C&SAC b

CLAPHAM & STOCKWELL AREA COMMITTEE

Date and Time: Thursday, 14 September 2006 7.30 pm

Venue : Bonneville Centre, Poynders Road, Clapham SW4

Democratic Services Officer : Claire Butcher Democratic Services Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 0024 London Borough of Lambeth, Fax: 020 7926 2755 Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, Email: cbutcherlambeth.gov.uk London, SW2 1RW Website: www.lambeth.gov.uk

Despatched: 06/09/06

MEMBERS

Clapman Common - Councillors R. LING, A. MEADER and D. SANDERS

Clapham Town - Councillors N. HASELDEN, H. O'MALLEY and C. WELLBELOVE

Larkhall - Councillors N. PATIL, P. ROBBINS and C. VALCARCEL

Stockwell Councillors P AKHTAR, P BOWYER and I WALKER

Thornton - Councillors M. HIPWELL, D. MORRIS and L. PECK

LOCATION OF VENUE IS INDICATED ON THE MAP BELOW

The Bonneville Christian Centre is situated on Poynders Road (South Circular Road) close to where it meets Cavendish Road and next to Rudloe Road.

Underground : Nearest Tube Station is Clapham South (Northern Line), which is about 0.4 mile away (walk along Hazelbourne Avenue)

Train : Nearest station is Balham (about 1 mile away)

Buses : 255 (from Clapham Common to Streatham) stops outside the Centre. 137, 417 (from Clapham Common to Streatham) stop on the junction of South Circular and King’s Avenue. 155 and 355 stop by Clapham South Tube (Clapham Common to Balham)

AGENDA

Appendices to reports- bulky appendices are published on the Website www.lambeth.gov.uk and can be obtained from report authors or at the meeting. They are not circulated with the agenda.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING

Page Nos. 1. Welcomes and Introductions

2. Declarations of Interest

3. Public Notice Questions 1 - 6

4. Provision of Public Conveniences in Clapham and Stockwell Area 7 - 14 (report 78/06-07)

(a) Overview of the current public conveniences provision. What is good practice? Presentation to be provided by the Environment Department.

(b) George Owen, local resident and member of the Clapham Common Management Advisory Committee, to provide a presentation on his study of toilet provision in and near Clapham Common.

(c) Clapham Common/Town Safer Neighbourhood Team to provide a presentation on safety and public conveniences.

5. Estates Recycling in Clapham Park NDC Area (report 79/06-07) 15 - 26

6. Area Committee Communications Fund Proposed Projects for 27 - 30 2006/7 (report 77/06-07)

7. Clapham Common Management Advisory Committee (oral update)

Access Information

Facilities for disabled people: • Access for people with mobility difficulties: please ring the bell (marked with the disabled access symbol) on the right-hand side of the Acre Lane entrance. • Induction loop facilities are available in Room 8 and the Council Chamber. • For further special requirements, please contact the officer listed on the front page.

Queries on reports: Please contact report authors prior to the meeting if you have questions on the reports or wish to inspect the background documents used. The name and telephone number of the report author is shown on the front page of each report.

Other enquiries: Please contact the officer shown on the front page to obtain any other information concerning the agenda or meeting.

Accessing Agendas, Reports and Minutes All public committee papers are available for inspection at Lambeth libraries , and also on the internet from the day of publication in the following manner: • Log on to www.lambeth.gov.uk • On the Home Page (bottom left), click on Democracy @ Lambeth • In the list on the left: either o If you know the date of the meeting concerned click on the seventh item - How to get involved and scroll down to the – Meetings and Events Diary . Navigate your way to the date concerned and click on the name of that meeting. At the bottom of the page that appears, there is a list of Associated documents - the list of reports on the agenda for that meeting. o Or click on the fifth item – documents of meetings . Navigate your way to the meeting and documents you want. If you are unable to locate the document you require, please contact the officer shown on the front page above.

Procedure before taking Key Decisions and Publication of the Forward Plan (Constitution: Part 4 Section 2 Procedure Rules 13 & 14) • The Forward Plan is published monthly; it sets out key decisions to be taken over the next four months. It is available to the public on the Council’s website, at the Town Hall or in Lambeth public libraries. • Please contact the officer listed on the front page if you want to know more.

Public Notice Questions (Part 4 Section 1 Procedure Rule 10) • Written questions concerning the matters within the responsibility of the Council may be submitted by a member of the public (Council Tax payers, Business Rate payers or local government electors) by post or via Email to the Head of Democratic Services at [email protected] • Questions should be submitted as early as possible and at least 10 clear days before the meeting so as to enable the item to be included on the agenda and for a response to be prepared. • Only persons residing or working in the area concerned can submit a question to an area committee, and such a question must concern that one area only. • The answer to the question will be sent to the questioner within 10 working days,

and included on the agenda. • At the relevant meeting, the member of the public or Councillor putting the question may attend and ask a concise supplementary question relevant to the original question or answer given but may not make a speech.

Speaking rights at sub-committees and committee meetings (Part 4 Section 1 Procedure Rule 10) • At Area Committees, the Chair will encourage questions and contributions from members of the public on all agenda items, subject to guidance from the Chair on time allowed for the particular item and the guillotine for the meeting. • At other Committees and the Executive, speaking rights are solely at the discretion of the Chair.

Petitions (Part 4 Section 1 Procedure Rule 10) • Petitions may be presented by members of the public or Councillors: o To the Mayor. o To the Chief Executive or other officers o To a Councillor or o At a meeting of the relevant area committee where the petitioner is entitled to advise briefly of the subject matter of the petition and the number of signatories involved, but not otherwise to make a speech. • Such petitions will be acknowledged and referred to an appropriate officer who will be required to send an answer to the lead petitioner or member (and ward members) within four weeks.

Deputations (Part 4 Section 1 Procedure Rule 10) • Deputations of local people concerned with a particular issue should write to the Head of Democratic Services briefly setting out the issue of concern. The deputation will then be advised to the relevant sub-committee, committee meeting (Area or Scrutiny) or Council meeting which the deputation is asked to attend to raise their issue of concern. • Deputations will not normally be heard where a deputation at any meeting of the Council or any of its committees or sub-committees, has been heard on the same, or essentially the same, issue within the last six months.

This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 3

b Clapham and Stockwell Area Committee 14 September 2006

Clapham and Stockwell Area Committee Public Questions:

• Public Conveniences (Stockwell Ward / Clapham and Stockwell Area)

• Traffic Calming in North Street (Clapham Town Ward / Clapham and Stockwell Area)

• Public Conveniences (Clapham Common, Clapham Town, Larkhall, Stockwell, Thornton Wards / Clapham and Stockwell Area)

Report authorised by: Eric Bohl, Executive Director Corporate Services

Executive Summary

This report provides details of questions submitted to the Area Committee and the officer responses.

Recommendation

That the report be noted.

Funding

N/A

Consultation Name Department/Organisation Date Sent/ Date Cleared/ Comments included Received Received in report at para: N/A Date consultation entered in Consultation and Events Diary: N/A

Report History Decision type: For information Urgency Key Decision N/A Report No: 80/06-07 and reason Executive member notified on: N/A Drafted on: 01.09.06 Deadline: 01.09.06 Date sent: N/A Date Published: 06.09.06 Report drafted by and Claire Butcher, Democratic Services Officer, 020 7926 0024 contact for enquiries: [email protected]

Page 2

1. Context

1.1 This reports sets out details of questions submitted to the Area Committee and the written responses provided by officers.

2. Public Notice Questions

2.1 Question submitted by George Wright, Stockwell Partnership Ltd, AC/CS/01/JULY/06-07: Automatic Public Convenience (APC)

During 1999/2000, a proposal to locate an Automatic Public Convenience (APC) in the Stockwell town centre area was discussed at a number of Stockwell Partnership general meetings. Theses discussions were led by Charlotte Evans, then Clapham & Stockwell Town Centre Manager who was joined by officers from Lambeth Environmental Services at some of the meetings.

The discussions were not about a local desire to have a public toilet (this had long been established). It was about the selection of a suitable site for an APC that would be provided and installed free of charge by JC Decaux. JC Decaux would provide the APC as part of a deal with Lambeth Council in which the local authority allowed them (JCD) to install a number of pavement advertising hoardings in return for the installation of one APC in each town centre area. I understand that only Norwood has received its toilet.

Seven JCD hoardings were duly erected at the following prominent sites along main roads in the Stockwell area:

South Lambeth Road – outside Nat West bank Clapham Road – outside Swan pub Clapham Road – by Surridge Court Wandsworth Road – outside No. 438 Wandsworth Road – outside No. 471 Wandsworth Road – outside Vauxhall College Wandsworth Road – opposite Sainsbury’s

Yet six years later Stockwell still does not have its promised APC despite local residents of Stockwell making repeated pleas for public toilet provision at Stockwell Partnership meetings.

Most recently in July 2005, the subject was raised at a Stockwell Partnership meeting and the issue was followed up by Cllr Bowyer and Michele Guimarin. A flurry of emails were circulated between Councillors and officers in August 2005 but the end result proved inconclusive as it appeared that no-one was able to locate the original agreement between Lambeth Council and JC Decaux.

Page 3

To summarise: JC Decaux got their advertising hoardings in Stockwell. When will Stockwell get its promised, and much-needed, APC?

2.2 Officer response:

The Council does have a contract for the provision and management of Universal Super Loos (USLs) in the Borough. The number of USLs to be provided was dependent on the Council making available an agreed number of pavement advertising sites to the company. This equated to 13 advertising sites being made available in return for the provision of each USL. Unfortunately it has not yet been possible to make available a number of originally proposed advertising sites as Transport for London have not given permission for installation of the advertising boards on roads for which they are responsible.

To date JC Decaux has provided USLs at the following three sites on a pro rata basis in return for the 40 advertising sites made available to them so far:

• West Norwood Library • Lower Marsh • Streatham Rookery

The Council is currently working with JC Decaux to identify further suitable advertising sites which will then trigger the agreement for USLs to be introduced in Stockwell (near the Swan Public House) and Brixton (outside Brixton Police Station). It is hoped that this process will be completed within 6 months and installation can then take place. I would assure you that the original contract between the Council and JC Decaux has not been lost.

The Council is aware that provision of public toilets in the borough is inadequate, and we are examining different costed options to increase provision. We anticipate this work being finished in September. The general subject of provision in Clapham and Stockwell is also being considered by the Clapham and Stockwell Area Committee on 14 September 2006. If you wish to raise a supplementary question to your original question or contribute to the general discussion this can be done at the meeting.

2.3 Question submitted by Ian Cameron, AC/CS/06/JUL/06-07: Public Conveniences

It would be nice to get a run down from you council officials about which London boroughs provide a reasonable service (Greenwich?) - obviously not Lambeth - and how the "positive boroughs" finance such services - and in addition a clear run down on how such public conveniences for many, many years - such as at Stockwell - were financed until they were closed.

2.4 Officer response: John Edwards, Divisional Director, Public Realm

The Council provides Public Conveniences at seven on street locations in the Borough (four conventional and three Universal Super loos) and at locations in 13 Parks and open spaces. Work is currently under way to provide a further two USL’s. In addition to

Page 4

the traditional toilets mentioned as being public there are of course a great many other toilets being used by the public, but the operators are often reluctant to sign post them as such. Many facilities on the South Bank have publicly accessible toilets and they exist in libraries and leisure centres.

The Council is aware that provision of public toilets in the borough is not as high as we or the public would like, and an important and expensive consideration remains the abuse to which public toilets are subjected. We are currently examining different costed options to increase provision and we anticipate this work being finished in September. The general subject of provision in Clapham and Stockwell is also being considered by the Clapham and Stockwell Area Committee on 14 September 2006 and you are welcome to attend the meeting to contribute to the discussion.

2.5 Question submitted by Rachel Thomas, AC/CS/02/JULY/06-07: North Street

There were a number of points raised by residents and councillors in previous meetings and these have not been resolved. I would therefore like an update on progress of the following items relating to North St:

• When are the chicanes to be introduced on the road? • When are the signs going to be put up in Queenstown Road (on 21st April it was said these were being built but these have not yet been put up)? • When can a 20mph limit be introduced on the road & surrounding roads? • Can the enforcement vehicle for the 3 tonne limit be in place early mornings (6- 8am) when most of the abuse happens? • When can the raised Zebra crossing be completed? • When are we getting the flashing speed indicator on the road?

2.6 Officer response: Abu Barkatoolah, Principal Transport Engineer

Chicanes

The chicanes formed part of a more extensive traffic calming/management proposal for North Street and the Old Town which was tabled at an earlier meeting of the Clapham & Stockwell Area Committee.

The committee were advised that the proposal would be an appropriate way of addressing concerns about the traffic conditions in the area. The committee were also advised that the proposal would be suitable for wider consultation once a budget for implementation had been identified.

The estimated cost of the proposal is £100,000. At the time of the report to the committee no budget for the works had been identified.

Unfortunately, that remains the case and hence I am unable to provide you with a date when either consultation or implementation of the chicanes will take place.

Historically, traffic management schemes have been funded through Transport for London through the annual Borough Spending Plan process. A bid was submitted for

Page 5

North Street within the Council’s June 2005 funding bid. The bid did not attract funding for 2006/07 and is unlikely to attract funding for 2007/08.

Officers will continue to explore potential sources of funding for the scheme, paying particular attention to developer contribution opportunities.

I will also examine whether it could be possible to revise the parking arrangements in North Street to achieve the chicane effect at minimal cost.

I am sorry I cannot provide you with more positive news at this time.

Signs

We have identified locations where additional signs could be erected and consulted with Wandsworth Council. We anticipate that these signs will be erected by the end of August 2006.

20mph Zone

North Street and the surrounding streets have not yet been identified as a 20mph zone due to funding constraints to implement measures aiming at speed reduction. We can look at this area again in relation to current road collision data and forward a bid to Transport for London for 2008/09 financial year of implementation.

Enforcement

As you are aware, the weight limit was introduced using an experimental Traffic Order. It will be necessary to review compliance and operational issues shortly. In the meantime, I will discuss the possibility of additional enforcement of the weight limit in North Street with my enforcement colleagues. The Council has limited resources for this kind of enforcement and a number of problem sites but I will discuss the possibility of re-scheduling visits to North Street.

Raised Zebra

The Fire Brigade have in the past rejected any form of raised crossing along North Street between the roundabout and Wandsworth Road. We have had numerous discussions on this matter with the Fire Authority and they have continually objected to any additional vertical deflection measures in North Street because of the impact on response time, given that they can no longer access the Stockwell area via Larkhall Bridge.

Flashing Speed Indicator

The Council has procured additional signs for erection along North Street. The signs will be erected between the roundabout and Wandsworth Road. This is planned to take place by the end of September to mid-October this year.

3. Financial implications

Page 6

N/A

4. Legal implications

N/A

5. Consultation feedback

N/A

6. Appendices - None

7. List of background documents – None

______

Page 7 Agenda Item 4 b Clapham and Stockwell Area Committee 14 September 2006

Provision of Public Conveniences in Clapham and Stockwell Area Clapham Common, Clapham Town, Larkhall, Stockwell and Thornton Ward / Clapham and Stockwell Area

Report authorised by: Robert Overall Executive Director (Environment and Culture).

Executive summary

The following report has been commissioned to detail current provision of public conveniences provided by Lambeth council in the Clapham and Stockwell area and to give information on any plans to expand the service. Information is provided on conveniences on the public highway and those managed by the Parks Service in the Council’s parks and open spaces.

Summary of financial implications

Limits to the budgets for both on street and Parks toilets coupled with the costs associated with the serious problems of anti social behaviour means there is significant pressure on the existing budgets to maintain those toilets currently provided. It would not be possible to restore or construct any additional facilities without increased budget provision.

The department does not currently have any resources, either revenue or capital, to support growth proposals for public conveniences. Therefore any costs quoted in this report would be a bid for extra resources. Alternatively, they would represent an added pressure to the department's overspend which currently stands at just over £2 million.

Recommendations (1) That the recommendations in the Clapham Common Master Plan be noted (para 2.7) (2) That the Area Committee refer their views on funding issues to Cabinet for consideration as part of the Council’s budget process.

Page 8

Consultation

Name of consultee Directorate or Organisation Date sent Date Comments to response appear in report consultee received para: from consultee

Internal Cllr Lib Peck Executive Member 29/8/06 1/1/0/06 Peter Chapman Legal Services 29/8/06 29/8/06 Tony Otokito Corporate Finance 29/8/06 30/8/06 Simon Harding Community Safety 29/8/06 - Les Brown Planning 29/8/06 4/1/06 Michele Guimarin Town Centre Manager 29/8/06 1/1/06 Entered in Consultation and Events Diary? No

Report history

Date report drafted: Report deadline: Date report sent: Report no.: 20.8.06. 1.9.06 4.9.06 78/06-07 Report author and contact for queries: John Edwards (Divisional Director – Public Realm) [email protected] 0207 926 0527 Andrew Ormston (Divisional Director – Culture) [email protected] 0207 926 0182

Background documents

Clapham Common Master Plan

Appendices

None

1. Context

1.1 Local authorities have a power to provide public conveniences, but there is no statutory duty to make provision. Lambeth and many other parts of London have been showing a dramatic decline in the number of public conveniences provided by the local authority. Until 1988 the Council provided 23 male and female staffed on street public conveniences. From 1988 various budget reductions have resulted in the Council now only providing 6 unstaffed on street public conveniences throughout the Borough. There is one on street toilet by Clapham Common underground station (Clapham Cross). This is currently the only on street provision within the Clapham and Stockwell Area.

1.2 In addition Clapham Common (the open space) has 6 public toilets, 3 of which are open and 3 closed.

Page 9

1.3 The open facilities on the Common are located within the children’s play area, beside the bowling green, and adjacent to the contractor’s depot. There are also facilities in the café at the bandstand. Battersea Rise, Polygon and Clapham Common South are closed. Recent works to the 3 open toilet facilities has seen them completely refurbished to comply with current DDA [disability discrimination act] legislation inclusive of baby change facilities. The total cost of this work was £155,000. In addition the Clapham Cross on street toilet by Clapham Common underground has seen internal repairs carried out after vandalism and is now once again open at a cost of £12,000.

2. Proposals and reasons

2.1 Closed Conveniences

2.1.1 Polygon, Clapham Southside, Battersea Rise are closed. It is estimated that a capital fund of £200,000 per facility would be required to bring them back to acceptable usage inclusive of all compliance works. I.e. DDA etc.

2.1.2 In response to an enquiry from a member of the public the Council provided a below surface public convenience at Binfield Road near Stockwell Tube Station until 1988. The Council’s Public Services Committee decided in September 1988 to shut this facility as part of that year’s Service Plan process. The below ground space was subsequently filled in and sealed.

2.2 Current Budgets

Cleaning is undertaken as part of the grounds maintenance contract for Parks Conveniences and Streetcare budgets for the on street conveniences. There is no identified funding for any proposal to upgrade open or closed conveniences

2.3 Benchmarking with Other Authorities

2.3.1 The London Assembly published a report on London's public conveniences, and found,

“London has experienced the highest decline in the number of local authority owned and run public toilets in the country. Government figures estimate the decline to be 16 per cent in four years, while other figures indicate a closure rate of up to 40 per cent in just over five. The principal reason is cost – either the escalating cost of staffing, repairing damage caused by vandalism, or to bring often Victorian age facilities up to the standards required by the Disability Discrimination Act and modern health and safety legislation. “

2.3.2 Other nearby authorities such as Southwark and Greenwich have over the past 10 years closed most of their public toilet portfolio due to pressure on budgets and anti social behaviour problems.

Page 10

2.4 Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Issues.

2.4.1 There has been over the past 8 years serious pressure on budgets to stem the tide of damage caused by various forms of vandalism and Anti social behaviour to the point where all toilet refurbishments have a secure by design input to reduce the effect on vandalism and other behavioural aspects of the service provided. This is not a complete removal of risk but does go some way to reduce that risk. Adequate funding is required to improve and maintain these units once complete.

2.5 Pissoir Trial

2.5.1 A pissoir scheme was trialled, at Spring Gardens last year. The location was well used although due to its popularity it often overflowed. A more permanent scheme would have to take this into account. The scheme incurred hire charges for which no on going budget is available. An on street trial borough wide was also carried out at six sites, organised and funded as part of a Community Safety initiative three in Clapham; Voltaire Road, Clapham High Street, The Pavement and three in Brixton; Tunstall Road, Rushcroft Road and Brixton Hill. The trial involved the temporary placement of pissoirs put in place each weekend. The cost for a Friday and Saturday provision to the six sites was £988 per weekend.

2.5.2 Financial provision for pissoirs is not available in the Council’s budgets but StreetCare have submitted four bids through the Council’s budget making process to provide a toilet provision for all town centre areas to deal with the effects of the night time economy. These bids will be considered, in competition with other priorities for the council during the budget setting process.

2.6 Clapham Common Master Plan

2.6.1 The current Clapham Common masterplan has established a way forward for both the Polygon and Clapham Southside by way of incorporating a café/kiosk into the structure and providing toilets available for all at potentially no cost to the Council. Proposals are in the early stages and any proposals will need to be consulted with the CCMAC.

2.7 Provision for People With disabilities

As stated in the criteria section three parks toilets recently refurbished meet the requirements of accessibility under DDA. Closed toilets when reopened once works are complete will also meet those requirements under law.

2.8 Section 106 Agreement With Tesco Information regarding the section 106 agreement will be submitted by the Planning Department and will be tabled at the meeting.

Page 11

2.9 Agreement With JC Decaux To Provide Universal Super Loos

2.9.1 The Council has a contract for the provision and management of Universal Super Loos (USLs) in the Borough. The number of USLs to be provided was dependent on the Council making available an agreed number of pavement advertising sites to the company. This equated to 13 advertising sites being made available in return for the provision of each USL. Unfortunately it has not yet been possible to make available a number of originally proposed advertising sites as Transport for London have not given permission for installation of the advertising boards on roads for which they are responsible.

2.9.2 To date JC Decaux has provided USLs at the following three sites on a pro rata basis in return for the 40 advertising sites made available to them so far:

• West Norwood Library • Lower Marsh • Streatham Rookery

2.9.3 The Council is currently working with JC Decaux to identify further suitable advertising sites which will then trigger the agreement for USLs to be introduced in Stockwell (near the Swan Public House) and Brixton (outside Brixton Police Station). It is hoped that this process will be completed within 6 months and installation can then take place.

3. Comments from Executive Director of Finance

3.1 The financial implications of providing adequate funds to bring all on street and parks toilets up to current acceptable standards including all DDA compliance and once complete all toilets giving budgets to ensure sustainability under serious anti social behaviour pressures in the future are summarised in the table below:

Summary 3 year financial Source implications 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 £ £ £ Staffing 0 Supplies and services 51,750 51,750 51,750 Revenue Travel/ Transport Total running costs 51750 51750 51750

Capital 600,000 Capital

3.2 The department does not have any resources, either revenue or capital, to support growth proposals for public conveniences. Therefore any costs quoted in

Page 12

this report would be a bid for extra resources. Alternatively, they represent an added pressure to the department's overspend which currently stands at just over £2 million.

3.3 The revenue resources are required for cleaning of 3 toilets at £9,250 per annum each = £27,750 per annum and Lighting, repairs and maintenance - £8,000 per annum each = £24,000. Total running costs for 3 toilets per annum = £51,750. This excludes the cost that may be associated with any potential vandalism to the toilets. There is no capacity within existing budgets to absorb these costs.

3.4 As indicated in Paragraph 2.6 bids have been made via the budget making process for funding to introduce pissoirs on a permanent basis from 2007/08.

4. Comments from Director of Legal and Democratic Services

4.1 The Council does not have statutory duty to provide public conveniences. Section 87(1) of the Public Health act 1936 states that “a local authority may provide public sanitary conveniences in proper and convenient situation”. Section 87(3) empowers the Council “to charge such fees for the use of such conveniences, other than urinals, as they think fit”.

4.2 Section 5 of the chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 states that “where any local authority undertake the provision of a public sanitary convenience, it shall be the duty of the authority, in doing so, to make provision, insofar as it is in the circumstances both practical and reasonable, for the need of disabled persons”.

5. Organisational implications

5.1 Risk management: Risk should no action be taken on any public toilets is a continued bad press and poor community opinion of services provided.

5.2 Equalities impact assessment : No impact assessment has taken place

5.3 Community safety implications: See paragraph 2.4

5.4 Environmental implications : The lack of adequate provision of public conveniences has an obvious effect on the cleanliness of the local environment.

5.5 Staffing and accommodation implications : Additional cleaning and security staff may be required, dependant on budget levels and numbers of toilets open borough wide.

Page 13

6. Timetable for implementation

6.1 The three closed toilets could be open within 12 months of adequate funding being put in place.

Page 14

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Page 15

b

Clapham & Stockwell Area Committee 14 th September 2006

Estates Recycling in Clapham Park NDC Area

Executive summary

The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with a summary of the development of Clapham Park Project’s estates recycling service and recommendations as to how key elements of the scheme could be taken up by mainstream partners when project funding ceases at the end of this year.

Summary of financial implications

There are currently no financial implications of this report, however, the Council may wish to consider how they procure refuse and recycling services in the future.

Recommendations (1) That the Committee notes the development of this scheme That the Committee considers ‘lessons learned’ from the development of this scheme when considering how refuse and recycling services are procured in the future.

Page 16

Consultation

Name of Directorate or Organisation Date sent Date Comments consultee to response appear in report consultee received para: from consultee

Internal Bob Stranks, London Borough of Lambeth 30 th August Interim Head of 2006 Waste Management Tim Fairhurst, London Borough of Lambeth 30 th August Area Housing 2006 Manager, Clapham & Stockwell Margaret Farr, London Borough of Lambeth 30 th August Area Housing 2006 Manager, Brixton Michele Guimarin, LBL 30 th August Clapham & 2006 Stockwell Town Centre Manager Entered in Consultation and Events Diary? No

Report history

Date report drafted: Report Date report sent: Report no.: deadline: 29.08.06 01.09.06 31.08.06 79/06-07 Report author and contact for queries: Sarah Coyte, Neighbourhood Manager, Clapham Park Project 020 7926 0612 [email protected]

Page 17

Estates Recycling in Clapham Park NDC Area

1. Context

1.1 This report provides an end of year review of the Doorstep Refuse Recycling Project (DRRP). The DRR Project contributes to “increasing residents’ satisfaction within the area” a key NDC programme outcome. The following review provides Theme Group Members, Stakeholders, Partners and the Clapham Park Project (CPP) Board with a useful insight into the achievements of the project to date.

The project was set up to provide a doorstep collection service of materials for recycling from blocks of flats within the Clapham Park NDC area. The scheme improves equality of services for residents of the estate by mirroring the service that is received by residents of street properties throughout Lambeth. Collections of paper, glass bottles and jars, cardboard, plastic bottles, empty aerosols and food and drink cans are made from residents’ doorsteps.

The project aimed to achieve the following; • Provide additional collection of household rubbish and bulky rubbish for recycling. • Educate residents on the benefits of recycling for the environment • Improve the general cleanliness of Clapham Park estate

The development of the project built on the positive working relationships that had been established in the Service Providers Sub-group. This team was comprised of front line managers from the local housing office, the estate cleaners and the refuse collectors, as well as Neighbourhood Management staff, to address the problems of poor co-ordination of local estate services and resident dissatisfaction. In the four months prior to implementation, there was a series of monthly meetings where the detail of the scheme was thrashed out.

A key member of the team was the Communications Officer from Lambeth Environment. This ensured that the communications that went out across the estate prior to the launch benefited from being in Lambeth’s corporate style which had only just been used to launch the borough wide kerbside scheme. This meant that from the outset, residents perceived this as being a ‘mainstream’ service rather than a ‘charitable’ intervention by the NDC. The involvement of the CPP Neighbourhood Management Team meant that the language used was customer friendly, and thought was given to distribution in key community languages including Spanish, Portuguese and French.

Connaught Environmental Ltd was appointed to deliver the project on behalf of CPP. Two recycling operatives were recruited to execute the weekly doorstep collection, which operates between Tuesday and Friday with an additional collection of bulky rubbish from the estate on Saturdays to supplement the existing weekday collection. The recyclable materials collected were disposed of into recycling banks for co-mingled (mixed) materials located on the estate after which Cleanaway Refuse collection staff removed the recyclable materials for sorting and reprocessing.

Page 18

Equally importantly, the two operatives are also responsible for promoting the recycling message across the estate, rather than have a separate team of ‘door- steppers’. This is particularly important in terms of continuity and local credibility. The staff team has been extremely stable, with one of the operatives recruited at the beginning of the scheme still employed. The other post became vacant due to promotion of the original post holder and was filled with a Spanish-speaking operative who has been extremely helpful in terms of promoting recycling to Spanish speaking residents. The Neighbourhood Management Team worked closely with Connaught management and CPP’s Shop for Jobs during the early stages of recruitment to recruit staff from the NDC area. Despite the hard work that went into this process, with the Neighbourhood Manager assisting with short listing and interviewing, we were not able to recruit NDC residents, although the team do live in the immediately surrounding area. Considerable thought went into the design of the Job Description, recognizing that whilst this is a relatively low paid job, there were opportunities for real job satisfaction within the post, in terms of promoting the benefits of recycling and engaging with residents. There was also a requirement that the team input key data into handheld computers. Interestingly, this was not seen as so much of a barrier to employment as the requirement to be able to drive, which apparently put off many applicants from the local area.

The DRRP was approved in June 2004, but was not implemented until September 2004 to allow the project team the opportunity to fully develop the scheme. The project was originally due to come to the end of its lifespan at the beginning of September 2006. A further extension has been granted, meaning the project will now be funded until the end of November 2006 in order to fully analyse the data from the enhanced monitoring that has taken place, and explore opportunities for mainstreaming. A three month gap between the project being approved and implemented was forecasted in 2004. There are a number of reasons for this delay in starting the project. The main reason is due to the time needed to advertise and recruit staff, establish a project team, ensure value for money in purchasing a range of items including recycling banks/sacks, and prepare the promotional materials.

1.2 Links to broader strategic objectives

The project has contributed to wider strategic outcomes. The increase in recycling achieved has supported the London Borough of Lambeth in increasing its recycling rate thus improving the likelihood of the council meeting its recycling targets. It has also provided a model that the borough could consider rolling out further. The scheme is also likely to be assisting the Western Riverside Waste Authority meet its Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme targets, which benefits all four Western Riverside boroughs and their residents.

It links in well to a number of strategies, including the Mayor’s sustainability strategy, Lambeth and the four Western Riverside borough recycling targets. Lambeth’s recycling target for 2005/2006 was 21% and its actual performance was 22.56%. Government has announced that in general there will be no further statutory recycling targets for councils at least to 2007, as the focus is now

Page 19

shifting from purely quantitative recycling targets to the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) from landfill. In this respect, Lambeth will not only be judged on an individual basis, but also as part of the group of councils in the Western Riverside Waste Authority (WRWA) area that it belongs to. WRWA has annual limits on the amount of BMW that it can landfill, and if these are exceeded it will incur fines of £150 per tonne. These fines will be borne by its constituent councils, including Lambeth. The current Head of Waste Management, Bob Stranks, comments that the two areas that councils would be well advised to consider in order to increase waste diversion from landfill are doorstep collection from flats and facilities for recycling kitchen waste.

Through sharing the performance of the scheme with organisations such as other NDCs and London Boroughs, the Clapham Park Project partners have enabled the scheme to be used as a template for other schemes across London. For example a similar scheme has now been implemented in the London Borough of Kingston.

2. Project Spend

2.1 Table showing project spend (£) from (Sept 2004) to (July 2006) Funder Approved Forecast Actual % Comments Achieved NDC Revenue 91,298.00 89,249.00 106,172.68 Overspent refer to commentary NDC Capital 29,440.00 22081.00 0.00 Refer to commentary below Match-funding 28,500.00 17,250.00 26,405.46 92% Refer to commentary below Match-funding / in-kind 0 0 8,110.00 Refer to commentary below Total 149,238 128, 580.00 118,401 Source: System K, Clapham Park Project NDC

2.2 Commentary on project spend: There was no capital spend against this project. At the start of the project it was decided that it would be more cost effective to lease the recycling van as opposed to buying a new van, taking into consideration depreciation costs and the short project lifespan of two years. No office equipment was purchased given that the service operated via Connaught’s office. All expenditures were classified as revenue hence the reason for the over spend on revenue and the under spend on capital.

2.3 Match Funding • Promotion – approved funding for promotional material £3, 096, actual funding received is £3,439. • Recycling Sacks – approved funding £8,000.00, actual funding received is £10,720.

Page 20

• Recycling Bins - approved funding £10,500.00, actual funding received 11,246.30. • Connaught has also contributed £1,000 towards the doorstep recycling reward; this figure is included in the total match funding figure above.

2.3.1 In kind match funding

The total in-kind match funding for LBL project officer time contributed to the project is £1,110.00. The Recycle Western Riverside campaign (RWR) has contributed £7,000.00 to the project by providing officer’s time to assist with planning, providing advice on communication and technical issues as well as delivering the recycling awareness programme in Richard Atkins and Glenbrook Primary school.

3. Beneficiaries

The table below provides an outline of the project beneficiaries by ethnicity.

Table showing project beneficiaries by ethnicity Ethnicity (CPP diversity categories) Project Project nos. CPP 2004 nos. according by census MORI Profile categories (%) (%) 1.0 White: 1.1 White British 77 26 35 1.2 White Irish 2 0.7 2 1.3 White Eastern European 2 N/A N/A 1.4 White Spanish 0 N/A N/A 1.5 White Portuguese 0 N/A N/A 1.6 White Latin American 2 N/A N/A 1.7 White Other 1 1.7 19 2.0 Mixed of: 2.1 White and Black Caribbean 2 0.7 1 2.2 White and Black African 0 0 0 2.3 White and Asian 0 0 1 2.4 Mixed Other 1 0.3 1 3.0 Black: 3.1 Black British Caribbean 12 0.4 12 3.2 African Origin 15 0.5 18 3.3 Latin American 1 N/A N/A 3.4 Middle Eastern/North African 0 N/A N/A 3.5 Black Other 8 0.3 1 4.0 Asian or Asian British: 4.1 Indian 0 0 3 4.2 Bangladeshi 0 0 1 4.3 Pakistani 0 0 1 4.4 Chinese 1 0.3 1 4.5 South East Asian 2 N/A N/A 4.6 Asian Other 0.7 2 4.7 Ethnicity not specified 203 69 N/A Total: 294

Page 21

Source: Project database (June 2006)

The beneficiary data provided in the table above is based on a Customer Satisfaction Survey of the DRRP that was executed between November 2005 and February 2006. There are currently 1973 households with access to the door to door collection scheme within the Clapham Park estate, a total of 294 households including both leaseholders and tenants completed the survey. Since not all residents were surveyed the beneficiary figure above does include information gathered from all the residents who have benefited from the service. However it does represent 18% of the dwellings which according to the Waste and Resources Action Programme 1 is sufficient to provide a reliable sample. A total of 69% of residents that completed the survey chose to withhold their ethnic background, and this made it difficult to present a true picture of BME groups who have benefited from the scheme. Arguably, the reasons for this could be due to the fact that residents did not understand the relevance of the question or that the operatives who were in charge of completing the questionnaires were not experienced in carrying out this type of research.

The project benefits all residents within the NDC as recycling facilities are more accessible as recycling sacks are collected from their doorstep. This service was previously only received by residents in kerbside properties and not residents living in blocks on the estate. The scheme particularly benefits residents with mobility problems who may have found it difficult to carry materials to recycling banks. The fact that 93% of residents are using the scheme demonstrates that the scheme has been exceptionally well received by residents. As a comparison in similar schemes across London an average of just 59% of residents set out their recyclables for collection.

The top performing recycling blocks have been rewarded for their efforts with free low energy light bulbs bringing additional direct benefits. The scheme has also reduced the number of recycling sacks flytipped around the estate. This has improved the appearance of the area - increasing liveability, reduced trip hazards and prevented the sacks being a target for antisocial behaviour. This process has been regularly monitored through spot checks by the Neighbourhood Wardens and the NM Support Officer.

Indirectly there are other groups that have benefited from the project. Recycling creates more jobs than refuse disposal and has led to an increase in employment opportunities locally and potentially at sorting and reprocessing facilities. The volume of waste being disposed of to landfill has been reduced. This has resulted in improving the environment, making resources available and decreasing negative impacts to residents living close to landfill sites.

3.1 Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Survey

Participation monitoring has shown that 93% of residents on the estate are taking part in the door to door collection scheme with resident surveys suggesting that an additional number are recycling using on-site bring banks. This indicates that there is a very high level of satisfaction and support for the scheme.

1 Monitoring and evaluation of recycling communication campaigns (WRAP 2004)

Page 22

The best way to measure capture rates of materials is through a waste audit, however, surveys can be used to give an indication of the capture of materials. The table below shows that the claimed capture rates of some materials is high with 93% of residents claiming to ‘always’ recycle newspaper and paper. Capture rates of other materials are lower than expected with only 45% of residents claiming to always recycle glass jars. In comparison 83% of residents of using the kerbside collection scheme in Lambeth claimed to ‘always’ recycle their glass jars and 93% claimed to ‘always recycle their glass bottles (data from monitoring of ‘total recycling’ pilot). This suggests there is an opportunity to improve capture of some materials in phase II of the scheme should it proceed.

Claimed frequency of recycling of materials Always Sometimes Rarely Never Newspaper/paper 93 5 1 2 Magazines 87 9 1 2 Cardboard 74 19 3 3 Plastic Bottles 85 11 2 3 Glass Bottles 65 24 6 5 Glass Jars 45 17 24 14 Source: Customer Satisfaction Survey Nov 05 – Feb 06

4. Project’s contribution to NDC outcome Increase in resident satisfaction with the area . No data on resident satisfaction from before the launch of the scheme is available but comparison to other schemes and the customer satisfaction survey suggests that resident satisfaction is high, and as previously mentioned in the report, the Mori survey shows that resident satisfaction with the area has increased to from 70% to 72%.

Other improvements to the estate have been achieved such as a reduction in flytipping and improvement of communal areas. These have been reported anecdotally - no measurement procedures have been in place for this. The results from the customer satisfaction surveys show that satisfaction with the scheme is high with 92% of respondants reporting that they have had no problems with the scheme and around 95% saying they are happy with the collection frequency and that collections are regular and on time.

One of our partners commented that. “ The amount of waste left on the estate has significantly reduced compared to two years ago, particularly around Clapham Park West”. (Recycling Group minutes)

5. Trends and Issues: 5.1 Barriers to achievement: • Although the scheme has appeared to perform well the project partners recognise that there are some areas in which improvements could be implemented. These include amongst others improvements to monitoring procedures and sack deliveries. These points have not necessarily

Page 23

hindered the scheme but project partners appreciate that addressing them could improve the scheme. Some issues cannot be predicted as schemes must be adapted to best meet the requirements of the community in which they are run – it is only when a scheme has been put in place that certain improvements can be identified.

- Issues with the onboard weighing equipment resulted in the operatives having to count the sacks manually with the aid of hand held computers to ascertain the estimated tonnage for each quarter. This has been a continuous problem throughout the project. - There has been no way to monitor the amount of refuse collected from the estate which means it is not possible to track any changes over time - Lack of consistent information from Connaught regarding complaints logged by the helpdesk staff and actions taken to resolve them, which would have enabled us to monitor customer satisfaction with the service more efficiently throughout the project. - The operatives who were in charge of completing the questionnaires experienced numerous difficulties in that a lot of residents were not at home when visits were carried out and some residents were reluctant to fill in the questionnaire. If a larger sample had been completed, this would have given us a realistic figure for numbers of BME residents who have benefited from the service.

5.2 Opportunities and Drivers • The Clapham Park DRRP is almost unique in London in that the door to door collections of recycling are carried by employees of the contractor responsible for cleaning the estate, Connaught. This means that where sacks are set out on the wrong day or left around recycling bins there are staff on site who will take responsibility for removing the sacks. Other door to door schemes have suffered due to a lack of cohesion between those collecting recycling and those responsible for estate cleaning – this can lead to problems such as recyclables and containers being left in corridors and around bins where they reduce the aesthetic appearance of the site and pose trip hazards and targets for vandalism. • Assistance from the RWR campaign and Lambeth council has ensured the scheme has tied into the boroughwide collection service and communication campaign. This has improved cost efficiency and has enhanced the value of communication materials. • Recruitment of two recycling operatives with multilingual skills to execute the doorstep collection. • Good relationship with local residents who use and benefit from the service. • Superb working relationship with the Community Information Officers who distribute leaflets as and when necessary. • Successful implementation of a recycling program in Richard Atkins and Glenbrook Primary Schools to educate teachers and children about the benefits and importance of recycling to the environment. • Project group set up at the start of the project, which met on a regular basis to discuss the project and share best practice.

Page 24

5.2.1 Comment on how the management and delivery mechanisms supported the project: The Neighbourhood Management team has worked with several key project partners including Lambeth Council, Cleanaway Environmental (the councils refuse and recycling collection contractor), Connaught (the councils estates cleansing contractor) and the RWR campaign. Through regular meetings facilitated by the NM team, the partners have been able to discuss issues and lend their experience and expertise to assist the development and improvement of the door to door collection scheme.

6. Value for money

The total cost per household per year of delivering the scheme is approximately £33.50 (excluding replacement of recycling banks and sacks) with the door to door service costing £28 per household per year and collection from centralised bins costing approximately £5.50. 2

In four other boroughs in London cost for door to door collections from estates (including collection from centralised collection facilities) range from £20 to £30 per year with an average cost of £26.30. This is slightly lower than the cost of the service in Clapham Park but the dataset is very limited and in some cases boroughs are gaining a reduction in the cost of the service as the contractor responsible for the door to door collections is also removing the recyclables from the site and gaining profits from the sale of the material. These figures are taken from a benchmarking exercise undertaken by London Remade during 2006. Since the information obtained was confidential it is not possible for the names of other boroughs to be given here but London Remade can be contacted to verify the results.

While cost per household per year can provide a benchmark that is useful for negotiating contracts the best way to calculate efficiency and therefore value for money is calculating the cost per tonne of recycling collected. A low cost per tonne indicates that the scheme is performing efficiently. Weight data captured through dedicated collections and cost data provided during 2004 by Connaught and LB Lambeth suggest that the cost per tonne of door to door collections on the Clapham Park estate is £529 3. As a comparison door to door collection costs in three other London boroughs range from £285 - £446 averaging £400 4.

Costs of bring bank services average £164 5 suggesting they are currently more cost efficient than door to door collection schemes. This is not because they collect more recyclables but because they have a much lower cost per household.

If the Clapham Park door to door collection scheme were able to collect the same amount of recyclables as the kerbside scheme (186kg/hh/yr) the cost per tonne

2 Cost per household per year is a recognised performance indicator in the waste industry. It is based on all households with access to the scheme not just those that are using it 3 including collections and onward transport to bulking facilities but excluding purchase of sacks 4 including collections and onward transport to bulking facilities but excluding purchase of replacement containers 5 Data from research conducted by RWR in 2004

Page 25

would fall to £164. This would make it as cost effective as bring bank schemes while allowing approximately 4 times as much recyclable material to be collected.

Based on the cost per household the project represents comparatively moderate value for money. The cost per tonne suggests that there is scope to improve value for money through increasing the amount of materials captured. Should the project be extended into phase II this should be one of the key aims.

7. Sustainability: Securing long term sustainability of the DRRP requires long term funding (mainstreaming). Given that CPP may not have the financial resources to fund the project beyond its current lifecycle, CPP will need to build on relationships with Clapham Park Homes (CPH) and other Partners such as Lambeth Environment if long term sustainability for the project is to be achieved.

6. Recommendations: It is clear from the participation figures that Clapham Park residents have embraced this scheme. Estate residents now benefit from equality of service provision in the area of recycling as compared with street dwellers. The intention from the outset was that this project would not require further funding from the NDC, but would either be mainstreamed, or if truly unsuccessful, discontinued. From all project partners and service users, it appears that there is strong support for the continuation of the scheme. The Neighbourhood Management Theme Group is also supportive of the scheme and has helped shape its detailed development, particularly around collection and distribution of bags. Anecdotally, it would seem that it has also been a powerful mechanism for establishing an element of community cohesion, particularly fostered by the ‘rewards’ scheme for high participating blocks, although this was not set as an output or outcome at the beginning of the project.

Bearing in mind the comments from the interim head of waste management around making the most of opportunities to increase recycling on estates, we will be seeking to ensure that the success of this project informs the debate at the borough-wide level. This report will be circulated to key decision makers within the Council and promoted through other local forums such as the Area Committees.

Lambeth Council are currently procuring their new waste management contract which will commence in April 2007 and ideally, a version of this scheme should be rolled out across the borough. This would have the advantage that the scheme would be available across all tenures, including not only Council-owned housing stock, but also RSL and private blocks. Individual landlords could then make a decision in partnership with residents as to the degree of support that could be provided by estate management staff to less physically able residents in terms of bringing bags down to central collection areas.

A further opportunity is provided through Clapham Park Homes as they look at their current environmental contracts in some detail in preparation for re- tendering. It could be that they are prepared to consider incorporating the

Page 26 collection of bags from landings as part of their block cleaning contract, with the refuse contractor collecting from the curtilage of the building.

These discussions have now commenced, with a view to securing the long term future of this project, and sustaining the benefits to local residents. We will now be seeking to ensure that the success of this project informs the debate at the borough-wide level.

Page 27 Agenda Item 6 b Clapham and Stockwell Area Committee 14 September 2006

Area Committee Communications Fund Proposed Projects for 2006/7

Clapham and Stockwell Town Centre Area

Report authorised by: Ruth Vincent, Executive Director for Adult and Community Services.

Executive summary

The Area Committee has £10,000 for its promotion and the encouragement of more inclusive and representative discussions with local people. This report lists the projects and costs for Area Committee agreement.

Summary of financial implications

There is £10,000 of funding for Area Committee communications from the Clapham and Stockwell Town Centre budget.

Recommendations

(1) That the Committee approve these projects.

(2) That the Town Centre Office will implement these projects.

(3) That a further progress report is tabled in March 2007.

Page 28

Consultation Name of Directorate or Organisation Date sent Date Comments consultee to response appear in report consultee received para: from consultee

Internal Ruth Vincent Executive Director of Adult and 3.07.06 6.07.06 Community Services Alison McKane Directorate of Legal and 3.07.06 5.07.06 Para. 10.1 Democratic Services Helen Chatsworth- Assistant Directorate of Finance 15.07.06 6.07.06 Para. 11.1 May Councillor R. Ling Chair 3.07.06 .07.06 All Councillors Clapham and Stockwell Area 3.07.06 .07.06 Committee External Clapham and Stockwell Town 3.07.05 06.07.05 Centre Board Entered in Consultation and Events Diary? No If yes, date

Report history

Date report drafted: Report Date report sent: Report no: deadline:

01.09.06 3.7.06 3.7.06 77/06-07

Report author and contact for queries: Michele Guimarin, Town Centre Manager 020 7926 0765 [email protected]

Background documents

N/A

Appendices

None.

Page 29

Area Committee Communications Fund Proposed Projects for 2006/5

1. Context

1.1. The Clapham and Stockwell Area Committee allocates £10,000 of communications funding for use in the 2006/7 financial year.

2. Proposals and reasons

2.1 Holding two events targeting under-represented and under-served communities, such as the Portuguese day to improve access to local services. (the format: fun days with family activities, music and food along with information stalls/activities either target small geographical area or a community of interest e.g. Horn of Africa) £2k was agreed.

2.2. Publicising Area Committee and topics of interest to the local community e.g. events on for 200 years Celebration of the Abolition of Slavery, Clapham Common and meetings e.g. toilets, parking, community safety, etc £5k is suggested.

2.3 Funding was agreed for an early December Christmas lights event aimed at local families. This lively event will draw attention to the switching on of new lights along the Clapham High Street. In preparation for the event local schools will be involved in preparing for it. A short 30 minute event (6:30pm-7pm) may involve a lantern procession, fire sculpture. This participative celebration will involve local schools, residents and businesses with a target audience of 1,000. Sponsorship will be sought. £3k is suggested.

2.4 All events will advertise the Area Committee and its purpose.

3. Comments from Executive Director of Finance

3.1 There are no additional financial implications in the report.

4. Comments from Director of Legal and Democratic Services

4.1 The general power of well-being, as set out in section 2, Local Government Act 2000, allows the Council to take appropriate steps to improve the quality of life for local people and includes the power to, inter alia, give financial assistance to, enter into an agreement with, or provide staff, goods, services or accommodation to, any person. However, the well-being power does not enable the authority to raise money, nor to do anything which it is unable to do by virtue of any existing statutory prohibition, restriction or limitation on its powers.

5. Results of consultation

None

Page 30

6. Organisational implications

6.1 Risk management:

The main risk associated with use of this funding are unforeseen problems that will delay the spending. Funding between projects may be altered slightly, so that the full allocation is spend by 31 March 2007.

6.2 Equalities impact assessment:

This report has not been referred for an equalities impact assessment. Part of the purpose of this funding is to make the Area Committee more accessible to and inclusive of the local community. The Town Centre Manager will consult with equalities lead officers to ensure that projects put forward for decision are inclusive and accessible.

6.3 Community safety implications:

None.

6.4 Environmental implications:

Signage will be in keeping with the accepted design within any conservation areas and existing street signage.

6.5 Staffing and accommodation implications:

None.

6.6 Any other implications:

None.