNF proposed Neighbourhood Area boundaries
Appendix C: Map of proposed Neighbourhood Area (Area A)
Item No. Title Page No.
Appendix D: Map showing adopted Neighbourhood Area and overlap with proposed Neighbourhood Areas
Appendix E: The Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study (2013)
Appendix F: The Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study Addendum (2014)
6. ELECTION UPDATE To follow
7. CORPORATE PROCUREMENT STRATEGY 49 - 67
Chair’s presentation and presentation from Community Action Southwark.
DISCUSSION OF ANY OTHER OPEN ITEMS AS NOTIFIED AT THE START OF THE MEETING.
PART B - CLOSED BUSINESS
DISCUSSION OF ANY CLOSED ITEMS AS NOTIFIED AT THE START OF THE MEETING AND ACCEPTED BY THE CHAIR AS URGENT.
Date: 10 October 2014
1 Open Agenda Agenda Item 4
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
MINUTES of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee held on Monday 8 September 2014 at 7.00 pm at 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH
PRESENT: Councillor Gavin Edwards (Chair) Councillor Rosie Shimell (Vice-Chair) Councillor Anood Al-Samerai Councillor Catherine Dale Councillor Karl Eastham Councillor Tom Flynn Councillor Rebecca Lury Councillor Claire Maugham Councillor Adele Morris Councillor Johnson Situ
OTHER MEMBERS Councillor Peter John, Leader of the Council PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT: Liz Brown and Yvonne Wilcox, Charter School Education Trust Catherine Rose,Campaign for New Secondary School for East Dulwich
OFFICER Shelley Burke, Head of Overview & Scrutiny SUPPORT: Debbi Gooch, Head of Litigation Alistair Huggett, Framework & Implementation Manager Jennifer Seeley, Deputy Finance Director Duncan Whitfield, Strategic Director of FInance and Corporate Services Peter Roberts, Scrutiny Project Manager
1. APOLOGIES
1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Jasmine Ali and Mr George Ogbonna.
1
Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Monday 8 September 2014
2
2. NOTIFICATION OF ANY ITEMS OF BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR DEEMS URGENT
2.1 There were no late items of business.
3. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS AND DISPENSATIONS
3.1 There were no disclosures of interests or dispensations.
4. MINUTES
4.1 Councillor Anood Al-Samerai asked that the minutes be corrected to show that she had raised the issues set out at paragraph 7.2.
RESOLVED:
That, subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2014 be agreed as a correct record.
5. CABINET MEMBER INTERVIEW - COUNCILLOR PETER JOHN, LEADER OF THE COUNCIL
5.1 Councillor Peter John, Leader of the Council, stated that the council’s priorities were contained within the Fairer Future promises and reflected the issues that were identified in the period going into the election. The priorities included the building of 11,000 new council homes, additional school places, the Bakerloo Line extension and other transport infrastructure issues, the cycling strategy, free swimming and gym use and the work of the childcare commission. Continuing cuts to the budget remained a backdrop with £30 million savings required in the year ahead. Councillor John emphasised that he was optimistic about the future of local government, particularly in terms of its increased role in the context of devolution and the localisation agenda.
5.2 Councillor Adele Morris highlighted press stories that day about Aylesbury leaseholders being unhappy with what they were getting from the council. She appreciated that legislation limited what the council could pay in terms of compulsory purchase but leaseholders were very unhappy. Councillor John responded that he was disappointed with the media coverage. The shared equity offer meant that leaseholders did not have to pay rent on the additional cost of a property and also retained the value of their share in the property which hopefully would increase over time. In addition, twelve properties were being set aside for leaseholders on the Elmington estate. People did not have to move out of the area. Councillor John stressed that the council’s offer was as good as any being made by any other London council. He recognised that there would always be an element of disappointment for leaseholders about the value of their properties but the council was only able to pay the advised market value. Councillor Anood Al- Samerai asked that that the shared equity offer be clearly communicated to leaseholders.
2
Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Monday 8 September 2014
3
5.3 Councillor Al-Samerai referred to a recent council question about whether the East Dulwich Hospital site could be designated for health and education use and not residential. This would decrease the value of the land and give an indication of the council’s hopes for the site. Councillor John responded that he had raised this with planning officers and would look into it again. The priority was to move forward with a planning application for a secondary school on the site.
5.4 Councillor Claire Maugham asked how the council intended to meet further cuts in the financial settlement. In Councillor John’s view, there were still areas where savings could be found while ensuring that priorities could still be delivered. As an example, the council was committed to creating five thousand new jobs and apprenticeships. If the council was able to help find training or work for eighteen year olds with learning difficulties this would meet a priority and also free up resources currently needed for social care. Delivery of jobs and employment was a vital part of what the council did and also impacted on other areas. Councillor John also stressed that the council remained in a good capital position and continued to look at how this could be used to free up revenue. It was looking across all departments to make savings and to make sure that services provided best value.
5.5 The chair, Councillor Gavin Edwards, explained to Councillor John that the committee intended to look into the council’s procurement of large service contracts and asked whether he was aware of areas where services could be improved and money saved, perhaps by bringing services in-house. Councillor John suggested that the home care contract might be worth looking at. At the same time he believed that contracting out of pubic services was a cyclical approach. The chair asked whether senior officers were taking a step back when major contracts were coming up and asking whether these could be carried out in- house. In his view, any assumption that contracts should automatically be out- sourced needed to be challenged. Councillor John indicated that the question of performance and value for money should be upmost. Where services had been under-performing, such as Council Tax, Revenues and Benefits and the Call Centre, it had been an obvious question to ask as to whether these should be brought in-house. Perhaps this question could be built into the procurement process generally. The chair emphasised that risks needed to be properly considered, including the risk of having to contract manage rather than have direct control of a service. Councillor John agreed that this was a good challenge but stressed the importance of building up the council’s own capacity. For instance, it had not been possible to give more of the housing repairs contract to SBDS, the council’s own direct labour organisation.
5.6 Councillor Tom Flynn asked the Leader for his thoughts on the viability and funding of the Bakerloo Line extension, both to Camberwell and along the Old Kent Road. Councillor John reported that TfL was going to start public consultation on the extension. He hoped that TfL would look seriously at the extension to Camberwell and Peckham as this would be of real value. The council was also lobbying TfL on re-opening of Camberwell railway station. Councillor John’s preferred option was for two spurs, particularly taking account of the clear planning gain from a route down the Old Kent Road, but the key would be identifying how funding could be generated.
3
Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Monday 8 September 2014
4
5.7 Councillor Rosie Shimell, the vice-chair, wondered if there was any clarity as to the proposed offer of free swimming and gyms in the borough, noting that a scoping report was due out and a pilot had been running since July. Officers clarified that there was no pilot but that testing had been carried out. Councillor John explained that the initial starting point was comprehensive cover but that costs needed to be estimated. Other options included the entitlement of a certain number of hours per week or month. Consideration was being given to piloting free Fridays in order to establish possible take-up and as historically leisure centres were not over-used on this day. Councillor Shimell pointed out that some leisure centres were already used more than others and asked whether renovation works would be necessary in order to increase capacity. Councillor John commented that Peckham, Dulwich and Camberwell were all in good shape and Castle was due to open in the Spring of next year. He acknowledged that Seven Islands was in need of investment but hoped that there would be a good offer across the borough as a whole.
5.8 Councillor Rebecca Lury asked for Councillor John’s views on the challenges facing the borough in terms of health. Councillor John replied that these included obesity, diabetes, sexual health, the prevalence of HIV and general health inequalities between the richest and poorest in the borough. The council’s policies such as free swimming and gyms and the provision of free healthy school meals improved public health generally. Councillor Al-Samerai asked how Councillor John viewed the investment of pension funds into tobacco. Duncan Whitfield, the Strategic Director of Finance and Corporate Services, reported that an imminent meeting of the pensions advisory panel would be considering a survey of current and retired members of the scheme on investment strategy, including this particular issue. Councillor John added that he was sympathetic to the case made on tobacco but that a decision was needed on where to draw the line, for instance in terms of alcohol and arms.
5.9 Councillor Catherine Dale asked the Leader if he had any thoughts on what the council, councillors and scrutiny committees could learn from the situation in Rotherham. Councillor John did not believe that Southwark had a political culture that would have allowed a similar situation, the opposition had always asked tough questions of the ruling administration. However it was important not to become complacent. Scrutiny committees and councillors at every level needed to continue to ask the tough questions. Councillor Al-Samerai agreed that there was no room for complacency, referring to a report by GLA member Caroline Pidgeon into Southwark looked-after children going missing.
5.11 Councillor Johnson Situ asked the Leader for his views on the council’s relationship with the government and the GLA and any challenges the council faced in this area. Councillor John felt that the relationship with the Mayor and the GLA was pretty good, particularly in the area of aspirations for London and its infrastructure. The council continued to talk to the government but the implementation of the recommendations of the Financial Commission would be of benefit.
4
Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Monday 8 September 2014
5
6. SCHOOL PLACES STRATEGY
6.1 The chair, Councillor Gavin Edwards, reported that he had met with the head of John Donne Primary School. He had also drafted an on-line survey for parents about the school places strategy and their experience in dealing with the council in respect of places. Shelley Burke, the head of overview & scrutiny, explained that the governors support unit and Community Action Southwark would circulate the survey and that the communications team was advising on where it should be published. The chair added that he hoped that a draft report would be available for the committee to consider at its January meeting.
6.2 Liz Brown and Yvonne Wilcox addressed the committee, representing the Charter School Education Trust. Liz Brown, the chair of the trust and the governing body, gave a brief history of the current school. She reported that it had been judged as outstanding in the last three Ofsted inspections, had achieved very good GCSE results and that A Level results had improved. The school was five times over- subscribed with a catchment of 1.5KM. Liz Brown explained that there were a lot of children in the community that the school was unable to provide a service for. The school was too popular and had no room for expansion. A second Charter school would enable more of the community to be served. This had led to the bid to the Department of Education, to be submitted by 10 October. Yvonne Wilcox explained that, when the current school was in its planning stage, the East Dulwich Hospital site had been offered but that given the eventual timeframe it was good that this had not been taken up. Liz Brown added that the council had been helpful in putting together the bid but that ultimately Southwark had no power in the process. Putting together the bid was very time consuming and had mainly been done by volunteers.
6.3 Councillor Gavin Edwards, the chair, asked the two representatives for their opinion of the process and whether it was a good way of getting parents involved. Liz Brown felt that the process did not did not plan for the needs of the whole of the borough but just one locality. She also questioned the proposal to put a Nunhead primary school on the East Dulwich hospital site, in terms of transporting children to the site but also that the site was the only site of a reasonable size that was really practicable for a secondary school. The chair wondered whether it would be possible to have both a primary and a secondary school on the site. Liz Brown responded that the NHS had not yet confirmed the size of site available. It was important not to compromise secondary school play space and sports facilities.
6.4 Councillor Anood Al-Samerai congratulated Charter School on its achievements. She asked how leadership and admissions would operate if there was a second school. Liz Brown explained that a multi-academy trust would be set up and that people were being approached to sit on the board. The new school would have its own governing body and head teacher but the same vision and values. Admissions would be on the basis of distance as the crow flies. Councillor Johnson Situ asked whether over-subscription of places originated in a particular area and whether a new school would help with these applications. Liz Brown indicated that this data was contained in the bid but that, as an example, a lot of applications came from Dog Kennel Hill School which was too far away. She felt
5
Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Monday 8 September 2014
6
that the need for places was clear.
6.5 The chair was concerned that the council had offered sufficient help to support the bid. Liz Brown emphasised a difficulty in this in that there were two bids and that the council was put in the position of helping both. She confirmed that support had been offered.
6.6 Catherine Rose of the Campaign for New Secondary School for East Dulwich presented a discussion paper on school places. In part, the paper attempted to qualify and quantify the community support for a new school. The chair asked for views on the Harris Federation’s proposal for a primary school on the hospital site. Catherine Rose felt that this might be useful in terms of children transferring to a Harris secondary school but questioned whether anyone was taking a broad view of the area’s needs. She was also concerned about whether it would adequately meet the needs of children in Nunhead. The chair asked whether she considered the current school places planning process to be fit for purpose. Catherine Rose commented that it was difficult to get primary and secondary school information at a local level. Schools planning needed to reflect shifts in need.
6.7 Councillor Karl Eastham was concerned that a new school would improve the situation in East Dulwich and asked for an indication of the admissions policy. Catherine Rose indicated that there were two schools in the Dulwich Ward that were difficult to get into and that this impacted on the community in terms of children being scattered. The campaign was working with the Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation, which had a standardised admissions policy in Lewisham, but aiming to offer as broad a chance as possible for as many children as possible. There would, for instance, be no music scholarships and no lottery system. Councillor Anood Al-Samerai asked how the relationship with this provider had come about. Catherine Rose explained that the steering group had a clear idea about what it wanted the school to deliver and needed a strong provider. The Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation understood the free school process and had experience of creating schools. As a final comment, Catherine Rose suggested that it would be useful if overview and scrutiny committees were notified of possible bids in their areas before these were registered.
7. PECKHAM RYE STATION REDEVELOPMENT - UPDATE
7.1 The Planning Projects Manager, Alistair Huggett, introduced the report. In response to questions he explained that the original idea had been for the council to achieve vacant possession, using CPOs, and to hand the land to Network Rail on a commercial basis to build out a viable scheme. The current proposal was to buy out long leases along the frontage of the site and to develop this for community use, rather than give land to Network Rail. The chair, Councillor Gavin Edwards, asked whether the community had been consulted on the original proposal. The Planning Projects Manager clarified that Network Rail had been leading the previous scheme but that the council was leading on the current one which had a different emphasis. Councillor Catherine Dale asked whether the aim had always been to regenerate the area. The Planning Projects Manager confirmed that this aim had been set out in the Peckham and Nunhead Action Plan. There had been a difference of opinion about how to deliver the aspirations it contained. 6
Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Monday 8 September 2014
7
7.2 Councillor Adele Morris was concerned about how the council could learn from the experience in Peckham in order to ensure that communities in other parts of the borough were able to have their say and be heard. The Planning Projects Manager responded that the current project was a partnership project involving the GLA, Network Rail, Southern and the council. To some extent, partners had previously been pulling in different directions but it was possible that GLA funding was now driving the project in one direction. The Planning Projects Manager wondered if Network Rail had been focussed on viability and the commercial development of the site and whether the council had not queried this sufficiently. In terms of community engagement, he commented that the community in Peckham had been very well organised and had made use of technology to galvanise local opinion. Campaigning had worked very well in this case and had led to some very robust meetings.
7.3 Councillor Johnson Situ asked how the council could ensure that, with so many stakeholders and partners involved, the project continued to meet the community’s aspirations. The Planning Projects Manager stated that he had a very clear steer from the Director of Regeneration to keep to the new approach. In the past there had been to many conflicting aims and objectives but now all three partners were on board with the reduced aspirations. Councillor Karl Eastham was concerned that community views were reflective of the entire community in the area. The Planning Projects Manager explained that the Co-design team had been taken on in an effort to get to the hard to reach parts of the community, including local business, churches and young people.
7.4 Councillor Dale commented that she had looked at the co-design website and was concerned that it might not appeal to everyone, she hoped that there were other methods being used in order to engage with the broader community. The Planning Projects Manager confirmed that community engagement was a key part of the brief for the Co-design team. Councillor Tom Flynn suggested that this might be better achieved by taking a flip chart onto Rye Lane. The Planning Projects Manager agreed and reported that a consultation hub had been set up at the station itself and that people with clip-boards had been in the area as a way of finding out the views of the community. The team was not just relying on the web and in addition the previous consultant AOC had been retained.
7.5 Councillor Anood Al-Samerai emphasised a wider question of how such issues should be looked at by the committee. Local residents had only been invited to a previous meeting at which there was an item on Draper House when she had suggested it. Today the committee was hearing from officers but it was important to hear direct from the community too. The chair stressed his view that it was important to understand the officer view first. Perhaps the question was how to structure a review and when to invite the community to attend. A conversation needed to be had about how the committee should come back to this issue and which groups might be invited at that point.
7.6 The vice-chair, Councillor Rosie Shimell asked the officer whether he was confident that the changes made to the project would ensure that it met the many different interests of the organisations involved and the local community. The Planning Projects Manager was optimistic but emphasised a key sticking point in 7
Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Monday 8 September 2014
8
that it would not be possible to get all the current traders int o the new development. Hopefully relocation would be minimised and the council was revisiting its equalities report. He also reported that he would be providing updates to the community council.
8. CORPORATE PROCUREMENT STRATEGY
8.1 The Strategic Director of Finance, Duncan Whitfield, and the Deputy Finance Director, Jennifer Seeley, introduced the report.
8.2 The chair, Councillor Gavin Edwards, asked how well corporate contract review boards were functioning and whether they were providing sufficient insight and challenge. The Strategic Director of Finance confirmed that the corporate board was working extremely well but that he would like to see more challenge at the level of departmental boards.
8.3 The chair highlighted the proliferation of contracts across the council. Given the risks in big long-term contracts, he wondered whether the council should be asking officers to take a preferred position of awarding work in-house unless there was a particular case for doing otherwise. The Strategic Director of Finance responded that this could be stated in the Medium Term Resources Strategy but that it might have the effect of removing autonomy from managers who knew services well. The chair commented on the general claim that private contractors were more efficient, better value for money and improved services. Experience across the country was that profits were made at the expense of the people directly delivering the services, for instance in social care. He wondered about the possibility of holding contractors to Southwark’s two tier code. The Strategic Director of Finance clarified that if Southwark’s own staff were TUPE’d to a provider then their existing terms and conditions were preserved. Through the procurement process and valuation, Southwark had been quite successful in the introduction of the London Living Wage. The Ethical Care Charter was also breaking new ground. However, legal advice would be needed as to whether or not terms and conditions could be specified through procurement.
8.4 Councillor Catherine Dale emphasised the importance of the skills of the people engaged in managing contracts and questioned where management of contracts should be positioned within the authority. The Strategic Director of Finance responded that it would not be beneficial, operationally and in terms of relationships, to divorce day to day responsibility for managing contracts from the service managers. Contract management was best left with service managers but supported from the centre. Councillor Tom Flynn referred to pages 15 – 17 of the supplemental agenda which showed that a lot of decisions were made without any political involvement. He asked what percentage were made at, for example, cabinet level and whether officers considered that the proportion was right. The Deputy Finance Director explained that the system was not dissimilar to that of other councils, with contracts over £500K in value being referred to the political arena. Procurement was considered a tool for output, to achieve service objectives, and limits were set at the level that the council decided.
8
Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Monday 8 September 2014
9
8.5 Councillor Karl Eastham suggested that it might be helpful to officers to have a procurement strategy that included political considerations. The Strategic Director of Finance clarified that officers tried to embody any evolving political priorities within procurement. He added that Southwark compared with other London boroughs in this. The chair commented that the council did not have a corporate procurement strategy in the sense of a document which provided strategy and direction and did not just set out processes. The school places strategy contained a clear political input but there was no equivalent document in terms of procurement. Councillor Adele Morris wondered whether the Community Development Foundation might be able to provide a framework for assessing contractors. Councillor Johnson Situ stressed that the aim was to get the best possible service. Some sort of accreditation might help but it would be important that no providers were excluded.
8.6 Councillor Claire Maugham commented that appendix C to the report, Extract from Medium Term Resources Strategy 2014/15 – 2016/17, seemed to be very broad. She sought reassurance that the broad strategy captured specific learning for instance from the experience of the Draper House contract. The Strategic Director of Finance responded that there was scope to go deeper in the strategy, it depended how specific elected members wanted to be. Councillor Situ asked whether there was any mechanism in place to develop local businesses to be ready to take on services. The Strategic Director of Finance replied that the Economic Development Team supported local businesses.
8.7 The chair asked to see a list of terminated or cancelled contracts over the last five years. He also said that he would be taking a sample of the contracts on the contract register asking why they were procured, whether they were performing well and how they were managed. He would contact lead officers and keep strategic directors informed. The chair asked members for suggestions as to which contracts should be examined. The chair indicated that he intended to bring a draft report to committee in December.
The meeting ended at 10.10pm
9
Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Monday 8 September 2014
10 Agenda Item 5
Item No: Classification: Date: Meeting Name: OPEN 20 October 2014 Overview & Scrutiny Committee Report Title: Call-in: Neighbourhood Planning - Designation of a Neighbourhood Area in Bermondsey (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Transport 28 August 2014) Ward(s) or Group affected: Cathedrals, Chaucer, Riverside, Grange From: Head of Overview & Scrutiny
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. On 28 August 2014 the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Transport considered a report on the Designation of a Neighbourhood Area in Bermondsey (attached as an Appendix).
2. The Cabinet Member agreed:
1. That the consultation responses received from the public, Borough, Bankside and Walworth Community Council, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Community Council, and the Planning Committee in respect of the application from the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum to be designated as a Neighbourhood Forum and for the designation of its proposed area as a Neighbourhood Area (shown outlined in blue in Appendix B) be noted.
2. That the consultation responses received from the public, Borough, Bankside and Walworth Community Council, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Community Council, and the Planning Committee in respect of the application from Bermondsey Village Action Group to be designated as a Neighbourhood Forum and for the designation of its proposed area as a Neighbourhood Area (shown outlined in purple in Appendix B) be noted.
3. That the area shown edged blue on the map in Appendix B, proposed by the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum as a Neighbourhood Area be NOT designated for the reasons set out in paragraphs 23 of the report.
4. That the area shown edged purple on the map in Appendix B, proposed by Bermondsey Village Action Group as a Neighbourhood Area, be NOT designated for the reasons set out in paragraphs 24 of the report.
5. That the area shown edged in blue on the map in Appendix C (referred to in this report as Area A) as the appropriate Neighbourhood Area, be designated for the reasons set out in paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the report.
6. That the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum be NOT designated as a Neighbourhood Forum, for the reasons set out in paragraph 25 of the report. 11
7. That the Bermondsey Village Action Group be NOT designated as a Neighbourhood Forum, for the reasons set out in paragraph 25 of the report.
8. That applications for designation as the Neighbourhood Forum for Area A shown edged blue on the map in Appendix C be invited.
REASONS FOR CALL-IN
3. On 5 September 2014 three members of the committee (Councillor Rosie Shimell, the Vice-Chair, and Councillors Anood Al-Samerai and Adele Morris) requested a call-in of the decisions on the following grounds:
- the decision is not proportionate as it decides boundaries which have not been suggested by the community in response to consultation
- the policy framework is localism but this decision does not sit in line with that framework
- it does not respect the human rights of either group as it suggests that the areas people believe are neighbourhoods are not coherent
- paragraph 25 does not explain why neither plan can be implemented which breaks the link between strategy and implementation
- the aim of localism is in conflict with the outcome of the decision
- the council could have made one of the plans work but has chosen not to pursue openness
- also there is insufficient justification for why neither Neighbourhood Forum has been designated. This is not explained in paragraph 25, contrary to the statements in paragraphs 6 and 7
CALL-IN MEETING
4. The committee will consider the call-in request and whether or not the decision might be contrary to the policy framework or not wholly in accordance with the budget.
5. If, having considered the decision and all relevant advice, the committee is still concerned about it then it may either:
a) refer it back to the decision making person or body for reconsideration, setting out in writing the nature of its concerns, or
b) refer the matter to council assembly if the decision is deemed to be outside the policy and budget framework.
6. If the committee does not refer the matter back to the decision making person or body, the decision shall take effect on the date of the scrutiny meeting.
12
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Background Papers Held at Contact
Report to Cabinet Member 160 Tooley Street Kenny Uzodike 20 August 2014 London SE1 2TZ Constitutional Team 020 7525 7236
APPENDICES Cabinet Member Report and Appendices
Audit Trail Lead Officer Shelley Burke, Head of Overview & Scrutiny Report Author Peter Roberts, Scrutiny Project Manager Version Final Dated 10 October 2014 Key Decision? No CONSULTATION WITH OTHER OFFICERS / DIRECTORATES / EXECUTIVE MEMBER Officer Title Comments Sought Comments included
13
Item No. Classification: Date: Decision Taker: Open 20 August 2014 Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport
Report title: Neighbourhood Planning – Designation of a Neighbourhood Area in Bermondsey
Ward(s) or groups Cathedrals, Chaucer, Riverside, Grange affected:
From: Chief Executive
RECOMMENDATION
That the Cabinet Member:
1. Notes the consultation responses received from the public, Borough, Bankside and Walworth Community Council, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Community Council, and the Planning Committee in respect of the application from the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum to be designated as a Neighbourhood Forum and for the designation of its proposed area as a Neighbourhood Area (shown outlined in blue in Appendix B);
2. Notes the consultation responses received from the public, Borough, Bankside and Walworth Community Council, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Community Council, and the Planning Committee in respect of the application from Bermondsey Village Action Group to be designated as a Neighbourhood Forum and for the designation of its proposed area as a Neighbourhood Area (shown outlined in purple in Appendix B);
3. Declines to designate the area shown edged blue on the map in Appendix B, proposed by the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum as a Neighbourhood Area, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 23;
4. Declines to designate the area shown edged purple on the map in Appendix B, proposed by Bermondsey Village Action Group as a Neighbourhood Area, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 24;
5. Agrees to designate the area shown edged in blue on the map in Appendix C (referred to in this report as Area A) as the appropriate Neighbourhood Area, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30; and
6. Declines to designate the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum as a Neighbourhood Forum, for the reasons set out in paragraph 25;
7. Declines to designate the Bermondsey Village Action Group as a Neighbourhood Forum, for the reasons set out in paragraph 25;
8. Invites applications for designation as the Neighbourhood Forum for Area A shown edged blue on the map in Appendix C.
1 14
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
9. The Localism Act 2011 (by amending the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) (“the Act”) introduced new provisions which empower parish councils and designated Neighbourhood Forums to initiate the process for making Neighbourhood Development Orders and Neighbourhood Development Plans in relation to designated Neighbourhood Areas. The powers came into force on 6 April 2012 when the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 came into force.
10. A Neighbourhood Plan is a plan which sets out policies in relation to the development and use of land in the whole, or part of, a Neighbourhood Area. It may contain a range of policies or proposals for land use development that will carry weight in the determination of planning applications. Neighbourhood Development Orders grant planning permission in relation to a particular Neighbourhood Area for development specified in the Order or for a class of development specified in the Order. Both Neighbourhood Plans and Neighbourhood Development Orders must be in general conformity with the strategic policies in the development plan for the relevant area.
Neighbourhood Plan preparation stages
11. Section 61F of the Act provides that a local planning authority may designate an organisation or body as a Neighbourhood Forum if the conditions in subsection (5) are satisfied. In deciding whether to designate an organisation/body, the local planning authority must have regard to the matters set out in subsection (7). Subsection (5) provides that a local planning authority may designate an organisation or body as a neighbourhood forum if it is satisfied that it was established for the express purpose of promoting or improving the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of an area that consists of or includes the neighbourhood area concerned and that its membership is open to individuals who live in the neighbourhood area, individuals who work there and individuals who are elected members of a county council, district council or London borough council whose area falls within the neighbourhood area. The membership of the proposed neighbourhood forum must include a minimum of 21 individuals, each of whom fall within those categories. The organisation or body must also have a written constitution to be capable of designation.
12. When deciding whether to designate an organisation or body which meets those criteria, the local planning authority must have regard to the desirability of designating an organisation or body which has secured, or taken reasonable steps to secure that its membership includes at least one individual falling within the categories set out in subsection (5)(b), whose membership is drawn from different places in the neighbourhood area and from different sections of the community in that area and whose purpose reflects (in general terms) the character of the neighbourhood area.
13. Section 61G of the Act sets out the powers and duties of local planning authorities in relation to the designation of Neighbourhood Areas. Sub-section (4) sets out a number of considerations which the local planning authority must have regard to in determining an application for the designation of a Neighbourhood Area. The local planning authority is not obliged to designate the entire area specified in the application, but if it refuses to do so, it must give its reasons for that decision and must use its powers to secure that some or all of the specified area forms part of one of more areas designated (or to be
2 15
designated) as Neighbourhood Areas. If a body or organisation is designated as a Neighbourhood Forum for a particular Neighbourhood Area, it is authorised to act in relation to that Area for the purposes of promoting a Neighbourhood Plan/Order.
14. Regulation 6 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 requires local planning authorities, as soon as possible after receiving a Neighbourhood Area application, to publish details of the application and of how to make representations in respect of the application, on its website and in such other manner as they consider is likely to bring the application to the attention of people who live, work and carry on business in the area to which the application relates. A period of at least 6 weeks (from the date on which the application was first publicised) must be allowed for the receipt of representations in relation to the application.
15. The council has determined that applications for the designation of Neighbourhood Forums and Neighbourhood Areas should be considered at the community council or community councils covering the area. The Council considers that such consultation is likely to bring the application to the attention of people who live, work and carry on business in the area.
16. Once a Neighbourhood Area and Neighbourhood Forum have been designated, the Neighbourhood Forum may submit a proposal to the local planning authority for the making of a Neighbourhood Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order, which will be submitted to independent examination. If, following that examination, the Council is satisfied that the draft Plan/Order meets the requisite conditions, the Council must hold (and pay for) a referendum on the making of the Plan/Order.
17. The area in which the referendum takes place must, as a minimum, be the Neighbourhood Area to which the proposed Plan/Order relates. The independent examiner considering the proposal must also consider whether the area for any referendum should extend beyond the Neighbourhood Area to which the draft Plan/Order relates. If more than 50% of people voting in the referendum support the Plan or Order, then the local planning authority must bring it into force.
The Applications
18. In September and December 2012, the Bermondsey Village Action Group (BVAG) and the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum (BNF) submitted separate applications for the designation of Neighbourhood Areas, and to be designated as Neighbourhood Forums in respect of those areas. Neither of these organisations has yet been designated as a Neighbourhood Forum. The boundaries of the two proposed areas overlap as shown in Appendix B.
19. The proposed Neighbourhood Areas also overlap with a Neighbourhood Area which has already been designated and in respect of which a Neighbourhood Forum (the Bankside Neighbourhood Forum) has already been designated. The Bankside Neighbourhood and Business Area was designated by the Council on 3 May 2013. The Bankside Neighbourhood Forum was designated in relation to that Neighbourhood Area on 6 June 2013. The extent of the overlap in relation to each proposed area and the existing area is shown in Appendix D.
20. The Council can only designate one organisation or body as a Neighbourhood Forum in respect of each Neighbourhood Area (section 61F(7)(b)). Areas
3 16
designated as Neighbourhood Areas must not overlap with each other (section 61G(7)). The Council may, in determining an application for a Neighbourhood Area, modify designations already made (section 61G(6)), but it must have regard to the desirability of maintaining the existing boundaries of areas already designated as Neighbourhood Areas (section 61G(4)(b)).
KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
The requirements of Section 61G
21. A local planning authority may only consider an application for the designation of a Neighbourhood Area if the application has been made by an organisation or body which is, or is capable of being, designated as a Neighbourhood Forum in respect of the area specified in the application. The Council considers that both BNF and BVAG could be capable of being designated as Neighbourhood Forums for the areas identified in their applications, if those areas were deemed by the Council to be appropriate for neighbourhood planning.
22. The applications for designation are accompanied by a map which identifies the areas to which the applications relate and a statement explaining why those areas are considered to be appropriate to be designated as a Neighbourhood Area. The applications are also accompanied by a statement from both BNF and BVAG explaining that they constitute a ‘relevant body’ (i.e. one that is or is capable of being designated as a Neighbourhood Forum). As such, the Council considers that the requirements of Regulation 5 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 have been satisfied in relation to both applications.
The Areas Proposed by BNF and BVAG
23. Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum proposes the designation of an area from the River Thames, as far south as the Bricklayers Arms roundabout. This area incorporates two distinct types of neighbourhood; a predominantly corporate business area to the north of Snowsfields with taller building heights and large scale infrastructure, and a lower rise, lower density, predominantly residential area to the south. The Council does not consider this area in its entirety to be appropriate for the purposes of neighbourhood planning. The inherent differences in character, building heights, land use and density of the northern and southern parts of the specified area indicate that the area does not form a coherent neighbourhood which would be appropriate for neighbourhood planning.
24. Bermondsey Village Action Group proposes the designation of a smaller area, including Guy’s Hospital, London Bridge Station including very few residents. This area comprises mainly strategic sites, the planning and development of which would have implications well beyond the neighbourhood area proposed by BVAG. For a neighbourhood forum (potentially comprising as few as 21 persons) to control the London Bridge and Guy’s Hospital sites, and to formulate a neighbourhood plan which could potentially have impacts much further afield than the proposed neighbourhood boundary, is not considered to be appropriate. The area identified consists of two clearly different built forms of development, with residential uses located largely in the east, and the strategic sites mainly in the west. The area does not read as a coherent neighbourhood. For these reasons, the Council does not consider this area to be appropriate for the purposes of neighbourhood planning.
4 17
25. If the applications for Neighbourhood Area designation are refused because the specified areas are not considered appropriate, then the local planning authority must exercise its power of designation so as to secure that some or all of the specified area forms part of one or more areas designated as a neighbourhood area. To this end, officers have identified an appropriate area for designation being Area A, indentified edged blue on the map in Appendix C. Whilst this is different to those areas proposed by BVAG and BNF, it contains some of the areas identified in the original submissions, as required by section 61G(5) of the Localism Act 2011.
Proposed boundaries
26. The Council proposes the designation of Area A, identified in Appendix C, as this constitutes a single coherent neighbourhood which is considered to be appropriate for neighbourhood planning.
The Northern boundary:
• This boundary amends the areas identified in both of the submitted applications. • The boundary follows the southern side of Snowsfields and Crucifix Lane incorporating the buildings on the southern side of the junction between Crucifix Lane and Bermondsey Street • The boundary excludes the railway arches along the north of Crucifix Lane • The boundary excludes Guy’s Hospital site
The reasons for the northern boundary being chosen are;
• Some of the local ward members question whether the area north of the railway should be included as it has recently been redeveloped and has a different character to Area A. • Area A is predominantly residential, whilst the area north of the railway is predominantly commercial, strategic and an employment generator. The built form reflects this difference in terms of scale, building types and urban layout. The urban structure in the area north of the railway consists of large plots as a result of large institutions, commercial developments and major transport infrastructure including London Bridge stations and viaducts. The scale of built form is significantly greater around London Bridge in comparison to Area A and broadly transitions at Snowsfields. London Bridge is a primary transport interchange with significantly higher levels of pedestrian footfall and public transport provision than the quieter Area A. The sphere of influence of this site extends well beyond the area represented by BNF and BVAG. • The Business Improvement District covers most of the area north of Area A. Team London Bridge are an independent, business led project board who were elected to represent and help support businesses and employees to improve the area since November 2005. 32,000 people work within the BID area and 406 business premises are located there. Any Neighbourhood Area for this section would need to be business led, unlike Area A which is predominantly residential. • The railway arches along Druid Street and Crucifix lane are removed from Area A in order to ensure that there is a consistent approach to all of the arches.
5 18
• Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity and King’s College London are a strategic health provider on a self contained site. Any development on this site will be determined in this context. This site has a different character and function to that of Area A. The area to the north of Snowsfields is different in character to the area to the south. Snowsfields itself acts as a natural boundary, being one of the main thoroughfares cutting through the area, therefore, the area to the north of Snowsfields is not included in Area A. Given the large residential population in the southern part of the proposed area between Snowsfields and Bricklayers Arms, it would not be appropriate to designate this as a business led neighbourhood plan area. Newcomen Street, Snowsfields and Crucifix Lane form a clear boundary between these areas and the almost exclusively residential area to the south.
The Western boundary:
27. This boundary has been amended from the areas identified in both of the submitted applications to remove the areas lying within the existing Bankside Neighbourhood Area that was designated by the Council on 3 May 2013. The Council is required to have regard to the desirability of maintaining the existing boundaries of areas already designated as neighbourhood areas, and does not consider there to be sufficient justification to outweigh the desirability of maintaining the Bankside Neighbourhood Area boundaries.
The Eastern boundary:
28. This boundary has been amended from the areas identified in both of the submitted applications and is now set one block back from the Tower Bridge Road. Tower Bridge Road is a distinct location, with a historic and cohesive nature. The road is also part of the Transport for London Road Network.
29. The community councils suggested further consideration of Tower Bridge Road. There are no consultation responses supporting the inclusion of Tower Bridge Road. The Tower Bridge Alliance are a group of businesses working together to improve the local area. They object to Tower Bridge Road being included in a wider neighbourhood plan. They question whether Tower Bridge Road requires a neighbourhood plan and suggest that if there were to be a neighbourhood plan, they would like to lead on planning for this area. Officers agree that Tower Bridge Road possesses its own character, and would be more appropriately incorporated into a separate plan that would include both sides of the road.
The Southern boundary:
30. This boundary remains largely the same as the proposed Neighbourhood Area boundary submitted by Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum and is consistent with the predominantly residential character area identified in the Borough, Bankside and London Bridge Characterisation Study Addendum for Trinity and Tabard. The boundary has been slightly amended to remove the two schools (St Saviours and St Olave’s School and the Globe Academy) from the proposed Neighbourhood Area as no significant development is likely to take place on these sites and no response in support of either area was received from the schools during the consultation period.
6 19
Character of ‘Area A’
31. Area A has been proposed by officers because it is considered to form a coherent neighbourhood in terms of the urban grain and scale, and pattern of land use.
32. The character of the Bankside, Borough, London Bridge and Bermondsey areas has recently been assessed through the Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study (June 2013) and Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study Addendum (Trinity & Tabard) (January 2014) (appendices E and F). Both studies were prepared for the Council by independent planning consultants, URS. The areas have a similar character as set out below.
33. The studies have been used to inform the boundaries of the proposed Area A, which is shown at appendix C of this report. Area A is based on the Bermondsey area, and the Trinity and Tabard area. Whilst both of these areas are described separately in the characterisation study and its addendum, similar descriptions can be applied to both. In relation to Bermondsey, the Characterisation Study (Appendix E) recognises that “Land use is predominantly residential, interspersed with commercial and industrial uses.” (p.109, Characterisation Study, 2013). The Trinity and Tabard character area addendum (Appendix F) is described as "... predominantly residential, typically laid out as private houses with gardens or as local authority housing estates set within public green space. There are small pockets of light industrial uses principally in the east, close to Long Lane and in the south adjacent to New Kent Road.” (p.7, Characterisation Addendum, 2014)
34. The built form of Area A is characterised by small areas of private housing amid larger residential housing estates. Overall, building heights are much lower than the neighbouring areas of Tooley Street, London Bridge and Guy’s Hospital to the north. The scale of development within Area A is moderately consistent at around 11-20m in height, as illustrated in the Figure 101 of the Characterisation Study and Figure 7 of the Characterisation Addendum. Therefore, Area A is considered to form a coherent neighbourhood which is appropriate for neighbourhood planning.
The Neighbourhood Forum
35. Given the proposal to designate a significantly different neighbourhood area from that applied for by the BNF and BVAG, this report recommends the refusal of both neighbourhood forum applications. This would allow fresh applications to be invited for a neighbourhood forum designation in respect of Area A, and would allow groups/organisations to demonstrate that their general purpose reflects the character of Area A.
36. It is apparent from section 61F that the local planning authority retains a discretion as to whether to designate an organisation or body as a Neighbourhood Forum. Given that the Council proposes to designate as a Neighbourhood Area a different area to those proposed by BNF and BVAG, it is considered appropriate to invite applications for designation as a Neighbourhood Forum in respect of the designated Neighbourhood Area.
37. This approach will enable applicants to demonstrate that they satisfy the criteria for designation in section 61F(5) in respect of the designated Neighbourhood
7 20
Area, and will facilitate the Council’s consideration of the desirability of designating an organisation or body as the Neighbourhood Forum in respect of Area A, in accordance with the matters set out in section 61F(7).
Name of Neighbourhood Area
38. The area has been given the interim title of “Area A - Neighbourhood Area.” This is because there are several responses questioning the appropriateness of calling the Neighbourhood Development Area Bermondsey. A future forum can suggest a name which they consider appropriate.
Designating the Neighbourhood Area as a business area
39. When a local planning authority designates an area as a Neighbourhood Area pursuant to Section 61G, it must consider whether to designate that area as a business area (Section 61H). The local planning authority can only designate an area as a business area if they consider that the area is wholly or predominantly business in nature. The proposed area is predominantly residential in nature and therefore the council does not consider the application to trigger the designation of a business area.
Equalities
40. The purpose of Neighbourhood Planning is to enable local communities to help ensure that development meets the needs of the local area. We will work with the Neighbourhood Forum (once designated) to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan that helps to deliver the Council’s Fairer Future promises, ensuring that community impacts are taken into account. We will support the Neighbourhood Forum to prepare an Equalities Analysis of the Neighbourhood Plan and a sustainability appraisal to make sure that the Neighbourhood Plan has a positive impact on different groups, especially those with protected characteristics and that it is has a positive impact on the local community.
Financial implications
41. There may be some financial implications for the Council, however these are uncertain at present. Each Neighbourhood Plan will require a referendum which may require the expenditure of considerable funds. A ward election would cost around £25,000 per referendum. These costs could be similar to a ward election. Incurring costs in relation to referendums on Neighbourhood Plans/Orders is inevitable. At this stage, however, it is not possible to predict if, when or how such referendums will take place.
SUPPLEMENTARY ADVICE FROM OTHER OFFICERS
Director of Legal Services
42. The recommendation of this report requests that the Cabinet Member of the Council:-
43. Notes the consultation responses received from the public, Borough, Bankside and Walworth Community Council, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Community Council, and the Planning Committee in respect of the application from the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum to be designated as a Neighbourhood
8 21
Forum and for the designation of its proposed area as a Neighbourhood Area Appendix A (shown outlined in blue in Appendix B);
44. Notes the consultation responses received from the public, Borough, Bankside and Walworth Community Council, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Community Council, and the Planning Committee in respect of the application from Bermondsey Village Action Group to be designated as a Neighbourhood Forum and for the designation of its proposed area as a Neighbourhood Area Appendix A (shown outlined in purple in Appendix B);
45. Declines to designate the area shown outlined in blue on the map in Appendix B and proposed by the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum as a Neighbourhood Area;
46. Declines to designate the area shown outlined in purple on the map in Appendix B proposed by Bermondsey Village Action Group as a Neighbourhood Area;
47. Agrees to designate the area shown outlined in blue on the map in Appendix C (referred to in this report as Area A – Neighbourhood Area) as the appropriate Neighbourhood Area;
48. Declines to designate the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum as the appropriate Neighbourhood Forum for the Neighbourhood Area proposed in Appendix B (shown outlined in blue);
49. Declines to designate the Bermondsey Village Action Group as the appropriate Neighbourhood Forum for the Neighbourhood Area proposed in Appendix B (shown outlined in purple); and
50. Invites applications for designation as the Neighbourhood Forum for Area A shown edged blue on the map in Appendix C.
51. The report advises that separate applications were submitted to the Council for the designation of Neighbourhood Forum status and the designation of the Neighbourhood Areas, identified on the map at Appendix B, by the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum and Bermondsey Village Action Group on September and December 2012.
52. As advised at paragraphs 11 and 13 of the Report, Sections 61F and 61G of the Act set out the powers and duties of local planning authorities in relation to the designation of Neighbourhood Forums and Neighbourhood Areas and the conditions that must be satisfied in order for Neighbourhood Forums and Areas to be designated.
53. The Cabinet Member will note, that Section 61F(7)(b) of the Act provides that the Council can only designate one organisation or body as a Neighbourhood Forum in respect of each Neighbourhood Area. Areas designated as Neighbourhood Areas must not overlap with each other. The Council may, in determining an application for a Neighbourhood Area, modify designations already made (Section 61G(6)) but it must have regard to the desirability of maintaining existing boundaries of areas already designated as Neighbourhood Areas (section 61G(4)(b)).
54. Paragraph 19 of the report provides that the proposed Neighbourhood Areas overlap with the Bankside Neighbourhood and Business Area, being a
9 22
Neighbourhood Area which was designated by the Council on 3 May 2013. The Bankside Neighbourhood Forum was further designated as the Neighbourhood Forum in relation to the Bankside Neighbourhood Area on the 6 June 2013.
55. The Council has carefully considered whether the Neighbourhood Areas proposed by Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum and Bermondsey Village Action Group are consistent, coherent and appropriate for neighbourhood planning and is of the view that they are not. The Council does not consider the applications for the proposed Neighbourhood Areas submitted by the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum or the Bermondesy Village Action Group (outlined in blue and purple on the map in Appendix B) to be appropriate for the reasons set out in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the report. Further, both of the proposed areas overlap with boundary the existing Bankside Neighbourhood Area as advised above.
56. In R (oao Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum) v. Wycombe District Council [2013] EWHC 513 (Admin), the High Court (Supperstone J) held the discretion conferred by section 61G(5) was a broad one, to be exercised having regard to the “specific factual and policy matrix that exists in the individual case at the time the determination is made” (paragraph 57). The Court also held that a mismatch between the Neighbourhood Forum and the Neighbourhood Area which it seeks to control may be relevant in determining whether it is appropriate to designate a specified area as a Neighbourhood Area.
57. Section 61G of the Act provides that a local planning authority is not obliged to designate the entire area specified in an application for a Neighbourhood Area. However, if a local authority refuses an application reasons for the decision must be given. Further, subsection 61G(5) provides that: “If – (a) a valid application is made to the authority, (b) some or all of the specified area has not been designated as a neighbourhood area, and (c) the authority refuse the application because they consider that the specified area is not an appropriate area to be designated as a neighbourhood area, the authority must exercise their power of designation so as to secure that some or all of the specified area forms part of one or more areas designated (or to be designated) as neighbourhood areas.”
58. As advised at paragraph 25 of the report, the Council has carefully considered which area or parts of the areas proposed to be designated as Neighbourhood Areas constitute a single coherent neighbourhood and would be appropriate for the designation as a Neighbourhood Area in terms of the urban grain and scale, and pattern of land use. Following the consideration of this matter, it has identified an appropriate area for designation, being the Area A – Neighbourhood Area, (shown outlined in blue on the map in Appendix C).
59. The justification for the Council’s identification and selection of this area is clearly detailed in paragraphs 26-34 of the report. Further, the report sets out the character of the Bankside, Borough, London Bridge area that forms the basis of the proposed Area A – Neighbourhood Area and the Neighbourhood Areas proposed in the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum and Bermondsey Village Action Group applications (see the Bankside, Borough, London Bridge Characterisation Study (June 2013) and the Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study Addendum (Trinity and Tabard) (January 2014) at Appendices E and F of the Report.
10 23
60. The Cabinet Member is advised that although the proposed Area A – Neighbourhood Area is different from the Neighbourhood Areas proposed, by Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum and Bermondsey Village Action Group, it does contain some of the areas identified in the original applications and therefore satisfies the requirement of section 61G(5) of the Act.
61. As the Council’s proposed Neighbourhood Area, Area A-Neighbourhood Area, represents a new Neighbourhood Area that differs from the Neighbourhood Areas proposed by the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum and Bermondsey Village Action Group. The recommendation, therefore, seeks the refusal of the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum and Bermondsey Village Action Group applications for designation as Neighbourhood Forums. The Cabinet Member is advised that support for this approach has been recently endorsed by Lord Justice Sullivan in the recent Court of Appeal decision of Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum v. Wycombe DC, Secretary of State for CLG and Taylor Wimpey plc [2014] EWCA Civ 228 and the Council therefore invites fresh applications for the designation of a Neighbourhood Forum for the Area A – Neighbourhood Area.
62. The Equality Act 2010 introduced the public sector equality duty, which merged existing race, sex and disability equality duties and extended them to include other protected characteristics; namely age, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, religion and belied and sex and sexual orientation, including marriage and civil partnership. In summary those subject to the equality duty, which includes the Council, must in the exercise of their functions: (i) have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation; and (ii) foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
63. As advised in paragraph 40 of the report, the Council will support the preparation of a Equalities Analysis and Sustainability Appraisal of any forthcoming Neighbourhood Plan following the designation of a Neighbourhood Forum and Neighbourhood Area to ensure that the Neighbourhood Plan has positive impact on local communities and those with protected characteristic in accordance with its statutory duties.
64. In addition, the Human Rights Act 1998 imposed a duty on the Council as a public authority to apply the European Convention on Human Rights; as a result the Council must not act in a way which is incompatible with these rights. The most important rights for planning purposes are Article 8 (respect for homes); Article 6 (natural justice) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (peaceful enjoyment of property). It is considered that the decision not to the designate the proposed Neighbourhood Areas or Neighbourhood Forums and the recommendation to invite applications from potential Neighbourhood Forums for the Council’s proposed Neighbourhood Area, Area A-Neighbourhood Area, would not amount to a breach or interference with any of these rights.
11 24
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Background Papers Held At Contact The Localism Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ Susannah Pettit 2011/20/contents/enacted 0207 525 5405 The Neighbourhood http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 Susannah Pettit Planning Regulations 2/637/contents/made 0207 525 5405
APPENDICES
No. Title Appendix A Summary of consultation responses Appendix B Map showing BVAG and BNF proposed Neighbourhood Area boundaries Appendix C Map of proposed Neighbourhood Area (Area A) Appendix D Map showing adopted Neighbourhood Area and overlap with proposed Neighbourhood Areas. Appendix E The Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study (2013) http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/9770/bblb_chara cterisation_study_2013 Appendix F The Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study Addendum (2014)
AUDIT TRAIL
Lead Officer Eleanor Kelly, Chief Executive Report Author Juliet Seymour, Planning Policy Manager Version Final Dated 6 August 2014 Key Decision? No CONSULTATION WITH OTHER OFFICERS / DIRECTORATES / CABINET MEMBER Officer Title Comments sought Comments Included
Director of Legal Services Yes Yes Strategic Director of Finance and Yes Yes Corporate Services Cabinet Member No No Date final report sent to Constitutional Team 20 August 2014
12 25
Appendix A
Summary of Consultation responses
1. The applications were publicised on the Council’s website for a period of 5 weeks from 30 January to 5 March 2013. The Council’s Planning Committee was consulted on the applications on 29 January 2013. Ward members were also consulted on the application at Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Community Council on Wednesday 30 January 2013 and at Borough, Bankside and Walworth Community Council on Wednesday 2 October 2013. The Council also placed an advertisement in Southwark News and wrote to around 1200 consultees on the planning policy mailing list, advising them of the applications. We have received comments from 41 respondents and a petition with 18 signatories. We have received comments both for and against both of the proposed the Neighbourhood Area’s.
2. The Council carried out a further stage of consultation on the applications from 7 February to 21 March 2014 because there was a typographical error in the original consultation letter. At this stage, the applications were publicised on the Council’s website for a period of 6 weeks from 7 February to 21 March 2014. The Council also put an advertisement in Southwark News and wrote to all those on the planning policy mailing list, advising them of the consultation.
3. We received comments from 31 respondents. The majority of comments received are in support of the Neighbourhood Area proposed by Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum.
Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum
4. The main comments in support of the applications submitted by the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum are summarised below; • The proposals works to more logical edges within the townscape, and it is more representative of the different community groups that have chosen to live or work here. • The approach seems to be more collaborative and constructive. • The area includes sub areas much more in need of help than the smaller northern area which will receive investment anyway. • The boundary is large enough to bring opportunities for improvement which will benefit significant numbers of residents as well as those who work, spend leisure time or just walk through the area. • The area has been carefully considered and justified. • The area includes the Thames and many more open spaces which allows for an integrated approach to spatial planning. • The area keeps all of the estates of Leathermarket JMB together. • The boundary is more appropriate because it forms a reasonable spread of retail, residential and business types, and has a more substantial footprint. • The area is the correct one as it reflects the bigger picture and a neighbourhood with a rich heritage, known for its history, the antiques market, and now the vibrant mixture of businesses and homes that have developed and hopefully will continue to develop. • The plan will be more inclusive for a greater number of people. It will include and encourage people from the estates as well as more people in private accommodation.
13 26
• The boundary better covers the areas in which the implications from any new development focused at London Bridge are likely to be felt and hence it is appropriate that any neighbourhood boundary should take in both the focus for major development activity and the wider area in which the development will extend its influence. • The area extends further south and is far broader in its coverage. Neighbourhood planning will be most successful where a holistic approach is taken. • This part of the borough should be covered by one Neighbourhood Plan, rather than a number of separate plans. The latter approach could result in a disjointed set of policy documents and guidance making it difficult to apply a consistent approach to development management in the area. • The Bermondsey Village Action Group’s geographical zone ends halfway down Bermondsey Street.
5. The main comments objecting to the applications are summarised below;
• The area cuts across too many Wards and does not lend itself to the concept of “neighbourhood”; it slices through the Riverside Ward where there has been a history of active forums between the east and west areas of Tower Bridge Road. • The area south of Great Dover Street should be removed from the proposed area. This would make the area more logical, and avoid the problem of the community south of the road falling into two schemes should one emerge for this southern area. • The area is counterintuitive to neighbourhood planning and elongates the boundary from Hays Galleria/More London down to New Kent Road therefore incorporating the already developed areas alongside the Thames to the area down below Grange Road, which are in need of thoughtful localised improvements. • The area is too large to be manageable. • The area is too large and varied to create a real sense of belonging, it risks failing to create any sense of place, and failing to make residents and businesses identify and feel connected to their neighbourhood. • The area appears to cover too vast an area (as it sprawls from the river down to the New Kent Road), to truly represent the area. It does not relate to the concept of a 'natural neighbourhood'. • The Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum leadership lacks hearty input. The forum will continue to be unproductive as it has been in the past and that the boundary is too excessive to be effectual.
Bermondsey Village Action Group
6. The main comments in support of the applications submitted by the Bermondsey Village Action Group are summarised below;
• The character of the areas and the amount of work involved in including as many residents as possible in creating the community plans and gaining involvement in the referenda necessitates there being two areas – with Bermondsey Village Action Group taking the northern part and Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum the southern part. • Bermondsey Village Action Group, which has been running for a long time should be allocated the designated area.
14 27
• Bermondsey Village Action Group take the time and effort to send out regular updates on developments in the area where Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum have not contacted enough people regarding their application. • The area to the north of Tooley Street and up to the river is well enough developed and is suitably demarcated enough by the line of that street so as to be considered an entirely different neighbourhood. • Bermondsey Village Action Group has always remained active and inclusive over the years. The group has been in the forefront of campaigns aimed to preserve the local architectural heritage by staging peaceful protests, collecting petitions, running exhibitions in addition to holding regular meetings with its followers.
7. The main comments objecting to the applications are summarised below;
• The area does not represent the neighbourhood as it does not include most of the key community areas, such as Tabard North, the Leathermarket JMB, Bermondsey Street and Long Lane • The aspirations of Bermondsey Village Action Group that have been published do not conform with the statutory development plan. • The St Thomas Street Area proposed by Bermondsey Village Action Group is too tightly drawn to represent the Bermondsey neighbourhood or to be able to spread the benefits of investment in the London Bridge area to the rest of Bermondsey. • Bermondsey Village Action Group, is a single-issue campaign group concerned with height restrictions to possible future developments around London Bridge Station and the extension of the Bermondsey Street Conservation Area to include the car-park site on St. Thomas Street. • Bermondsey Village Action Group appears from its website to be more of an action group defending the character and heritage of the area. • It is not easy to see how representative Bermondsey Village Action Group is of local people, communities, businesses and others in the area. • Bermondsey Village Action Group proposals appear to be founded on the principle of preventing growth, and too heavily focuses on one single street • Bermondsey Village Action Group application is too narrow, their focus seems to be to prevent the construction of tall buildings along St. Thomas Street.
Member comments
8. The Planning Committee made general comments on the 29 January 2013 based on boundaries and areas rather than on the specific application. The Planning Committee commented that boundaries should go around estates either including or not including entire estates and natural boundaries such as railway lines, rivers and roads should be taken into account. The Planning Committee also commented that careful consideration should be given to roads (shops should be included on both sides of the road) the lengths of roads, cut offs, usage of the roads and amenities along them.
9. The Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Community Council commented on the 30 January 2013 that; • In terms of the western boundary of each of the proposed Neighbourhood Areas, this should run up to Borough High Street but not include it. Instead
15 28
it should border the eastern boundary of the Bankside Neighbourhood Forum plan, which should include the eastern side of Borough High Street. • That consideration be given to extending the eastern boundary of each of the proposals to include Tower Bridge Road, on both sides, with any necessary “kinks” to prevent the artificial splits in council estates that would follow by just having a rigid straight line. • The northern boundary, consideration of a third option, of simply adopting the railway line as the northern boundary, should be given. • The southern boundary, there was a straight choice to be made, between the benefit of having a relatively small “St Thomas Street-centric plan”, and the benefit of having a larger “West Bermondsey plan”. The community council believes that if the larger area is to be adopted, the area should be called “West Bermondsey”.
10. The Borough, Bankside and Walworth Community Council commented on the 2 October 2013 that; • The western boundary of both areas must reflect the boundaries of the existing Bankside neighbourhood plan. Both sides of Borough High Street should be part of the Bankside neighbourhood plan only, for reasons of consistency and to ensure future development is addressed in a cohesive way. • If Tower Bridge Road is to be included, both sides of the road should also be included in the area for reasons of consistency and to ensure future development is addressed in a cohesive way. • The two organisations should work together to come up with a joint plan.
11. Shad Thames Residents Association (STRA) commented that the BNF boundary cuts across too many Wards and does not lend itself to the concept of a neighbourhood. The Bermondsey Neighbourhood Area covers an extremely large area with major differences across the Wards, i.e. high-end businesses in the area adjacent to the River, the natural boundaries of the railway line which cuts in to the quaint Victorian village atmosphere created by Bermondsey Street and the lower end of Tower Bridge Road, again with its constituency of community housing and local shops. More importantly it slices through the Riverside Ward where there has been a history of active forums between the east and west areas of Tower Bridge Road. STRA acknowledged that the London Plan and Core Strategy have designated Bankside, Borough and London Bridge as an opportunity area. However, they do not consider the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum to be truly representative of the upper northern section.
12. The Lawson Estate Tenants and Residents Association supports the proposal for the larger area proposed by BNF. The Lawson TRA want to ensure that the Lawson Estate is included within the boundaries of a Neighbourhood Forum area. Lawson TRA suggest that Tower Bridge Road and New Kent Road are natural boundaries that would allow for some of the important issues like traffic to be dealt with.
13. Tabard Gardens North Tenant & Residents Association (T&RA) objected to the application submitted by BNF. Tabard Gardens North TRA consider BNF to be unrepresentative and suggest that BNF are not acting in accordance with their constitution. Tabard Gardens North TRA query whether BNF have formally adopted a written constitution and would like to see further evidence that the Forum has the required minimum membership of 21 individuals. Tabard Gardens
16 29
North TRA consider that it would be highly inappropriate for the Tabard Gardens Estate to be included under the Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum.
17 30 31 32 BANKSIDE, BOROUGH & LONDON BRIDGE CHARACTERISATION STUDY
TRINITY AND TABARD ADDENDUM, JANUARY 2014 33 3.10 TRINITY AND TABARD
3.10.1 Location and Summary The area is located to north-east of Elephant and Castle, south of Long Lane and north of New Kent Road and Abbey Street, which joins Long Lane at the north-east corner. Great Dover Street, which divides the area on a broadly north-west, south-east axis, was laid out as a turnpike in the 1750s. The parallel Tabard Street formalised the line of earlier Roman Watling Street. Development within the majority of the area is the result of slum clearance in the early 20th century and further redevelopment following significant bomb damage during WWII. As a result, extensive housing estates, which removed parts of the earlier street pattern, fill much of the area. In contrast, the Trinity Church Square Conservation area contains fine examples of late Georgian townhouses and garden squares. 34
Figure 1: Trinity and Tabard - Aerial Overview
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 2 TRINITY AND TABARD
3.10.2 Historical Development their wives children and widowes where most need was.” By 1697 the Quaker Burial Trinity Street, the Congregational Chapel on Deverell Street the Methodist Chapel Ground had opened at the eastern end of Long Lane. just north of St Stephen’s, Tabard Street School and Joseph Lancaster Board School. Although Roman occupation in Southwark was centred on the area around the bridgehead close to the modern day London Bridge, there have been a number Roque’s map of 1746 shows that the land to the south-west of Kent Street was still The social differences between the north and south of the area are shown in stark of Roman finds within this area. Excavations in 2002 for example discovered a almost entirely agricultural with very few buildings. The exception is the land to contrast on Charles Booth’s poverty maps of the late 19th century. The houses in Roman temple in Tabard Square, close to where Watling Street and Stane Street further north, which Trinity House had given permission to their tenant George Dunn Trinity House Square, Trinity Street, Merrick Square, Falmouth Road and Great merged, and evidence of a significant Roman cemetary, as Roman inhumations and to use as a tenter ground. Dover Street are shown to be inhabited by the ‘well-to-do middle classes and fairly cremations have been found in a number of locations in the area discussed here, comfortable families with good ordinary earnings’. Tabard Street forms a dividing
By the mid-18th century the leather making trade had become established north 35 most recently in Dickens Square. The line of Tabard Street is likely to reflect the earlier line with a mix of the comfortable and the poor while the area between Long Lane of the area with tanners yards behind almost every property on the north side of Roman Watling Street that linked London to the ports on the Kent coast. and Tabard Street, now Tabard Gardens is dominated by the ‘very poor in chronic Long Lane. Development had spread west from Bermondsey Street and Kent Street want’. Two streets to the south-east end of this area, Henry Street and Etham Street The name Bermondsey derives from Beormond’s Ey, an island of high ground in the had become developed along its length to the Lock Hospital. This can be seen on are of particular interest being inhabited by what Booth describes as the ‘lowest marshes belonging to Beormond, a Saxon lord. There is documentary evidence that Roque’s map, surrounded by the Harp Inn, the Bull Inn and St George’s Burying class, vicious and semi-criminal’. Those families on Etham Street were living in the a minster was built here in the early 8th century. Bermondsey Priory was founded by Ground. In 1750, the Great Dover Road was created as a turnpike road to divert traffic poorest type of house, true back-to-backs one room deep and with a shared back the Cluniac order, probably in 1082 and the reference in Domesday to ‘a new and from Kent Street. wall. handsome church’ may refer to their building. The area was still characterised by open space by the time of Horwood’s map of By the end of the 19th century the few remaining open sites were being developed The priory was raised to the status of an abbey in 1399 and was the scene of the London, Westminster and Southwark of 1799 but development had taken place in and the area had been connected to the tram network with tracks laid along Great death of two English queens, Catherine de Valois in 1436 and Elizabeth Woodville in a number of locations. Bermondsey New Road, a predecessor of the southern part Dover Street. In the early 19th century large buildings continued to be built including 1492. Prior to the dissolution, some of the land to the west of the area was in private of Tower Bridge Road, was built and developed with terraces and side streets and Hartley’s Jam Factory on Rothsay Street, which employed 2,000 people and the hands and some belonged to St Thomas’s Hospital and St Mary Overie. By the 1560s Bermondsey Square was built on the site of the former Abbey. The Lock Hospital Methodist Great Central Hall at the southern end of Bermondsey Street. much of the land was in the possession of the Bostock family after which it passed to closed in 1760 and a number of residential developments were built on and around the Merrick family. The abbey was dissolved in 1537-8 and the buildings demolished its site in the late 18th century including The Paragon, Union Crescent and Mount The early 20th century saw a major change in the northern part of the area with the and the stone used to build Bermondsey House. Row. Further west, small streets had started to be built off Kent Street. streets of terraces between Tabard Street and Long Lane being swept away to be replaced in 1910 by large blocks of flats of the Tabard Gardens Estate, built by the Although Borough High Street and Bermondsey Street were occupied before the end In addition to residential development there was also the start of a southward London County Council. of the medieval period the medieval road on the route of Watling Street ran through spread of industrial buildings with tanners yards appearing south of Long Lane. In open country. It was punctuated by the presence of an occasional inn and the Lock the early 19th century much of the land in the eastern part of the area was still used Although bomb damage in WWII was not as severe as in other parts of Southwark Hospital, a leper hospital probably founded in the 12th century situated close to the for grazing and market gardening but in 1813 a programme of speculative building there was a corridor of damage along and to the south of Great Dover Street where modern Bartholomew Street. The road was paved in stone by Act of Parliament in started that would become the Trinity House Estate. The estate comprised Great many buildings were either totally destroyed or damaged beyond repair. This led 1565 as far as the Lock Hospital and was developed on both sides during the 17th Suffolk Street East (now Trinity Street), Swan Street and Cole Street, Trinity Square (now to the demolition of all the terraced streets in an area bounded by Falmouth Road, century. Trinity Church Square) and Falmouth Road. The Holy Trinity Church, now Henry Wood Great Dover Street, Bartholomew Street and Harper Road after the war and their Hall, was consecrated in 1824. In the 1850s, a second wave of development saw the replacement with high and low rise predominantly social housing. The first map to show any part of the area in detail is Morgan’s map of 1682 which building of Merrick Square, remembering the name of the area’s previous owner. shows ribbon development along Kent Street (now Tabard Street), dense at the northern end with alleys leading off and just one building deep further south. Long With increasing industrialisation the area became fully developed by at least the Lane was densely developed at either end with fewer buildings at the centre and the 1870s. Industrial buildings appeared across the area but especially in the north occasional side street such as Wild’s Rents, one of the few early streets which exists including a brush manufactory, a large area given over to Pickford’s Stables and today. The section of Bermondsey Street south of its intersection with Long Lane was a furniture warehouse on Great Dover Street. There were also stone yards, timber similarly built up at this time with infill development behind the buildings lining the yards, rope walks and tanneries to the east of the area. The southern part of the street. area remained more residential but also saw industrial growth with a pickle factory opening between Trinity Church Square and Merrick Square in 1861. The majority of The land enclosed by these three streets was exclusively agricultural at this time residential expansion in the area in the late 19th century was of short streets lined and in 1661 Christopher Merrick conveyed the land to the east of the area to the with small terraced houses, some with very small yards and without back additions. Trinity House Corporation “for relieving comforting easing and maintaining of the A number of new churches and schools were built to serve the needs of the growing poor aged sick maimed weak and decayed seamen and mariners of this Kingdom, community including St Stephens in St Stephen’s Square, the Catholic chapel on
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 3 TRINITY AND TABARD
Figure 2: Trinity and Tabard - John Rocque’s A Plan of London, 1766 Figure 3: Trinity and Tabard - 1896 to 1899 OS 36
Figure 4: Trinity and Tabard - 1936-1952 OS Figure 5: Trinity and Tabard - 2013 OS Mastermap © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey (0)100019252.
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 4 TRINITY AND TABARD
3.10.3 Movement Long Lane forms the northern boundary of this area and is lined by trees set within generally wide pavements. The busy primary routes of Tower Bridge Road and New Kent Road lie to the east and south respectively. Both are Transport for London red routes with wide carriageways and pavements, accommodating on-street parking in places that serve parades of shops. Great Dover Street divides the area diagonally on a broadly north-west to south-east alignment. It forms a busy node just outside the area to the north-west where it joins Borough High Street, Long Lane and Marshalsea 37 Road. There is also a node just outside of the area to the south-east. Here, New Kent Road, Great Dover Street and Tower Bridge Road meet at the major Bricklayers Arms roundabout where the carriageway is up to five lanes wide. The complicated network of pedestrian underpasses that passed beneath the roundabout were closed in 2013 and the entrances filled in. Opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the busy junction are now provided by pelican crossings across each of the primary roads and across the roundabout. New Kent Road is carried over this roundabout on a tall concrete viaduct, creating a strong edge and dividing the area to the south. The main focus of commercial and pedestrian activity is along Tower Bridge Road, where small independent shops line the street.
Away from the primary routes, the area is quieter. Harper Road meanders along the western boundary. The carriageway and pavements vary in width and this, together with traffic calming measures, slows vehicular traffic. There are numerous places for pedestrians to cross including pedestrian refuges and zebra crossings.
The majority of local routes in the east are broadly parallel or perpendicular to Great Dover Street, proving access to the commercial areas further to the north. The current street pattern reflects a period of redevelopment in the 20th century which led to a large number of earlier streets being removed or severed, reducing legibility. © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey (0)100019252. Examples include the modern Pardoner Street and Prioress Street, which are no- Figure 6: Trinity and Tabard - Movement through routes to traffic but which lead into complex networks of footpaths through residential estates.
To the west of Great Dover Street and north of Falmouth Street much of the street pattern is defined by the layout of the Trinity House Estate. Trinity Street runs east from Borough High Street but the junction with Great Dover Street has been closed and pedestrianised and gates restrict access for vehicles. As a consequence, it is much quieter than the busier routes it connects. The road is wide and accommodates on-street parking and is a popular route with cyclists and pedestrians. South of Falmouth Street, further rationalisation of the street pattern in the post-war period limits east-west connections.
Trinity Street, a popular cyclist route Tower Bridge Road, a busy high street Long Lane, Barclays cycle hire station
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 5 TRINITY AND TABARD
3.10.4 Urban Structure and Built Form There is a high degree of variability in the age, scale and style of the buildings which front Long Lane. The majority of buildings address the street, although there are a number of gaps in the frontage currently occupied by car parks, open space and vacant land. There is an increase in active frontages towards the junction with Borough High Street in the north. Building height ranges from single storey shops and restaurants to modern six and seven storey office buildings and mixed-use developments. In contrast, the typically Victorian buildings which line Tower Bridge Road and New Kent Road are generally small scale and tend to respect the narrow plots of the original layout, although in places single-storey buildings create obvious gaps in the roofline. Bermondsey Central Hall is a prominent, late Victorian building on the corner of Bermondsey Street and Decima Street. It forms a local landmark due to its ornate architectural detailing and prominent brick tower, complete with spire, which is taller than surrounding buildings. It lies close to the modern and contemporary mixed-use buildings of steel, glass and timber which contribute to the enclosure of Bermondsey Square. The buildings which line Great Dover Street date mostly from the post-war period and are predominantly blocks of flats. In contrast to the original layout, most of these buildings are large in scale and set back from the street, particularly south of Spurgeon Street.
Away from the primary routes, blocks are generally large as a result of the clearance of slums at the beginning of the 20th century and extensive post-war redevelopment, particularly in the east. As a result of the rationalisation and amalgamation of plots, much of the earlier pattern of development has been over-written. Large residential estates now cover approximately a third of the area, including much of the space between Long Lane and Tabard Street. Blocks of flats, 10 to 16m in height, which are similar in style and mostly constructed in brick with pitched, tiled roofs, are set
back from the street within shared open space. The chimneys which adorn the 38 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey (0)100019252. majority of the older buildings are locally distinctive. It is enclosed by blocks of flats Figure 7: Trinity and Tabard - Urban Structure and Built Form within the Tabard Gardens estate and lining Tabard Street. There are also pockets of private housing to the south, at Potier Street for example, where the scale of the buildings is smaller. Modern buildings are limited with occasional plots along Long Lane redeveloped for housing or mixed-uses. Examples include the Empire Square development, at the corner of Long Lane and Tabard Street, which includes a 82m, 21-storey residential tower. Other contemporary developments include the colourful Baitul Aziz Islamic Cultural Place Mosque at Harper Road and the vacant Matthew Hall at the junction of Swan Street and Great Dover Street. Three, 20m tall red brick buildings of the former Hartley’s Jam factory fill the block between Alice Street, Prioress Street and Rothsay Street. They were converted into a high quality housing scheme in the early 21st century with the addition of a contemporary extension of between two and four floors to each building and an additional building to the north.
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 6 TRINITY AND TABARD
The area to the west of Great Dover Street and south of Falmouth Street comprises principally post-war estate developments. The tallest building here is the substantial 31m tall Brutalist slab-block of Symington House. This building lies within the Lawson Estate where there tends to be more space between buildings than the areas to the east of Great Dover Street and therefore a higher degree of openness. This area also includes St Savior’s & St Olave’s School, Joseph Lancaster Board School and the modern and extensive Globe Academy. The latter is bounded to the west and south by a locally distinctive wall constructed from rubble arising from the clearance of 39 earlier buildings within the area.
Smaller blocks tend to be found where the historic pattern of development has been retained, around Swan Street, Cole Street and Trinity Street in the north-west for example. The finer grain and smaller scale of development is evidenced in the narrow plots with buildings which address the street. Late Georgian townhouses on the eastern side of Trinity Street form an almost unbroken façade between Swan Street and Great Dover Street. Although there is some variation in architectural detailing, the scale, mass, rhythm and continuity of horizontal lines of the buildings and roofs contributes to a high degree of unity and cohesion. Trinity Church Square and Merrick Square are rare survivals of Georgian and early Victorian planned squares in south London and are fronted by equally continuous frontages of Georgian townhouses. The intricately detailed Henry Wood Hall, which forms an impressive centrepiece to Trinity Church Square, retains its original setting, although the railings which surround it are a modern replacement. At the northern end of Trinity Street, there is a row of shops, a number of which which retain their original frontage. Older buildings are also commonly found close at the ends of side roads where they meet the primary routes, at Wild’s Rents and Rothsay Street for example.
3.10.5 Land Use © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey (0)100019252. Figure 8: Trinity and Tabard - Land Use Land use is predominantly residential, typically laid out as private houses with gardens or as local authority housing estates set within public green space. There are small pockets of light industrial uses principally in the east, close to Long Lane and in the south adjacent to New Kent Road. Commercial uses commonly line the primary routes with parades of shops found either end of New Kent Road and on Harper Road and Pilgrimage Street for example. Offices are most commonly found in the north, close to Long Lane and Borough High Street. Educational uses are also common, particularly in the south-west where the Globe Academy is located.
Retail along Tower Bridge Road Commercial and retail properties on Trinity Local authority housing set within public green Street space
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 7 TRINITY AND TABARD
3.10.6 Heritage Assets The most significant heritage asset in this area is the Scheduled Ancient Monument of Abbey Buildings, Bermondsey. Early medieval burials were discovered during excavations of the abbey prior to the construction of Tower Bridge Road. It is possible that a small monastery or minster preceded the priory in the 8th century. The abbey church lay on the line of Abbey Road to the north of its cloister. Bermondsey Square now lies on the site of the abbey cloistral buildings. The late 17th century listed buildings at No. 5-7 Grange Walk just outside the area retain elements of the abbey’s medieval gatehouse. Excavations in the 1960’s and 1980’s uncovered remains of the abbey church and other buildings within the precinct while excavations in 2006 prior to the redevelopment of Bermondsey Square uncovered significant archaeology from the pre-historic, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval to late Post Medieval periods. (Refer to Appendix A of this report for The oldest heritage assets to survive above ground in the area demonstrate the references to individual heritage assets) ribbon development along the major roads that started in the sixteenth century and continued throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Part of the perimeter wall of the Quaker burial ground built in 1697 still stands to the south of Long Lane at its eastern end. It has been rebuilt a number of times and now forms the boundary of a public recreation ground. Towards the other end of the street No. 142, graded II* was built in c. 1732 as two houses of stock brick with red brick dressings and gauged red brick segmental arches over sash windows. Although the building has completely lost its 18th century setting it is a reminder of the quality of building in the area at the start of the Georgian period and has links to the local leather making trade.
Nos. 2-5 Bermondsey Square and Nos. 1-19 Bartholomew Street are survivors of early 19th century speculative development in the east of the area in the wake of the slightly earlier Paragon and Union Crescent. The three storey terraces of stock 40 brick with gauged brick arches, red brick dressings and round-headed openings Figure 9: Trinity and Tabard - Heritage Assets © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey (0)100019252. to the ground floor would have been representative of this part of the area in the early 19th century. Although Bermondsey Square has lost its 19th century setting it is now complemented by a set of interesting late 20th century buildings. Bartholomew Street also retains some of its 19th century setting as it faces the late 19th century St Saviour’s and St Olave’s School.
The Bermondsey Street Conservation Area contains a large number of buildings of historical significance, including the Church of St. George the Martyr, just to the north-west of the area. The majority of listed heritage assets in the area are contained within the Trinity Church Square Conservation Area which largely covers the area of the Trinity House Estate. Many of the streets that comprised the estate were developed by the mason William Chadwick to whom there is a memorial in Holy Trinity Church, the centre piece of the development. The church, now a concert hall, was built in 1823-4 an austere rectangle of Bath stone with a Corinthian portico
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 8 TRINITY AND TABARD
to the north with a tower over, a porch to the south and gables to the east and west Slightly later than the Trinity Church Square and Trinity Street houses are those of Mash Shop at 87 Tower Bridge Road with a largely unaltered interior of 1895. elevations. The façade faces a garden in which stands a listed statue, generally Nos. 4, 10, 12 and 18 and 20-40 Falmouth Road just to the east and all listed Grade II. Though many of the area’s 19th century places of worship have gone the façade of assumed to be King Alfred. The whole church is surrounded by cast iron railings These houses of 1835-41 houses are of stock brick with two storeys and basement, the Methodist South London Mission survives. The main feature of the three storey replacing those removed in World War II. The stone construction contrasts with the stucco is not used although the bricks to the basements are painted. Window red brick building is the huge entrance arch in cream terracotta on the ground floor brick and stucco of the surrounding houses and serves to point up the status of the openings on the ground floor are round headed and the first floor rooms are lower of the Tudor style tower. A number of 19th century school buildings also survive estate. than those of the earlier buildings. Originally facing similar terraces their setting is including two built shortly after the Education Act of 1870 and now listed Grade II. now provided by not unsympathetic modern apartments with channelled stucco to The houses in the square were built between 1824 and 1832. They are three storeys These are the former Tabard Street School by Frederick W Roper, opened in 1874 the ground floor and classical details to the porches. above basements and of stock brick with later attic rooms set into the slate mansard and converted to residential use in 1990 and the Joseph Lancaster Primary School, 41 roofs above a stuccoed cornice. The ground floors and basements are stuccoed, The next phase of development in the area is demonstrated by the Grade II listed formerly the Harper Road School by R W Edis. Though both buildings are in stock brick and the majority of the houses have retained their original six-panelled front doors houses in Merrick Square. The houses have stuccoed basements and ground floors. they are notable for being early London School Board schools built with individual with panelled pilasters and fanlights above. Some however have been replaced Changes in fashion can be discerned in the four-panelled front doors with plain styles before the Board’s overriding ‘Queen Anne’ style became preferred. with windows as a result of lateral extension internally. Most houses retain their cast overlights and pedimented cases. The houses retain their area railings and the The land just outside of the area to the west has connections to law and order dating iron railings to the area and steps. The houses were built to the same design on original railings remain around the square itself, which is about half the width of back to Surrey County Gaol on Horsemonger Lane, now Harper Road in 1791. This the instruction of Trinity House, the exceptions being Nos. 51-53 and 60-62 on the Trinity Church Square. The square’s intimate 19th century setting is almost complete tradition continued into the 20th century with Southwark’s Crown Court building, built north side which have rounded brick arches to the first floor windows and lack the apart from the loss of the terrace at the eastern end of Trinity Street after World War II in the 1930s on the site of the previous County Court on Swan Street. The building is pilasters to the front doors. The view from the south porch of the church looks down which gives a view of the back of a post war apartment block from some viewpoints. of townscape merit and is a two storey neo-Georgian courtyard building, the Swan Brockham Street, originally Church Street. This was once lined on both sides with The speed with which industry spread into this newly suburban area is demonstrated Street façade is of red brick with a stone door surround supporting the Royal crest terraces, those on the east side survive and are contemporary with the square and by the presence of Nos. 26 and 28 Cole Street, just to the rear of Trinity Street. This and two stone lamp pillars either side of the entrance. The early 20th century blocks are noted as being of townscape merit. four-storey, eight bay warehouse of stock brick was built in 1826-27 by William of the Tabard Garden Estate form a strong and consistent group and a largely intact Nos. 25-47 Trinity Street are contemporary with Trinity Church Square and are very Chadwick and is contemporary with both Trinity Street and Trinity Church Square. example of early social housing. The most modern listed building in the area is the similar although they also lack the pilasters to the front doors and have suffered more The warehouse forms a group with 26a Cole Street, a former Independent Chapel Geoffrey Chaucer School in Harper Road built in 1959-60 to a design by Chamberlin, from lateral extension and the consequent blocking of front doors. With the exception and Nos. 18-24, a terrace of four late 19th or early 20th century cottages, both noted Powell and Bon. The concrete, glass and brick building includes a pentagonal of Nos. 1-12 Trinity Street, which have acquired shop fronts and are now surrounded as being of Townscape Merit. Many of the other listed buildings and buildings assembly hall roofed by five concrete hyperbolic paraboloids separated by roof by modern development, the listed buildings in Trinity Church Square and Trinity of Townscape Merit in the area are connected with the industrial expansion and lights. The building has a largely modern urban setting and is not easily viewed from Street retain their early to mid-19th century setting almost completely intact and are consequent population growth of the area. Industrial buildings include the Grade the surrounding streets. a remarkable survival in south London of early 19th century speculative building. II listed No. 19 Tabard Street, a three storey single bay building in stock brick with stone plaques and other stone decoration. Of Townscape Merit is No. 165 Great Dover Street, a long warehouse five storeys high with a wide arched entrance with spandrels decorated in moulded brick depicting industry and commemorating Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897. Larger still was the Hartley’s Jam factory, a building of Townscape Merit on Green Walk consisting of three large blocks in red brick and now remodelled as apartments.
The area’s 19th century working class houses were cleared away in the early 20th century but some of the pubs the workers visited, the schools their children attended and one of the churches in which they worshipped remain. The Roebuck is a late 19th century public house at the apex of Great Dover Street and Trinity Street. The building is of red brick with a green copper pavilion roof and is highly decorated with Jacobean, Dutch and Classical influences. The pub retains much of its 19th century Grade II listed properties at Merrick Square Trinity Church Square Grade II* listed No. 142 Long Lane 19th century industry and houses, Cole Street setting, not least in that it faces the warehouse at 165 Great Dover Street. Two local pubs are noted as being of buildings of townscape merit; the mid-19th century Marigold and the late 19th century Royal Oak, both with glazed brick pilasters. Not licensed but also a place of refreshment is the Grade II listed Manze’s Eel, Pie and
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 9 TRINITY AND TABARD
3.10.7 Open Space and Public Realm There are a wide variety of open spaces within the area ranging from public places for recreation to private gardens, communal gardens and squares and green spaces around buildings. Tabard Gardens is the largest public open space in the area and is part of the original LCC design of the Tabard Gardens Estate. It was laid out in the early part of the 20th century as a breathing space for residents. It is divided into three spaces: a children’s play-facility and multi-use games area; a formal square with trees and seating; and an open parkland area with amenity grass, shrubs and mature trees. The gardens form a distinct break in the urban fabric, increasing openness locally and providing the setting for surrounding residential blocks. Lime trees along the southern boundary of the park line Tabard Street.
Trinity Church Square and Merrick Square form part of the original layout of the Trinity Estate. They comprise private gardens enclosed by iron railings and are laid out with lawns, shrubs, ornamental planting and mature London Plane trees. The consistent use of high quality materials in the public realm unifies the character of the area. Dickens Square is a small local park situated at the corner of Falmouth Road and Harper Road. It lies to the south of the Trinity Church Square Conservation Area, occupying land which was formerly laid out as houses surrounding Union Square. It is a site of local importance for nature conservation and comprises mature trees and shrubs set within an area of amenity grass. Whilst the square remains, its original setting had been lost.
Mature trees are also common throughout the wider area within the many small areas of grass between buildings. They also line many of the streets, including Harper Road, Long Lane, Trinity Street and Great Dover Street. Pavements are surfaced with a range of materials including in-situ concrete, concrete slabs and asphalt. In some cases, along Tabard Street, Trinity Street and Rothsay Street for example, these are © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey (0)100019252. 42 mixed. In contrast, there is a higher degree of unity where materials have been Figure 10: Trinity and Tabard - Open Space and Public Realm consistently applied to the pavements, along Harper Road, Great Dover Street and Long Lane for example. In the case of Harper Road, the tree lined pavements are very wide. The pavements surrounding the Bricklayers Road Roundabout are also now very wide as a result of the closure of the underpasses.
In addition to many small parks and gardens, including Hankey Place Gardens and Swanmead, there are also a number of small areas of public space. For example, high quality paving, seating and tree planting has been applied to the closed junction of Trinity Street and Great Dover Street. There is also a small area of surfaced space at the junction of Tower Bridge Road and Bermondsey Street, which was previously the location of a market but now appears to have limited public use. In contrast, there is a higher degree of activity within the larger Bermondsey Square to the north. The square compliments the surrounding buildings, with restaurants spilling out into the space and provides seating, public art and tree planting. Tabard Gardens Merrick Square Dickens Square
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 10 TRINITY AND TABARD
3.10.8 Views The straight alignment and continuous frontage of Trinity Street creates a strong linear focus to views. To the north-west however, views are interrupted slightly by a The alignment of Great Dover Street, the proximity of buildings and the avenues of post-modern building occupying the corner of Swan Street and Trinity Street which mature trees creates a series of linear views through the centre of the area. Views is out of scale and position with the surrounding buildings. Henry Wood Hall is a open out to the busy nodes at the junction with Borough High Street in the north and strong focal point in views from Trinity Street in proximity to the square and is framed the Bricklayer’s Arms Roundabout in the south. Side streets provide local interest, in views north-west along Brockham Street. for example the former Harding and Sons Hardware Merchants building which terminates the view along Silvester Street with the Empire Square tower rising above. The Shard (304m) to the north-east and Strata (148m) to the south-west, both of The Roebuck public house at the junction with Trinity Street is also important in views which are located outside of the area, are distinctive landmarks and form the focal 43 travelling north from the Bricklayers Arms junction. point of some views. They are prominent in views along some side streets which are perpendicular to Great Dover Street, such as Swan Street, where they appear above With the exception of Tabard Gardens, longer distance views to the east of Great the roofline of surrounding buildings. In some views, from the eastern side of Trinity Dover Street are largely contained by the many large blocks of flats within the Church Square for example, The Shard appears to form a cluster with Empire Square Tabard Garden Estate. The height and proximity of the buildings means that views and Guy’s Tower (143m), although the buildings are geographically quite separate. are focussed along narrow alleys or into courtyard spaces between buildings, with Strata is also prominent above the roofline of houses on the western edge of Trinity occasional views out the Long Lane to the north. Within the gardens and along Church Square in views from Trinity Street. These distinctive landmark buildings help Tabard Street, there are more open views of the buildings surrounding the park and with orientation and wayfinding through the character area. of more distant landmarks above the roofline. The Church of St. George the Martyr for example is framed in views looking north along Tabard Street. The western part of the area lies within the Background Wider Setting Consultation Area (BWSCA) of LVMF strategic view 1A.2. This defines a threshold plane of 52.1m The size and scale of Symington House compared to the surrounding buildings above which specific consultation and referral requirements apply to development mean it is prominent in many views in the south-west. The residential blocks and proposals. The southernmost part of the area lies within the BWSCA of LVMF strategic chimney stack of the former Hartley’s Jam Factory to the north of Tower Bridge Road view 23A.1 where the threshold plane is 48.5m. also feature in views in the south, particularly from the Bricklayers Road Roundabout where the distinctive lettering of the former factory’s name is visible.
The Roebuck public house on Great Dover Views along Trinity Street Views towards Strata from Falmouth Road Tall buildings visible from Trinity Church Square Street
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 11 3.10.9 Understanding Quality, Issues and Sensitivity to change Urban Structure and Built Form Sensitivity There are also certain elements of the character area which are particularly sensitive Any future development along Great Dover Street should address the street and to change. These relate to the distinctive historical character of the Trinity House provide direct and visual connections to the east and west. Buildings should step Qualities to be sustained, reinforced or enhanced Estate and its setting and examples of early 20th century social housing. down in height from the street to reinforce its prominence as a primary route. There are a number of positive aspects of character which should be sustained, Proposals surrounding the Bricklayers Arms Roundabout should reinforce its • Setting of heritage assets including the Trinity Square Conservation Area, listed reinforced or enhanced. These relate to persevered late Georgian and early Victorian status as a key node, incorporating active frontages which animate the street and buildings and buildings and features of townscape merit streets and squares, examples of early 20th century social housing schemes and encouraging greater use of the wide public realm. New development should have the abundance of mature trees within open space and lining the streets. • Cole Street, which includes a largely intact row of late 19th century former regard to London and Southwark Council policies and guidance for tall buildings, particularly those which would fall within LVMF strategic views. • Preserved pattern of streets and squares, uncommon in this part of the industrial buildings and houses, which are rare within this part of the Borough Borough, fronted by late Georgian townhouses within the Trinity House Estate • Examples of extensive, early 20th century planned social housing development Proposals along Tower Bridge Road should be of a high architectural standard, enhancing the quality and condition of the street. They should respect the height, • Extensive areas of early 20th social housing within the Tabard Gardens Estate and open space within the Tabard Gardens Estate scale and original plot widths and roof line and should incorporate active frontages set within mature grounds and enclosing the high quality Tabard Gardens public with commercial units on the ground floor, complimented by high quality signage. open space 3.10.10 Character Area Management Principles
• Materials applied consistently to the wide pavements and public realm Managing change in this area should focus on sustaining or enhancing those Land Use places which provide an understanding of its history, whilst accommodating along Harper Road, Great Dover Street and surrounding the Bricklayers Arms The predominantly residential land use should be sustained but mixed use development which improves the quality, permeability and vibrancy of the area. This Roundabout which ease pedestrian movement development should be encouraged along primary routes and at the key node at will be achieved through a range of measures including selective improvements to the Bricklayers Arms Roundabout. • High quality public space at Bermondsey Square the movement network, public realm and nodes as part of development proposals.
• Mature trees throughout the area contribute to the quality of open spaces such Open Space and Public Realm Heritage as Trinity Church Square, housing estates and streets including Long Lane, Great A strategy should be developed to sustain and reinforce the mature tree stock within The quality, condition and setting of Trinity Square Conservation Area should be Dover Street and Harper Road the area and building upon the strong network of existing green links. This should sustained and enhanced through further interpretation of the historical development include the replacement of weak or over-mature trees and identifying opportunities • Varied retail use along Tower Bridge Road including shops, bars and of the area. Improvements to Dickens Square should contribute to a greater to fill gaps in avenues. restaurants which enlivens the street with active frontages understanding of its history and relationship with the Walworth Manor Estate. Any future redevelopment of Matthew Hall should contribute positively to the setting of the There should be a focus on enhancing the condition and accessibility of Dickens Issues to be addressed historic buildings fronting Cole Street. Southwark Council has identified a number of Square and Swanmead open spaces. Removing some trees within Dickens Square 44 There are also some aspects which should be addressed through active potential extensions to the Trinity Square Conservation Area due to the architectural for example would increase natural surveillance and incorporating permanent, management. These relate primarily to issues of permeability within the housing and spatial quality of nearby areas. These are illustrated in Fig 9. surfaced footpaths would improve access across the space. estates and the quality and condition of certain open spaces and buildings fronting Development proposals within and surrounding the Tabard Gardens Estate should The wide pavements of Harper Road, Great Dover Street and surrounding the some of the primary routes and nodes. be sensitive to the scale, density and setting of the estate and contribute to enhancing Bricklayers Arms Roundabout could accommodate a range of greening measures. • Issues of permeability, legibility and wayfinding due to the complex layout of permeability and legibility. Southwark Council is currently considering the potential Rain gardens for example could enhance the quality of the streetscape and mitigate housing estates and the lack of visual connections between buildings designation of a new conservation area covering the Tabard Garden Estate due to environmental issues including storm water run-off and urban heat island effects its architectural and spatial qualities. This is illustrated in Fig 9. whilst providing benefits to wildlife and air quality. • Poor condition and accessibility of Dicken’s Square with evidence of anti-social behaviour Movement • Poor condition of Swanmead open space Opportunities to address potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles along and across Great Dover Street should be considered. Connections • Lack of definition to the node at Bricklayers Arms with no active frontage and through the surrounding housing estates could also be enhanced by implementing blank walls facing the street a signage and wayfinding strategy. • Variability in the quality and condition of buildings and shop fronts fronting Tower Bridge Road, Including long inactive frontages.
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 12 APPENDIX A - SCHEDULE OF HERITAGE ASSETS
TRINITY AND TABARD CHARACTER AREA
Asset No. Asset Name Street No. Street Name Grade Date of Listing Easting Northing Notes SAM Abbey Buildings Bermondsey Street N/A - - - CA7 Bermondsey Street N/A - - - CA4 Borough High Street N/A - - - CA14 Trinity Church Square N/A - - - 1 2 - 12 Trinity Street II 29/07/1996 533178.4 179227 45 2 Trinity Arms Public House Swan Street II 17/09/1998 532365.6 179527.9 3 Numbers 16-22 and attached railings 16 - 22 Trinity Church Square II 27/09/1972 532366.1 179440 4 Numbers 1-15 and attached railings 1 - 15 Trinity Church Square II 27/09/1972 532369.5 179492.6 5 Number 22 and attached railings 22 Trinity Church Square II 27/09/1972 532375.2 179529.6 6 The Henry Wood Hall, including gate piers and railings Trinity Church Square II 02/03/1950 532405.1 179462.1 7 Numbers 23-29 and attached railings 23 - 29 Trinity Church Square II 27/09/1972 532411.5 179413.5 8 Stature in centre of Trinity Church Square Trinity Church Square II 02/03/1950 532423.2 179493.4 9 Numbers 45-68 and attached railings 45 - 68 Trinity Church Square II 27/09/1972 532441.8 179522.6 10 K2 telephone kiosk to north-east of Henry Wood Hall Trinity Church Square II 24/12/1986 532445 179491 11 Numbers 30-44 and attached railings 30 - 44 Trinity Church Square II 27/09/1972 532450.4 172444.9 12 Numbers 17, 18 and 19 and attached railings 17, 18, 19 Merrick Square II 27/09/1972 532491.2 179366.4 13 26 and 28 Cole Street II 23/10/1995 532498.3 179508.2 14 Numbers 20-32 and attached railings 20 - 32 Merrick Square II 27/09/1972 532502.6 179407.4 15 Numbers 14,15 and 16 and attached railings 14, 15, 16 Merrick Square II 27/09/1972 532513.8 179354.9 16 Joseph Lancaster Primary School Harper Road II 17/09/1998 532521.1 179103.6 17 Railings to Merrick Square Garden Merrick Square II 27/09/1972 532528.6 179405.3 18 Numbers 25-47 and attached railings 25 - 47 Trinity Street II 27/09/1972 532537.2 179467.3 19 Numbers 1-13 and attached railings 1 - 13 Merrick Square II 27/09/1972 532545.3 179385.3 20 Numbers 20-40 and attached railings 20 - 40 Falmouth Road II 17/09/1998 532549.1 179333.6 21 19 Tabard Street II 11/05/2010 532569.2 179700.9 22 Geoffrey Chaucer School Harper Road II 30/03/1993 532581.2 179075.4 23 Numbers 4, 10, 12 and 18 and attached railings 4, 10, 12, 18 Falmouth Road II 17/09/1998 532584.4 179366.1 24 Numbers 32-42 and attached railings 32 -42 Trinity Street II 27/09/1972 532599.7 179399.9 25 Surrey Dispensary Falmouth Road II 17/09/1998 532603.2 179385.1 26 K2 telephone kiosk at junction with Great Dover Street Trinity Street II 24/12/1986 532613 179418 27 The Roebuck Public House 50 Great Dover Street II 09/03/2010 532633 179412.7 28 Numbers 1-19 including handrail 1 - 19 Bartholomew Street II 27/09/1972 532742.8 179023.2 29 Number 142 and attached railings 142 Long Lane II 06/12/1949 532874.9 179584.4 30 Tabard Street Centre (formally Tabard Street School) Hunter Close II 12/03/1996 532968.4 179162.1 31 Manzes eel, pie and mash shop 87 Tower Bridge Road II 17/09/1998 533178.4 179227 32 Wall of recreation ground Long Lane II 30/09/1977 533198 179399.4 33 Numbers 2-5 and attached railings 2 - 5 Bermondsey Square II 17/09/1998 533279.5 179330.4
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Bermondsey South Addendum January 2014 page 13 TRINITY AND TABARD CHARACTER AREA
T1 Southwark County Court Swan Street 19/07/2011 532326 179526.1 ‘1930s, neo-Georgian 2-storey court building with 7-bay centre and 1-bay, 2-storey set back side wings. Red brick with moulded cill band to the 1st floor windows. Central doorway surmounted by the Royal arms with a pair of stone lamp columns at the foot of the steps terminating the iron area railings. T2 4 - 12 Brockham Street 18/07/2011 532375.4 179371.3 ‘1820s. 3 storeys, 2 bays wide each. Stock brick with stucco 1st floor band. Round arched ground floor door and window openings. Upper floor openings flat arched. Butterfly parapets. T3 14 - 18 Brockham Street 18/07/2011 532380.5 179393.5 ‘As 4 – 12, but the front elevations have been partially rebuilt and the ground floor openings are segmental arched. T4 18 - 24 Cole Street 18/07/2011 532478.8 179531.6 ‘Earlier C20. Terrace of 4 3 storey cottages. 18 1 bay wide, 20 – 24 2 bays wide. Plainly detailed in stock brick. Ground floor openings flat arched Upper floor openings segmental arched. 6/6-paned sashes to the windows. T5 The Chapel Cole Street 21/07/2011 532485.8 179519.8 ‘Early/mid C19. Former chapel, later a meeting hall. Now in office/residential use. 2 storey symmetrical front, 3 bays wide, with a plain, pedimented gable. Stock brick with a 1st floor cill band. On the ground floor flat arched doorways flank a segmental arched window with 10/10 paned sashes. The 1st floor windows are round arched, metal framed. The pediment has a central round oculus. T6 The Rectory Merrick Square 30/03/2009 532501.8 179358.9 ‘Third quarter C19. Henry Jarvis & Son, architects. Red brick and stucco in Gothic style. T7 42 Tabard Street 19/07/2011 532568.8 179643.1 ‘Early / mid C19. 3 storeys, 1 bay wide. Painted timber shop front on the ground floor with pilasters, fascia and cornice. Plain parapeted
upper floors faced with stock brick . The 46 window openings are flat headed with skew- backed gauged brick arches. T8 The Royal Oak Public House Tabard Street 20/07/2011 532569 179636.5 ‘Later C19 3-storey street corner pub. The pub front has red glazed tiled pilasters, fascia and cornice. The upper floors are faced with stock brick with stucco window dressings, 2nd floor cill band, frieze and main cornice. The 1st floor window openings have segmental pediments. The 2nd floor and staircase windows have blocked architraves. T9 165 Great Dover Street 21/07/2011 532700.7 179377.3 ‘Dated 1897. Long 4 storey red brick range to Great Dover Street with a 2-bay, 5 storey block at the left-hand end containing the main entrance via a wide archway with richly decorated moulded brick spandrels and a steep pitched chateau roof. The 4-storey range is more plainly detailed, with a continuous fenestration on the 3rd floor divided by pilasters. T10 208 Long Lane 19/07/2011 533053.8 179466.1 ‘Later C19 warehouse. 4 storeys with basement, 3 bays wide. Polychrome brick with paired, segmental arched metal framed windows.
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 14 TRINITY AND TABARD CHARACTER AREA
T11 The Jam Factory 27 Green Walk 533070 179214.7 ‘Former factory, built for Sir William Pickles Hartley of Liverpool between 1901 and 1909. Comprises three substantial red brick blocks and a prominent chimney. A good example of Edwardian industrial architecture, reminiscent of contemporary Lancashire textile mills. Recently converted into apartments and live/ work units by Ian Simpson Architects with distinctive 21st century additions at roof level. 47 T12 1 - 5 Green Walk 19/01/2011 533078.7 179123 ‘Terrace of 5 2-storey mid C19 cottages, each 2 bays wide. Stock brick with a corbelled brick cornice below a high parapet. Round headed door and window openings on the ground floor. Flat headed window openings on the first floor with gauged brick arches and plain window guards. T13 220 - 226 Long Lane 20/01/2011 533100 179450.8 ‘Mid C19, altered. Terrace of four 2-storey houses with “Mansard” attics. Stuccoed ground floors, stock brick 1st floors. 226 painted. Windows are modern except for 224’s, which have margin bars to the sashes. T14 The South London Mission 256 Bermondsey Street 19/01/2011 533206.2 179325.1 ‘Rebuilt 1968, retaining the front dated 1899 and 1900 by Charles Bell. Tudor gatehouse motifs in red brick and terracotta. The square 3 storey tower with its slated pyramidal roof with fleche is a local landmark. Broad, glazed archway on the ground floor with richly decorated spandrels. T15 The Marigold Public House 244 Bermondsey Street 533217.5 179341.2 ‘Mid C19 pub. 2 storeys with attic. 4 bay front. Pub front with glazed brick pilasters carrying 4 round arches. Stock brick first floor with 6/6 sash windows and stucco frieze, cornice and blocking course. Slated Mansard garret with 4 dormers. T16 1 Bermondsey Square 19/01/2011 533295.9 179324.2 Later C19 3-storey warehouse at the corner with Tower Bridge Road. 4 × 4 bays with a 1 bay chamfered corner. Painted brick with brick bands at 1st floor and cornice level and segmental arched window openings with metal windows. Loading bay to the north elevation and street entrance on the chamfered corner.
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Bermondsey South Addendum January 2014 page 15 48
Building 7, Michael Young Centre,
Purbeck Road, Cambridge, CB2 8QL
United Kingdom
Phone: 01223 275730 www.urs.com
Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Characterisation Study - Trinity and Tabard Addendum January 2014 page 16 49
Overview and Scrutiny Committee 2014 Agenda Item 7 How are procurement decisions made and scrutinised? How much political/democratic input is there? How open and transparent is the process?
How do we monitor the contracts? 50 Are the outcomes good enough? Are we getting value for money? What is the impact on the workforce? Do we need a new corporate procurement strategy? Committee interviews with officers Informal meetings Interviews with procurement officers (7 th Nov)
Contracts questionnaire 51 Review of contracts register Review of contract terminations Written submissions External advice (John Tizard) HoC Select Committee report Number of contracts providing good service, but... Also high-profile failures New Southwark Procurement Strategy is needed 52 Need for more political oversight Greater appreciation of risks of outsourcing Greater consideration of the workforce More openness and transparency Need for Gateway zero? Democratic oversight ◦ Cabinet approved strategy? ◦ Written Cabinet Member approval for all contract awards? 53
Improving outcomes, reducing risk ◦ Gateway zero? ◦ Prompt payment of sub-contractors clause? ◦ Contractor whistle-blowing? ◦ In-house as “preferred provider”? Workforce issues ◦ Southwark two-tier code?
Social clauses 54 ◦ Bans for tax-avoidance, trade union black-listing?
Contract monitoring ◦ Provision for open book audits? Transparency ◦ Public contracts register?
◦ Requirement for contractor to 55 appear at scrutiny on request? ◦ Publish all contracts online?
Terminations/mutual cancellations ◦ Termination at will clauses in all contracts? 56 57
Outsourcing to the Voluntary and Community Sector: The Benefits
October 2014
Introduction
At a time of constrained local authority budgets, securing services that ensure best possible value for money is paramount for commissioners. The government’s public services agenda has focused on the value of outsourcing, and of ensuring a diversity of providers in the public services market.1 The amount spent on outsourcing services in the UK has doubled to £88bn since the coalition came to power.2 The voluntary and community sector (VCS) currently receives four times more money through contracts to deliver services than from grants.3
This report seeks to provide evidence for the view that outsourcing to the VCS, when done properly and appropriately, is a positive thing – for Southwark Council, its residents, and for the VCS.
The VCS, because of its characteristics, is well placed to provide certain services – particularly to people that are vulnerable and hard to reach. Voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) are embedded in the communities in which they work, and inspire the trust of their service users. The sector is innovative, flexible, and looks to provide added value wherever possible. Because it does not seek to make a profit, any cost-saving efficiency will mean resources being ploughed back into the organisation to continue serving the community in which it works.
This paper outlines Southwark Council’s current outsourcing to the sector in the context of all its contracts, and looks at what services the VCS currently provides in Southwark. It will move on to examine evidence for the VCS being an effective service provider, and examine why this is so.
The third part of the paper looks at what we can do to make things better, and improve outsourcing to the sector. It’ll examine the barriers the sector currently faces, and what can be done to address these. Finally, it’ll make recommendations for what could be included in any potential procurement strategy, to make sure it allows the sector to carry on playing a big part in service delivery in Southwark.
This paper focuses exclusively on contracts; it does not consider grant funding.
Contents:
1. What is Community Action Southwark? 2. Current outsourcing to the sector 3. Why is the VCS an effective service provider? 4. What recommendations can we make to improve how the VCS is commissioned? 5. Conclusions
1 In July 2011 the government released its Open Public Services White Paper, outlining its vision for a diverse market of public service providers 2 ‘UK outsourcing spend doubles to £88bn under coalition’, Financial Times, 6th July 2014 (accessed 29th September 2014), http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9330150-0364-11e4-9195-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Ehmuk1Na 3 NCVO Civil Society Almanac 2014, accessed 29th September 2014, http://data.ncvo.org.uk/a/almanac14/how-has-the-funding- mix-changed/ Page |6. 1 Registered Charity No. 1105835. Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 5090324
58
1. What is Community Action Southwark?
Community Action Southwark (CAS) is the umbrella organisation for the voluntary and community sector (VCS) in Southwark. CAS fulfils three key strategic functions for the local VCS: support, influence and providing connections.
We equip voluntary organisations and community groups in Southwark with the tools and information they need to help them make a difference in the communities they work in. We provide training and support on a wide range of topics to empower the VCS to become more resilient.
CAS also represents the sector to local government and other public sector agencies.
2. Current outsourcing to the sector
In order to understand the value of outsourcing to the VCS, and look at where there could be room for improvement, it is useful to look at what contracts the council currently has with external providers.4 This gives us a picture of where the council outsources services to the sector, and an idea of the general characteristics of these contracts.
There are a total of 214 contracts on the register, and the VCS delivers 44 of these (about 20%). 5
The majority of contracts provided by the VCS, 25 contracts, are within the children’s and adults services department. The VCS provides a variety of services within this area – for example, mental health support, day services, and carers support. 9 of these contracts are in the finance and corporate services department. These contracts are mainly focused around employment services and tackling homelessness. 8 contracts are within the housing and community services department. A lot of these contracts focus on advice provision. 2 of these contracts are within the environment and leisure services department. One of these is a very large contract with Fusion Lifestyles, who are a charitable organisation, to run leisure centres in the borough.
The total value of all contracts on the register is £2,689,849,998, and the VCS holds contracts worth £43,951,312 – 1.6% of all total (estimated) contract values on the register. If we instead look at annual contract costs, the VCS deliver 4% of all contracts. The annual cost of VCS contracts is £10,997,467, out of a total of £265,761,846.
The size of these contracts varies, but they tend to be on the smaller side. 16 contracts are worth between £50,000 and £200,000. 10 are worth between £200,000 and £500,000. 9 are worth £500,000 to £1 million, and 8 are worth £1 million or more.
The largest of these contracts (by total contract value) is with the Camden Society for the provision of day transport services for people with learning disabilities. This is for the value of £14,897,820. The smallest of these contracts is with Cambridge House for advocacy services, and this is for a value of £60,000.
4 The most recent contracts register is dated June 2014. It is important to note that the register only lists contracts worth over £75,000 5 I have defined VCS organisations as those that have charitable status, but have excluded housing associations. Page | 2 Registered Charity No. 1105835. Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 5090324 59
The areas in which the sector has contracts with the council are as follows:
Advocacy and advice services Respite, play, and short breaks for those with learning disabilities Transport for those with learning disabilities Employment support Homelessness Domestic abuse Mental health Carers support
These are all areas in which it is important for service users to trust those offering the services. Some of these services are generally targeted at people that are hard-to-reach – for instance, homelessness services and domestic abuse services.
It can be argued some VCOs in the borough see contracts as a good source of income. In order to build our evidence base, we recently conducted a survey into the sector’s opinions on commissioning. We asked respondents to indicate how much they agreed with the statement: ‘Public sector contracts are a viable source of income for voluntary and community sector organisations like ours’. 56% of respondents agreed with this statement – 17% strongly agreed.6
Contracts with the voluntary and community sector seem, in general, to be on the shorter side. When we compare the length of all the contracts on the register to the length of just the VCS contracts, we can see that a greater proportion of them are 13-24 months long, and there are fewer contracts in the longer categories.
6 We carried out a survey focused on commissioning between September and October 2014. The response rate was 15%. Page | 3 Registered Charity No. 1105835. Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 5090324 60
3. Why is the VCS an effective service provider?
There are a number of reasons why the VCS is effective at providing public services:
3.1 Social value/added value
Voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) are not motivated by profit, and are constantly finding ways to add value to the work that they do.
Thames Reach, for example, employs service users through targeted measures such as traineeships. All jobs are open to current or former Thames Reach service users, as well as clients from other homelessness organisations. As a result, 22% of Thames Reach staff have experienced homelessness in the past7.
77% of charities in Southwark provide some training to their volunteers8. Training is provided on a wide range of topics, from IT skills and administration to homelessness issues and safeguarding. This provides those volunteering with skills that increase their confidence, and could provide avenues into work.
There are a variety of other ways in which the sector adds value, and goes beyond delivering what it is contracted to do. Contact a Family (CAF) in Southwark has provided some great examples of how they add value. See Box 1 below.
Box 1: Contact a Family (Southwark)
CAF in Southwark has dealt with escalating levels of demand in recent months. In January 2014 they were helping 886 families, and by October 2014 this had risen to 1030. They receive on average, one referral per day. One family support worker at Contact a Family supports over 300 families.
The issues that families are dealing with have changed a lot over the past few years, and the staff at Contact a Family have had to develop their knowledge base accordingly. Families now need support with a wide range of issues –for example, no recourse to public funds, housing issues, and immigration.
CAF uses the VCS partnerships it has built to work innovatively to save money. This includes finding free venues for its events, so that money is not spent on room hire but is instead put back into helping families.
CAF adds value because it has a broader knowledge of what services are available in the borough, and is well- placed to refer families to other parts of the voluntary sector. It does invaluable preventative work with parents, keeping them out of the statutory system, and this is provided outside of its contract. For example it trains parents to improve their employability, making it easier for them to get into work. It also raises the confidence of parents, meaning they are equipped to talk through their children’s issues themselves, making them more independent.
Finally, CAF has the ability to reach out to those families who otherwise may not seek help or support. The main source of referrals to CAF is self-referral, from people who have heard about CAF through word of mouth. These are often people who are unwilling to approach social services, as they feel there is stigma attached to this. Without CAF, these families may not receive support when it is needed, and could end up in the system at a much later stage – when their needs are acute, and therefore much more expensive to alleviate.
7 Thames Reach, accessed 29th September 2014, http://www.thamesreach.org.uk/what-we-do/user-employment/ 8 CAS uncovered this statistic during out Value the VCS campaign, which built a picture of what the borough would look like if the sector did not exist. The full Value the VCS campaign website is available here: http://valuethevcs.org.uk/vcs/ Page | 4 Registered Charity No. 1105835. Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 5090324 61
The VCS has the capacity to bring in funding from elsewhere in order to achieve its goals. 40% of VCS organisations in Southwark receive pro bono professional services, and 28% receive goods and services in kind. For organisations working locally, for every £1 of council funding, over £5 is brought in from other sources. Additionally, unpaid trustees and volunteers contribute over 4.5 million hours per year. This equates to over £38.6m at the London Living Wage.9
3.2 Preventative power
A large amount of the work the VCS does is preventative – it stops needs escalating and becoming acute down the line. Preventative work has a large amount of potential for making savings in the future.
CAS carried out a campaign last year, Value the VCS, to look at just what would happen if certain organisations ceased to exist, and how this might lead to needs escalating. As part of this we carried out video interviews with a number of organisations across the borough. These interviews provided insights into the value of the preventative work they do:
Family Action: Family Action does a lot of work with families that have complex needs; in particular, safeguarding needs. If they didn’t exist, a lot more children would end up in the care system, and more parents would experience mental health deterioration and also end up in hospital. To give an indication of how much this saves – the cost of an average inpatient stay in hospital is estimated to be £3,283. The work that Family Action does is unique and could not be replaced by statutory services. Age UK Stones End Day Centre: Stones End Day Centre provides day centre services for isolated older adults whose contact with their carers is limited. Without the day centre, larger numbers of older people would decline more quickly both mentally and physically, leading to higher rates of hospital admissions. The Open Door Resource Centre: The Open Door Resource Centre provides support to those with severe mental health needs. They prevent crises from escalating and those with mental health issues ending up unnecessarily in hospital beds. Toucan Employment: Toucan provides employment opportunities and support to those with learning disabilities. These tend to be people whose needs are not met by the Job Centre, but who do not have high enough level needs to be catered for by other services. Without Toucan, their employment prospects would be much worse – and their inability to find work could create a burden on the benefits system.
As a good example to show the fiscal benefit of preventative services, we can look at the work of Cambridge House Law Centre. Cambridge House Law Centre carries out valuable work with those at risk of eviction and homelessness.
The cost of delivering the service is £172,000, or £185 per client (the service is currently supporting 930 housing clients).
As a result of this service, clients have experienced £142,000 in financial gains and 100% of court cases have been won for people at risk of eviction – resulting in a saving of £79,680. Additionally, 30 homes have been secured from homeless clients, providing savings of £79,680.
On the whole, the work that Cambridge House Law Centre does has created over £867,325 in savings by preventing unnecessary eviction and homelessness. The work they do creates savings that are five times as much as the cost of the delivery of the service.
9 This information also comes from our Value the VCS campaign (see above). Page | 5 Registered Charity No. 1105835. Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 5090324 62
3.3 Trust and ability to reach hard-to-reach groups
People tend to want services delivered by those they trust, particularly when it comes to services that cater specifically for the vulnerable, such as domestic abuse and homelessness services. There is a high level of public trust in charities. According to an Ipsos MORI report published in June 2014, the public gives an average score of 6.7 out of ten when asked ‘how much trust and confidence do you have in charities?’.
40% of the public say that they or their close family or friends have ever benefitted from or used the services of a charity (up from 34% in 2012) – this proportion has increased steadily since 2005, when only 9% gave this response.
Voluntary and community sector organisations often appear in response to unmet need. They are in touch with some of the hard-to-reach people that statutory services have been unable to help. They have an in-depth understanding of local needs and how best to meet them. They can provide services to people who may otherwise feel isolated or alienated from the communities in which they live.
A good example of this is the Latin American Disabled People’s Project in the borough. This organisation was formed as a response to the fact that those migrating from Latin America were experiencing language barriers, and problems accessing services. See Box 2 for more information.
Box 2: Latin American Disabled People’s Project
The Latin American Disabled People’s Project is an organisation that exists to improve outcomes for Spanish and Portuguese speaking people living in London. Most service users do not have a basic knowledge of the English language, and are asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants. These people are likely to find it difficult to integrate with their communities, leading to isolation. Service users also experience problems such as learning impairments, mental health issues, physical disabilities, illness, and poverty.
These people would most likely fall under the radar if this charity did not exist.
3.4 Consortia working
VCS organisations are often well-placed to come together to bid for larger contracts, meaning they can respond to the need to develop economies of scale.
A great example of this recently has been the formation of a VCS consortium for providers of older people’s services in Southwark, COPSINS (see Box 3). VCS consortia give commissioners more options when awarding larger contracts, and provide a real opportunity for the sector to compete against bigger providers.
CAS is currently in the process of bringing together a consortium of carers support providers, in order to bid for contracts upcoming as part of the council’s Carers Strategy. These organisations in partnership will be well placed to meet the needs of carers; arguably, better than one organisation would be. Consortia structures enable different providers to come together to make sure they can deliver all parts of a contract in an effective, efficient way.
We used our recent commissioning survey to ask about the sector’s views on consortium working. 47% of respondents indicated that they knew what a consortium was, and would consider being part of one. 37% of respondents said that they were a member of a VCS consortium, and felt that it was beneficial to their organisation. This indicates a positive attitude towards consortia, at least among those we surveyed, and a feeling that being part of a consortium can be beneficial for organisations.
Page | 6 Registered Charity No. 1105835. Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 5090324 63
Box 3: COPSINS
COPSINS (Consortium of Older People’s Services in Southwark) was established in 2012 in response to changes in commissioning processes. COPSINS consists of six organisations: Age UK Lewisham and Southwark, Alzheimer’s Society, Blackfriars Settlement, Dulwich Helpline and Southwark Churches Care, Southwark Pensioner’s Centre, and Time and Talents.
These organisations have strong expertise in providing befriending, social engagement and accessible information and advice. Together as COPSINS they made a bid to Southwark Council is 2012 for a services
contract, and won. Groups in the consortium now know each other well, as referrals are much stronger as a result.
The establishment of COPSINS has led to more positive outcomes for older people in the borough, as well as a strong collaborative approach for the VCS locally.
4. What recommendations can we make to improve how the VCS is commissioned?
A number of courses of action would improve outsourcing to the sector and ensure that the voluntary and community sector can provide high quality public service delivery:
4.1 Embedding social value into procurement
When considering contract awards, it is imperative that the council considers bids on their value for money – not just their price. Local authorities have a duty to consider ‘social value’ alongside ‘best value’. Social value has no set definition. It is defined by the think-tank Demos as: “wider non-financial impacts of programmes, organisations and interventions, including the wellbeing of individuals and communities, social capital and the environment. These are typically described as 'soft' outcomes, mainly because they are difficult to quantify and measure."
The Social Value Act came into force in January 2013 – almost two years ago – yet Southwark Council still has no clear policy on social value. This is not the case in other London boroughs. For example, Lewisham has a Social Value Policy Statement and it would be good to see something similar in place in Southwark. See Box 1
CAS is driving this forward through the establishment of a Social Value ‘Task and Finish’, including representatives from both the VCS and the council. The task and finish will establish a Social Value policy for Southwark, and hopes to embed social value across the council’s commissioning processes.
Page | 7 Registered Charity No. 1105835. Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 5090324 64
Box 4: London Borough of Lewisham’s Social Value Statement
Lewisham’s Cabinet approved their Social Value Policy Statement in December 2013.
Lewisham Council defines social value as “activities that will improve the quality of life and life chances of Lewisham residents, and enhance the sustainability of the borough”. The policy contains six objectives:
1) Promote employment and economic sustainability 2) Raise the living standards of local residents 3) Promote participation and citizen engagement 4) Build the capacity and sustainability of the voluntary and community sector 5) Promote equity and fairness 6) Promote environmental sustainability
It is notable that the VCS is explicitly mentioned in this statement.
4.2 Strengthening Southwark Council’s VCS Compact
Southwark Council’s VCS Compact was last revised in 2010, before the publication of the Open Public Services White Paper. It would be a good idea to refresh this Compact to include recognition of the VCS as a partner in service delivery.
The current Compact does not offer any direction on how the council’s relationship with the sector as a deliverer of contracts should look (although it does include a lot on grants). The Compact states that ‘in health and social care, and in other areas, voluntary and community sector organisations are contracted to deliver services’. This is the only reference to VCS contracts.
The Compact could be refreshed to include clear rules directing how the Council should interact with the sector as a service provider. CAS would like to see commitments to the following:
VCS engagement before procurement stage. Compact Voice recommends engagement with the VCS from the earliest stage in order to fully comply with the Social Value Act10 A clear 12 weeks’ notice of contracts ending. This does not always happen, and can cause problems for the VCS, particularly with regards to giving employees notice. An appropriate length of time at PQQ and ITT stage. We would recommend a minimum of 5 weeks at the PQQ stage, and 6 weeks at the ITT stage. This would result in more targeted, higher quality submissions. 80% of respondents to an NCVO survey said that short procurement timescales have prevented their organisations from bidding for work.11 A commitment to providing time for the development of consortia, and a favourable approach to consortia bids from the sector Procurement approaches need to be varied to suit the individual circumstances. Grant funding may still be appropriate if the service is small.
10 ‘Understanding Social Value: A guide for local Compacts and the voluntary sector’, Compact Voice, March 2014 http://www.compactvoice.org.uk/sites/default/files/social_value_guidance_2014.pdf 11 ‘Making public sector procurement more accessible to SMES’, NCVO, Autumn 2013 http://www.ncvo.org.uk/images/documents/policy_and_research/public_services/sme_consultation_response.pdf Page | 8 Registered Charity No. 1105835. Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 5090324 65
The Compact was used successfully at Essex County Council in order to improve procurement from the voluntary and community sector (see Box 1). This model could work well for Southwark.
Box 5: Improving Procurement Processes at Essex County Council through the Compact
Back in 2011, a Working Group at Essex County Council simplified and provided helpful guidance on the tendering process, in order to help voluntary organisations feel more empowered when bidding for contracts.
As a result of this, the Essex Compact has a specific ‘Funding and Procurement Code of Practice’ . The length of the council’s standard PQQ was reduced by half, and the compact has been integrated into guidance across spending processes.
Read more here.
4.3 Preventative procurement
Greater value should be attached to those services with a preventative capacity. Preventative services are those which reduce future need, particularly the need for acute services provided at crisis point, which are generally very expensive.
All procurement decisions should take into account whether the procurement will do anything to reduce future need. This could be done by making procurement decisions on the basis on their impact over a five or ten year period.
CAS has successfully made the case for an Early Action Commission, and this work is now being led by the New Economics Foundation (nef). The findings of the Early Action Commission will be important for providing strategic direction with regards ways to embed preventative commissioning across the council. The commission will be providing an interim report in January; its findings should be taken into account if a new procurement strategy is being developed.
4.4 Appropriate size and length of contracts
In order to ensure that services being delivered are high quality, it is important to support a mixed market of service providers, to avoid monopoly and complacency. It is important to embed procurement processes that do not, by their nature, exclude smaller providers just by the virtue of them being small.
Completing PQQs and tender documents are lengthy activities which take capacity. If the process for bidding for a contract is very complex, and the contract is short, this may act as a barrier to the VCS bidding for the contract. This could prevent an organisation equipped to deliver the best results from bidding.
Contracts that are particularly short (i.e. 12 months or less) make it impossible for the VCS to engage in long-term planning, or retain high quality staff. We have received feedback that reflects this view from the sector. At our last joint forum, one attendee reported that they were “finding that a year is a difficult timescale to work with for writing bids, recruiting and then measuring outcomes”. In our commissioning survey, we asked respondents to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with the statement ‘contracts with Southwark Council/CCG are too short’. 22% agreed with this statement, and 67% neither agreed nor disagreed – only 6% disagreed.
Additionally, very large contracts cause problems for the VCS. A 2013 VCSE survey by Locality found that nearly 42% of respondents believe contracts have become larger in the past five years. A further 52% expect them to become Page | 9 Registered Charity No. 1105835. Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 5090324 66
even larger over the next five years. 80% said that this would provide them with less opportunities and a lower range and quality of services in their area. These concerns are mirrored by an NCVO survey, where 50% of respondents said the scale of contracts has prevented their organisation bidding for work.
A recent report from Locality has highlighted the dangers of commissioning economies of scale to deal with social problems, and instead called for commissioners to look for services that are local by default. According to their research, moving towards locality working could save as much as £16 billion annually across England.
We would like to see real discussion at the pre-procurement stage about the optimum length and size of a contract, taking into account what is most appropriate for those providers who may be best placed to deliver that particular service.
4.5 Standardising commissioning and procurement
There can be different rules and procedures across Southwark Council departments about how commissioning and procurement take place. Not surprisingly, this is confusing for the sector. One example to note is the launch of the council’s Approved Provider List. This is now only being used in the Community Services Department, and the sector is still required to fill in PQQs for contracts from other departments, even if they are on this list. This caused frustration for the organisations involved, who now feel that the exercise was a waste of time.
To avoid confusion and variation in procedures across departments, we would like to see one ‘commissioning unit’ that standardises commissioning processes across the council and sets hard and fast rules about procurement. Bristol City Council has implemented a framework to this end, which has been successful. This could be a good model for the council. See Box 6.
Box 6 Bristol – Transforming Local Commissioning and Procurement
The Strategic Commissioning and Procurement Service at Bristol City Council has incorporated aspects of the Bristol Compact into its work. The department has standardised commissioning practice through an Enabling Commissioning Framework, and supports the involvement of VCS providers. Read more here.
4.6. Co-production
Co-production refers to the involvement of service users in the design of services, not just consultation processes on those services once they have been decided. There are many definitions of co-production, but it is defined by the council as ‘people who use services being consulted, included and working together from the start to the end of any project that affects them'.
Because a large number of VCOs engage with service users on a day-to-day basis, they are often well-informed about local needs. Co-production could represent a good way for the sector to get involved in service design before procurement stage, to ensure that procurement is appropriate and aligns with what service users need.
The council is currently in the process of developing a co-production toolkit and will be developing a community co- production advisor network. CAS will be a key partner in the development of the toolkit.
We would like to see the VCS fully involved in co-production, and VCS representatives on the advisor network. Because of their expertise, it is vital that they are included in the co-production of adult social care services.
Page | 10 Registered Charity No. 1105835. Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 5090324 67
5. Conclusions
We have sought to demonstrate in this report that the VCS is a good provider of public services, and that Southwark Council should continue to award contracts to the sector. However, we have also suggested some changes that could be made to procurement processes, in order to optimise outsourcing to the sector and to ensure that it is as effective as it could possibly be.
If a new procurement strategy is to be developed by the council, we would like to see full VCS engagement and involvement with the direction of that strategy. CAS is well-placed to lead engagement with the sector because of its relationship with the VCS in the borough, and would be happy to do so.
If you need further information on anything in this document, please contact Rachel Clarkson, Policy Officer via [email protected]
Page | 11 Registered Charity No. 1105835. Company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 5090324
This page is intentionally blank.
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MUNICIPAL YEAR 2014-15
AGENDA DISTRIBUTION LIST (OPEN)
NOTE: Original held by Scrutiny Team; all amendments/queries to Peter Roberts Tel: 020 7525 4350
Name No of Name No of copies copies
OSC Members Council Officers
Councillor Gavin Edwards (Chair) 1 Eleanor Kelly, Chief Executive 1 Councillor Rosie Shimell (Vice-Chair) 1 Juliet Seymour, Planning Policy 1 Councillor Anood Al-Samerai 1 Manager Councillor Jasmine Ali 1 Susannah Pettit, Planning Officer 1 Councillor Catherine Dale 1 Deborah Collins, Strategic Director, 1 Councillor Karl Eastham 1 Environment & Leisure Councillor Tom Flynn 1 Fran Biggs, Head of Electoral 1 Councillor Rebecca Lury 1 Services Councillor Claire Maugham 1 Shelley Burke, Head of Overview & 1 Councillor Adele Morris 1 Scrutiny Councillor Johnson Situ 1 Norman Coombe, Legal Services 1 Aine Gallagher, Political Assistant 1 Reserves Tom Layfield, Opposition Assistant 1
Councillor Evelyn Akoto 1 Scrutiny Team SPARES 15 Councillor Maisie Anderson 1 Councillor James Barber 1 Councillor Dan Garfield 1 Councillor Jon Hartley 1 Councillor Hamish McCallum 1 Councillor David Noakes 1 Councillor Martin Seaton 1 Councillor Bill Williams 1 Councillor Kieron Williams 1 (Vacancy)
Total: 50 Education Representatives
Revd Nicholas Elder 1 Lynette Murphy-O’Dwyer 1 Dated: October 2014 Abdul Raheem Musa 1 George Ogbonna 1
Cabinet Member
Councillor Mark Williams 1