Cabinet AGENDA
DATE: Thursday 16 November 2017
TIME: 6.30 pm
VENUE: Committee Rooms 1 & 2, Harrow Civic Centre, Station Road, Harrow, HA1 2XY
MEMBERSHIP
Chair: Councillor Sachin Shah (Leader of the Council, Strategy, Partnerships and Devolution Portfolio Holder)
Portfolio Holders:
Councillor Sue Anderson Community, Culture and Resident Engagement Councillor Simon Brown Adults and Older People Councillor Keith Ferry Deputy Leader, Business, Planning and Regeneration Councillor Glen Hearnden Housing and Employment Councillor Graham Henson Environment Councillor Varsha Parmar Public Health, Equality and Community Safety Councillor Kiran Ramchandani Performance, Corporate Resources and Customer Services Councillor Mrs Christine Robson Children, Young People and Schools Councillor Adam Swersky Finance and Commercialisation
(Quorum 3, including the Leader and/or Deputy Leader)
Contact: Daksha Ghelani, Senior Democratic Services Officer Tel: 020 8424 1881 E-mail: [email protected]
Useful Information
Meeting details:
This meeting is open to the press and public.
Directions to the Civic Centre can be found at: http://www.harrow.gov.uk/site/scripts/location.php.
Filming / recording of meetings
The Council will audio record Public and Councillor Questions. The audio recording will be placed on the Council’s website.
Please note that proceedings at this meeting may be photographed, recorded or filmed. If you choose to attend, you will be deemed to have consented to being photographed, recorded and/or filmed.
When present in the meeting room, silent mode should be enabled for all mobile devices.
Meeting access / special requirements.
The Civic Centre is accessible to people with special needs. There are accessible toilets and lifts to meeting rooms. If you have special requirements, please contact the officer listed on the front page of this agenda.
An induction loop system for people with hearing difficulties is available. Please ask at the Security Desk on the Middlesex Floor.
Agenda publication date: Wednesday 8 November 2017
Cabinet - Thursday 16 November 2017 2
AGENDA - PART I
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive apologies for absence (if any).
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests arising from business to be transacted at this meeting from:
(a) all Members of the Cabinet; and (b) all other Members present.
3. PETITIONS
To receive any petitions submitted by members of the public or Councillors.
4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS *
To receive any public questions received in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Executive Procedure Rules.
Questions will be asked in the order in which they were received. There will be a time limit of 15 minutes for the asking and answering of public questions.
[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, 13 November 2017. Questions should be sent to [email protected] No person may submit more than one question].
5. COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS *
To receive any Councillor questions received in accordance with paragraph 17 of the Executive Procedure Rules.
Questions will be asked in the order agreed with the relevant Group Leader by the deadline for submission and there be a time limit of 15 minutes.
[The deadline for receipt of Councillor questions is 3.00 pm, 13 November 2017].
6. KEY DECISION SCHEDULE - NOVEMBER 2017 TO JANUARY 2018 (Pages 7 - 20)
Cabinet - Thursday 16 November 2017 3 7. REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
(a) Financing of the Regeneration Programme - Scrutiny Review Panel Report: (Pages 21 - 54)
Reference from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 7 November 2017.
(b) Progress on Scrutiny Projects: (Pages 55 - 56)
For consideration.
COMMUNITY
KEY 8. PUBLIC ART POLICY (Pages 57 - 92)
Report of the Divisional Director of Environment and Culture.
COMMUNITY/PEOPLE
KEY 9. HOUSING RELATED SUPPORT AND PREVENTION (Pages 93 - 134)
Joint Report of the Divisional Director of Housing and Acting Director of Adult Social Care.
COMMUNITY/RESOURCES AND COMMERCIAL
KEY 10. HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE 2017 (Pages 135 - 148)
Joint report of the Divisional Director of Housing and Director of Finance.
REGENERATION AND PLANNING
11. REQUEST TO AMEND THE BOUNDARY OF THE PINNER ROAD CONSERVATION AREA TO EXCLUDE 'THE LODGE', CAPEL GARDENS, PINNER (Pages 149 - 180)
Report of the Divisional Director of Regeneration and Planning.
12. ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS
Which cannot otherwise be dealt with.
AGENDA - PART II - Nil
* DATA PROTECTION ACT NOTICE
The Council will audio record items 4 and 5 (Public and Councillor Questions) and will place the audio recording on the Council’s website, which will be accessible to all.
[Note: The questions and answers will not be reproduced in the minutes.]
Cabinet - Thursday 16 November 2017 4
Deadline for questions 3.00 pm on 13 November 2017
Publication of decisions 17 November 2017
Deadline for Call in 5.00 pm on 24 November 2017
Decisions implemented if not Called in 25 November 2017
Cabinet - Thursday 16 November 2017 5 This page is intentionally left blank
London Borough of Harrow
KEY DECISION SCHEDULE ( NOVEMBER 2017 - JANUARY 2018 )
MONTH: November
The following is a list of Key Decisions which the Authority proposes to take at the above Cabinet meeting. The list may change over the next few weeks. A further notice, by way of the Cabinet agenda, will be published no less than 5 clear days before the date of the Cabinet
7 meeting, showing the final list of Key Decisions to be considered at that meeting.
A Key Decision is a decision by the Executive which is likely to:
(i) result in the Council incurring expenditure which is, or the making of savings which are, significant having regard to the Council’s budget for the service or function to which the decision relates; or
(ii) be significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area of two or more wards or electoral divisions of the Borough. Pages 7 to 20 Agenda Item 6 A decision is significant for the purposes of (i) above if it involves expenditure or the making of savings of an amount in excess of £1m for capital expenditure or £500,000 for revenue expenditure or, where expenditure or savings are less than the amounts specified above, they constitute more than 50% of the budget attributable to the service in question.
- 1 of 13 -
Decisions which the Cabinet intends to make in private
The Cabinet hereby gives notice that it may meet in private after its public meeting to consider reports which contain confidential information. The private meeting of the Cabinet is open only to Members of the Cabinet, other Councillors and Council officers.
Reports relating to decisions which the Cabinet will take at its private meeting are indicated in the list of Key Decisions below with the reasons for the decision being made in private where appropriate. The Schedule also contains non-Key Decisions which involve Cabinet having to meet in private. Any person is able to make representations to the Cabinet if he/she believes the decision should instead be made in the public Cabinet meeting. If you want to make such representations please contact Democratic & Electoral Services. You will then be sent a response in reply to your representations. Both your representations and the Cabinet’s/Leader’s response will be published on the Council’s website http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/mgListPlans.aspx at least 5 clear days before the Cabinet meeting.
The Cabinet/Leader will be considering a report prepared by the relevant Directorate. The report together with any other documents (unless they contain exempt information) will be available for inspection 5 clear days before the decision is taken by Cabinet/Leader from Daksha Ghelani, Senior Democratic Services Officer, on 020 8424 1881 or by contacting [email protected] or by writing to Democratic & Electoral Services, Harrow Council, Civic Centre PO Box 2, Station Road, Harrow, HA1 2UH or on the Council’s website. Copies may be requested but a fee will be payable. Reports to be considered at the Cabinet’s public meeting will be available on the 8 Council’s website 5 clear days before the meeting.
The KDS looks 3 meetings ahead and will be published 28 clear days before the Decision Date / Period of Decision.
- 2 of 13 - Additional Documents to Decision date / Nature of Cabinet Member / Open or Private be submitted Subject Decision Maker Period of Decision Lead officer Meeting and any Decision Consultation to be undertaken
NOVEMBER 2017
Public Art Policy To approve the Cabinet 16 November Councillor Sue Open Agenda Report adoption of the 2017 Anderson and any related Public Art Policy appendices: and Application Simon Baxter, Public Art Policy Process Divisional Director, Statement, Public Environment & Art Procedure, Culture Public Art
9 tim.bryan@harrow. Application Form gov.uk Tel: 020 8416 8639 Consultation: Relevant Councillors. Further consultation will be undertaken with other Council Departments. Public consultation will be undertaken with arts, heritage, and community groups being encouraged to provide feedback
- 3 of 13 - Additional Documents to Decision date / Nature of Cabinet Member / Open or Private be submitted Subject Decision Maker Period of Decision Lead officer Meeting and any Decision Consultation to be undertaken
Housing Related To delegate Cabinet 16 November Councillors Simon Open Agenda Report Support and authority to 2017 Brown, Glen and any related Preventative procure Housing Hearnden and appendices: EqIA Floating Support Related Support Adam Swersky and Preventative Consultation: Floating Support Nick Powell, Current service Services Divisional Director, users are being Housing Services consulted and jane.fernley@ providers are harrow.gov.uk Tel: being invited to a 10 020 8424 1283 market chris.greenway@ engagement harrow.gov.uk Tel: event 020 8424 1043, Visva Sathasivam, Interim Director of Adult Social Services
Housing Revenue To approve HRA Cabinet 16 November Councillors Glen Open Agenda Report Account Business Business Plan 2017 Hearnden and and any related Plan update 2017 update 2017 to Adam Swersky appendices set framework within which Dawn Calvert, Consultation: budget report can Director of Finance Council Tenants, be submitted milan.joshi@ Leaseholders, harrow.gov.uk Tel: private residents 020 8416 8662, and staff - 4 of 13 - Additional Documents to Decision date / Nature of Cabinet Member / Open or Private be submitted Subject Decision Maker Period of Decision Lead officer Meeting and any Decision Consultation to be undertaken
Nick Powell, Divisional Director, Housing Services
DECEMBER 2017
Draft Revenue To approve the Cabinet 7 December 2017 Councillor Adam Open Agenda Report Budget 2018/19 Draft of Revenue Swersky and any related and Medium budget for appendices 11 Term Financial 2018/19 and Dawn Calvert, Strategy 2018/19- MTFS 2018/19- Director of Finance Consultation: 2020/21 2020/21 for funmi.ogunnaike@ various bodies to consultation harrow.gov.uk Tel: be consulted after 020 8424 7544 the draft budget has been approved.
Revenue and To note the Cabinet 7 December 2017 Councillor Adam Open Agenda Report Capital Revenue and Swersky and any related Monitoring Capital forecast appendices 2017/18 - Quarter position as at Dawn Calvert, 2 as at 30th Quarter 2 Director of Finance Consultation: September 2017 To approve funmi.ogunnaike@ None virements and harrow.gov.uk Tel:
- 5 of 13 - Additional Documents to Decision date / Nature of Cabinet Member / Open or Private be submitted Subject Decision Maker Period of Decision Lead officer Meeting and any Decision Consultation to be undertaken
any amendment 020 8424 7544 in the capital programme delegated to Cabinet
Draft Capital To approve the Cabinet 7 December 2017 Councillor Adam Open Agenda Report Programme draft of 2018/19 Swersky and any related 2018/19 to to 2020/21 appendices 2020/21 Capital Dawn Calvert, 12 Programme for Director of Finance Consultation: consultation. To funmi.ogunnaike@ None approve the draft harrow.gov.uk Tel: of Capital 020 8424 7544 Strategy
Calculation of To approve the Cabinet 7 December 2017 Councillor Adam Open Agenda Report Business Rates Council’s Swersky and any related Tax Base for Business Rates appendices 2018-2019 Retention amount Tom Whiting, for 2018-19 Corporate Director, Consultation: Not Resources & applicable Commercial fern.silverio@ harrow.gov.uk Tel: 020 8736 6818
- 6 of 13 - Additional Documents to Decision date / Nature of Cabinet Member / Open or Private be submitted Subject Decision Maker Period of Decision Lead officer Meeting and any Decision Consultation to be undertaken
Calculation of To approve the Cabinet 7 December 2017 Councillor Adam Open Agenda report Council Tax Base Council’s Council Swersky and any related for 2018-2019 Tax Base for appendices 2018-19 Tom Whiting, Corporate Director, Consultation: Not Resources & applicable Commercial fern.silverio@ harrow.gov.uk Tel:
13 020 8736 6818
Estimated To agree the Cabinet 7 December 2017 Councillor Adam Open Agenda Report Surplus / (Deficit) Council’s Swersky and any related on the Collection collection fund appendices Fund 2017-18 position and to Tom Whiting, allow the Corporate Director, Consultation: Not appropriate Resources & applicable transfers to the Commercial general or fern.silverio@ collection fund to harrow.gov.uk Tel: clear surplus or 020 8736 6818 deficit
HRA Budget Approve the draft Cabinet 7 December 2017 Councillors Glen Open Agenda Report 2018-19 and HRA budget for Hearnden and and any related MTFS 2019-20 to 2017-18 and Adam Swersky appendices 2020-21 MTFS for - 7 of 13 - Additional Documents to Decision date / Nature of Cabinet Member / Open or Private be submitted Subject Decision Maker Period of Decision Lead officer Meeting and any Decision Consultation to be undertaken
consultation Nick Powell, Consultation: Divisional Director, Council tenants, Housing Services leaseholders, milan.joshi@ private residents harrow.gov.uk Tel: and staff 020 8416 8662, Dawn Calvert, Director of Finance
To declare Property Disposal properties surplus Cabinet 7 December 2017 Cllr Ferry & Part exempt 14 Programme to requirements, Cllr Hearden 2017-18 to note the Information Consultation will financial Andrew Connell relating to the take place with implications and andrew.connell@ financial or relevant ward estimated sale harrow.gov.uk, tel. business affairs councillors. prices, and to 0208 424 1259 of any particular authorise the person disposal of the (including the land and authority holding properties in that information) the event that currently authorised disposals in the 2016 Cabinet report are unlikely to sell in the current financial year. - 8 of 13 - Additional Documents to Decision date / Nature of Cabinet Member / Open or Private be submitted Subject Decision Maker Period of Decision Lead officer Meeting and any Decision Consultation to be undertaken
JANUARY 2018
Library To approve the Cabinet 18 January 2018 Councillors Adam Open Agenda Report Management extension of the Swersky and Sue and any related Contract contract with Anderson appendices: Extension Carillion Equalities Impact Integrated Simon Baxter, Assessment, Services Ltd for a Divisional Director, Contract further five years Environment & Performance 15 from 1st Culture September 2018 tim.bryan@harrow. Consultation: gov.uk Tel: 020 Consultation was 8416 8639 undertaken with the public and library staff prior to the award of the contract to Carillion Integrated Services Ltd in September 2013
Fees and Agree the Cabinet 18 January 2018 Councillor Adam Open Agenda Report Charges 2018/19 Council’s fees Swersky and any related and charges to appendices be implemented Dawn Calvert, from April 2018 Director of Finance
- 9 of 13 - Additional Documents to Decision date / Nature of Cabinet Member / Open or Private be submitted Subject Decision Maker Period of Decision Lead officer Meeting and any Decision Consultation to be undertaken
funmi.ogunnaike@ Consultation: harrow.gov.uk Tel: None 020 8424 7544
Council Tax Approval of Cabinet 18 January 2018 Councillor Robson Open Agenda Report Exemption for arrangements for and any related Care Leavers the granting of Paul Hewitt, appendices living in Harrow Council Tax Divisional Director, exemptions for Children and young people Young People leaving the Services 16 Council’s care paul.hewitt@ and living in the harrow.gov.uk, tel. Borough. 020 8736 6978
Approval of the Council recommendation Cabinet 18 January 2018 Councillor Swersky Part exempt Agenda Report Insurance to enter into and any related Renewals 2018 contracts for the Dawn Calvert, Information appendices provision of Director of Finance relating to the motor, Karen Vickery: financial or commercial karen.vickery@ business affairs property, crime harrow.gov.uk, tel. of any particular and business 020 8424 1995 person travel/personal (including the accident authority holding insurance and that information) engineering inspection services - 10 of 13 -
HARROW COUNCIL CABINET 2016/17
CONTACT DETAILS OF PORTFOLIO HOLDERS
Portfolio Councillor Address Telephone no. Email
Leader, Sachin Shah Labour Group Office Mobile: Email: [email protected] 07949 949745 Strategy, Partnerships & Room 102, Devolution PO Box, 2, Civic Centre Group Office: Station Road (020) 8424 1897 HARROW HA1 2UH Deputy Leader, Keith Ferry Labour Group Office Mobile: Email: [email protected] Business, Planning & Room 102, 07922 227147 Regeneration PO Box 2, Civic Centre Group Office: Station Road (020) 8424 1897
17 HARROW HA1 2UH Adults & Older People Simon Brown Labour Group Office Group Office: Email: [email protected] Room 102, (020) 8424 1897 PO Box 2, Civic Centre Station Road HARROW HA1 2UH Children, Young People & Christine Robson Labour Group Office Mobile: Email: [email protected] Schools Room 102, 07712 278832 PO Box 2, Civic Centre Group Office: Station Road (020) 8424 1897 HARROW HA1 2UH
- 11 of 13 -
Portfolio Councillor Address Telephone no. Email
Community, Culture & Sue Anderson Labour Group Office Mobile: Email: [email protected] Resident Engagement Room 102, 07875 094900 PO Box 2, Civic Centre Group Office: Station Road (020) 8424 1897 HARROW HA1 2UH Environment Graham Henson Labour Group Office Mobile: Email: [email protected] Room 102, 07721 509916 PO Box 2, Civic Centre Group Office: Station Road (020) 8424 1897 HARROW HA1 2UH Finance & Adam Swersky Labour Group Office Mobile: Email: [email protected]
18 Commercialisation Room 102, 07904 466987 PO Box 2, Civic Centre Group Office: Station Road (020) 8424 1897 HARROW HA1 2UH Public Health, Equality & Varsha Parmar Labour Group Office Mobile: Email: [email protected] Community Safety Room 102, 07535 064495 PO Box 2, Civic Centre Group Office: Station Road (020) 8424 1897 HARROW HA1 2UH Housing & Employment Glen Hearnden Labour Group Office Group Office: Email: [email protected] Room 102, (020) 8424 1897 PO Box 2, Civic Centre Station Road HARROW HA1 2UH
- 12 of 13 -
Portfolio Councillor Address Telephone no. Email
Performance, Corporate Kiran Ramchandani Labour Group Office Mobile: Email: [email protected] Resources & Customer Room 102, 07957 549741 Service PO Box 2, Civic Centre Group Office: Station Road (020) 8424 1897 HARROW HA1 2UH
19
- 13 of 13 - This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7a Pages 21 to 54
LONDON BOROUGH OF HARROW
CABINET – 16 NOVEMBER 2017
REFERENCE FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 7 NOVEMBER 2017
Financing of the Regeneration Programme - Scrutiny Review Panel Report
Councillor Macleod-Cullinane, the Chair of the Scrutiny Challenge Panel, introduced the report, confirming that he would provide a foreword. He underlined that the proposed remodelling of the Council’s regeneration programme was due to be reported to Cabinet in December and it had therefore not been possible for the Challenge Panel to consider this significant development. He suggested that a further report be produced in the early Spring to address the implications for the remodelling arrangements. Turning to the report’s recommendations, Councillor Macleod-Cullinane emphasised that the thrust was to promote a more coordinated and wide-ranging approach to strategic direction and risk management both across the Council and with partner organisations. He considered that the current predominant focus on housing supply could carry risks and that a more holistic vision, as evidenced in many of the other regeneration schemes investigated by the Panel, would be more effective and secure. He thanked the Vice-Chair of the Challenge Panel, Councillor Barry Kendler, other Panel members, and the support officers, particularly Shumailla Dar and Rebecka Steven in the Policy Unit, for their work on the review.
In response to a query from the Chair, Councillor Macleod-Cullinane considered that the options for further work following the remodelling of the regeneration programme, included a standalone scrutiny panel or perhaps discussions at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or the Policy and Finance Sub-Committee. He felt that it would be important for the senior political leadership to attend these sessions and give a direct face-to-face account, particularly in view of the proximity of the local elections in May 2018.
The Chair acknowledged the need to address the implication of financial remodelling of the programme.
A Member suggested that a more structured approach to managing risks and mitigations was required; for example, through the use of Gantt charts and RAG ratings. The Chair pointed to the connections to the role of the Governance, Audit, Risk Management and Standards Committee in the risk management elements of the Challenge Panel’s recommendations.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee - 7 November 2017 21 - 1 -
The Harrow Youth Parliament representative argued that the report should make specific reference to the risks to vulnerable people in alterations to the regeneration programme and to specific ways in which the Council could respond; for example, by considering the option for re-opening youth facilities to help tackle issues of unemployment and crime. He considered that Cabinet should build in contingency plans to address these areas.
The Vice-Chair of the Challenge Panel confirmed that the Panel members had registered concerns over the pressures coming from central and regional government to increase social housing supply and how this might lead to an imbalance with other aspects of coordinated regeneration; for example, the need to address the capacity of public services and infrastructure impacts. Through its recommendations, the Panel had sought to achieve a better balance in this respect.
The Chair of the Challenge Panel suggested that he consult the Panel Vice- Chair about strengthening the report’s proposals on infrastructure implications. In view of this, the intention to remodel the regeneration programme and the fact that a foreword was to be added, the Chair of the Committee proposed that the Panel’s report be approved as an “interim” report at this stage, and that he agree the final version following consultation with the Panel Chair and Vice-Chair.
RESOLVED:
a) note and endorse the report from the Regeneration Scrutiny Review Panel as an interim report, with updates to be agreed by the Committee Chair;
b) to acknowledge that the substantive Cabinet response to the interim report will be available in January 2018;
c) to refer the Challenge Panel’s report and recommendations to Cabinet for consideration.
FOR CONSIDERATION
Background Documents: Agenda of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 7 November 2017: Financing of the Regeneration Programme - Scrutiny Review Panel Report
Contact Officer: Frankie Belloli, Senior Democratic Services Officer Tel: 020 8424 1263
- 2 - 22 Overview and Scrutiny Committee - 7 November 2017
REPORT FOR: OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting: 7 November 2017
Subject: Financing of the Regeneration Programme - Scrutiny Review
Responsible Officer: Alex Dewsnap, Divisional Director of Strategic
Commissioning
Scrutiny Lead Community & Regeneration Policy - Councillor Jeff Anderson Members: Performance - Councillor Manjibhai Kara
Corporate Resources Policy – Councillor Stephen Wright Performance – Councillor Phillip O’Dell
Exempt: No
Wards affected: All
Report of the Regeneration Scrutiny Enclosures: Review Panel
23
Section 1 – Summary and Recommendations
This report sets out the findings and recommendations of the Regeneration Scrutiny Review Panel which met on Wednesday 29 September and 5 October 2017.
Recommendations: The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is recommended to: 1) consider and endorse the report from the Regeneration Scrutiny Review Panel 2) forward the Challenge Panel’s report and recommendations to Cabinet for consideration. 3) acknowledge that the substantive Cabinet response will be available in January 2018.
Section 2 – Report
Introduction
The Regeneration Scrutiny Review Panel was established to scrutinise the on-going Regeneration Programme. The aim of the Panel was to assess whether the Council’s proposals for financing the Programme were realistic, affordable, robust and deliverable; ensure that the financial risks were properly considered and that the mitigations proposed were appropriate and balanced; appraise the projected financial benefits of the Programme; and provide Members with a greater understanding and clarity of the financing of the programme.
Key themes emerged including the interest rates that the Council may be subject to; the infrastructure challenges being faced; the population, economic and infrastructure modelling that required to be undertaken at a matter of urgency and the requirement for a robust lobbying strategy to be developed and implemented for the Programme.
The recommendations are based on evidence from local data, information garnered from hosting authorities, and from the Chief Executive, Director of Finance, Divisional Director of Regeneration, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council at the Challenge Panels. It is that hoped that this positive review can assist in development of the Regeneration Programme to ensure the best outcomes for Harrow residents and businesses.
A report on the Regeneration Programme is to be considered by Cabinet in December, so officers will provide the response report to the January meeting of Cabinet, to ensure that the position in the response report is as up to date as possible.
O:\SCRUTINY\O&S\Municipal Year 2017-18\7 November24 2017\Regen Scrutiny Review - Covering Report.doc Financial Implications There are no financial implications associated with this report. Cabinet will be considering the remodelling of the Programme at its December meeting.
Performance Issues There are no specific performance issues associated with this report at this stage.
Environmental Impact There are no specific environmental impacts associated with this report.
Risk Management Implications Detailed discussions took place at the Challenge Panel meetings around the risk management of the programme. One of the recommendations requests that the capitalisation of wages be added to the Corporate Risk Register to ensure the Council has considered options to mitigate the risks around this against the revenue budget.
The item is subject to separate risk register as well as being included on Directorate risk register.
Equalities implications
Equality implications may have to be considered on implementation of the recommendations and an EQIA has been undertaken as part of the Regeneration Programme.
Council Priorities
The Council’s vision:
Working Together to Make a Difference for Harrow
This review relates to the corporate priorities of:
Build a Better Harrow Be more business-like and business friendly
Ward Councillors notified: NO
Section 4 - Contact Details and Background Papers
Contacts: Shumailla Dar and Rebecka Steven (Policy Officers), tel nos. 020 8420 1820/ 020 8420 9695
Background Papers: Previous reports to Cabinet on the regeneration Programme
O:\SCRUTINY\O&S\Municipal Year 2017-18\7 November25 2017\Regen Scrutiny Review - Covering Report.doc This page is intentionally left blank
Overview and Scrutiny
FINANCING OF THE REGENERATION PROGRAMME IN HARROW
A report by the Regeneration Scrutiny Review Panel
October 2017
27 Chairman’s Foreword
[Foreword to be included by Chairman]
Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane Regeneration Scrutiny Review Challenge Panel Chairman
28 Scope of Review
This Scrutiny Review relates to the Council’s regeneration and development programme on general fund land, HRA land, other public sector land and private land in the borough over the period 2017-21.
The purpose of the review was to:
Review the planned capital and revenue financing for the regeneration programme and to assess whether the Council’s proposals for the financing of its regeneration programme are realistic, affordable, robust and deliverable. This includes aspects of the commercialisation strategy (e.g. the proposal to build private homes for rent) that directly impact upon the Regeneration and Development Programme;
Review selected financial assessments for individual regeneration projects; including investigating the regeneration programme finance model, in particular the underlying assumptions, cash flow projections and projected costs and benefits over the near and longer term;
Ensure that financial risks are properly considered and that proposed mitigations are appropriate and balanced;
Appraise the projected financial benefits of the Council’s regeneration programme, and ensure a balanced risk management process and proposed mitigation measures are in place;
Greater understanding and clarity of the financing of the Regeneration and Development Programme by members;
Carry out a review of projected benefits of the regeneration programme, including direct and indirect benefits to the Council, business and to the local community.
The measure of success for this scrutiny review was to ensure a greater understanding and clarity of the financing of the Regeneration and Development Programme by members.
Methodology
This Scrutiny Review has involved desk research, two Challenge Panels and two Field Visits as detailed below:
1. Policy Officers undertook desk research into the financing of regeneration programmes in a select number of Councils that have a similar make-up to that of Harrow. The aim was to investigate what other comparable local authorities were doing as part of a regeneration and commercialisation agenda. The Panel also had the opportunity to scrutinise the latest update on Regeneration, which was published on 14 September 2017.
2. Members and officers visited two London Boroughs (Barnet and Waltham Forest) to gain a detailed understanding into the challenges that were being faced. These Field Visits explored best practice by other councils in how they finance and manage their regeneration and development programmes. The political leadership
29 of the councils that were chosen for visits were equally divided between Conservative and Labour control, reflecting the main political parties in the council.
3. Two Challenge Panels were held, with questions being put to the Chief Executive, the Director of Finance, the Divisional Director of Regeneration and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council.
Harrow Context
Harrow prides itself in being one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse boroughs in the country with people of many different backgrounds and life experiences living side by side. It is the richness of this diversity, and the positive impact that it has on the borough and the community. 69.1% of residents classify themselves as belonging to a minority ethnic group and the White British group forms the remaining 30.9% of the population, (down from 50% in 2001). The ‘Asian/Asian British: Indian’ group form 26.4% of the population. 11.3% are ‘Other Asian’, reflecting Harrow’s sizeable Sri Lankan community, whilst 8.2% of residents are ‘White Other’, up from 4.5% in 2001. In terms of religious belief, Harrow had the third highest level of religious diversity of the 348 local authorities in England or Wales. The borough had the highest proportion of Hindus, Jains and members of the Unification Church, the second highest figures for Zoroastrianism and was 6th for Judaism. 37% of the population are Christian, the 5th lowest figure in the country. Muslims accounted for 12.5% of the population.
Harrow has a population of 247,130 people1 which has grown over the last decade by 11.8%. This is above the UK average annual population increase rate over the same time period. 49.8% of the population are male, whereas 50.2% of Harrow’s residents are female. Harrow is an affluent borough with pockets of deprivation mainly around the centre, the south and east of the borough; including the wards, Roxbourne, Greenhill, Marlborough, Harrow Weald, and Wealdstone, which also has the highest level of income deprivation in the borough. Harrow’s least deprived areas are largely found in the north and west of the borough.
Employment levels in Harrow are generally good, and Harrow has seen a reduction in unemployment and the number of long term unemployed claimants. However, a number of residents are low paid and have low functional skills. The employment deprivation domain within the 2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) indicates 12,083 of Harrow's residents experiencing employment deprivation. This includes people who would like to work but are unable to do so due to unemployment, sickness or disability, or caring responsibilities.
Overall, Wealdstone is Harrow's most deprived ward for employment deprivation, closely followed by Roxbourne. Unemployment figures are highest in Greenhill, Wealdstone and Roxbourne wards. Employment deprivation is generally concentrated in areas with higher levels of social housing, such as the Rayners Lane Estate in Roxbourne; the Headstone Estate in Hatch End and Harrow Weald; the Woodlands and Cottesmore Estates in Stanmore Park; and the former Mill Farm Close Estate in Pinner.2
1 According to 2015 Mid-Year Population Estimates 2 Harrow Council (2017) Equality Matters: Reducing Inequality in Harrow
30 In terms of child poverty3, Within Harrow, the highest proportions of the population without qualifications or with low level qualifications are in Kenton East, Edgware, Roxbourne and Roxeth. Poor language skills are a major barrier to progressing in the workplace. Harrow was one of 25 local authority areas identified by the Department for Communities and Local Government as an area with high levels of need for English Language provision. 28.5 % of Harrow’s residents have a foreign first language. In 15.9 % of households English is not the main language of any household occupants, the 10th highest ranking nationally and much higher than the national level of 4.3 %. The 2011 census showed 1% of Harrow residents unable to speak English at all, compared to 0.6% for London and a national figure of 0.3%.
(FSM) and non FSM in terms of the number achieving at least 5 A*-C GCSE grades. Families in Harrow experience poverty for a variety of reasons, but its fundamental cause is not having enough money to cope with the circumstances in which they are living. A family might move into poverty because of a rise in living costs, a drop in earnings through job loss or benefit changes. Children in large families are at a far greater risk of living in poverty – 34% of children in poverty live in families with three or more children.
Schools in Harrow are; on the whole, among the best performing in the country which has been maintained over a number of years, with 95% being judged as Good or Outstanding (31st August 2016). However, inequalities in education exist in Harrow, particularly amongst children with special educational needs (SEN), those eligible for FSM, and specific ethnic groups. There is a wider gap between pupils who have special educational needs and their peers at Key Stage compared to the national average. Additionally, children who receive FSM show less progress across all subjects between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 compared to their peers.
In terms of public voice and victim satisfaction, Harrow is currently recording 79% victim satisfaction (ranked 20th in London) and 64% ‘good job’ confidence levels for residents of the borough (27th of the 32 London boroughs); this is according to data published by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
Harrow is fortunate that it is served by London Underground Lines, London Overground, London Midland, Chiltern Railways and Southern Railway, which connect it to London and the rest of England.
Council Priorities
In light of the local context Harrow have based the Council’s Ambition Plan on the following priorities:
Building a Better Harrow The Council’s regeneration programme for the delivery of new homes, creation of new jobs, commercial workspaces and high quality town centres will create the places and opportunities that residents deserve and make a difference to the borough and to residents’ health and quality of life.
3 Poverty in this document refers to the relative poverty measure (defined by Peter Townsend as “Resources that are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities."). The definition of poverty used in this document is: Families which have £79 less per week than families on average income.
31
Protecting the Most Vulnerable and Supporting Families The Council’s aim is to make sure that those least able to look after themselves are properly cared for, safeguarded from abuse and neglect and given access to opportunities to improve their quality of life, health and wellbeing.
Being more Business-like and Business Friendly The Council aims to support local businesses and enable them to benefit from local economic growth, develop its own commercial ventures and help residents gain new skills to improve employment opportunities.
Harrow’s Regeneration Programme
Through regeneration the Council aims to make a difference for:
Communities, by providing new homes and jobs, vibrant town centres and an enhanced transport infrastructure and energy network; Business, by providing new commercial workspace, support to access markets, advice and finance; Vulnerable residents, by providing access to opportunities, reducing fuel poverty and designing out crime; and Families, by providing new family homes, expanded schools and renewing Harrow’s estates.
The aims of Harrow’s Regeneration Strategy are to:
Meet the demands of a growing population Build on the skills base of Harrow’s residents to support sustainable business growth Deliver more jobs and homes to meet targets agreed with the Mayor Increase Harrow’s accessibility to an increasing customer base Provide an environment which promotes physical activity and healthy living Achieve a step change in the quality of design and development.
The regeneration strategy is therefore a key priority for the council, and has a number of objectives, including:
‘Building a Better Harrow’ together, for today and for future generations. Addressing housing need, particularly for affordable housing. The Council developing its own land – to meet community needs and to make better use of its own assets. A new initiative for the Council to build homes for private rent (in addition to social rent/affordable housing). There is a Build-to-Rent programme to develop about 600 new private rented sector (PRS) homes on Council land, for market rent. Renewing civic, cultural and community facilities and meeting infrastructure needs through the provision of: 2 new schools, a new Central Library and a new (more efficient and smaller) Civic Centre, together with improved cultural and leisure provision. Creating quality places – both through a focus on quality design in new development and through schemes to create new public squares and spaces and to improve key links and routes (such as Station Road).
32 Getting maximum benefit for the local economy – through the creation of new employment space and measures to develop local apprenticeships and training schemes and to build local supply chains.
The programme comprises 9 sites, together with the district heating programme currently in feasibility. It is currently envisaged that the initial phases of works will comprise around 600 units of private rented housing, together with a New Civic Centre for Harrow. It is envisaged that the later phases will be delivered in concert with development partners and will produce affordable housing, workspace and commercial facilities, plus housing for market sale. Subject to agreement on funding and affordability, a new or remodelled leisure centre may also be delivered at Byron Quarter.
Faithful & Gould are now working on the programme as cost consultants and are providing commercial advice together with benchmarking using the wide range of comparable data available to them. This is informing design development to ensure that schemes meet the Council’s objectives while remaining financially viable, before designs are submitted to planning.
Poets’ Corner – The flagship project in Harrow’s regeneration programme, the site is currently the civic centre and offices for Harrow Council. The project involves the delivery of about 900 homes (including approximately 400 build-to-rent units to be retained by the Council), a new school, commercial and community space and high quality public realm. Contracts have been exchanged for the purchase of the Wealdstone Social Club. Also, the negotiations with the GLA on the Housing Zone funding for Poets’ Corner are at an advanced stage. The design team has started work on RIBA stage 3 (detailed design). The target planning submission date is October 2017, for a hybrid application to approve the masterplan and detailed proposals for phase 1. As part of design development the number of residential units in Poets Corner Phase 1 has increased from 350 to approximately 410 (the exact number is subject to review as the design is further refined). This can be achieved within the existing budget.
New Civic ‘the Wealdstone Project’ – A new Civic Centre is being planned for Wealdstone. The new, smaller home will be more efficient to run as well as delivering necessary services, housing and affordable workspace and improved public realm. The project has reached RIBA stage 2 (concept design) and the target planning submission date is November 2017. 3.5. Byron Quarter – the project will provide a mix of housing types and tenures, including Council-owned build-to-rent and affordable. The RIBA Stage 2 (Concept Design) report has been completed and approved by Project Operations Board. A business case is under review for Phase 2, which would potentially include a new Leisure Centre and other facilities for indoor/outdoor recreation and sport. This will be subject to Cabinet decision later in the year. A planning application is scheduled for November 2017. In parallel with the increase in build-to-rent units at Poets’ Corner the rental component in Byron Quarter Phase 1 has been reduced from 200 to 135. The remainder of Phase 1will be delivered as homes for sale and private development.
Greenhill Way – A feasibility study has being produced showing options around high quality commercial and residential development including homes, offices, retail, hotel and leisure uses. Soft-market testing has demonstrated the opportunity to take this scheme to market.
33 Haslam House – pilot project. Nine units of Council-owned build to rent accommodation. Following a public engagement programme, and revisions to the initial scheme, planning approval was secured in September 2016. It has been decided to appoint a new contractor following the pre-construction agreement work, in order to ensure that the Council achieves the best possible price for the delivery of this scheme. It is now proposed that the project is re-tendered on an open, single stage basis, using the existing design information. The tender will be advertised via the London Tenders Portal and Contracts Finder in accordance with Harrow’s Contract Procedure Rules. Once the procurement process is complete it is recommended that the decision to enter into contract is delegated to the Chief Executive following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Business, Planning and Regeneration, the Portfolio Holder for Community, Culture and Resident Engagement and the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Major Contracts.
Vaughan Road – this scheme is for 33 units of Council-owned build to rent accommodation and has been submitted for planning approval. An extensive pre- application public engagement programme has recently been completed.
Waxwell Lane – Residential development on the Waxwell Lane car park site. Following an extensive consultation programme, an options paper and RIBA Stage 2 (Concept Design) Report have been completed. Following council approval of one of the options in the options paper, the project is ready to progress into detailed design. Refer to section 6 below for further details.
Roxeth Library – aims to provide an improved library facility along with residential development. A final response is awaited from the Ministry of Defence on the height limit for the nearby high priority Grange Farm site. The next step is to progress a feasibility review and an options paper to scope whether or not a development is viable within the current height limit for this site.
Harrow Arts Centre – the Regeneration Unit has been instructed by the Council to engage users and community and stakeholders to progress a fresh development brief retaining cultural uses and recommend next steps whilst the centre continues to operate. The future delivery of arts and heritage services is subject to a separate report on the agenda, with the report recommending that Cabinet authorise the Divisional Director of Environment and Culture, following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Community, Culture and Resident Engagement, the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Business, Planning and Regeneration, and the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning, to develop an options appraisal for the Harrow Arts Centre site to be brought back to Cabinet.
Gayton Road – This is a scheme of 358 units which is being delivered by Fairview Homes and will deliver 72 affordable homes and 53 build-torent homes to the Council through a development agreement. Phased handover starts in spring 2018 and continues for approximately 1 year. The project is currently on site and ahead of schedule.
District Heating Network – Following completion of the Energy Master Plan, a detailed feasibility study is now underway to establish the best method to deliver heat to the major regeneration sites. This includes an evaluation of the best location for energy centre(s) to deliver combined heat and power. Financial viability for an integrated network to serve a number of sites is being established. Match funding is available from central government for this project but no final decision will be taken on whether or not to proceed until a
34 business case is complete. Related projects all have alternative energy strategies should the integrated network not proceed.
Case Studies
As part of the Regeneration Scrutiny Review we undertook research into other local authorities who were undertaking regeneration programmes. This provided members insight and evidence on the scale and financing of regeneration programmes across a number of London boroughs. The paper included councils that are closest in comparison to one another based on a set of indicators of the demographic and socio-economic nature of the borough, including: total population, taxbase per head of population, % unemployed, retail premises per 1,000 population, and housing benefits caseload.
Closest comparator Councils with regeneration programmes include:
Hillingdon Ealing Croydon Enfield Hounslow
In addition, the Chairman and Vice-Chair requested that information on the regeneration programmes in the following boroughs also be considered by the Regeneration Scrutiny Review Panel:
Wandsworth Haringey Waltham Forest Barnet
Information on the councils listed above was prepared using a combination of information extracted from Council web sites, regeneration strategies, project reports, developer web sites, local press stories, and Regeneration Council officers. A complete copy of this desk research can be found in the Annex to this paper.
Overview of Challenge Panels
Two Challenge Panels were held, on 27 September and 5 October. Members heard from and asked questions of the Chief Executive, the Director of Finance, the Divisional Director of Regeneration, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council. The detailed notes of both meetings (including all questions asked, and answers provided) are appended to this report.
The main discussion points were as follows:
Programme Rationale
Members heard from the Deputy Leader that there were five guiding principles to the Programme: 1. Providing housing 2. Providing jobs
35 3. Providing good education 4. Linking up with the NHS to provide excellent local services 5. Providing excellent local leisure facilities
Extensive consultation had been undertaken with the local population and stakeholders to frame the Programme. The Leader of the Council stated that he wanted the programme to tackle crime and ensure that the benefits of Programme are felt by all residents and businesses.
Borrowing/ Spend to date
Members were advised that the Council had not borrowed anything to date and that officers hoped that there would not be a requirement to borrow over the next financial year. An update on this would be provided to the Cabinet in December.
The spend to date was £15m (in this financial year) including land assembly, site purchase, engineering contracts and capitalised time of the Regeneration Team; this represented an underspend of the projected budget. The Director of Finance undertook to provide members with a forecast of all spend for the year end outwith the meeting; officers were currently working on revised Quarter 2 returns and would be in a pstion to provide accurate figures for this financial year.
Risk Management
Members queried as to whether wages could be capitalised for all projects and whether the capitalisation of wages had been included on the risk register. Officers confirmed this was not the case.
In relation to capitalisation and costs, officers confirmed that this did not include payments to consultants.
Recommendation 1 For the Corporate Risk Register to include the capitalisation of wages in the Regeneration Programme, and the revenue risk involved if this cannot happen in certain cases
Officers explained that there were three levels to the risk management process; (1) project level discussions were held monthly, (2) programme level risks were recorded and (3) utilisation of the corporate risk register. The Chief Executive further expanded that in addition there were macro level risks, Brexit, changes in legislation, changes in interest and borrowing rates, rental values, housing market changes all to take into account.
Interest Rates
PWLB rates were 2% short term and 2.7% for longer term loans; officers provided an assurance that they were keeping the model up to date in relation to interest rates changes, and explained that the Council would take on a loan at a fixed rate to mitigate against future changes to interest rates. The Chief Executive added that it was likely that interest rates would rise in the near future, so at the December Cabinet meeting, Members would be asked to consider borrowing options including locking it in for two years, Bonds and the European Investment
36 Bank. The Deputy Leader stated that if interest rates rose to 5% then a return of 10% would be required (the current model is based on a 5% return rate).
Officers reinforced that this was a phased project, so there was scope for rephasing, scrapping a phase or delivering a phase in a different way if the financial climate changed significantly.
Modelling and Commercial Strategy
Members noted that at the point the Council borrowed there would be a revenue effect and that there were a number of these effects had not been modelled or taken into account, including additional pressure on the NHS, refuse collection, education services, a potential increase in crime and council tax benefits.
The Chief Executive suggested there was also a need to look at the social and economic effects, increase in employments, business rates and apprenticeships – all of which would have a positive impact on the local economy. He continued that the Council now had an infrastructure delivery plan, and that there was CIL money to invest in infrastructure (it was projected that the Council will receive around £20- £22m), but that more work was required on this. The Chief Executive added that this modelling should be reflected in the December report to Cabinet.
A discussion took place around the need for health centres to be built as part of the Programme, perhaps in partnership with the private sector; it was suggested that this should be integral to the Programme in order to truly bulid a better Harrow.
Members raised the issue of the regeneration of Harrow Town Centre; Debenhams was detatched since the opening of St Annes and St Georges Centres. The local businesses were successful, but for the larger companies the demographic and economic profile was wrong. It was difficult to see how the Council could attract larger brands/ companies to Harrow. If the Council wanted to attract more businesses to the Town Centre, it was imperative that it was businesses suited to the profile of the population. The Deputy Leader agreed with this point and added that he would like to see an increase in retail and leisure facilities, and make Harrow a destination for food. He advised that talks had taken place with retail analysts who would recommend what should be provided.
The Deputy Leader further advised that he had been in discussions around shops in St Annes extending their opening hours, but the tenants are of the view that it would cost more to stay open than they would recoup in sales.
Members raised a general concern that there seemed to be a lack of joined up thinking in relation to the Programme and that the issues that had not been taken into account to date may have a significant impact on the success of the project, so it was imperative that officers undertake the all encompassing modelling as a matter of urgency.
Recommendation 2 Officers to produce one report that includes all risks and mitigations in relation to the Regeneration Programme, including the effect the increase in population will have on NHS, education, transport services (including
37 both infrastructure improvements to rail and bus services and better London orbital routes and an increase in London Midland services and local transport issues that will be experienced throughout the developments – parking and road issues) and refuse collection and increased demand for enforcement and regulation against the potential social and economic gains including increase in Council Tax receipts and business rates (including any business profiling that has been undertaken and a strategy to encourage businesses to move and stay in Harrow), New Homes Bonus, increased employment (and whether this will be long or short term), apprenticeships
Infrastructure
Members probed as to the actions being taken to alleviate parking pressures. The Leader of the Council stated that this was a consideration of the Planning Committee for each application it received. The Chief Executive added that a report had been produced by Atkins, specifically on the Wealdstone area. Members again reiterated the need for a cumulative report that considered all of this, transport, health, education, needs to be one governance oversight of all of this in one place.
It was suggested that there was a lack of employment / office facilities in Harrow, and that this was not a new problem. It was noted that there was no large industrial estate. Members asked what was being done to get large businesses into the local area. The Head of Regeneration undertook to provide a written response to this. In the same line of questioning at the second Challenge Panel, the Deputy Leader suggested that there was a need to engage with a developer who was familiar with the local area in order to develop a viable project.
Members raised the issue of the frequency of London Midland trains, and it was unanomously agreed that this service should be more frequent. The Deputy Leader added that there had been discussions with TfL around this and also in relation to a proposed express Heathrow Airport service with Luton Airport, even potentially operating as a council run service, but no progress had been made on this to date. Members queried as to whether a lobbying strategy was in place. The Leader agreed that there was a need for a more frequent London Midland service and stated that he was in discussions around how to push to extend HS1 line. He continued that the train platforms were often nearly at capacity, and that he would continue to lobby around this, and could and would push harder. In relation to local job opportunities, the Leader suggested that more cross party work could be undertaken.
Recommendation 3 For a letter to be drafted from the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition to the Mayor and TfL (London Underground Lines and London Overground), Government Ministers/Department of Transport, Network Rail, and rail operating companies (London Midland, Southern, and Chiltern Railways) calling for improvements in capacity and facilities at Harrow and Wealdstone Station and Harrow-on-the-Hill station along with greater frequency, more capacity and improved reliability of all London Underground Lines, London Overground, London Midland, Chiltern Railways and Southern
38
Recommendation 4 For a lobbying strategy to promote improved transport links to central London and out of London to be developed and integrated within the Regeneration Programme
Population Projections
Officers advised that 5500 homes would be built over ten years, which would see an increase of between 11 and 15000 people; but some of that demand was already in the borough. The Chief Executive agreed that there was a requirement to consider the impacts of the population increase.
The Deputy Leader suggested that an objective of 3500 new jobs was achievable. Members reiterated that long term jobs had to be created, in addition to short term jobs associated with the building phase of the Programme.
Recommendation 5 Chief Executive to produce a Harrow specific, all-encompassing infrastructure plan/ strategy, which will incorporate the Atkins study on Wealdstone and clearly set out how the impacts of the Regeneration Programme will be managed both short and long term
Recommendation 6 For all strategies produced by the Council to reference the Regeneration Programme and how they contribute to or are impacted by it
The final recommendations to Cabinet from the Panel are:
1. That the Corporate Risk Register include the capitalisation of wages in the Regeneration Programme, and the revenue risk involved if this cannot happen in certain cases;
2. That it instruct officers to produce one report that includes all risks and mitigations in relation to the Regeneration Programme, including the effect the increase in population will have on NHS, education, transport services (including both infrastructure improvements to rail and bus services and better London orbital routes and an increase in London Midland services and local transport issues that will be experienced throughout the developments – parking and road issues) and refuse collection and increased demand for enforcement and regulation against the potential social and economic gains including increase in Council Tax receipts and business rates (including any business profiling that has been undertaken and a strategy to encourage businesses to move and stay in Harrow), New Homes Bonus, increased employment (and whether this will be long or short term), apprenticeships;
3. That a letter to be drafted from the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition to the Mayor and TfL (London Underground Lines and London Overground), Government Ministers/Department of Transport, Network Rail, and rail operating companies (London Midland, Southern, and Chiltern Railways) calling
39 for improvements in capacity and facilities at Harrow and Wealdstone Station and Harrow-on-the-Hill station along with greater frequency, more capacity and improved reliability of all London Underground Lines, London Overground, London Midland, Chiltern Railways and Southern;
4. That a lobbying strategy to promote improved transport links to central London and out of London to be developed and integrated within the Regeneration Programme;
5. That it request that the Chief Executive to produce a Harrow specific, all- encompassing infrastructure plan/ strategy, which will incorporate the Atkins study on Wealdstone and clearly set out how the impacts of the Regeneration Programme will be managed both short and long termthe Chief Executive produces a Harrow specific, all encompassing infrastructure plan/ strategy, which will incorporate the Atkins study on Wealdstone and clearly set out how the impacts of the Regeneration Programme will be managed both short and long term
6. That all strategies produced by the Council to reference the Regeneration Programme and how they contribute to or are impacted by it.
40 Annex
To Members of the Regeneration Scrutiny Review Panel Author Shumailla Dar
Briefing Paper – Regeneration Programmes
This briefing paper has been produced as part of the Regeneration Scrutiny Review to provide insight and evidence on the scale and financing of regeneration programmes across a number of London boroughs. The paper includes councils that are closest in comparison to one another based on a set of indicators of the demographic and socio-economic nature of the borough, including: total population, taxbase per head of population, % unemployed, retail premises per 1,000 population, and housing benefits caseload – please see the attached excel spreadsheet for further information. Additionally, the briefing also includes Councils which are being considered by the Chairman and Vice-Chair of the Regeneration Scrutiny Review.
Closest comparator Councils with regeneration programmes include:
Hillingdon Ealing Croydon Enfield Hounslow
In addition, Chairman and Vice-Chair requested that information on the regeneration programmes in the following boroughs also be considered by the Regeneration Scrutiny Review Panel:
Wandsworth Haringey Waltham Forest Barnet
The information contained in this briefing note has been prepared using a combination of information extracted from Council web sites, regeneration strategies, project reports, developer web sites, local press stories, and Regeneration Council officers.
Hillingdon Regeneration Programme (Conservative)
Outline/Aims of Regeneration Programme:
Promoting the economic viability of Hillingdon’s town centres as well as ensuring that residents across all age groups and skill levels are supported quickly and effectively into sustained employment.
Specific Projects:
1. Hayes Town Centre – Including: Improvements to public realm (e.g. new parking measures, better footpaths and street lighting) Shop front improvements Commercial space for traders
1
41 Annex
Retail apprenticeship schemes Old Vinyl Factory Site 2. Uxbridge Town Centre – Focused on shop front improvements (e.g. better signage, awnings, displays etc) 3. Yiewsley and West Drayton – Improvements to public realm, landscaping, union canal bridge feature 4. Northwood Hills – High street restoration and road improvements 5. Harefield Village Centre – Public realm e.g. road resurfacements, pavement, street lighting, landscaping, shop front improvements 6. Ruislip Manor Improvements – High street modernisation, painting railway bridge, paveing, new commercial space
Funding:
1. Hayes Town Centre: £4.5m funding from TfL £240,000 grant from Mayor of London’s Outer London Fund £61,000 investment from local businesses through the Shop Front Improvement Scheme1 Old Vinyl Factory Site allocated £7.7m from GLA’s ‘Growing Places Fund’ to build a Central Research Laboratory – to provide support for new hi-tech manufacturing businesses 2. Uxbridge TC: Shop Front Improvement Scheme 3. Yiewsley and West Drayton: £1.6m from Crossrail’s ‘Complementary Measures Fund’2 for West Drayton (ring- fenced for urban realm improvements around the railway station) 4. Northwood Hills: £1.3m from GLA and £461,000 match-funding from Hillingdon Council 5. Harefield Village Centre: Fully funded by TfL 6. Ruislip Manor Improvements: £1.4m investment from GLA and £438,000 from Hillingdon Council
Chrysalis Funding:
Hillingdon Council allocates £1m Chrysalis Funding each year to be spend on improvements of Council-owned assets. Anyone over the age of 18 in Hillingdon can apply for a project to be funded, and successful bids are chosen by a Cllr, and the Cabinet Member for Communtiy, Commerce, and Regeneration.
Since 2009, 100 projects have been awarded money, including installation of new playgrounds, refurbishing community buildings, footpath improvements, and outdoor gyms.
1 Hillingdon Council offer local shop traders grants of up to £4,800 to help them provide better signage, awnings, displays etc. Successful business applicants pay 20% towards their improvements, while the Council pays the remaining 80%. The work is supported by designing and advertising company ‘Designed by Good People’
2 TfL and Crossrail set aside £30m in early 2014 for improving urban realm around outer London surface level rail stations and bids invited.
2
42 Annex
Ealing Council (Labour)
Outline/Aims of Regeneration Programme:
There are many new development sites in the borough, offering a mixture of housing, retail, leisure, and business development opportunities. There has been a particular focus on developing ‘Thriving Town Centres’. A principal aim of Ealing’s regeneration programmes is to generate extra future income from business rates. The East Acton Local Strategic Partnership (EALSP – established in 2012) for instance, decided that its future work programme for 2013 would focus on delivering projects which increase ‘prosperity’ in Ealing.
Ealing’s economic regeneration team aims to: enhance the character of town centres and high streets improve pedestrian, cycle and vehicular movement support local trade encourage enterprise and the creation of new jobs
Specific Ealing Town Centre regeneration programmes and their aims: ‘Good for Greenford’ – To revitalise the heart of Greenford Town Centre. The main aim being to improve safety and reduce congestion for all road users. ‘Southall Big Plan’ – Spurred on by the arrival of Crossrail, a planning framework is being prepared which will unlock significant development potential. The framework will see Southall transformed as a town centre, to an area of major housing growth and significant employment. East Acton Town Centre Development – Make Acton the centre of choice for local residents by improving the diverse and mixed retail, leisure and community experience alongside a high quality, attractive physical environment that encourages visitors to stay longer Hanwell – A £1m town centre improvement programme, with specific focus on shopfront improvement and increasing footfall.
Funding:
Ealing Council was awarded £7.3m from TfL’s Crossrail Complementary Measures (CCM) fund after a successful bid. This is close to a quarter of the total £28.5m pot which was made available to London. £2m of this fund has been used to help with the revitilisation of Greenford TC.
Ealing also received £500,000 from TfL’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP) (supported by £148m funding from Mayor of London) for a project in Sudbury Village which will see significant interchange improvements between the two rail stations in Sudbury.
The Council has also set up a development company so that it can borrow beyond its Housing Revenue Account debt caps and build hundreds of homes that cannot be sold under the right-to- buy. The council-owned company (also known as a ‘COCo’) – ‘Broadway Living’– was set up in 2014 with a loan from the council’s General Fund, which does not count towards the HRA borrowing cap. These firms can borrow on capital markets and build homes on behalf of local authorities to offer at below-market rents, as well as new homes for private sale or rent on the open market. In this way, the Council can continue to develop housing whilst raising income and preventing any increases in debt3. Ealing has committed to developing 500 homes through this
3 Update (19/02/17) – The government has announced in the small print of a recent white paper on housing that the Right to Buy scheme will be extended to homes built by these ‘arms-length’ Council-owned housing 3
43 Annex
company over the next five years, as part of the regeneration of the Copley Close estate in Hanwell.
In total, more than a third of councils have set up these companies, with 36 local authorities creating such firms in the last year alone. In addition to Ealing, other London Councils which have set up COCo’s include Enfield, Croydon, and Sutton. All three councils are also looking at what other services might be better provided through council-owned companies: Enfield and Sutton are looking to establish COCos for district energy provision, as in theory a company can be set up to provide any service.
Croydon Council – Croydon Town Centre ‘Growth Zone’ (Labour)
Outline/Aims of Regeneration Programme:
The Croydon ‘Growth Zone’ project consists of ‘39 steps’ of public infrastructure projects – tram improvements, road works, new secondary schools – in a drive for growth in the Town Centre involving £500m worth of capital spending4. This constitutes the biggest public investment in the borough for half a century. The overall intention is to create ‘A more people friendly, accessible and inclusive environment and change the overall perception of the town centre as a place to live, work and invest in.’
The Council sees its Growth Zone plan as a way to ‘differentiate Croydon as a place to invest in London in a time of economic uncertainty post-Brexit.’ Only three of the 39 schemes listed are expected to be completed before 2019, with 24 of the projects scheduled to be finished between 2019 and 2022.
The proposals, presented in the Council’s ‘Growth Zone – Overview and Financial Arrangements for Repayment’ report to Cabinet (11/07/2016), state that the new infrastructure will enable development and economic growth in Croydon leading to:
23,594 new jobs a further 5,097 jobs during construction phase at least 10,000 new homes renewal of the retail core ensuring the metropolitan centre is an attractive place to live, work and invest.
companies set up to get around restrictions on housebuilding. – Please see Independent article here. Existing rules which restrict Council LHA borrowing and give them only a third of the cost of building a new home once one is sold under RtB, mean that replacing Council homes is nearly impossible for LAs. In addition, the RtB scheme often sells houses to tenants for huge discounts (up to £100k), leaving Councils out-of-pocket. LGA spokesman: “It is crucial that councils are allowed this flexibility so the delivery of additional homes remains viable.”
4 The projects to be developed in “Croydon’s 39 Steps” include the Dingwall Road tram loop, provision of an additional electricity sub-station, additional buses, other public transport improvements including a westbound tram stop at Reeves Corner.
4
44 Annex
In addition to the Growth Zone development, The Croydon Partnership (a joint business venture between Westfield and Hammerson) is working on a £1.4 billion commercial redevelopment of the Whitgift Centre shopping mall.
The local authority also has plans for significant investment in cultural, community and leisure facilities across the borough including a £30m investment in Fairfield Halls and a new leisure centre at New Addington.
Funding:
Total critical infrastructure cost of the Growth Zone regeneration is £600m. The Council has found £333m by tapping into available money from a variety of public sources, including GLA, TfL, and the NHS. The Treasury are allowing Croydon to retain the business-rates revenue from the area, which will fund the necessary infrastructure needed for major developments, and will in turn both accelerate the timescale of such projects and attract more businesses to the borough. The government has also awarded Croydon a £7m revenue grant to cover the interest costs associated with borrowing in the early years of the Growth Zone project, prior to any significant uplift in Business Rates. Croydon Council predicts that all debt associated with the provision of the infrastructure will be fully repaid by 2038.
Similarly to Ealing, Croydon Council has also set up a (COCo) development company called Brick by Brick, to help with its goal of building 1,000 new homes by 2019. Brick by Brick is a private, independent company, with the Council acting as sole shareholder. It aims to deliver high quality new residential-led development on a range of sites across the borough. Development profits will be returned to the council as shareholder and recycled to fund council activities.
Enfield Regeneration Programme (Labour)
Outline/Aims of Regeneration Programme:
Enfield’s regeneration programmes are designed to create ‘vibrant, prosperous communities’ – delivering new homes (mixed tenure, including affordable), new high-skilled jobs, commercial space, opportunities for investment, thriving high streets, and a new local energy company. A further specific aim is to attract major employers to the area through excellent transport and internet connections.
Specific Projects:
1. Meridian Water – Total cost: £6bn. Enfield Council’s core development; delivering 10,000 new homes (including a large proportion of Private Rental Sector housing to make the area suitable for investment), and 6,700 permanent jobs. Project is due to finish in 2019. Will provide an estimated £10.7bn boost to economy by 2031. 2. Electric Quarter (Ponders End) – £40m. Redevelopment of Ponders End High Street will provide opportunities for investment, high quality homes, jobs, and a thriving high street. Alma Estate – £150m. Enfield Council’s largest housing estate renewal scheme – will act as a ‘catalyst’ for wider regeneration of Ponders End, enhace the areas green space and public realm. 3. Ladderswood Estate – To create 517 new, mixed-tenure homes, 1,400 sqm of commercial space, a new community centre, 80-bed hotel (providing employment and training opportunities), and a new local energy centre. 4. New Avenue Estate – £160m. Part of Enfield’s estates renewal programme, will increase homes on the estate from 163 to over 400. 5
45 Annex
5. Small Housing Sites – Creating residential, mixed-tenure developments that integrate into existing screen scene, and help to improve the area profile. Includes 94 ‘exemplar’ homes on 7 sites across the borough – 37 will be ‘affordable’ (20 social rent, 17 share ownership), and 57 private rent. 6. Energetik (Energy Company/Networks) – £85m. New local energy company and networks. 7. Angel Road Station Improvements – Angel Road St forms the central transport hub for Meridian Water. Improvements to the station will enhance passenger capacity through an enhanced commuter rail service.
Funding:
1. Meridian Water: This development has been funded primarily by Enfield Council (£350m), and its developer partners Barratt London and SEGRO. The area has been awarded Housing Zone status, providing more legislative flexibility and funding. Key additional funders include: The GLA and Network Rail (who have together invested £74m – including funding for a 3rd rail track and new Meridian Water Station by 2018 which will increase train frequency and enable Crossrail 2013 to be built) £1.35m from Mayor of London’s ‘London Regeneration Fund’5 – which has been granted to ‘Building BloQs’ – a local social enterprise established in South-East Enfield, which supports the development of local employment skills and new start-up companies in areas such as construction, prototype manufacturing, and digital technology. £1.35m GLA regeneration funding (matched by Meridian Water master developer money making a total of £2.7m) 2. Electric Quarter (Ponders End): Growth Area Fund Mayor’s Outer London Fund Enfield Council Neighbourhood Regeneration Capital Programme Transport for London (TfL)’s Major Schemes Programme 3. Alma Estate: Funded mainly by Enfield Council and project delivery partner ‘Countryside Properties PLC’ 4. Ladderswood Estate: Developed and funded by joint-venture between ‘Mulalley’ and housing association ‘One Housing Group’ – to create ‘new Laddersdwood LLP) 5. New Avenue Estate: Funded by Developer partner Countryside Properties PLC 6. Small Housing Sites: Council subsidiary will use income generated from 57 PRS homes to fund whole development £690,000 from GLA (Mayor’s Care and Support Fund and Homes for Working Londoners Pot) 7. Energetik (Energy Company/Network): £58m Council investment £27m from Energetik 8. Angel Road Station Improvements: Enfield Council Neighbourhood Regeneration Capital Programme £2.5m from Local Enterprise Partnership
5 Mayor of London’s ‘London Regeneration Fund’ provided £20m to re-energise capital’s places of work and high streets.
6
46 Annex
Hounslow Council Regeneration Programme (Labour)
Aims of Regeneration Scheme:
The Council’s Regeneration and Economic Development Strategy (2016-2020) states the following aims: Build more affordable housing New Investment in the borough Retain existing and grow new businesses Provide more quality jobs investing in highly skilled staff Deliver major public transport/community infrastructure Deliver sector development – particularly in creative, digital, and technology
Funding Sources:
Hounslow Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2015-30) sets out how it aims to fund its regeneration projects. This will be through a combination of:
1. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charges (Developer Contributions) 2. Council Tax 3. New Homes Bonus grants 4. Business Rates (30% retained) 5. Specific grants
1. Community Infrastructure Levy – The CIL was established to enable planning authorities to set a charge for new development in their area and use the funds collected to support providing infrastructure. It requires a local authority to demonstrate that it has an infrastructure funding gap and then use evidence to demonstrate that proposed CIL rates are economically viable. CIL is designed to be a more flexible and transparent mechanism for using developer contributions to deliver supporting infrastructure. Hounslow adopted a CIL charge in July 2015, meaning that any new development of 100sqm or more that gets planning permission will need to pay £35 per metre squared.
The intention is for the CIL income to replace the loss of section 106 (s106) contributions (which became legally scaled back in April ’156). While CIL will not fully replace s106, it is the primary mechanism for developer contributions in Hounslow.
6 A s106 agreement is negotiated at the point of a planning application and then becomes a signed legal agreement between the council and developer. These financial contributions are subject to the conditions set out in the legal agreement and have been notoriously complicated to manage and spend as a result.
The CIL Regulations 2010 have further limited the financial and non-financial contributions that can be secured through s106 agreements. Since April 2015, Regulation 123 also limits pooling for a infrastructure type or project to five or fewer separate planning obligations. Therefore, there will be infrastructure projects which historically have been funded by s106 agreements, but which will now increasingly be funded by CIL receipts where funding is available.
7
47 Annex
However, CIL income is reduced by the fact that the Mayor of London also already charges one which is used to fund Crossrail – this reduces the amount that the Hounslow Council can charge as it is a further cost on development. Additionally, anything from 15-25% of CIL income must be ring- fenced to be spent in consultation with the local community – the ‘Neighbourhood Proportion’ – meaning that the Council cannot 100% guarantee that CIL income will be used to fund infrastructure projects.
2. Council Tax – However Council tax revenue is not ringfenced and is allocated at members’discretion along with other funding sources including business rates.
3. New Homes Bonus – Introduced in 2011, the NHB is calculated by matching the additional council tax raised by new homes and properties brought back into use, with additional amounts provided for new affordable homes. Hounslow has received larger grants each year through NHB. Funding received is committed to financing new affordable housing and Town Centre developments. Received/projected NHB: 2016/15 – £7.1m 2016/17 – £8.3m 2017/18 – £8.1m
4. Business Rates – The Council receives 30% of BR receipts. Total income received each year: £42m. As with CT, BR is not ringfenced and is allocated at members’discretion along with other funding sources including business rates.
5. Specific Grants: Many infrastructure projects will be eligible for specific grants. Potential sources include: Heritage Lottery Fund, Greater London Authority (GLA) Outer London Fund, and specific TfL grants.
Notable grants/awards received:
Award of £18.5m from the Mayor of London (given to support the Hounslow Town Centre Housing Zone) which will part-fund delivery of 3,500 new homes by 2025 £2.5m from the mayor’s Outer London Fund, Successful bid for Govt’s 2011 Private Finance Programme – to be used to help build new schools and rebuild Hounslow Manor TfL LIP block grant. This is formula funded and currently equates to around £2.5m/ annum to help fund strategic transport improvements Hounslow’s Feltham Town Centre regeneration has also been designated a Houzing Zone by the GLA – meaning it will share £200m with 10 other housing zones.
Wandsworth Council – Nine Elms Regeneration (Conservative)
Outline/Aims of the Regeneration Programme:
Wandsworth Council are working on one of the country’s biggest regeneration programmes – Nine Elms on the Southbank. The overall goal is to create a high-density, mixed-use quarter of the city with a high proportion of wealth-creating commercial space.
Wandsworth Council describle the area to come as an ‘Ultra-modern, exciting destination in central London’, offering 20,000 new homes, 80 new community and leisure facilities, schools, parks,
8
48 Annex
culture and the arts. The area will also benefit from three new attractions; a regenerated Battersea Power Station, and the new United States Embassy and New Convent Garden Market.
The Council predicts that the construction phase will provide 40,000 jobs, and once completed, the regenerated area will create an additional 25,000 permanent positions. An independent report by Volterra Partners concludes that the regeneration will deliver up to £7.9 billion in growth to the UK economy, and £9 bilion in additional tax revenues to the Exchequer.
Progress/Status:
Currently, the first 1,000 homes are under construction in Nine Elms, and another 13,000 have been granted planning permission. A total of 2 million square miles of new development planning permission has been approved.
Funding:
Transformation of the Nine Elms area requires substantial investment in existing and new infrastructure, including schools, healthcare, parks and open spaces. By working in partnership with private developers, Lambeth Council, the GLA, and TFL, Wandsworth Council has secured a total of over £10bn of inward investment across the 195 hectares district. Most of this investment has come from overseas markets, including the USA, Malaysia, and Ireland. Therefore, the vast majority of investment needed to deliver the regeneration programme is coming directly from the private sector.
The Council states that securing this investment has been crucial not only in resourcing complex planning permissions, but also in building-up momentum and confidence in the regeneration programme. Frequent collaboration with private sector partners has also enabled the Council to secure the highest possible levels of commercial space for development.
A further key factor in both the planning of the regeneration and the securing of investment has been the development of the cross-borough ‘Nine Elms Vauxhall Partnership’. This includes senior representation from the leaders of Wandsworth and Lambeth Council as co-chairs and membership at a senior level from the Mayor of London's Office and the major landowners in the area. The partnership is voluntary and works on the basis of close collaboration and a shared vision.
The Vauxhall partnership for instance commissioned a development infrastructure funding study which identified both the required infrastructure and funding for the regeneration programme. On the basis of this, a tariff approach to planning gain was adopted by both councils to pool developer contributions and enable them to bring forward the necessary infrastructure in a planned way. This tariff approach has subsequently been enshrined in the Council’s newly-adopted Community Infrastructure Levy.
A particular challenge during the Nine Elms’ regeneration programme has been ensuring that there is sufficient accessibility to the regenerated area. A major increase in public transport capacity is needed to ensure Nine Elms can deliver to its full potential as a driver of economic growth and modern sustainable new quarter of the capital. Wandsworth Council’s most significant transport project is the Northern Line Extension – a new two-station spur of the London Underground network. Funding and financing for this extension will be provided through a combination of borrowing against developer S106 contributions, Community Infrastructure Levy resources and business rate growth. In addition to the Nine Elms’ area, Wandsworth Council are also regenerating the: Winstanley and York Road estates, Roehampton Alton Area, and Ram Brewery.
9
49 Annex
Haringey Council (HC) – Tottenham and Wood Green Developments (Labour)
Outline/Aims of Regeneration Programme:
Haringey Council is working to develop the borough primarily through two ambitious regeneration projects – in Tottenham and Wood Green. The main aims of the regeneration is to: increase job opportunities, provide better housing, and improve transport links to the centre of London.
The Tottenham development is the largest regeneration programme in Haringey, aiming to deliver by 2025: 10,000 new homes and 5,000 new jobs (with 1 million sq ft of employment and commercial space added). It is one of the mayor Sadiq Khan’s flagship housing zones and has received more than £1bn of public and private investment. Haringey Council describes this particular project as ‘the next chapter of London’s regeneration story.’
Specific Tottenham developments include: new neighbourhoods (such as the High Road West Development – providing 1,400 new homes), developed Tottenham Hotspur stadium (to create a ‘world-class leisure destination for London’), new community hubs such as one at 163 Park Lane, and a regeneration of Northumberland Park.
The Tottenham development is underpinned by the ‘Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF)’ – a 20-year vision for the future of Tottenham, which is the result of a 5-year public consultation and sets out how local people’s priorities could be achieved through long-term regeneration.
The Wood Green development aims to deliver 7,700 homes and 4,000 new jobs. Its regeneration is a key objective in Haringey Council’s Corporate Plan 2015-18. The Council is currently developing a detailed plan for this project called the ‘Area Action Plan’ (AAP) (which is currently out for public consultation).
Alongside the Tottenham/Wood Green development projects, Haringey is also working on proposals for a number of new Crossrail 2 stations, which it states will ‘unlock more regeneration opportunities across the borough.’
Funding:
Haringey Council has opted to fund its regeneration programmes primarily through the Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV) – a 50:50 partnership between Haringey Council and the private partner Lendlease – a leading property group which has been chosen following a lengthy selection process
Haringey has the land needed to bring forward homes and jobs, but it lacks the necessary finance and skills. Therefore, the Council has decided to bring in the finance and skills/expertise from the private sector, whilst maintaining a share of the control over the development – and of the proceeds of it – for the Council.
This partnership operates by the Council providing some of its land to be developed, and Lendlease matching this with cash and development expertise. The decision to appoint Lendlease was approved at Haringey’s 14 February Cabinet meeting, and Haringey Council will now enter into final discussions with them on how the joint venture could be established and managed
The 50/50 stake in particular is cited by the Council as ‘crucial’, as it means that HC will need to approve every decision made in the regeneration programme. The profits returned to the Council
10
50 Annex
will go back into other regeneration initiatives, affordable housing, and funding the services provided to residents.
A final decision on whether to establish the Haringey Development Vehicle, and on proposals for the first phase of sites, is expected to be made by Haringey Council’s Cabinet in the summer of 2017.
The main reasons why Haringey Councilmay opt for the Haringey Development Vehicle regeneration financing approach:
The cost of building new estates would run into billions of pounds, but Government rules only allow Haringey to borrow another £50m for housing Haringey Council’s funding has been cut and Government grants to support public sector house-building are at an all-time low. The Council simply does not have the money, and cannot sustainably borrow it, to realise its ambitious plans for Haringey on its own However, like many councils, Haringey owns a lot of land – much of which is unused or underused, such as office buildings too big for current staff numbers. This land can be used to create the homes, jobs and opportunities Councils are also not as well-equipped as the private sector when it comes to development projects on this scale
Update: Of note is that Hammersmith and Fulham Council has also (on 14th February) signed its own 50:50 joint venture deal with property developer Stanhope Plc, through the creation of a co- owned company called HFS Developments. The Council believes this will enable them to build what they describe as ‘genuinely affordable homes’, and will also be a source of income for the Council – as they will be able to share profits generated through the sale of homes on the private market.
Waltham Forest Regeneration Programme (Labour)
Outline/Aims of Regeneration Programme:
Business: Raise the productivity and resiliency of the local economy by keeping and growing local businesses with a targeted approach to certain sectors (such as the creative industries) Town Centres: Support and promote retail, business, cultural, leisure and residential investment in town centres Housing Growth: Aiming to build 12,000 new Council, affordable, and private homes by 2020 Employment and Skills: Ensuring local residents have the skills to take advantage of opportunities for growth and to access high-quality employment Infrastructure: Improving local transport infrastructure and developing new community facilities
Specific Projects:
1. Walthamstow Town Centre: ‘The Scene’ development: a complex of a cinema, restaurants, shops, and 121 new homes £20m investment through ‘Solum’s Scheme’ to develop the area around the Walthamstow Central station: Expanding the existing car park and retail space, and improving pedestrian access to the station, and improving the station square. 11
51 Annex
The Mall, Walthamstow: Plans to redevelop The Mall, establishing a new shopping and leisure offer, alongside homes and enhancement of public realm 2. Blackhorse Lane: One of the Council’s key regeneration areas for housing development, employment, and business growth. Aiming to provide 2,500 new homes and 1,000 jobs by 2025. 3. ‘Lea Valley Eastside’: Made up of Lea Bridge, Church Road, and Leyton, the regeneration will provide new jobs, 4,400 homes, improved transport connections, green spaces, new schools, and healthcare. 4. Lea Bridge Station: The Newly re-opened (on 16th May 2016) Station will be provided with direct links to both Stratford and Tottenham Hale with five minute journey times, opening the area to further investment. Predicted that the Station will serve at least 352,000 passengers a year by 2031. 5. Leytonstone: Shop front and public realm improvements 6. South Chingford: Public realm and building refurbishments at Albert Crescent 7. Higham’s Park: Improvements to shop fronts and installation of art work in the park 8. Wood Street: Wood Street Walls to erect a mural on the newly pedestrianized West Avenue Bridge
Funding:
1. Walthamstow Town Centre: £1.46m Heritage Lottery Fund (funded by £1.34m Council contributions and the rest from local businesses/volunteers) £670,000 London Mayor’s High Street Fund (2014-15)7 ‘to improve cultural offer, provide opportunities for emerging creative industries, and boost night-time economy’ 2. Blackhorse Lane: Council and GLA investment (£1.1m GLA Grant from the £20m London Regeneration Fund ) £41,985,000 London Mayor/GLA funding – as there is a Greater London Housing Zone covering Blackhorse Lane and Northern Olympic Park. £2.2m investment from Transport for London for improvements to the Blackhorse Road station and surrounding area £200m private investment 3. Lea Bridge Station: £5.3m Council funding £1.1m Department for Transports New Station Fund 4. Leytonstone: Council secured £500,000 New Homes Bonus (Top-Slice) from GLA 5. South Chingford: Council invested £750,000 6. Higham’s Park: Council secured £100,000 New Homes Bonus (Top-Slice) from GLA 7. Wood Street: £20,000 donations from local residents and businesses, and £18k from London Mayor’s High Streets Fund
7 Fund worth £9m. Bidders must demonstrate: ‘Proactive Stewardship’ (establishing local partnerships that encourage change/new high street strategies), ‘Stimulating Activity’ (Improving the look and feel of places), ‘Occupying Empty Spaces’ (Bringing back a ‘high street bustle’), and ‘Accomodating Growth’.
12
52 Annex
Barnet Council (Conservative)
Outline/Aims of Regeneration Programme:
Barnet Council aims to create 21,000 new homes and up to 30,000 new jobs through it’s regeneration and growth programme – the most in Outer London. Specifically, with seven major schemes underway in the borough, the programme aims to deliver 27,000 new social, affordable, and market rate homes in the next ten to 15 years. This is due to Barnet having a large and growing population (becoming the most populous borough in 2015 with a population of 370,000 residents). The plan is to continue to grow, through a combination of a strengthening local economy and investment in regeneration, skills, & economic development.
The Programme is based around five key priorities: To deliver quality new homes and neighbourhoods in the areas of the borough in greatest need of investment and renewal To deliver sustainable housing growth and infrastructure, and improve the condition and sustainability of the existing housing stock To ensure residents in all areas of the borough can share in Barnet’s success while taking responsibility for the well-being of their families and their communities; To promote economic growth by encouraging new business growth while supporting local businesses and town centres To help residents to access the right skills to meet employer needs and take advantage of new job opportunities
A further key factor behind the programme is creating a sustainable financial future for the council. As funding received from central Government reduces to zero over the next few years, the Council will become reliant on revenue generated locally through Council Tax, Business Rates, fees and charges, and commercial income.
Barnet Council’s website states that by 2025 the growth and regeneration programme will generate more than £11 million of additional recurring income for the council to spend on frontline services, together with £50 million of one-off income by the end of the decade to be invested in infrastructure.
The Council’s Growth & Regeneration Annual Report states that income will generated by the Growth and Regeneration Programme via:
Increases in business rates and council tax income as a result of house-building (forecast revenue of £531 million from 2016-2034) One-off income from central government and developer contributions known as New Homes Bonus (NHB) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – forecast at £161 million from 2016-2034
Specific Projects within the Programme
Brent Cross/Cricklewood The scheme is split into the redevelopment of Brent Cross Shopping Centre in the North with associated roads and bridges, and a residential and commercial development to the South.
Dollis Valley
13
53 Annex
Creation of a new sustainable neighbourhood with mixed-tenure housing, the re-provision of community facilities and children’s day care, supported by improvements in transport facilities.
Grahame Park A new community with major infrastructure improvements, improved transport links, a newly built college campus, community health facilities, replacement library, community and children’s activity centre, as well as new Council offices. The scheme is one of the largest self-funded projects in Europe and will also see the construction of around 3000 new homes.
Stonegrove and Spur Road New mixed-tenure community that incorporates high standards of design, improved transport links, a new academy, community hall and church buildings, improved parking, open spaces and community amenities. It will also create job and training opportunities for local residents.
West Hendon Replacement of the existing estate with new mixed-tenure housing, a new town square, improved transport links, a range of new community facilities including a new school, nursery and a new town centre and commercial hub with new shops and restaurants. Funding Sources
Regeneration in Barnet is funded predominantly by private sector investment (£6 billion) because the council cannot afford to meet the demand for housing or make the required housing improvements alone. Delivery Partners Include:
Brent Cross North: Hammerson UK PLC; Standard Life Investments Brent Cross Cricklewood South: Argent Related; London Borough of Barnet Brent Cross Thameslink: HM Government; Greater London Authority; Network Rail; LB Barnet; Countryside Properties UK L&Q Genesis Housing Group Barratt Evolution Limited Family Mosaic Barratt Metropolitan Limited Liability Partnership
Additional Funding Sources:
£13 million: Income from Community Infrastructure Levy in 2016/17 This is made up of Mayoral CIL (30% of funds) and Barnet CIL (70% of funds). These funds are used to deliver the infrastructure to support development such as roads and pavements.
£2.1 million: Income from s106 developer contributions These are the funds that are required from the developer to support the scheme - for example by providing infrastructure or affordable housing.
£830k: project funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
Funding grant from the Greater London Authority (GLA) which was used to commence The Burnt Oak Town Centre Project in 2015.
______
14
54 Agenda Item 7b CABINET – NOVEMBER 2017 Pages 55 to 56
PROGRESS ON SCRUTINY PROJECTS
Review Methodology Type of Expected Comments report date for report to Cabinet
Continue Joint Update As participation in Committee reports will required The JHOSC meeting set up for Oct/Nov was Joint Overview & be provided cancelled and the next one has a date of 5 Scrutiny for December, to be confirmed. It will consider: Committee O&S/Health (JHOSC) for and Social 1. EXPLANATION OF THE Shaping a Care sub ACCOUNTABLE CARE SYSTEM Healthier Future committee 2. UPDATE ON HUBS Programme and Cabinet 3. UPDATE ON NHS MATTERS (for 4. UPDATE ON ROYAL COLLEGE OF information) NURSING’S CONCERNS ABOUT THE STP.
Regen Financing Challenge Final Report 27 Nov Final report has been submitted for Panel and to O&S and 2017 consideration at November O&S and will be Field Visits Cabinet referred to Cabinet thereafter. (Scrutiny Report) Centre for Public CFPS led Final report Dec - Report has now been received and will be Scrutiny – Review review to O&S, Jan TBC discussed at Scrutiny Leadership Group on of Scrutiny in comprising cabinet and 22nd November, following which an action Harrow research and possibly plan for how the Council intends to take workshops Council forward and implement the recommendations will be produced and agreed.
Annual Health Health Sub- Final report March Housing developments in other boroughs Scrutiny Research Committee to Cabinet 2018 considered to be dementia friendly identified led review (Scrutiny and visits are being arranged. comprising Report) research, Visit to Milmans (Annie’s Place) arranged field visits for Thursday 30th November, to meet with carers and residents diagnosed with dementia. Research and evidence gathering and field visits will take place between October - December 2017 and the research written up and presented at the March committee.
Contact: Rachel Gapp, Head of Policy. Tel: 020 8416 8774
55 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Pages 57 to 92
REPORT FOR: CABINET
Date of Meeting: 16 November 2017
Subject: Public Art Policy
Key Decision: Yes
Responsible Officer: Simon Baxter, Divisional Director of Environment and Culture
Portfolio Holder: Councillor Sue Anderson, Portfolio Holder Community, Culture and Resident Engagement
Exempt: No
Decision subject to Yes
Call-in:
Wards affected: All
Enclosures: Appendix 1: Public Art Policy Statement Appendix 2: Public Art Procedure Appendix 3: Public Art Application Form Appendix 4: Equalities Impact Assessment
Section 1 – Summary and Recommendations
This report sets out a recommended Policy for Public Art installations in Harrow, together with a Public Art Application process for new proposals received by the Council.
57 Recommendations: Cabinet is requested to:
i) Approve the Public Art Policy and Application Process for adoption with immediate effect. ii) Delegate Authority to the Divisional Director, Environment and Culture, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, Community, Culture and Resident Engagement, to make amendments to the Public Art Policy and Application Process.
Reason: (For recommendations)
To ensure that: High quality public art is enabled in the London Borough of Harrow. Any proposed art installations are considered in the interests of the wider community, including recognising the Council’s Equalities Policy. All proposals are evaluated in relation to their social, economic and environmental impacts. Any proposed art installations will meet the required standards for installation and maintenance. This report will contribute to a wider overarching Cultural Strategy that will provide access to arts and culture to everyone in the borough.
Section 2 – Report
1. Introduction The Council wishes to encourage and enable high quality public art in Harrow, in keeping with the Council’s Strategic Objective to ‘Build a Better Harrow’. The Public Art Policy sets out the key principles with which Harrow Council will approach the authorisation and management of new Public Art installations in Harrow. The key principles of the policy can be summarised as follows:
Consistency of approach to proposed public art installations.
Effective management of Public Art installations.
Clear understanding and clarity of roles and responsibilities of all those involved.
Improve the arts infrastructure in the Borough.
58 2. Background
2.1 Art in public places or incorporated into development schemes can be beneficial to the local community, by creating a sense of place and cultural identity, and helping to aid social and economic regeneration of areas.
2.2 Public Art can enhance a local area through the quality of design or artistry and become a focal point in its own right through its visual impact. Examples in Harrow include ‘Skipping Girl (Katy’s Statue)’ in St. Ann’s Road, ‘the story of St. George and the Dragon plaques’ (St. George’s Centre, Harrow Town Centre), and ‘Hygeia’ at 66-68 College Road. Public Art can also positively contribute to the look and feel of places, brightening an urban environment, enhance a new development or highlight a historic setting. Examples in Harrow include ‘The Leaf’ at the Grove Field (Lowlands Road), the Sainsbury Pots (Stanmore) or the Belmont Trail subway and Pinner Road Underpass murals. Harrow has many historic associations and public art can celebrate these connections. Examples include the Whitefriars glass screen and the Kodak tile mural at Harrow Civic Centre, and the replica Spitfire and Hurricane (Bentley Priory). Public Art can also have a close historical association to people or events. An example is the memorial plaque for the Harrow and Wealdstone Rail Disaster (1952) at Harrow and Wealdstone Station.
2.3 Public Art is referenced in Harrow’s Section 106 Supplementary Planning Document which has been prepared as a ‘Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD) to support Policy DM50: ‘Planning Obligations of Harrow’s Local Plan’:
‘London Plan Policy 7.5 and Policies AAP1 and AAP7 seek the provision of a high quality public realm within and adjoining development sites. The provision of such spaces includes the incorporation of public art, especially in areas of high footfall or public interest where people like to gather, to provide a point of interest and to engage users of the space.’
2.4 Other Council Departments including Regeneration and Planning were invited to contribute to the development of the draft Public Art Policy. Public consultation on the draft Public Art Policy and Application Process was undertaken from 7th August 2017 to 16th September 2017. The consultation was promoted at all Harrow libraries, Harrow Arts Centre, and Headstone Manor and Museum. A questionnaire was available electronically online via the Harrow Council website with hard copies of the questionnaire available in all libraries. Cultural organisations including Harrow Arts Society and Harrow Heritage Trust were notified of the consultation, and the consultation was also promoted on social media. There were three responses to the consultation. One strongly agreed with the draft Public Art Policy and agreed with the draft Public Art Policy application process. The other response agreed with the draft Policy, and neither agreed or disagreed with the draft application process. Three comments regarding the draft Policy were received – one stressed the need for engagement with young people through schools, and the other
59 stated that the Policy should make it clear that a Public Art proposal that promotes a particular commercial enterprise or business would not be accepted. Harrow Heritage Trust also made a number of comments on the Draft Public Art Policy. Some changes to the wording of the Policy have been made to incorporate the feedback received.
3. Options considered
3.1 The following options are offered for Cabinet consideration:
Option A: To not adopt a Public Art Policy This option would mean that there would not be a clear criteria and procedure in place to ensure a consistent approval process for applications to install public art.
This option is not recommended.
Option B: To adopt a Public Art Policy This option would result in a clear criteria and procedure which would ensure a consistent approval process for applications to install public art. The Policy will help to enable high quality public art in Harrow including encourage the use of the arts in new developments, and ensure all proposals are evaluated in relation to their social, economic, and environmental impacts.
This option is recommended.
4. Environmental Implications
The proposals in this report will have a positive environmental impact by enabling a more stimulating environment which will enhance the visual impact of the area.
This Policy will support the Council’s Strategy to ‘Build a Better Harrow’ by helping to create places and opportunities for residents.
5. Risk Management Implications
Risk included on Directorate risk register? No Separate risk register in place? Yes
Key risks and mitigation are as follows:
i.) There is a risk that some applicants may not agree with the outcome of their application.
Mitigation
The new Policy and application policy will demonstrate that a transparent process has been completed to assess all applications. There will also be an appeals process as part of the application process.
60 ii.) There is a risk that the Policy will become no longer fit for purpose if there are significant changes that impact on the Policy. This could include changes to legislation or regulation.
Mitigation
The Public Art Policy will be reviewed annually, and will be updated between these annual reviews if required.
6. Legal Implications
6.1 A Public Art Commissioning Agreement will set out the legal requirements between the Council and the installer of a piece of Public Art, including ongoing repair and maintenance liabilities as appropriate. The Agreement will stipulate the need for obligations to be performed in accordance with all applicable Health and Safety Law and Policy, and the need to maintain appropriate insurances including Public Liability Insurance.
6.2 The Policy supports the aims of Harrow’s Section 106 Supplementary Planning Document, which has been prepared as a ‘Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to support Policy DM50 ‘Planning Obligations of Harrow’s Local Plan’. This is in accordance with the ‘Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Section 106).
6.3 Planning permission and appropriate consents, permissions and licences will need to be applied for as appropriate depending on where the public art will be situated, and the form and scale of any structures e.g. on highways land or public open spaces, and temporary stopping up orders may need to be applied for.
7. Financial Implications
7.1 The applicant will be responsible for the cost of installations and any on-going maintenance of the public art, therefore there is no financial implication to the Council.
7.2 In the event that the cost of the art installation is met from S106 funding or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), it is the expectation that the funding provision will include a notional sum to cover any on-going maintenance cost. The Council will place the art work in its list of assets and ensure that it is included within the Council’s overall corporate insurance policy.
8. Equalities implications / Public Sector Equality Duty
8.1 An Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) has been conducted (Appendix 4) and no negative impacts have been identified for any of the protected
61 characteristics. The nature of the Public Art Policy is to engage all aspects of the community and provide opportunities for everyone to shape the appearance of public spaces in the borough.
9. Council Priorities
This proposal supports the following Council corporate priorities:
Making a difference for Communities – by improving the local environment by improving the visual impact, and helping to create pride and a sense of belonging to local people.
The proposal also supports the Harrow Ambition Plan by supporting the strategic theme to ‘Build a Better Harrow’ by helping to create places and opportunities for residents.
Section 3 - Statutory Officer Clearance
on behalf of the Name: Jessie Man x Chief Financial Officer
Date: 30 October 2017
on behalf of the Name: Stephen Dorrian x Monitoring Officer
Date: 5 October 2017
Ward Councillors notified: No, as it impacts on all Wards
YES EqIA carried out:
EqIA cleared by: DETG Chair, Community Directorate - Dave Corby
62 Section 4 - Contact Details and Background Papers
Contact: Tim Bryan, Service Manager – Libraries, Sport and Leisure. Tel. 020 8416 8639, Email: [email protected]
Background Papers: None.
Call-In Waived by the NOT APPLICABLE
Chair of Overview and [Call-in applies] Scrutiny Committee
63 This page is intentionally left blank
Environment & Culture Policy Statement
Public Art
Objectives
To outline Harrow’s approach to public art installations.
Background
Good quality, attractive buildings and public spaces play a key role in urban and rural development. Throughout the years, towns and public spaces have been enhanced by the use of decorative arts, crafts and design, from historic monuments and sculptures to innovative designs of signs, gateways, paving, water features and the interpretation of locations.
The aim in providing Public Art is to improve the quality of the existing environment (including town centres and open spaces and parks) and the quality of new developments to produce an environment which is more stimulating and which will enhance the visual impact of the area. The economic and social value of Public Art is unlimited. It creates opportunities for artists and provides creative communities through participatory Public Art programmes. This in turn, stimulates pride, ownership and a sense of belonging to local people. Harrow Council supports the promotion of public art as good planning practice bringing social, cultural, environmental, educational and economic benefits to new developments and to the community.
Working with artists offers opportunities to design schemes and create places that reflect the life and aspirations of an area and its people. Works of art can give quality, character and a human dimension to new developments. They can make a positive contribution to the character of the place, especially if they draw inspiration from local themes or associations, creating a positive image for an area. The effects of both temporary and permanent Public Art not only creates a long lasting social and cultural legacy but has an impact which can be seen in the growth of creative industries and tourism, enhancing perceptions of the area and providing opportunities for a positive economic effect.
This policy has been developed to support Harrow’s Cultural Strategy. It also supports the aims of Harrow’s Section 106 Supplementary Planning Document which itself has been prepared as a ‘Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD) to support Policy DM50: Planning Obligations of Harrow’s Local Plan.
“London Plan Policy 7.5 and Policies AAP1 and AAP7 seek the provision of a high quality public realm both within and adjoining development sites. The provision of such space includes the incorporation of public art, especially in areas of high footfall or public interest where people like to gather, to provide a point of interest and to engage users of the space.” (Harrow S106 SPD)
Definitions
Installation Owner The party (the individual or group) initiating the installation.
65 1
Public Art The term public art refers to works of art in any media that have been planned and executed with the specific intention of being sited or staged in the physical public domain, usually outside and accessible to the whole community. Public art will be site specific and visible and will relate to the context of a particular site or location.
For the purpose of this policy, our definition of public art also incorporates Community Art Initiatives. Community art refers to artistic activity produced by all ages based in a community setting, producing a range of social, cultural and environmental outcomes. Community art involves a wide range of media and is characterised by interaction and dialogue with the community. An example of Community Art would be a mural created by a community group. . Section 106 (S106) Legal agreements between Local Authorities and developers; these are Agreements linked to planning permissions and can also be known as planning obligations. Section 106 agreements are drafted when it is considered that a development will have significant impacts on the local area that cannot be moderated by means of conditions attached to a planning decision.
The Community The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a tool for local authorities to Infrastructure Levy help deliver infrastructure to support the development of an area. (CIL)
Responsibilities
Those responsible for the implementation of this policy:
Divisional Director Environment & Culture
References
This policy should be read in conjunction with:
Harrow’s Section 106 Supplementary Planning Document Policy DM50: Planning Obligations of Harrow’s Local Plan The London Borough of Harrow’s Cultural Strategy (currently in development)
Regulatory/Legal Framework
The London Plan Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Section 106)
Policy Framework
Harrow Council:
Is committed to enabling high quality public art in the London Borough of Harrow
Will provide strong leadership in the broader context of arts, culture and creative industries
Will develop a Cultural Strategy in consultation with members of the community which supports this policy
2 66
Improve the arts infrastructure in the Borough by taking opportunities to develop new venues such as the new facility, The Arc House in Lowlands Road, and by developing cultural programming.
Actively encourage the use of the arts in new developments.
Ensure all major development that has a significant impact on its physical environment and setting will make provision for Public Art
Consider any proposed art installations in the interests of the wider community
Engage local people in the development of public art including young people.
Ensure all proposals are evaluated in relation to their social, economic and environmental impacts.
Practical Implications
All public art proposals must reflect the life and aspirations of Harrow and the people who live in the Borough. Any decisions on applications for public art will be balanced against the interests of the wider community and must serve all sections of the community.
Art installations that are encouraged can include (but are not limited to) historical/cultural figures or events that have a connection to Harrow.
Harrow reserves the right to refuse any art proposals which upon evaluation, are considered inappropriate, divisive or not reflective of the wider community. This would include art installation proposals that promote a particular commercial enterprise or business.
The installation owner (this will not normally apply when the cost of the art installation is met from a S106 Agreement or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)) will be responsible for providing indemnity insurance in relation to the installation in respect of any damage or injury to third parties. The installation owner will also need to specify who is responsible for the inspection, cleaning and maintenance of the installation and how regularly they plan to carry these works out.
The costs relating to the installation and maintenance of an Art Installation will remain the responsibility of the party (individual or group) who has initiated the project. The installation owner will need to satisfy The Council’s criteria for inspection, cleaning and maintenance, and provide a plan as to how this will be managed.
The council reserve the right to remove the installation at any time. Removal of an installation is only likely to occur under the following scenarios:
The area in which the installation is situated is under redevelopment. Should the installation not be adequately maintained If any payments for cleaning and maintenance are not forthcoming Adequate indemnity insurance is not provided The installation provides any Health & Safety concerns
It is the responsibility of the installation owner to appoint a structural engineer for design and sign off. The Structural Engineer will take into account all aspects of installing any art installation. Once the Structural Engineer’s report is received it will then be reviewed by The Council.
367
Structural Engineers would normally specify concrete/ steel specifications in compliance with the relevant British Standards. It must be borne in mind that the art piece may not be a solid item e.g. inflatables. In which case the stability and fixings of the installation should be thoroughly checked by the appointed Structural Engineer.
The provision of public art and artistic features should form an integral element to any development with a significant impact on its physical environment and setting.
There will be an expectation for developers to provide or make a contribution towards public art under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) or via the Section 106 Agreement.
Qualifying development schemes will normally be expected to provide public and artist designed elements up to a maximum of £50,000 (the amount will be subject to annual review). A proportion of that art is expected to be free standing from the development or an independently commissioned art work, supporting the Cultural Strategy and local artists. The overall public art provision will be subject to consideration in light of other planning obligations sought, including the creation of new or improved public realm, and the design and architectural merits of the development proposed.
As appropriate, the funding of art can be by means of a sum set aside to be spent by the developer or a financial contribution to the Council. A transparent process of commissioning public art work, involving professional art organisations and/or stakeholder community engagement will be expected.
In the event that the cost of the art installation is met from a S106 Agreement or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), it is the expectation that the funding provision will include a notional sum to cover any on-going maintenance cost. The Council will place the art work in its list of assets and ensure that it is included within the Council’s overall corporate insurance policy.
Review
This policy and procedure will be reviewed one year after implementation unless:
There are significant changes to legislation or regulation Deficiencies or omissions are identified The policy is deemed to be no longer effective or in line with business values
Author: Scott Causer Local Environment & Special Projects Manager
Version: 1.0
Date: Initial Draft: 26th May 2017 Updated: 14th July 2017
Sign off date:
Signed off by:
Date effective from: Policy owned by:
4 68
Next review date: Review date:
Reviewed by:
Log changes:
569
This page is intentionally left blank
Environment & Culture Procedure
Public Art Application1
Public Art Proposals received will be sent for consideration to the Service Manager for Libraries, Sport & Leisure in the Environment and Culture Department.
Once a proposal for public art has been received the Service Manager will contact the applicant and advise them of the Council’s Public Arts Policy and the application process.
The Service Manager will then forward the applicant the application form which will outline the requirements and expectation of the installation.
Upon receipt of a completed application, the Service Manager will check to ensure the application contains the relevant documentation.
The Service Manager will establish a Project Board to evaluate and oversee the proposal. The membership of the Project Board is likely to differ depending on the project and the skillset required. The project board will consist of a minimum of 3 recommended staff and can include representatives from Environment & Culture, Planning, Harrow Arts, Parks, Highways and Community Engagement or who is deemed appropriate for that particular project. Consultation will also be undertaken with Ward Councillors and local authority champions.
The Service Manager will circulate the proposal to the Project Board in advance.
The Service Manager will organise a meeting with the Project Board to fully evaluate the application.
During the Project Board meeting, the application will be evaluated upon the following criteria:
o Has the permission of the Landowner been obtained? o Is the proposal adequately funded? o Does the proposal have a connection to Harrow? o Is the proposal representative of the wider community? o Does the proposal serve all sections of the community? o Does the proposal have Community/Councillor support?
1 Please note that this procedure deals only with external applications for public art. Any public art applications made in conjunction with developments will be dealt with via the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) or S106 Agreement relating to that particular development application.
71 1
o Is proposal inappropriate or divisive? o Is the Structural Report satisfactory? o Has evidence of an adequate Indemnity Insurance Policy been provided? o Is there an adequate maintenance plan (inspection, cleaning, repair)? o Does the installation provide any Health & Safety Concerns?
If the application satisfies all criteria, the applicant will be advised accordingly and the application will be forwarded with recommendations for final approval to the Divisional Director of Environment & Culture.
If the application requires amendments or there are further questions surrounding the application, the application will be returned and the applicant will be advised accordingly. The applicant will be expected to provide the necessary information/make the necessary amendments before re-submitting.
If the application is deemed to not be suitable, the application will be refused and the applicant will be advised accordingly as to the reason(s) why. The applicant will be able to appeal to the Divisional Director of Environment & Culture. The Director reserves the right to make the final decision regarding the application.
Once the application has been approved by the Director, The Service Manager will then2:
Forward to Community Engagement to arrange a Consultation (please refer to consultation process).
Contact the Planning Department to see if there is any planning permission required and advise the applicant to gain planning permission if necessary.
Once both the consultation and planning processes have been satisfied and the necessary permissions have been obtained, the application can then proceed.
The applicant will complete the legal agreement and agree a schedule of works with the Service Manager.
The proposal can then proceed to the project initiation stage. The project will be overseen by the Service Manager.
Review
This procedure will be reviewed one year after implementation unless:
There are significant changes to legislation or regulation Deficiencies or omissions are identified The procedure is deemed to be no longer effective or in line with business values
2 Planning and Consultation are separate processes and are enacted by different departments. Both processes can be run concurrently in order to speed up the process.
2 72
Author: Scott Causer Local Environment & Special Projects Manager
Version: 1.0
Date: Initial Draft: 2nd June 2017 Updated: 13th July2017
Sign off date:
Signed off by:
Date effective from: Policy owned by:
Next review date: Review date:
Reviewed by:
Log changes:
373
This page is intentionally left blank
Environment & Culture
Public Art Application Form
1. Applicant Name, Address & Contact Details
Name……………………………………………………………………………………………….
Address……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tel No:……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Email Address……………………………………………………………………………………
2. Proposal Overview
Concept – What do you intend to do and what are the central ideas behind your project? Context – Briefly outline the context of your project including cultural, historical, geographical, social or other background information. Process – how will you carry out the project? Please describe how you will create the artwork, collaborate with other people and engage communities. Images – include conceptual and/or scale drawings with dimensions, measurements and type of materials (if proposing a physical artwork).
75 1
3. Proposed location(s)
What location/s do you propose for the project? If possible provide a map with the exact location/s pinpointed. Please state why each location is relevant.
4. Proposed duration
How long do you propose to have the artwork on display? What is the benefit of having the work on display for this period of time?
5. Environmental impact
Describe any aspect of the project that may impact the environment. Consider materials used, waste, noise and other types of pollution.
2 76
6. Installation considerations
What does the installation involve? Consider earthworks, equipment, installation time and disruption to traffic, pedestrians etc.
7. Maintenance
Describe maintenance requirements for the project. Consider cleaning, repairs, site maintenance and electricity – light bulbs, running water etc. Set out your plan to maintain the artwork.
8. Health and safety/Security considerations
Could the artwork be stolen, broken or vandalised? Describe any potential safety issues associated with the work or its installation. What actions do you plan to take to minimise the risk?
377
9. Removing the artwork
What will the removal of the artwork involve? Will there be any remedial work required to the site? If yes, please specify. What will happen to the work when it is removed?
10. Implementation Plan (Timeframe) Outline a timeframe for your project, including key dates.
Design
Start Date: End Date: Other:
Construction
Start Date: End Date: Other:
Installation
Start Date: End Date: Other:
Exhibition
Start Date: End Date: Other:
Decommission
Start Date: End Date: Other:
11. Funding
Please provide details of how the project was funded.
4 78
12. Landowner’s Permission
Has the permission of the Landowner been obtained? Attach written permission.
13. Insurance
Please attach evidence of your Indemnity Insurance Policy.
14. Structural Surveyor’s Report
Does the proposal involve an installation requiring input from a structural engineer? Attach the signed Structural Surveyor’s report and provide any extra details.
579
15. Audience and public
Does the proposal have a connection to Harrow? Is the proposal representative of the wider community? Does the proposal serve all sections of the community?
16. Outcomes
Please describe any outcomes you hope the project will achieve.
17. Documentation and Evaluation
Briefly describe how you plan to document and evaluate your project.
6 80
Equality Impact Assessment Template
The Council has revised and simplified its Equality Impact Assessment process (EqIA). There is now just one Template. Lead Officers will need to complete Stages 1-3 to determine whether a full EqIA is required and the need to complete the whole template.
Complete Stages 1-3 for all project proposals, new policy, policy review, Stage 3 Continue with Stage 4 and complete the service review, deletion of service, Question 5 YES whole template for a full EqIA restructure etc
No
81
Go to Stage 6 and complete the rest of the template
In order to complete this assessment, it is important that you have read the Corporate Guidelines on EqIAs and preferably completed the EqIA E-learning Module.
You are also encouraged to refer to the EqIA Template with Guidance Notes to assist you in completing this template.
SIGN OFF: All EqIAs need to be signed off by your Directorate Equality Task Groups.
Legal will NOT accept any report without a fully completed, Quality Assured and signed off EqIA.
The EqIA Guidance, Template and sign off process is available on the Hub under Equality and Diversity Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) Template Type of Decision: Tick Cabinet Portfolio Holder Other (explain) Date decision to be taken: 16th November 2017 Value of savings to be made (if applicable): Not applicable Title of Project: Public Arts Policy and Application Process Directorate / Service responsible: Environment and Culture Name and job title of Lead Officer: Scott Causer – Local Environment & Special Projects Manager Name & contact details of the other persons involved in Tim Bryan – Service Manager the assessment: Scott Causer – Special Projects Manager Date of assessment (including review dates): 11/07/2017 Stage 1: Overview The Council wishes to encourage and enable high quality public art in Harrow, in keeping with the Council’s Strategic Objective to ‘Build a Better Harrow’. The Public Art Policy sets out the key principles with which Harrow Council will approach the authorisation and management of new Public Art installations in Harrow. The key 1. What are you trying to do? principles of the policy can be summarised as follows:
82 (Explain your proposals here e.g. introduction of a new • Consistency of approach to proposed public art installations. service or policy, policy review, changing criteria, reduction / removal of service, restructure, deletion of • Effective management of Public Art installations. posts etc) • Clear understanding and clarity of roles and responsibilities of all those involved.
• Improve the arts infrastructure in the Borough.
Residents / Service Users X Partners X Stakeholders X Staff Age Disability 2. Who are the main groups / Protected Characteristics Gender Reassignment Marriage and Civil Pregnancy and that may be affected by your proposals? ( all that Partnership Maternity apply) Race Religion or Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Other
1 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
3. Is the responsibility shared with another directorate, authority or organisation? If so: Not applicable Who are the partners? Who has the overall responsibility? How have they been involved in the assessment?
Stage 2: Evidence & Data Analysis 4. What evidence is available to assess the potential impact of your proposals? This can include census data, borough profile, profile of service users, workforce profiles, results from consultations and the involvement tracker, customer satisfaction surveys, focus groups, research interviews, staff surveys, press reports, letters from residents and complaints etc. Where possible include data on the nine Protected Characteristics.
(Where you have gaps (data is not available/being collated for any Protected Characteristic), you should include this as an action to address in your Improvement Action Plan at Stage 6)
Protected Characteristic Evidence Analysis & Impact Harrow has a higher proportion of families with three plus
83 dependent children compared to the national rate of 16.2%, but the borough’s rate is below the London average of 18.4%. There were 30,780 families with dependent children in Harrow in 2011 and 5,278 (17.1%) had three or more dependent children. Nationally Harrow is ranked 52nd for the proportion of families with three or more dependent children. The central, eastern and south-west areas of the borough have the highest concentrations. Wealdstone No identifiable negative impact or barriers Age (including carers of ward has the highest level at 23% (364 families), followed by relating to this characteristic. young/older people) Roxeth at 21% and Queensbury at 19.6%. Greenhill has the lowest level, at 11.8% (171).
A larger proportion of those living in Harrow are young people. Harrow is ranked in the top quintile nationally for 5 to 15 year olds. 13.5% (32,142) of Harrow’s residents are aged 5 to 15, above the national and London rates. Roxbourne and Roxeth, in the east of the borough, have the highest numbers of children aged 5 to 15. Over the decade there has been population growth amongst the 5
2 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
to 15 year olds, in 15 out of Harrow’s 21 wards. Marlborough and Wealdstone saw the biggest increases in numbers.
6.7% (15,916) of residents were aged four and under in 2011. There are pockets of high concentration in central and south-west Harrow. Harrow is ranked in the top quartile nationally for 0-4 year olds. Wealdstone ward has the highest percentage of residents aged four and under, followed by Roxbourne. Greenhill has seen the largest percentage increase in 0-4 year olds since 2001, by Canons and Wealdstone ward at 81.9%. However, what must be kept in mind is that these figures are 6 years old now and this particular group will now be aged 6-10.
65.7% of Harrow’s residents are of working age (16 to 64), an increase since 2001 when 63.4% of residents were aged 16 to 64. Harrow is ranked 5th in London for the proportion of residents aged 65 and over. 14.1% (33,637) of Harrow’s residents are aged 65 and over, 12.4% (3,700) higher than the 2001 Census. Higher proportions of older residents live in the wards to the north of the 84 borough.
There are approximately 15,000 people aged 16 to 64 with moderate or serious physical disability living in Harrow and this number is predicted to increase to 16,000 by 2020 (a 15% overall). These trends are similar to those predicted for London with the largest proportion increases being in the 55 to 64 age group (Harrow Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 2015-20). The total population aged 18-64 in Harrow predicted to have a learning No identifiable negative impact or barriers Disability (including disability in 2017 is 3,466 (Information taken from: relating to this characteristic. carers of disabled people) www.pansi.org.uk).
The estimated prevalence of special educational needs in Harrow has remained consistent over time (2.6%) and is lower than the London (2.7%) and England average (2.8%). The number per 1,000 of children with moderate learning disabilities in Harrow is lower than the London average but higher for children with severe 3 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
learning disabilities.
Approximately 180 children are reported to be deaf in Harrow and known to services. The number of blind children and young people between 0 and 17 known to Harrow council (i.e. registered) is 20 and the number who are partially sighted is 30 (figures correct as of 2013/14).
The 2011 census showed there were 24,620 carers in Harrow, an increase of over 4,000 (almost 20%) from ten years earlier. The reasons for providing care vary and can include more than one reason. In the Harrow Carers’ Survey, the 3 out of 5 carers were caring for someone with a physical disability. 45% of Harrow carers were caring for an older person which is significantly higher than the national average. Around 1 in 5 were caring for someone with a mental health problems and a similar proportion for someone with a learning disability. It is difficult to estimate the number of young carers although the 2011 Census shows 2,272 self-declared
85 young carers aged 0 – 24 years old in Harrow. The vast majority of these are hidden, i.e. not known to social care or receiving any support (Harrow Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 2015-20).
The only data Harrow currently has on Gender Reassignment is via the Analysis of demand from housing applicants (via Locata): 1 No identifiable negative impact or barriers Gender Reassignment (0.02%) housing applicant has indicated that they are transgender. relating to this characteristic. (Data as at April 2014).
Census data: Harrow has a very high percentage of married couples, with 53.7% of residents aged 16 and older declaring they were in a marriage in 2011. This is above the national level of 46.6%. There was a 27% increase in the number of married No identifiable negative impact or barriers Marriage / Civil people living in Harrow between 2001 and 2011 (Office for relating to this characteristic. Partnership National Statistics, 2001 and 2011). Between their inception and January 2012, 107 civil partnership ceremonies took place in Harrow.
4 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Census data: There has been a 32% (+3,900) increase in 0-4 year No identifiable negative impact or barriers olds since 2001. There are pockets of high concentration in Pregnancy and Maternity relating to this characteristic. central and south-west Harrow.
Harrow has one of the most ethnically diverse populations nationally. In 2011, 69 per cent of Harrow’s residents were from minority ethnic groups in 2011, where ethnic minority is defined as No identifiable negative impact or barriers Race all people who are non White-British. Nationally, Harrow has the relating to this characteristic. fourth highest proportion of residents from minority ethnic groups (ONS 2011 Census).
Harrow is Britain’s most religiously diverse community and enjoys the Country’s highest density of Gujarati Hindus and Sri Lankan Tamils, alongside significant Muslim, Jewish and Christian No identifiable negative impact or barriers Religion and Belief communities. The Greater London Authority (GLA) Diversity relating to this characteristic. Indices rank Harrow seventh highest nationally for ethnic diversity and second for religious diversity.
Census data: In 2011, 49.4% of Harrow residents were male and 86 50.6% are female. This is very similar to the national profile, but No identifiable negative impact or barriers Sex / Gender the number of males in Harrow has slightly increased since 2001 relating to this characteristic. (Office for National Statistics, 2001 and 2011).
Although sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under equalities legislation, there is no robust data on the numbers of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in the population as no national census has ever asked people to define their sexuality. The Government estimates that 5-7% of the population are lesbians, gay men or bisexual. Stonewall, a UK charity supporting LGB No identifiable negative impact or barriers Sexual Orientation rights, agrees with this estimate. relating to this characteristic.
There is debate about whether same sex partnerships registrations can be used as a proxy measure for sexual orientation, as not all LGBT people will be in a relationship let alone have a civil partnership.. Between December 2005, when the Civil Partnership Act came into force, and the end of 2013, there have been 71 civil 5 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
partnerships in Harrow. On 29 March 2014, same sex couples have been allowed to marry. There is no data yet on how many marriages have taken place locally or how many of these are conversions from civil partnerships.
Stage 3: Assessing Potential Disproportionate Impact 5. Based on the evidence you have considered so far, is there a risk that your proposals could potentially have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the Protected Characteristics? Age Disability Marriage Gender Pregnancy and Religion and Sexual (including (including and Civil Race Sex Reassignment Maternity Belief Orientation carers) carers) Partnership Yes No X X X X X X X X X YES - If there is a risk of disproportionate adverse Impact on any ONE of the Protected Characteristics, complete a FULL EqIA.
. Best Practice: You may want to consider setting up a Working Group (including colleagues, partners, stakeholders, voluntary community sector organisations, service users and Unions) to develop the rest of the EqIA
87 . It will be useful to also collate further evidence (additional data, consultation with the relevant communities, stakeholder groups and service users directly affected by your proposals) to further assess the potential disproportionate impact identified and how this can be mitigated.
. NO - If you have ticked ‘No’ to all of the above, then go to Stage 6
. Although the assessment may not have identified potential disproportionate impact, you may have identified actions which can be taken to advance equality of opportunity to make your proposals more inclusive. These actions should form your Improvement Action Plan at Stage 6
Stage 4: Further Consultation / Additional Evidence 6. What further consultation have you undertaken on your proposals as a result of your analysis at Stage 3?
Who was consulted? What do the results show about the impact on What actions have you taken to address the What consultation methods were used? different groups / Protected Characteristics? findings of the consultation? E.g. revising your
6 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
proposals
Stage 5: Assessing Impact 7. What does your evidence tell you about the impact on the different Protected Characteristics? Consider whether the evidence shows potential for differential impact, if so state whether this is a positive or an adverse impact? If adverse, is it a minor or major impact? What measures can you take to mitigate the Adverse Impact Explain what this impact is, how likely it is to impact or advance equality of opportunity? Positive happen and the extent of impact if it was to E.g. further consultation, research, implement Protected Impact occur. equality monitoring etc Characteristic Note – Positive impact can also be used to Minor Major (Also Include these in the Improvement demonstrate how your proposals meet the Action Plan at Stage 6) aims of the PSED Stage 7
Age (including carers of 88 young/older people)
Disability (including carers of disabled people)
Gender Reassignment
7 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Marriage and Civil Partnership
Pregnancy and Maternity
Race
Religion or Belief
89 Sex
Sexual orientation
8. Cumulative Impact – Considering what else is happening within the Yes No Council and Harrow as a whole, could your proposals have a cumulative impact on a particular Protected Characteristic?
If yes, which Protected Characteristics could be affected and what is the potential impact? 9. Any Other Impact – Considering what else is happening within the Yes No
8 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Council and Harrow as a whole (for example national/local policy, austerity, welfare reform, unemployment levels, community tensions, levels of crime) could your proposals have an impact on individuals/service users socio economic, health or an impact on community cohesion?
If yes, what is the potential impact and how likely is it to happen? Stage 6 – Improvement Action Plan List below any actions you plan to take as a result of this Impact Assessment. These should include:
Proposals to mitigate any adverse impact identified Positive action to advance equality of opportunity Monitoring the impact of the proposals/changes once they have been implemented Any monitoring measures which need to be introduced to ensure effective monitoring of your proposals? How often will you do this?
Area of potential How will you know this has been adverse impact e.g. Proposal to mitigate adverse impact achieved? E.g. Performance Lead Officer/Team Target Date
90 Race, Disability Measure / Target If any adverse impact is identified on Sign off by senior Environment & All characteristics any protected characteristic, the Ongoing management Culture policy will be reviewed immediately.
Stage 7: Public Sector Equality Duty 10. How do your proposals meet the Public Sector Equality Duty 1. The nature of the public art policy is to engage all aspects of the (PSED) to: community and make it an inclusive experience for all. 1. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation 2. The public art policy will give an opportunity for all different groups and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010 of people to have their voice heard and will provide an opportunity 2. Advance equality of opportunity between people from different for everyone to shape the look of public areas in the borough.
9 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
groups 3. The public art policy will give the chance for different groups to 3. Foster good relations between people from different groups promote their interests and to educate each other in terms of what public art means to them.
Stage 8: Recommendation 11. Which of the following statements best describes the outcome of your EqIA ( tick one box only) Outcome 1 – No change required: the EqIA has not identified any potential for unlawful conduct or disproportionate impact and all opportunities to advance equality of opportunity are being addressed. Outcome 2 – Minor Impact: Minor adjustments to remove / mitigate adverse impact or advance equality of opportunity have been identified by the EqIA and these are included in the Action Plan to be addressed. Outcome 3 – Major Impact: Continue with proposals despite having identified potential for adverse impact or missed opportunities to advance equality of opportunity. In this case, the justification needs to be included in the EqIA and should be in line with the
PSED to have ‘due regard’. In some cases, compelling reasons will be needed. You should also consider whether there are sufficient plans to reduce the adverse impact and/or plans to monitor the impact. (Explain this in Q12 below) 12. If your EqIA is assessed as outcome 3 explain your justification with full reasoning to continue with your 91 proposals.
Stage 9 - Organisational sign Off 13. Which group or committee Directorate Equality Task Group – Community and Regeneration and Planning considered, reviewed and agreed the EqIA and the Improvement Action Plan?
Signed: (Lead officer completing EqIA) T. Bryan Signed: (Chair of DETG) D. Corby
Date: 18/09/17 Date: 26/09/17
Signature of DETG Chair Date EqIA presented at Cabinet (following Cabinet Briefing if Briefing (if required) relevant) 10 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
92
11 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Agenda Item 9 Pages 93 to 134
REPORT FOR: CABINET
Date of Meeting: 16 November 2017
Subject: Housing Related Support and Preventative Services Floating Support
Key Decision: Yes
Responsible Officer: Nick Powell, Divisional Director of Housing
Visva Sathasivam, Acting Director of Adult Social Care
Portfolio Holder: Councillor Glen Hearnden, Portfolio Holder of Housing and Employment
Councillor Simon Brown, Portfolio Holder for Adults and Older People
Councillor Adam Swersky, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Commercialisation
Exempt: No
Decision subject to Yes
Call-in:
Wards affected: All
Enclosures: Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA)
93
Section 1 – Summary and Recommendations
This report sets out the need to review and re-procure housing related support and preventative services. The current contracts end in March 2018 and cannot be extended; they were procured as part of the Supporting People Programme which is no longer current practice following the implementation of the Care Act 2014 in April 2015.In addition, the financial challenges of the Council and the change of context in which these services were commissioned means that efficiencies and financial savings should be explored and are expected as part of this exercise. There are also additional pressures in that the resources available to commission and manage these contracts have significantly reduced; there may be duplication with other services and other models are available for these services which may be more suitable.
Recommendations: Cabinet is requested to delegate authority to the Director of Housing and the Acting Director of Adult Social Care, following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Employment , Portfolio Holder for Adults and Older People and Portfolio Holder for Finance and Commercialisation to procure Housing Related Support and Prevention services and award the contracts.
Reason: (For recommendations) To ensure continued and more efficient provision of Housing Related Support and Preventative services to vulnerable residents and service users.
Section 2 – Report Introductory paragraph
The current housing related support and prevention services were developed under the former Supporting People programme. The contracts for these services end in March 2018 and no further extensions are contractually possible. Therefore, Officers have been developing options to consider in order to provide support to service users with the same level of need.
Options considered
The options considered are:
To commission the same services under new contracts commencing in April 2018
This option is not recommended. This option would not allow the delivery model to be updated in line with best practice and legislative change. The current framework is not in line with other neighbouring Boroughs and does not take account of modern changes and different ways of working in line with current best practice, or the requirements in the Borough.
94
To not commission any new services at the end of the current contracts in March 2018
This option is not recommended. This option would not meet the needs of vulnerable residents who require housing related support and prevention services to stay living independently. The current services play an important role in terms of preventing people needing additional support. While the Supporting People Programme is no longer best practice or a current Government initiative, the Care Act 2014 established a responsibility surrounding prevention and the provision of services that can prevent, reduce and delay the onset/ worsening of needs.
These services are being commissioned to prevent people’s needs worsening to a level that requires more traditional social care intervention (namely domiciliary or residential care) and to support independent living thereby preventing homelessness.
To commission new remodelled services under new contracts commencing in April 2018
This option is recommended as it would support the Council in it’s responsibilities to meet the needs of vulnerable residents who require housing related support, and also provide preventative services in the Borough to stop people requiring costly interventions at a later point once crisis has been reached. Furthermore, the ability to recommission the services under new contracts in a collaborative way across adult social care and housing allows for more seamless services to be procured that better meet the needs of the people requiring support, and potentially deliver efficiencies.
In order to do this, and in line with approaches adopted by other Local Authorities it is proposed that the delivery model is updated to support more individual service users through a model of shorter term, more intensive support that focuses on crisis prevention, early intervention, integration and effective partnership working to identify and meet additional needs more effectively. This option would also enable to the Council to achieve savings and the reduction in the number of contracts would be helpful in the context of the reduced capacity for contract management.
Background
The Supporting People programme was launched on 1 April 2003. The main aim of the programme was to enable vulnerable people to achieve and/or maintain independence through the provision of housing-related support and to prevent homelessness and help end social exclusion. The focus of these services was on tenancy sustainment; these services did not include personal care or domestic care and did not focus on crisis prevention or early intervention. Personalisation moved away from traditional block commissioning arrangements and was launched in 2008 but properly imbedded in 2009, following this and the foundations it laid, the Care Act 2014 came into force in April 2015 enshrining in Law the requirements for person
95 centred care and support and the responsibilities to provide preventative services.
Supporting People services were delivered either as floating support in a person’s own home in the community or as accommodation based support in specialist accommodation.
It helped people from a range of vulnerable client groups including: People who have been homeless or a rough sleeper Ex-offenders and people at risk of offending and imprisonment People with a physical or sensory disability People at risk of domestic violence People with alcohol and drug problems Older people Homeless families with support needs.
In April 2009 the ring-fence on Supporting People funding was lifted and from April 2010 funding was incorporated into the Area Based Grant which has been subject to significant reductions, with a loss of transparency around individual funding streams.
Current contracts and providers
The contracts for these services all end in March 2018.
Housing contracts being considered as part of this retender:
Generic Floating 105 units Support (Look Ahead) Floating Support for 40 units Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders (Look Ahead) Supported Housing for 6 units accommodation Substance Misuse and based support Ex-offenders (Look Ahead)
Adults contracts being considered as part of this retender:
Older People Floating Support (Hestia) 44 units Elderly Mentally Infirm Floating Support 25 units (Notting Hill Housing Group) Mental Health Flexible Floating Support 40 units (Look Ahead) Mental Health Rapid Response Floating 18 units Support (Look Ahead) Mental Health short term Supported 15 units accommodation Housing (Look Ahead) based support
96
Mental Health long term Supported 14 units accommodation Housing (Look Ahead) based support
Why a change is needed
These services are being reviewed because the current contracts end in March 2018 and it is not possible contractually to extend them.
The social and economic environments have changed since Supporting People was launched in 2003 and service users now face different challenges, such as the housing crisis, welfare reform and Universal Credit. The current structure of these contracts is therefore not in line with best practice, the needs of service users or the provision in other similar authorities.
The capacity to manage this volume of contracts has also reduced, so it would make sense to reduce the number of contracts and hope to deliver savings by consolidating these services to contribute towards the Council’s budget position.
There may be duplication between these current services and other services commissioned by the Council, such as the General Information and Advice Service and the Substance Misuse Service.
In addition the Care Act was introduced in 2014 and is the most significant change in social care law for 60 years. It places a duty onto local Authorities to provide preventative services in a way that meets the needs of people in the Borough. The proposed new model of delivery would allow focus on the following priorities: Prevention of additional pressures on homelessness, health and criminal justice services Prevention of need for statutory adult social care, services Increased engagement with work related activities Increased partnership working and reduced duplication
This would be achieved through: A clear referral and assessment pathway Practical support to meet the identified support needs (such as budgeting, dealing with rent arrears and other debts, making claims for welfare benefits, managing utilities and reporting repairs) Housing advice to secure and/or sustain suitable housing options Support with access to primary health care and specialist services such as substance misuse services and mental health services Support with access to education, training, volunteering and employment Referral and signposting to other services
Other Councils have adopted different models for housing related support and prevention services such as group support, drop-in surgeries and shorter, more intensive support interventions, all of which may feature in the model
97 following consultation with service users and providers that will be undertaken as part of the tender exercise.
If the recommendation is accepted, officers would like to explore a model where a shorter but more intensive support intervention is offered with a clear referral pathway into the service and clear signposting out of the service. A service user could be referred to the service again in the future if they needed further support.
Current service users have given us their views by postal questionnaire and at a well-attended consultation event. Service users were asked the points they liked most about their support service, whether there was anything they disliked about their service and any ideas for the future. Service users were grateful for the services received and gave positive stories of their experiences. Many users acknowledged that they did not necessarily need their support worker for the full length of time they were allocated, and would prefer to have an ‘open door’ for support, where they could see or speak to a support worker at a time of need/ approaching crisis. Suggestions around drop in, and telephone support were popular in addressing this.
Providers were also invited to a market engagement event, where they were asked for their feedback about the current services, informed about the need to make savings and asked for their views about a shorter, more intensive support service. Many of the providers expressed concerns about limiting support too much and welcomed suggestions of creativity and innovative ways to provide support beyond the traditional 1:1 floating support. Providers were also shown the indicative timescales for the project, and although Officers acknowledged they were short, providers did not challenge this. Their views and feedback will help shape the model tendered if the recommended option is accepted, in addition, Officers will include service users in the tender evaluation panel to further ensure their views are considered as part of the decision making process.
Implications of the Recommendation Considerations
The change in commissioning for these services needs to be undertaken in a strategic and user friendly way. It will be designed in an outcomes focused way taking account the views of providers, service users, best practice guidance, other Authority models and the suggestions of the referring officers and Authorities.
Resources, costs
The proposed new model will support the Council’s efficiencies and takes account of the financial context of the Authority including the need to make additional cost savings as part of this process. The proposed outline model will aim to support increased volumes of service users within a smaller financial envelope for a shorter more intensive period of support and equip them with the tools to find additional support independently at the end of the support period. This may be achieved by signposting and/ or referring to other commissioned and non-commissioned services in the community.
98
Procurement process
The key dates for this procurement (Timetable) are currently anticipated to be as follows:
Table 1 Event Date Publish Open ITT advert / OJEU Notice 17/11/2017 Issue Open Invitations To Tender 17/11/2017 Deadline for submitting clarifications 08/12/2017 EOI & Tender submission deadline 12:00:00 on 18/12/2017 Evaluate Tender submissions 18/12/2017 to 07/01/2018 Award recommendation 31/01/2018 Notification of decision to award 31/01/2018 Standstill period (supplier debriefs) 31/01/2018 to 10/02/2018 Mobilisation 12/02/2018 Contract commencement date 01/04/2018
The Authority, will conduct the procurement using an Open procedure and in accordance with Directive 2014/24/EU Article 74 for the purpose of procuring the services described in the Specification (Services). The Open procedure has been adapted under the light touch regime to allow any tenderer that fails a qualification question to be eliminated from the process and the Technical and Commercial sections will not be evaluated. The value of these services is expected to be above EU thresholds for services. Tender documents will be published on London Tenders Portal and Contracts Finder in accordance with the Council’s CPRs, and via the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).
The Tender has been divided into 6 Lots. Tenderers will be invited to bid for one, some or all Lots.
Lot 1 Social Care Floating Support – including Elderly Mentally Infirm, Older People and Mental health Lot 2 Housing Floating Support- including Generic and Substance Misuse & Ex-offenders Lot 3 Housing Accommodation Support - Substance Misuse & Ex- offenders Lot 4 Social Care Accommodation Support - Mental Health needs Lot 5 Joint award for Lots 2 & 3 Lot 6 Joint award for Lots 1 & 4
Where a tenderer submits for Lot 5 they will submit a joint award price for Lots 2 & 3. This price will be used in the first instance for evaluation purposes. This will allow providers to demonstrate cost volume saving to the Authority. Tenderers are required to be ranked 1st in Lots 2 & 3 to be recommended for a Lot 5 award.
99
If no clear winner is identified for Lot 5, both lots 2 & 3 will remain separate and the original prices for Lots 2 & 3 will be used for evaluation.
Lot 6 will use the same methodology as above. The highest scoring tenderer for the most economically advantageous option for the Authority will be recommended for award of the contract.
The M.E.A.T (most economically advantageous tender) calculation will be based on: 45% of the points being awarded for Quality/Technical assessment, 45% of the points being awarded for Commercial assessment and 10% of the points being awarded for Social Value.
The Authority will reserve the right to award Social care / Housing Related Support and Preventative floating support services contract(s) for one, some or all Lots following a compliant procurement process. This will allow flexibly not awarding any Lot due to unforeseen circumstances, and continuing awards for the remaining Lots.
The Authority will look for potential service provider(s) to be awarded a contract for a period of 2 Years with options to extend for a further 1 Year + 1 Year + 1 Year (5 Year total). The anticipated contract award will be made 12th February 2018 and contract commencement will be 1st April 2018.
Risk Management Implications
Risk included on Directorate risk register? Yes Separate risk register in place? Yes
The report outlines a retender exercise that is intended to create a better quality service provision for residents and service users in Harrow and as such the risks associated are minimal.
With all tender exercises there is always a risk that there will be a low turnout, particularly when reducing available funding. However, Officers have run a market engagement event to understand any concerns and allow Providers to consider whether they plan to bid on the new model.
The tender is being issued at a time of other significant financial reductions, including a recent reduction to Voluntary Sector Budgets of £420k from Adults alone. This potentially leads to cumulative impacts for service providers and service users. However, Providers and users have been consulted on the proposals to assess the impact and mitigate where possible.
The service is potentially going to be remodelled with the intention to support an increased number of people within a different financial envelope – however, the figures being used to re-design the service are based on an existing, very different model with prescriptive expectations. As such, the bidders will be expected to outline how many people will be supported and
100 how; it is expected that the bidders will come up with creative and innovative solutions to ensure people’s needs and outcomes are met.
Change of this nature when working with vulnerable people is often challenging; the process will need to be managed delicately with appropriate mechanisms for supporting service users through the change to the delivery model and a potential change in Provider. This requirement can be built into the scoring of the tender and form part of the decision making process to award the contract (for which a service user will be part of the evaluation panel), in addition to building in meeting timescales, which may be tight.
Legal Implications
General
The housing related support and preventative service (the Service) is to be re- procured through either two (2) contracts or three (3) or four (4) separate contracts (lots) subject to market availability. Providers will be invited to bid for all or some of the lots; lots 5 and 6 are joint awards (Lot 5 Joint award for Lots 2 & 3, Lot 6 Joint award for Lots 1 & 4).
The current total value of the existing contracts is £612K per annum. The expected value of the new contracts, including the expected savings, is likely to be over the European Union (EU) threshold of £589K for services, for the life of the contract. As a result and due to the nature of the services to be delivered the procurement is subject to the light touch regime.
Contracts of this value are regarded as key decisions under the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules (CPRs). Consequently, a competitive tendering exercise is mandatory and the Contract must be advertised and tendered via the London Tenders Portal and Contracts Finder in accordance with the Council’s CPRs. Additionally, as the value of the new contracts are expected to be over the EU threshold (as stated above) the Contract must be advertised via the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) in accordance with the Public Procurement Regulations (PCR) 2015.
The Open procedure will be followed for this procurement, following a market engagement event prior to procurement.
TUPE
Whilst no Council staff will be affected by TUPE it is unclear whether there will be TUPE implications for staff employed by the current providers. The Council should be made aware of any TUPE implications throughout the tender process.
Property implications – leases, licences
Whilst some of the premises used (to be used) under the Service are owned by the Council, some of the premises are owned by a housing association Metropolitan Housing Trust (MHT). Therefore, there are property law
101 implications in terms of leases, licences etc., and this should be considered in advance of the tender so that this information can be included with the information to potential bidders.
Options considered: 1, 2, and 3
The third option considered at the beginning of this report is the preferred option for the Council.
If the first option is pursued there is a potential risk of challenge under the PCR 2015 from other providers which could result in legal proceedings.
If the second option is pursued, it is likely the Council will not meet its duty under section 2, Care Act 2014 which stipulates:
2. Preventing needs for care and support
(1) A local authority must provide or arrange for the provision of services, facilities or resources, or take other steps, which it considers will—
(a) contribute towards preventing or delaying the development by adults in its area of needs for care and support; … (c) reduce the needs for care and support of adults in its area;
Financial Implications
The contracts included within this retendering exercise currently total £356k per annum for Adult Services and £256k per annum for Housing and are funded at these levels within the 2017-18 budget approved by Council in February 2017.
The review and consolidation of these contracts, subject to the procurement process, is expected to deliver efficiencies in the region of £100k for Adults and £100k for Housing and will contribute towards the 2018-19 MTFS proposals to be considered as part of the draft budget reported to Cabinet in December 2017.
Equalities implications / Public Sector Equality Duty
An EQIA is in progress and will be attached to the Cabinet Report. It outlines in detail the equalities concerns and challenges attached to the potential re- procurement and makes recommendations to ensure that people are not disproportionately impacted by the proposal.
In addition, Officers have requested Equalities Monitoring Data from all Providers to help shape the new service, and be sure that it is representative of the needs of people in Harrow and is delivered in a way that is sensitive to their protected characteristics. The feedback from the Service User survey
102 and Service User event Officers are planning to run will also shape the future service.
Council Priorities
The Council’s vision:
Working Together to Make a Difference for Harrow
Please identify how the report incorporates the administration’s priorities.
Making a difference for the vulnerable – These services are being commissioned to provide direct support to vulnerable service users and residents in Harrow. Making a difference for communities – The services will be commissioned in a way that takes account of the diversity within the Borough and supports all communities. Support for ex-offenders and substance misuse has a positive impact on community safety. Making a difference for local businesses Making a difference for families
Section 3 - Statutory Officer Clearance
on behalf of the Name: Donna Edwards and Tasleem x Chief Financial Officer Kazmi
Date: 3 November 2017
on behalf of the Name: Kim Todd x Monitoring Officer
Date: 3 November 2017
Ward Councillors notified: NO, as it impacts on all Wards
YES EqIA carried out:
EqIA cleared by: Dave Corby, Chair of Community DETG and/or Johanna Morgan, Chair of People DETG
103
Section 4 - Contact Details and Background Papers
Contact (Community- Housing): Jane Fernley, Head of Business Development and Transformation Internal: 2283 External: 020 8424 1283 [email protected]
Contact (People- Adults): Chris Greenway, Head of Safeguarding Assurance & Quality Services Internal: 2043 External: 020 8424 1043 [email protected]
Background Papers: None
Call-In Waived by the NOT APPLICABLE
Chair of Overview and [Call-in applies] Scrutiny Committee
104 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) Template Type of Decision: Tick Cabinet Portfolio Holder Other (explain) Date decision to be taken: 16 November 2017 Value of savings to be made (if applicable): TBC, pending the outcome of Procurement exercise Title of Project: Housing Related Support Services Directorate / Service responsible: Community- Housing Services / People – Adult Services Name and job title of Lead Officer: Jane Fernley Head of Business Development and Transformation Housing Services Community Directorate [email protected] Internal: 2283 External: 020 8424 1283
Chris Greenway Assistant Director, Head of Safeguarding Assurance & Quality Services 105 Adult Social Care People Directorate [email protected] Internal: 2043 External: 020 8424 1043
Name & contact details of the other persons involved in Meghan Zinkewich-Peotti the assessment: Housing Strategy Project Manager Housing Services Community Directorate [email protected] Internal: 2346 External: 020 8424 1346 Date of assessment (including review dates): 5 October 2017, reviewed 6th November 2017 Stage 1: Overview 1. What are you trying to do? There are currently several housing related support and prevention services which 1 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
originated under the former Supporting People programme. They provide housing (Explain your proposals here e.g. introduction of a new related support to vulnerable people living in all tenures, to enable them to continue to service or policy, policy review, changing criteria, live independently. reduction / removal of service, restructure, deletion of posts etc) The contracts for these services end in March 2018 and no further extensions are contractually possible. The services are not in line with current practice or Care Act provisions, and as such we are proposing to retender the services and bring them in line with current statutory and preventative practice.
The Housing contracts are as follows: Floating Support o Generic- Look Ahead o Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders - Look Ahead
Accommodation Based Support o Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders Supported Housing- Look Ahead
106 People (Adults) also commission services under this programme.
The Adults contracts to be tendered are as follows:
Older People Floating Support (Hestia) 44 units Elderly Mentally Infirm Floating Support 25 units (Notting Hill Housing Group) Mental Health Flexible Floating Support 40 units (Look Ahead) Mental Health Rapid Response Floating 18 units Support (Look Ahead) Mental Health short term Supported 15 units accommodation Housing (Look Ahead) based support
2 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Mental Health long term Supported 14 units accommodation Housing (Look Ahead) based support
The recommended option is to commission new remodelled services under new contracts commencing in April 2018. The remodelled service will provide a more cost effective, flexible approach to meeting the immediate needs of our clients.
2. Who are the main groups / Protected Characteristics Residents / Service Users Partners Stakeholders that may be affected by your proposals? ( all that Staff Age Disability apply) Gender Reassignment Marriage and Civil Pregnancy and Partnership Maternity
Race Religion or Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Other 3. Is the responsibility shared with another directorate,
107 authority or organisation? If so: This exercise is cross directorate, with Officers working together on the procurement Who are the partners? from both Housing and Adult Services. The lots will be separated and contracts will be Who has the overall responsibility? managed within the relevant department. How have they been involved in the assessment? Providers were approached jointly to provide data in the same format to ensure they are involved in this assessment.
The overall responsibility is shared across both services. Stage 2: Evidence & Data Analysis 4. What evidence is available to assess the potential impact of your proposals? This can include census data, borough profile, profile of service users, workforce profiles, results from consultations and the involvement tracker, customer satisfaction surveys, focus groups, research interviews, staff surveys, press reports, letters from residents and complaints etc. Where possible include data on the nine Protected Characteristics. (Where you have gaps (data is not available/being collated for any Protected Characteristic), you should include this as an action to address in your Improvement Action Plan at Stage 6) Protected Characteristic Evidence Analysis & Impact
3 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Age (including carers of The majority (57%) of the users of the generic floating young/older people) Profile of Harrow residents at 2011 Census: support service are aged 45-64 years, followed by 25-44 In 2011 Harrow had a usual resident population of years (37%). 239,056. 48,060 (20.1%) were aged 0-15, 157,330 (65.8%) were aged 16-64 and 33,670 (14.1%) were aged The majority (51%) of the users of the substance misuse 65+. 18% of Harrow’s households are comprised solely of and ex-offenders floating support service are aged 25-44 residents aged 65 and over. years, followed by 45-64 years (41%).
Generic Floating Support Half of the users of the supported housing for substance misuse and ex-offenders service are aged 45-64 years. This service is for adults. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) is as follows:
Under 16 0 % 16-24 5% 25-44 37% 45-64 57% 65 and over 1%
Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders Floating 108 Support
This service is for adults. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) is as follows:
Under 16 0 % 16-24 8% 25-44 51% 45-64 41%
65 and over 0%
Supported Housing for Substance Misuse and Ex- offenders
This service is for adults. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) is as follows:
Under 16 0 % 16-24 17% The EMI and older people floating support services are 25-44 33% 45-64 50% 4 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
65 and over 0 % aimed at people aged 65 and older. All impacted service users are therefore 65 and older. Elderly Mentally Infirm (EMI) Floating Support
This service is for adults. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) is as follows:
Under 18 0 % 18-24 0% 25-44 0% 45-64 0% 65 and over 100%
Older People Floating Support Under 18 0% 18-24 0% 25-44 0% 45-64 0% 65 and over 100%
POPPI data: POPPI data indicates that the number of people aged 65
109 The data below outlines the predicted % change in the and over will increase significantly, and as such any number of older people from 2017 to 2020 and 2025. contracts tendered will need to account for the increase
in population size and be able to cope with an increasing 2020 2025 number of referrals. 65-69 5% 18%
70-74 10% 14% 75-79 4% 28% 80-84 5% 11% 85-89 9% 26% 90 and over 15% 45% Total population 65 7% 20% and over
Mental Health – Flexible Floating Support This service is for adults. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) is as follows:
5 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Under 18 0 % 18-24 14% 25-44 44% 45-64 42% 65 and over 0%
Mental Health – Long Stay Accommodation based support This service is for adults. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) is as follows: The majority of service users across all mental health contracts are of working age, all service users are 18 or Under 18 0% 18-24 14% over and under 65. 25-44 44% 45-64 42% 65 and over 0
Mental Health – Rapid Response Floating Support This service is for adults. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) is as follows:
110
Under 16 0% 18-24 20%
25-44 40% 45-64 40%
65 and over 0%
Mental Health – Short Stay Accommodation based support This service is for adults. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) is as follows:
Under 16 0% 18-24 36% 25-44 36% 45-64 28% Pansi data outlines the total population increases across 65 and over 0% all working age groups, there are some differences across the different bands, with a reduction in the PANSI Data: number of younger people and an increase overall The data below outlines the expected % change in adults (particularly the older working ages). While the of working age from 2017 to 2020 and 2025. 6 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
accommodation based services have a fixed number of 2020 2025 spaces they can support, the Floating support services 18-24 -5% -4% will need be aware of the general increase in population 25-34 -1% -4% for working age adults. 35-44 6% 10% 45-54 1% 6% 55-64 6% 11% The proposal being considered for floating support is Total population aged 18- 2% 4% that the services are remodelled and re-provided on a 64 more intensive basis, potentially for a shorter term and to Total population - all ages 3% 8% more service users. It is not expected that this will have a major adverse impact on any of the protected characteristics and will provide additional support to all age groups, how this is provided to best meet the needs of people of all ages will be decided as part of the engagement with providers and service users in advance of the tender process. Disability (including The majority (73%) of the users of the generic floating Profile of Harrow residents at 2011 Census: support service identify as having a disability.
111 carers of disabled people)
In 2011 Harrow had a usual resident population of The majority (78%) of the users of the substance misuse 239,056. 34,850 (14.6%) of residents had a limiting long- and ex-offenders floating support service do not identify term illness or disability which limited their day-to-day as having a disability. activities. 33% of users of the supported housing for substance Generic Floating Support misuse and ex-offenders service identify as having a disability. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that 73% current service users identify as having a disability and 27% service users do not identify as having a disability.
Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders Floating Support
The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows 7 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
that 22% current service users identify as having a disability and 78% service users do not identify as having a disability.
Supported Housing for Substance Misuse and Ex- offenders
The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that 33% current service users identify as having a disability and 67% service users do not identify as having a The majority of the floating support service users do not disability. identify as having a disability. However all service users in the Mental health floating support, rapid response and Older People Floating Support long stay accommodation have mental health needs.
The profile of the current services users (July 2017) shows The EMI Service users all have a disability. that 77% current service users identify as having a disability and 23% do not. Changes to these services will have impacts on disabled people, though this is to be expected with services
112 EMI Floating Support provided to vulnerable clients. The new provision will The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows need to provide support to clients will all different needs that 100% of service users supported by the EMI service and disabilities. In addition, new services will need to have a disability. support older people with and without disabilities and people with mental health related support needs. Mental Health Flexible Floating Support The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that 23% current service users identify as having a disability and 77% do not.
Mental Health Rapid Response Floating Support The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that 90% current service users identify as having a disability and 10% does not.
Mental Health Short Stay Accommodation The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows
8 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
that 36% current service users identify as having a disability and 50% do not, and for 14% service users this status is unknown.
Mental Health Long stay Accommodation Borough wide POPPI data indicates gradual increases The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows over the life of the contract and beyond in people of that 15% current service users identify as having a working age with common mental disorders, and disability and 85% do not. increases in people with BPD and APD. New services and winning providers will need to be aware of these demographic changes and be able to provide POPPI Data: appropriate levels of support. The floating support services are aimed at people with low level mental 2017 2020 2025 health needs and will need to be aware of the increasing People aged 18-64 predicted 25,273 25,676 26,192 numbers of people with two or more psychiatric to have a common mental disorders and the best ways to support them. disorder People aged 18-64 predicted 706 717 731 to have a borderline 113 personality disorder (BPD) The proposal being considered for floating support is People aged 18-64 predicted 553 564 580 that the services are remodelled and re-provided on a to have an antisocial more intensive basis, potentially for a shorter term and to personality disorder (APD) People aged 18-64 predicted 628 638 650 more service users. It is not expected that this will have to have psychotic disorder a major adverse impact on any of the protected People aged 18-64 predicted 11,315 11,507 11,755 characteristics and will provide additional support to to have two or more people with disabilities and mental health needs. How psychiatric disorders this is provided to best meet the needs of people of
people with disabilities and mental health needs will be decided following engagement with providers and service users in advance of the tender process. Some of the feedback around the existing provision has highlighted the points of the service that people would like to see preserved, and this detailed feedback will form the service specification. Gender Reassignment Profile of Harrow residents: The data available for this protected characteristic is
9 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
There is limited data held about this protected limited. This is a nationally recognised issue when characteristic for the population and in relation to these commissioning services, The Transgender Equality groups and services. The England/Wales Census and Report produced by the House of Commons Select Scottish Census have not asked if people identify as Committee published that the Office for National transgender. The charity GIRES estimated in their Home Statistics (ONS) anticipate “some 650,000 people are Office funded study in 2009 the number of transgender likely to be gender incongruent to some degree”. Any people in the UK to be between 300,000 and 500,000. service commissioned must be prepared to work with people who have undergone gender reassignment as Generic Floating Support this figure is expected to rise in coming years.
No data available though it appears that there may be service users who identify as transgender. The proposal being considered for floating support is Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders Floating that the services are remodelled and re-provided on a Support more intensive basis, potentially for a shorter term and to more service users. It is not expected that this will have The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows an adverse impact on any of the protected that all service users indicated that they have not characteristics and will provide additional support to
114 undergone gender reassignment. There is no data people a variety of needs, including taking account of available for the other service users. those who may have undergone, or may be considering gender reassignment. Supported Housing for Substance Misuse and Ex- offenders
No data available.
Older People Floating Support The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that the majority of service users indicated that they have not undergone gender reassignment.
EMI Floating Support The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that no service users indicated that they have undergone gender reassignment
10 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Mental Health Flexible Floating Support The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that no service users indicated that they have undergone gender reassignment
Mental Health Rapid Response Floating Support The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that no service users indicated that they have undergone gender reassignment
Mental Health Short Stay Accommodation The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that no service users indicated that they have undergone gender reassignment
Mental Health Long stay Accommodation The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows 115 that no service users indicated that they have undergone gender reassignment Marriage / Civil The majority of the users of the generic floating support Partnership Profile of Harrow residents at 2011 Census: service and of the substance misuse and ex-offenders In 2011 Harrow had a usual resident population of floating support service are single. All users of the 239,056. Harrow had a very high percentage of married supported housing for substance misuse and ex- couples. 53.7 per cent of residents (aged 16+) were in a offenders service are single. marriage. The borough had lower levels of people with other marital and civil partnership status.
Generic Floating Support
The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that 90% current service users are single, 8% are married and for 2% the information is unknown.
Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders Floating
11 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Support
The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that 89% current service users are single, 3% is married and for 8% the information is unknown.
Supported Housing for Substance Misuse and Ex- offenders Previous consultation related to the provision of mental health related services highlighted that the additional The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows stress and pressure related to reducing support for that all current service users are single. people with mental health needs may put additional stress onto the carers and loved ones of service which in Older People Floating Support turn has a potential to put a strain on marriages and civil The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows partnerships. Consideration of this should be factored that 16% are married and for 84% the information is into future contracting arrangements. unknown.
EMI Floating Support
116 The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows The proposal being considered for floating support is that 35% are married and for 65% the information is that the services are remodelled and re-provided on a unknown. more intensive basis, potentially for a shorter term and to more service users. It is not expected that this will have Mental Health Flexible Floating Support an adverse impact on any of the protected The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows characteristics and will provide additional support to that 5% are married and for 5% the information is unknown people a variety of needs, including taking account of and 90% declined to provide a response to this question. marital/ civil partnership issues that may arise as part of the support required throughout this contract. Mental Health Rapid Response Floating Support The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that 7% is married and for 66% the information is unknown and 27% declined to provide a response to this question.
Mental Health Short Stay Accommodation The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that 14% are married and for 86% the information is
12 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
unknown.
Mental Health Long stay Accommodation The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that for the majority of service users the information is unknown.
Pregnancy and Maternity The data available for this protected characteristic is Profile of Harrow residents: limited. ONS births figures show Harrow as having 3,585 live births in 2012. There is limited data held about this protected characteristic for the population and in relation to these groups and services.
Generic Floating Support
No data available.
117 Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders Floating Support
No data available.
Supported Housing for Substance Misuse and Ex- offenders The proposal being considered for floating support is that the services are remodelled and re-provided on a No data available. more intensive basis, potentially for a shorter term and to more service users. It is not expected that this will have Older People Floating Support an adverse impact on any of the protected Due to the nature of the service, none of the current characteristics and will provide additional support to service users (July 2017) have this protected people a variety of needs, including taking account of characteristic. any needs which might arise in relation to pregnancy and maternity. This may have particular relevance in EMI Floating Support terms of the floating support contract with support Due to the nature of the service, none of the current potentially provided to mothers experiencing post-natal 13 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
service users (July 2017) have this protected depression and other concerns during or following characteristic. pregnancy.
Mental Health Flexible Floating Support None of the current (July 2017) service users have this protected characteristic
Mental Health Rapid Response Floating Support The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that for 18% services users were pregnant or had been in the last two years and 82% had not.
Mental Health Short Stay Accommodation None of the current (July 2017) service users have this protected characteristic
Mental Health Long stay Accommodation None of the current (July 2017) service users have this
118 protected characteristic
Race Profile of Harrow residents at 2011 Census: The majority (53%) of the users of the generic floating In 2011 Harrow had a usual resident population of support service are White/White British, followed by 239,056. In 2011 44% of residents were Asian. Harrow’s Asian/Asian British (16%) and Black/Black British (15%). Indian group was the borough’s largest minority ethnic When compared to the overall population of Harrow group, with a population of 63,050 (26.4%). Other Asian White and Black service users are overrepresented in groups accounted for 11.3% of Harrow’s residents. Sri this client group and Asian service users are Lankans were the largest population group in this category underrepresented. It is not clear at this stage why this in Harrow. 42.2% of residents were White, including 30.9% might be the case but there may be low awareness of (73,830) White British. 8.2% of Harrow’s residents were these support services amongst residents from these categorised in the Other White group, which comprised specific groups and/or referral agencies. There may be people from a large variety of backgrounds (mainly from also other sources of support available through family, other parts of Europe). 9.7% (23,105) of residents were friends or community or faith groups. Black, including Black African (3.6%) Black Caribbean (2.8%) and Other Black (1.8%). 4.1% of residents were A large proportion (46%) of the substance misuse and
14 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
included in the Arab and Other grouping. ex-offenders floating support service users are White, followed by Black (33%) and Asian (16%). When Generic Floating Support compared to the overall population of Harrow Black service users are overrepresented in this client group Profile of current service users at July 2017 and Asian service users are underrepresented. However Asian or Asian British 16% this client group is small (37). Black or Black British 15% Other ethnic background 10% 66% of the service users of the supported housing for White or White British 53% substance misuse and ex-offenders service are White Refused (0) and 33% are Asian. Information not held 6%
Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders Floating Support
Profile of current service users at July 2017 Asian or Asian British 16% Black or Black British 33% 119 Other ethnic background 5% White or White British 46% Refused (0) Information not held (0)
Supported Housing for Substance Misuse and Ex- offenders
Profile of current service users at July 2017 Black or Black British 33% White or White British 66% Refused (0) Information not held (0)
Older People Floating Support Asian/Asian British: Indian 18% Asian/Asian British: Other 12%
15 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Black/ African/Caribbean/Black British: African 12% Black/ African/Caribbean/Black British: Caribbean 17% Mixed/Multiple Ethnic Groups: Other Mixed 6% Other Ethnic Group: Other 6% White: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/ British 23% White: Other 6%
EMI Floating Support Asian/Asian British: 12% Asian/Asian British: Other Asian 12% Asian/Asian British: Pakistani 8% White: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British 68%
Mental Health Flexible Floating Support Asian/Asian British: Bangladeshi 2% Asian/Asian British: Indian 11% Asian/Asian British: Other Asian 5% Asian/Asian British: Pakistani 8%
120 Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: African 3% Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Caribbean 3% Mixed/multiple ethnic groups: White and Black African 4% Mixed/multiple ethnic groups: White and Black Caribbean 6% Other ethnic group: Any other ethnic group 2% White: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British 52% White: Irish 2% White: Other White 2% There is a mix of different backgrounds receiving support from these services, which reflects the diverse make up Mental Health Rapid Response Floating Support of residents in Harrow. One of the key themes from the Asian/Asian British: Bangladeshi 9% survey was that users were grateful to have support and Asian/Asian British: Indian 18% information provided in their own languages, this will be Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: African 18% included within future service specifications to ensure Mixed/multiple ethnic groups: Other Mixed 9% this part of the provision is not lost. Mixed/multiple ethnic groups: White and Asian 9% Mixed/multiple ethnic groups: White and Black African 9%
16 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
White: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British 28% The proposal being considered for floating support is Mental Health Short Stay Accommodation that the services are remodelled and re-provided on a Asian/Asian British: Indian 22% more intensive basis, potentially for a shorter term and to Asian/Asian British: Other Asian 14% more service users. It is not expected that this will have Asian/Asian British: Pakistani 7% an adverse impact on any of the protected Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: African 7% characteristics and will provide additional support to Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Caribbean 7% people with e a variety of needs, The services currently Mixed/multiple ethnic groups: White and Black Caribbean support a mix of ethnicities and any new service 7% procured going forward must continue to do this, and to Other ethnic group: Arab 7% make sure they are equipped to deal with diverse client White: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British 15% groups in a culturally appropriate way. White: Other White 15%
Mental Health Long stay Accommodation Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: African 15% Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Caribbean 8% White: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British 69% 121 White: Other White 8%
Religion and Belief The majority (56%) of the users of the generic floating Profile of Harrow residents at 2011 Census: support service are Christian, followed by Muslim (16%). In 2011 Harrow had a usual resident population of When compared to the overall population of Harrow 239,056. Religious affiliation is very high in Harrow. In 2011 Christian service users are overrepresented in this client 37.3% (89,168) of residents were Christians, 25.3% (60,410) group and Hindu and Jewish service users are were Hindus, 4.4% (10,530) were Jewish and 12.5% (29,880) underrepresented. It is not clear at this stage why this were Muslims 2.5% (5,945) people were followers of Other might be the case but there may be low awareness of Religions, including Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Zoroastrians these support services amongst residents from these 9.6% (22,870) of residents stated that they had no religion specific groups and/or referral agencies. There may be 6.2% didn’t answer this question. also other sources of support available through family, friends or community or faith groups.
Generic Floating Support A large proportion (46%) of the substance misuse and ex-offenders floating support service users are Christian, Profile of current service users at July 2017: followed by No Religion/Atheist (27%). When compared Buddhist 0% 17 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Christian 56% to the overall population of Harrow Christian service Hindu 9% users are overrepresented in this client group and Hindu Jain 0% and Jewish service users are underrepresented. Jewish 1% However this client group is small. Muslim 16% Sikh 0% 46% of service users of the supported housing for Zoroastrian 0% substance misuse and ex-offenders service are No religion/Atheist 2% Christian. Christian service users are overrepresented Other 14% and service users from other faiths are Refused 0% underrepresented. Information not held 2%
Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders Floating It is not expected that this proposal will have an adverse Support impact on any of the protected characteristics and will provide additional support to people with a variety of Profile of current service users at July 2017: needs continuing to support people of all religions and Buddhist 0% beliefs in an appropriate way that takes account of the Christian 46% requirements associated with different religious
122 Hinduism 8% backgrounds. Jainism 0% Judaism 0% Muslim 8% Sikh 0% Zoroastrian 0% No religion/Atheist 27% Other 11% Refused 0% Information not held 0%
Supported Housing for Substance Misuse and Ex- offenders
Profile of current service users at July 2017: 83% Christian 17% Other religion 18 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Older People Floating Support Buddhist 3% Christian 61% Hindu 6% Muslim 10% Religion not stated 16% Sikh 4%
EMI Floating Support Buddhist 4% Christian 53% Hindu 19% Jewish 4% Muslim 8% No Religion 4% Religion not stated 8%
123 Mental Health Flexible Floating Support Christian 41% Hindu 7% Muslim 14% No religion 29% Other religion 7% Sikh 2%
Mental Health Rapid Response Floating Support Christian 47% Muslim 7% No religion 40% Other religion 6%
Mental Health Short Stay Accommodation Christian 51% Muslim 21%
19 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
No religion 7% Other religion 7% Religion not stated 14%
Mental Health Long stay Accommodation Christian 76% Jewish 8% No religion 8% Other religion 8%
Sex / Gender The proposal being considered for floating support is that the services are remodelled and re-provided on a Profile of Harrow residents at 2011: more intensive basis, potentially for a shorter term and to Harrow had a usual resident population of 239,056. more service users. 49.4 per cent of residents were males and 50.6 per cent were females. It is not expected that this will have an adverse impact on any of the protected characteristics and will provide Generic Floating Support additional support to people with a variety of needs 124 continuing to support people of both gender. , This service is for adult men and adult women. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that 54 59% service users are women and 40% are men. 1% service user identifies as transgender (no further details available).
Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders Floating Support
This service is for adult men and adult women. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that of the current service users 73% are men and 27% are women.
Supported Housing for Substance Misuse and Ex- offenders
All current service users are men, as at July 2017. 20 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Older People Floating Support This service is for adult men and adult women. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that there is an almost even split between male and female service users.
EMI Floating Support This service is for adult men and adult women. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that of the current service users 35% are men and 65% are women.
Mental Health Flexible Floating Support This service is for adult men and adult women. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that of the current service users 43% are men and 57% are women.
Mental Health Rapid Response Floating Support 125 This service is for adult men and adult women. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that of the current service users 58% are men and 42% are women.
Mental Health Short Stay Accommodation This service is for adult men and adult women. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that of the current service users 79% are men and 21% are women.
Mental Health Long stay Accommodation This service is for adult men and adult women. The profile of the current service users (July 2017) shows that of the current service users 69% are men and 31% are women. Sexual Orientation The ONS advises that in 2015, 1.7% of the UK population The majority of the users of the generic floating support identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB). In service are heterosexual. All users of the substance 2015, the population of London had the largest percentage misuse and ex-offenders floating support service and of who identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual the supported housing for substance misuse and ex-
21 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
(LGB) at 2.6%. offenders service are heterosexual.
Profile of Harrow residents: There is limited data held about this protected characteristic for the population and in relation to these groups and services.
Nationally gathered statistics by the University of Cambridge (and published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine) stated that 12% of lesbian women and 19% of bisexual women reported mental health problems. This is compared to 6% of heterosexual women. 11% gay men and 15% bisexual men reported mental health problems, compared to just 5% of straight/ heterosexual males.
Generic Floating Support
126 Profile of current service users at July 2017 96% heterosexual 3% did not wish to disclose The proposal being considered for floating support is 1% bisexual that the services are remodelled and re-provided on a more intensive basis, potentially for a shorter term and to Substance Misuse and Ex-offenders Floating more service users. It is not expected that this will have Support an adverse impact on any of the protected characteristics and will provide additional support to Profile of current service users at July 2017 people with a variety of needs. 100% heterosexual The new service will need to be respectful of the needs Supported Housing for Substance Misuse and Ex- of the LGBT community and be aware of specific support offenders provided to this group, especially in relation to the mental health services. All current service users are heterosexual, as at July 2017.
22 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Older People Floating Support Homosexual 4.5% Heterosexual 91% No Response 4.5%
EMI Floating Support Heterosexual 92% Unknown/No response 8%
Mental Health Flexible Floating Support Heterosexual 86% Unknown/ No Response 24%
Mental Health Rapid Response Floating Support Heterosexual 100%
Mental Health Short Stay Accommodation 127 Heterosexual 93% Unknown/ No Response 7%
Mental Health Long stay Accommodation Heterosexual 100%
Stage 3: Assessing Potential Disproportionate Impact 5. Based on the evidence you have considered so far, is there a risk that your proposals could potentially have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the Protected Characteristics? Age Disability Gender Marriage Pregnancy and Race Religion and Sex Sexual (including (including Reassignment and Civil Maternity Belief Orientation carers) carers) Partnership Yes No YES - If there is a risk of disproportionate adverse Impact on any ONE of the Protected Characteristics, complete a FULL EqIA.
23 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
. Best Practice: You may want to consider setting up a Working Group (including colleagues, partners, stakeholders, voluntary community sector organisations, service users and Unions) to develop the rest of the EqIA . It will be useful to also collate further evidence (additional data, consultation with the relevant communities, stakeholder groups and service users directly affected by your proposals) to further assess the potential disproportionate impact identified and how this can be mitigated.
. NO - If you have ticked ‘No’ to all of the above, then go to Stage 6
. Although the assessment may not have identified potential disproportionate impact, you may have identified actions which can be taken to advance equality of opportunity to make your proposals more inclusive. These actions should form your Improvement Action Plan at Stage 6
Stage 4: Further Consultation / Additional Evidence 6. What further consultation have you undertaken on your proposals as a result of your analysis at Stage 3?
Who was consulted? What do the results show about the impact on What actions have you taken to address the What consultation methods were used? different groups / Protected Characteristics? findings of the consultation? E.g. revising your 128 proposals Postal survey of current service users The results from the survey are in line with the Further consultation with service users to August/Sept 2017 data in the table above. The survey highlighted understand the impacts of changing this some concerns about potential impacts on service, took place on 19th October 2017. The mental health and older people and requested results of this survey feed into the comments additional support/ information. and actions detailed above, and provide considerations for the new service One of the key messages from the service specification. One of the clear highlights was a users in the postal survey was support need to ensure material is available in different provided in their own language. languages and the availability of translator/ interpreter support.
The new service will need to ensure they have access to translators and interpreters and are
24 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
able to provide support in the client’s language – this will form one of the requirements of the service specification. Market Engagement Event with providers and Providers highlighted the need to ensure Further consultation with service users to the Voluntary Community Sector on 12 service users were not adversely impacted by understand the impacts of changing this October (Face to Face) the proposal and wanted to make sure that the service, on 19th October 2017 Service users transition takes account of the needs of service during this consultation discussed the impacts users, in relation to care and support and their on vulnerable people and stressed the need for protected characteristics. the process to be managed in a sensitive way that takes account of the needs of individuals Providers expressed concerns about limiting in terms of their vulnerability and their the hours (as the current contracts do) and protected characteristics. One of the clear instead welcomed room for creative ways to highlights was a need to ensure material is deliver support. available in different languages and the availability of translator/ interpreter support. Service User consultation event on 19 October Service users highlighted the things that Officers have recorded all concerns, (Face to Face) mattered most to them about the service and suggestions and ideas and will factor these into 129 in particular the parts of the service they would the new service specification. be afraid to lose. Stage 5: Assessing Impact 7. What does your evidence tell you about the impact on the different Protected Characteristics? Consider whether the evidence shows potential for differential impact, if so state whether this is a positive or an adverse impact? If adverse, is it a minor or major impact? Protected Positive Adverse Impact Explain what this impact is, how likely it is to What measures can you take to mitigate the Characteristic Impact happen and the extent of impact if it was to impact or advance equality of opportunity? occur. E.g. further consultation, research, implement Minor Major Note – Positive impact can also be used to equality monitoring etc demonstrate how your proposals meet the (Also Include these in the Improvement aims of the PSED Stage 7 Action Plan at Stage 6)
While this proposal is a positive change, it is As a result any change will need to be Age (including impacting on people who do not always respond sensitively delivered and carefully managed to change easily. and monitored post implementation. carers of young/older 25 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
people)
While this proposal is a positive change, it is As a result any change will need to be Disability impacting on people who do not always respond sensitively delivered and carefully managed to change easily. and monitored post implementation. (including carers of disabled people)
Gender Reassignment
Marriage and Civil
130 Partnership
Pregnancy and Maternity
Race
Religion or Belief
Sex 26 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
Sexual orientation
8. Cumulative Impact – Considering what else is happening within the Yes x No Council and Harrow as a whole, could your proposals have a cumulative The service provision in the Borough will change as a result of this impact on a particular Protected Characteristic? proposal. This is in addition to changes and reductions in finances to
VCS organisations and may have a cumulative impact on the ability If yes, which Protected Characteristics could be affected and what is the to access support for service users primarily from the Age and potential impact? Disability related characteristics. 9. Any Other Impact – Considering what else is happening within the Yes x No Council and Harrow as a whole (for example national/local policy, There are lots of changes proposed that impact on vulnerable austerity, welfare reform, unemployment levels, community tensions, people, including changes to benefits allowances, support provision levels of crime) could your proposals have an impact on individuals/service in the community and other changes. While this proposal is a
131 users socio economic, health or an impact on community cohesion? positive change, it is impacting on people who do not always
respond to change easily. As a result any change will need to be If yes, what is the potential impact and how likely is it to happen? sensitively delivered and carefully managed. Stage 6 – Improvement Action Plan List below any actions you plan to take as a result of this Impact Assessment. These should include:
Proposals to mitigate any adverse impact identified Positive action to advance equality of opportunity Monitoring the impact of the proposals/changes once they have been implemented Any monitoring measures which need to be introduced to ensure effective monitoring of your proposals? How often will you do this? Area of potential Proposal to mitigate adverse impact How will you know this has been Lead Officer/Team Target Date adverse impact e.g. achieved? E.g. Performance Race, Disability Measure / Target
27 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
All areas A method statement question will be Procurement process Procurement December included in the procurement process to ascertain how the provider will make their service accessible and will provide an inclusive service. This should include regard to language and culture. All areas Diversity data will be requested as part of Quarterly monitoring records Housing (BDT- Housing Quarterly the quarterly monitoring of the new Strategy) and Adults contracts. These will be reviewed and any trends will be identified and discussed. Gender Clarity will be sought on this data during the Quarterly monitoring records Housing (BDT- Housing Quarterly Reassignment / quarterly monitoring of the new contracts to Strategy) and Adults Pregnancy and understand whether any service users Maternity identify as having undergone gender reassignment as there is limited data. Age / Disability Post implementation monitoring will be Quarterly monitoring records Housing (BDT- Housing September 132 conducted to identify any potential impact. Strategy) and Adults 2018 Stage 7: Public Sector Equality Duty 10. How do your proposals meet the Public Sector Equality Duty The provision of housing related support services tailored to the needs of (PSED) to: service users assists vulnerable people to live independently and therefore 1. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation contributes to equality of opportunity. We propose to continue to support and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010 vulnerable residents but the proposal out for consultation is that the service 2. Advance equality of opportunity between people from different is remodelled and re-provided on an intensive basis, shorter term and to groups more service users. 3. Foster good relations between people from different groups Stage 8: Recommendation 11. Which of the following statements best describes the outcome of your EqIA ( tick one box only) Outcome 1 – No change required: the EqIA has not identified any potential for unlawful conduct or disproportionate impact and all opportunities to advance equality of opportunity are being addressed. Outcome 2 – Minor Impact: Minor adjustments to remove / mitigate adverse impact or advance equality of opportunity have been
28 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
identified by the EqIA and these are included in the Action Plan to be addressed. Outcome 3 – Major Impact: Continue with proposals despite having identified potential for adverse impact or missed opportunities to advance equality of opportunity. In this case, the justification needs to be included in the EqIA and should be in line with the PSED to have ‘due regard’. In some cases, compelling reasons will be needed. You should also consider whether there are sufficient plans to reduce the adverse impact and/or plans to monitor the impact. (Explain this in Q12 below) 12. If your EqIA is assessed as outcome 3 explain your justification with full reasoning to continue with your proposals.
Stage 9 - Organisational sign Off 13. Which group or committee Chair of Community DETG considered, reviewed and agreed the Chair of People DETG EqIA and the Improvement Action Plan?
Jane Fernley J. Morgan Signed: (Lead officer completing EqIA) Signed: (Chair of DETG) 133 Chris Greenway Dave Corby
7.11.2017 7.11.2017 Date: Date: 7.11.2017 7.11.2017
Signature of DETG Chair Date EqIA presented at Cabinet (following Cabinet Briefing if Briefing (if required) relevant)
29 Harrow Council Equality Impact Assessment Template – March 2016
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10 Pages 135 to 148
REPORT FOR: CABINET
Date of Meeting: 16 November 2017
Subject: Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update 2017
Key Decision: Yes
Responsible Officer: Nick Powell, Divisional Director of Housing
Dawn Calvert, Director of Finance
Portfolio Holder: Councillor Glen Hearnden, Portfolio Holder Housing and Employment
Councillor Adam Swersky, Portfolio Holder Finance and Commercialisation
Exempt: No
Decision subject to Yes
Call-in:
Wards affected: All
Enclosures: Appendix 1 Schedule of assumptions Appendix 2 Revenue account, projections Appendix 3 Capital account, projections
Section 1 – Summary and Recommendations
This report provides an update to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Business Plan approved in July 2015, and highlights the key assumptions required to reflect the current regulatory and economic climate. The
1351 projections reflect the long term aspirations to be achieved through the Business Plan and specifically how the Council intends to mitigate impact of provisions contained within the Welfare Reform & Work Act 2016 and the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which have required assumptions underlying the 2015 Business Plan to be significantly revised.
Recommendations: Cabinet is requested to approve the HRA Business Plan update 2017
Reason: (For recommendation) To have in place an agreed 30 year HRA Business Plan for the purposes of long term planning (subject to annual review) and to enable delivery of previously agreed key housing objectives.
Section 2 – Report
Introduction
1. In response to significantly reduced resources projected to be available within the HRA as a result of reduced rental income, the figures shown in the latest Business Plan reflect a reduction in the cost base of the HRA required to maintain revenue and capital resources at a safe level. Although savings have been identified as part of a service review programme, further cost reductions and increases in income are required to ensure viability of the Council’s HRA. It is therefore imperative the remaining cost reductions and income maximisation opportunities are fully implemented as soon as possible.
2. The HRA Business Plan supports services across the Council and complement other documents such as the Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy, Economic Development, Delivering Warmer Homes Strategy, and Climate Change Strategies. The availability of good quality affordable housing is fundamental especially to households affected by welfare reform and to other vulnerable groups such as looked after children and vulnerable adults.
3. Consultation has included engagement with Tenants, Leaseholders & Residents and the Value for Money Group on the rental and service charges strategy, as well as the planned investment and new build programmes.
Options considered
4. The statutory rent reduction has removed any discretion the Council previously had in respect of rent setting (annual rent increases of CPI +1% were previously permitted) therefore the only options available to revise the Business Plan are the review of the cost base and other income sources.
5. Council approved the HRA budget for 2017-18 and HRA MTFS 2018-19 to 2019-20 which included revenue savings of £1.15m which, although
1362
delivering a sustainable medium term position, would result in deficits in excess of £800k per annum in the longer term causing the HRA to become unviable.
6. To prevent this further revenue savings of £750k, in addition to the approved £1.15m are required to stabilise the revenue position in the longer term yielding an overall viable Business Plan although it has been assumed these cost reductions are phased in over the first three years to permit time for implementation (e.g. consultation with residents and stakeholders), and this has been used to update the Business Plan.
7. Council has been in active discussions with the Department of Communities & Local Government (DCLG) with the aim of gaining flexibilities on some aspects of the new legislation, specifically around the conditions attached to the re-investment of retained Right-to-Buy receipts, potential reversal of impairment losses for HRA non-dwellings and around the Government imposed borrowing cap. These discussions are predicated on the Council formulating a viable Business Plan therefore a permanent reduction in the revenue cost base of £1.90m has been assumed.
HRA Business Plan
8. The HRA business plan update has been developed from the previous business plan approved in July 2015 and reflects current thinking about areas such as general inflation, national rental policy, Right-to-Buy (RTB) sales, works cost inflation, and interest rates. A schedule of the assumptions used to construct the business plan is attached as Appendix 1, but it should be noted changes to underlying assumptions will impact on the projections.
9. Assumptions around the affordable homes programme have been revised with the estimated number of units down from 100 in the 2015 version to 73 units driven mainly by a reduction in the number of new build units and suspension of the purchase & repairs programme.
10. In addition to the statutory rent reduction the HRA has a limit on its borrowing capacity. For this reason, a successful bid to the Local Growth Fund for additional borrowing to support new affordable housing was made, and it has been assumed the Council will the borrow the remaining £5.242m by 31st March 2018 which will result in the HRA reaching its prescribed borrowing limit on this date.
11. The Grange Farm regeneration scheme is also included which involves the demolition of the entire estate and rebuilding a mixture of new affordable and new private sale housing on the site undertaken directly by Council as opposed to transferring the homes to a Housing Association partner for them to carry out the regeneration, as was the case with both Rayner’s Lane and Mill Farm.
12. Retained Right to Buy receipts are assumed to be utilised on all eligible expenditure with the repayment and interest assumed to be returned to Government, and this is reflected in the updated Business Plan. There
1373
are proposals, submitted to Cabinet 14th September 2017, however, to part fund new build schemes by Registered Providers in return for nomination rights which will provide increased housing options for residents and assist in reducing pressures on the General Fund homelessness budgets as well as prevent the return of these receipts and associated interest to Government.
13. Significantly, the updated HRA Business Plan assumes a permanent reduction in net revenue expenditure of £1.90m per annum which is the subject of a well progressed Service Review programme focussing on a review of staffing and non-staffing costs as well as maximisation of income streams not subject to statutory restrictions to ensure full cost recovery. This represents further reduction in net revenue expenditure of £750k in addition to the £1.15m already approved as part of the approved budget. All cost reductions are phased in over the first four years of the Business Plan to permit consultation with stakeholders and implementation. In practice it is a permanent plan to achieve these reductions in net costs will be achieved by a combination of measures including a revision of all income streams (e.g. tenant service charges) to ensure full cost recovery as well as cost reductions. The table below summarises progress of the Service Review programme against the required reductions in net expenditure.
Table 1 : Progress of Service Reviews Programme
Required Expected Cumulative, Expected to Cumulative, reduction in to be Cumulative, impact on be achieved, (Under) / Year annual net achieved, expected to revenue staffing Over revenue repairs be achieved balances review achieved expenditure review
2017-18 0 0 131 600 731 731
2018-19 300 300 250 -100 881 581
2019-20 1,225 1,525 5 0 886 -639
2020-21 375 1,900 0 0 886 -1,014
2021-22 0 1,900 0 0 886 -1,014
Results of Service Reviews indicate early cost reductions can be achieved from staffing and repairs expenditure which means the £1.90m target, which is phased in over the first four years of the Business Plan, can be met however further reductions in overall net expenditure will be required from 2019-20 onwards to ensure the cumulative impact on revenue balances is achieved in line with the Business Plan. It is expected this will be achieved through a combination of increases in tenant and leaseholder service charges and further reductions in overall expenditure.
1384
14. The Housing Management Team are implementing the Service Reviews in line with the stated terms of reference which will ensure : Financial and other targets are met Consistency across projects and services Clarity on strategic and financial priorities and dependencies Effective communication with key stakeholders
15. Routine capital expenditure has been reduced to an average of £6.2m for the life of the Business Plan, before allowing for inflation, as a result of prioritising statutory and Health & Safety works given the restrictions on borrowing. The impact of this reduced level of investment is being considered on revenue repairs expenditure and further reductions may become necessary to accommodate the Government’s High Value Voids Levy which has not been allowed for. The reduction in capital expenditure will be achieved by scaling back non-essential capital works in consultation with tenants and leaseholders.
16. Other than the items mentioned above, assumptions around the main cost drivers are set out below:
a. Ongoing management cost assumptions – management costs are assumed to be at the level included in the budget and MTFS to 2018-19 and to continue at that level, as adjusted for inflation only where contractually or legally required thereafter. Costs will be reviewed to ensure they are commensurate with stock numbers.
b. Ongoing revenue maintenance assumptions – revenue maintenance costs are assumed to be at the level included in the budget, as adjusted for inflation only where contractually or legally required thereafter. Costs will be reviewed to ensure they are commensurate with stock numbers.
c. Right-to-Buy sales – discounts currently at a maximum of £103,900 has resulted in a sustained level in sales under RTB, with 31 properties sold in 2016-17 and 35 the year before. It has been assumed sales will be 35 per annum for the first three years of the Business Plan, dropping to 20 per annum for the following two years, then 15 per annum thereafter.
d. Rental income – Dwelling rents for both non-sheltered and sheltered units assumed to reduce by statutory 1% per annum until 31st March 2020, then revert to CPI + 1% from 2020-21; Government confirmed on 4th October this will be the case for five years from 2020 with policy for subsequent years to be clarified by future Government announcements, therefore there is a risk the Business Plan will require significant revision if rents are not increased by CPI + 1% after 2025-26.
e. Bad debt provision – assumed £250k as set out in appendix 1, although this will be kept under review given the adverse impact expected on cash recovery from implementation of Universal Credit
1395
17. The Business Plan is based on a set of assumptions therefore there is a risk of significant changes in the revenue and capital account projections should any of these assumptions fail to materialise. The main risks underpinning the Business Plan are set out below :
Rent policy – Government has committed to a CPI + 1% increase for only five years beyond 2020-21; in the absence of further guidance the Business Plan assumes this will continue for the full life of the plan although the next update of the Business Plan will be revised for the impact of further announcements
High Value Voids levy – capital expenditure is limited by the resources available and, significantly, by the presence of the borrowing cap which limits the investment in stock; this therefore means no provision has been made for payment of the Government’s high value voids levy. Depending on the amount, additional resources will have to be found to pay this although Government has yet to clarify if this policy is to be implemented and how; as with rent policy, the next update of the Business Plan will include the impact of further announcements
Welfare Reforms – Government’s programme of reforms includes the introduction of Universal Credit which is expected to have a significant impact on debt collections and therefore the bad debt provision; the debt profile will therefore have to be monitored and assumptions around collection rates modified
Right to Buys – these continue to reduce the stock of the HRA and are not fully offset by new build therefore the Service Reviews will have to ensure the service cost are kept at a commensurate level
Redundancy provisions – the HRA has no provisions with which to pay for redundancy costs or additional pension strain costs arising from staffing restructures therefore these will have to be factored into further Service Reviews aimed at achieving the full £1.90m reduction in net revenue expenditure.
18. An additional factor taken into account in constructing the budget and business plan is the extent to which initiatives undertaken within the HRA can benefit the general fund. Examples of this include the existing new build programme, whereby the development of additional housing will provide a net income stream to the HRA, whilst at the same time easing pressure on homelessness budgets by enabling people on the waiting list to be housed. Additionally, the HRA grants to move scheme helps to free up bed spaces, reduce under occupation and potentially assist those affected by the spare-room subsidy changes, and again, potentially enable people on the waiting list to be housed, thus reducing the use of expensive Bed & Breakfast accommodation to meet short- term housing need.
1406
19. The Table below summarises the key outputs from the Business Plan as at years 5, 10 and 15, based on the current information available and assumptions listed in Appendix 1. These are the cumulative revenue balances together with the cost reductions assumed to generate these (table 1 sets out the trajectory of achievement of the £5.625m revenue cost reductions in the first five years) together with the cumulative capital expenditure assumed.
Table 2 : Summary of cumulative revenue and capital expenditure
Financial year Estimated revenue Cost reductions Capital expenditure reserves at end of assumed in revenue, incl New Build, financial yr cumulative cumulative 2021-22, to yr 5 £4.421m £5.625m £57.855m
2026-27, to yr 10 £11.519m £15.125m £94.727m
2031-32, to yr 15 £33.963m £24.625m £136.900m
20. On the assumption dwelling rents increase from 2020-21 by CPI + 1% the HRA revenue position is projected to generate sustainable and fully funded revenue and capital positions, including Council building its own. This also assumes there will be a permanent reduction in net revenue expenditure of £1.90m phased in over the first three years of the Business Plan.
21. If the assumed level of revenue cost reductions cannot be achieved the Business Plan there is the risk the HRA will become unviable so significant changes to the assumptions of the Business Plan may be required.
22. Council is in discussions with DCLG regarding a range of possible scenarios, each of which is based on this Business Plan. The scenarios model the financial impact of delivering new units in line with stated Government objectives and assume certain flexibilities are granted related to borrowing capacity, use of retained “141” RTB receipts and certain technical accounting adjustments which would free up HRA resources.
23. Approval of this Business Plan will update the financial strategy of the Council’s Housing business within which the annual HRA budget sits. The draft HRA budget for 2018-19 and MTFS for 2019-20 to 2020-21 which will be submitted to Cabinet in December for rent setting, will therefore operate within the framework set out by the Business Plan.
Risk Management Implications
24. Business Plan is based on a set of assumptions which, if changed, will have a significant impact on both Revenue and Capital resources which will impact on investment decisions in the Council’s Housing stock.
25. Key assumptions underpinning the Business Plan are set out in paragraph 17 and these are included in the risk register.
1417
Legal implications
26. Council, as a local housing authority, must maintain a Housing Revenue Account (HRA) in accordance with s74 of the Local Government & Housing Act 1989. HRA must include sums falling to be credited or debited in accordance with the category of properties listed within s74(1), which consists primarily of Council housing stock. HRA must include any capital expenditure on housing stock which a Local Authority has decided to charge to revenue. Save in accordance with a direction of the Secretary of State, sums may not be transferred between HRA or General Fund, therefore HRA is ring-fenced and cannot be used to subsidise a budget deficit within General Fund, neither can General Fund be used to subsidise a budget deficit in HRA. s76 of 1989 Act requires Local Authorities to formulate and implement proposals to secure HRA for each financial year does not show a debit balance. If a debit occurs, this must be carried forward to next financial year.
Financial Implications
27. Although financial implications are contained within the body of the report the table below summarises the estimated impact on revenue balances of the assumptions in this update being implemented.
28. HRA Budget and MTFS approved by Council in March 2017 assumed a permanent reduction in revenue expenditure of £1.15m phased in £300k 2018-19 followed by a further £850k 2018-20.
29. Although this stabilised the medium term position, the updated HRA Business Plan has indicated further cost reductions of £750k are required to stabilise the longer term position
30. Table 1 sets out the phasing in of these cost reductions over the first four years of the Business Plan together with the impact of early cost reductions already identified, and shows additional cost reductions are required from 2019-20 onwards in order to achieve a permanent reduction in revenue expenditure of £1.90m per annum in line with the Business Plan.
31. Capital expenditure on the HRA General programme has also been reduced by £2.4m per annum from £8.6m to £6.2m given the continued presence of the limitation on borrowing.
32. Other on-going financial challenges such as the potential for further rent reductions beyond 2025, impact of Welfare Reforms which will have a detrimental impact on the bad debt provision and the possible high value voids levy make the above cost reductions in revenue and capital mandatory to stabilise the financial position in the HRA and enable continued investment in the stock
33. The assumptions underpinning this version of the Business Plan are inherently subject to change therefore the next version of the Business
1428
Plan will take into account the impact of further Government announcements and potential policy changes.
34. Approval of this Business Plan will update the financial strategy of the Council’s Housing business within which the annual HRA budget sits. The draft HRA budget for 2018-19 and MTFS for 2019-20 to 2020-21 which will be submitted to Cabinet in December for rent setting, will therefore operate within the framework set out by the Business Plan.
Equalities implications/Public Sector Equality Duty
Pursuant to Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”), Council, in exercise of its functions, has to have ‘due regard’ to (i) eliminating discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act; (ii) advancing equality of opportunity between those with a relevant protected characteristic and those without; and (iii) fostering good relations between those with a relevant protected characteristic and those without. The relevant protected characteristics are age, race, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The duty also covers marriage and civil partnership, but to a limited extent.
When making decisions, the Council must take account of the equality duty and in particular any potential impact on protected groups. There are no new equality impacts of the recommendations contained within this report as it represents a continuation of existing policy.
Council Priorities
35. This report incorporates the following council priorities:
Making a difference for the vulnerable – through providing support in finding appropriate affordable housing solutions to meet need, and developing new housing to meet future assessed need.
Making a difference for communities – through engaging residents in decisions around regeneration of estates and the wider communities, and delivering housing that people want to live in, in areas they are proud to call home.
Making a difference for local businesses – through supporting the council-wide regeneration agenda, and maximising the contribution that new housing can make towards delivering the regeneration vision and objectives.
Making a difference for families – through providing good quality housing and safe neighbourhoods, and targeting our resources as best we can so that families can feel the full benefits of economic growth. Our priority for every family is to ensure that they can live in a neighbourhood which has a real sense of community, in a house they can be proud to call their home.
1439
Section 3 - Statutory Officer Clearance
Name: Dawn Calvert x Chief Financial Officer
Date: 17 October 2017
on behalf of the Name: Sarah Wilson x Monitoring Officer
Date: 27 October 2017
Ward Councillors notified: NO – because all wards are affected by the report.
Section 4 - Contact Details and Background Papers
Contact: Milan Joshi, Service Accountant – Housing & Regeneration, Tel 020 8416 8662 or email [email protected]
Background Papers: None.
Call-In Waived by the NOT APPLICABLE
Chairman of Overview [Call-in applies] and Scrutiny Committee
14410 Appendix 1
Housing Revenue Account business plan assumptions schedule General inflation (RPI) 2.5% from year 2 Rent Inflation (CPI) 3% year 2, then 2% thereafter Average rent 2017-18 £112.58 pwk Rent reduction & increases Statutory 1% p.a. reduction to 2019-20, then 3% p.a increase Voids In line with budget assumptions Bad Debt Provision £250k pa from 2017-18 onwards; under review to assess impact of Universal Credit which is being implemented in phases from 2017-18 Tenanted service charges 2017-18 average £2.99 pwk, inflated CPI + 1% Leasehold service charges 2017-18 Ave £8.70 pwk, inflation 4.2% from year 2 Facilities charges £653k pa 2017-18 mostly inflated at RPI Garage rents £238k no Inflation assumed due to condition and void rates Shops £284k pa inflated at RPI Halls £62k pa inflated at RPI RTB sales 35 per annum to year 3 20 per annum years 4 – 5 15 per annum thereafter RTB receipts assumed used for capital funding. Other disposals of stock None currently assumed Management costs In line with budget assumptions, inflation 1% below RPI due to lower than RPI pay inflation and inflation freeze on non- contractual expenditure; proportion of expenditure assumed to vary with stock 10% Investment in services £200k p.a., inflation 1% below RPI SSCs £3,700k 2017-18, inflation 1% below RPI Contingency budget £200k 2017-18, inflation 1% below RPI Rent rebate subsidy Nil, for 2017-18 ave rent £112.58, limit rent £114.72 limitation Depreciation 2017-18 £7,313k (dwellings £7,075k, non-dwellings £238k) Varies with stock numbers, ave £1,460 per dwelling, no inflation Overall neutral impact on resources; transfer to Major Repairs Reserve to fund capital expenditure. Capital investment Assumes Yr 1 £12.4m (including re-phasing from prior yr) then expenditure £6.2m annually plus inflation; no provision for High Value Voids Revenue repairs £8,716k per annum, inflation 1% below RPI yr 2, RPI thereafter New Build Phase 1 42 units by end 2017-18 37 affordable rent, 5 shared ownership; estimated cost £9.4m Phase 2 24 units by end 2018-19 All affordable rent; estimated cost £3.1m Currently assumed funded from additional borrowing approvals plus existing resources, including RTB receipts, affordable housing pot, grant and revenue contributions. Capital Financing Combination of Major Repairs Reserve, Revenue contributions and capital receipts, some s20 receipts in first four years Capital programme fully financed HRA working balance Assumed minimum requirement £2m yrs, current projections indicate balance exceeds for whole term of plan however this is before assuming high value voids levy and assumes full achievement of revenue cost reductions and rent increases CPI+1% from 2020-21 HRA debt Limit on indebtedness £154.843m; Opening CFR £149.537m, expected to borrow £5.242m Local Growth Fund approved, so close to limit end of 2017-18 Interest rate 4.24% yr 1 – 6, 5% thereafter Interest on balances 0.46% yr 1 -2, 3% thereafter
145 11
Revenue account, projections £'000 Income Expenditure Income Other Surplus Surplus Surplus Net rent Other Misc Total Responsive & Revenue Misc Total Capital Net Operating (Deficit) for (Deficit) (Deficit) Year Income income Income Income Managt. Depreciation Cyclical spend expenses expenses Charges (Expenditure) RCCO the Year b/fwd Interest c/fwd £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 2017.18 29,540 1,527 1,255 32,322 -10,703 -7,314 -8,712 -581 0 -27,310 -6,410 -1,398 0 -1,398 6,894 71 5,568 2018.19 29,488 1,551 1,275 32,315 -10,867 -7,327 -8,894 -590 308 -27,372 -6,521 -1,578 0 -1,578 5,568 63 4,053 2019.20 29,782 1,576 1,296 32,654 -11,029 -7,319 -9,111 -600 1,602 -26,456 -6,516 -318 0 -318 4,053 72 3,807 2020.21 29,952 1,602 1,318 32,872 -11,190 -7,267 -9,329 -609 2,046 -26,349 -6,516 7 0 7 3,807 77 3,891 2021.22 30,748 1,628 1,340 33,716 -11,355 -7,238 -9,551 -619 2,097 -26,666 -6,595 456 0 456 3,891 75 4,421 2022.23 31,564 1,655 1,363 34,582 -11,523 -7,209 -9,781 -629 2,150 -26,992 -6,599 991 0 991 4,421 73 5,486 2023.24 32,401 1,683 1,386 35,470 -11,692 -7,179 -10,018 -639 2,203 -27,325 -7,769 376 0 376 5,486 75 5,936 2024.25 33,900 1,711 1,410 37,022 -11,865 -7,150 -10,260 -650 2,259 -27,666 -7,769 1,586 0 1,586 5,936 82 7,605 2025.26 34,158 1,741 1,435 37,334 -12,040 -7,121 -10,509 -660 2,315 -28,015 -7,769 1,550 0 1,550 7,605 89 9,244 2026.27 35,097 1,771 1,460 38,328 -12,218 -7,099 -10,764 -671 2,373 -28,379 -7,769 2,180 0 2,180 9,244 95 11,519 2027.28 36,061 1,803 1,486 39,349 -12,399 -7,077 -11,026 -682 2,432 -28,752 -7,769 2,828 0 2,828 11,519 103 14,449 2028.29 37,051 1,835 1,512 40,398 -12,582 -7,055 -11,295 -693 2,493 -29,132 -7,769 3,496 0 3,496 14,449 113 18,059 2029.30 38,068 1,868 1,539 41,476 -12,769 -7,033 -11,570 -705 2,555 -29,521 -7,769 4,185 0 4,185 18,059 129 22,372 2030.31 39,865 1,902 1,567 43,335 -12,958 -7,011 -11,852 -717 2,619 -29,918 -7,769 5,647 0 5,647 22,372 147 28,167 146 2031.32 40,187 1,937 1,596 43,720 -13,149 -6,989 -12,141 -729 2,685 -30,323 -7,769 5,627 0 5,627 28,167 168 33,963 2032.33 41,289 1,973 1,625 44,888 -13,344 -6,967 -12,437 -741 2,752 -30,737 -7,769 6,381 -1,561 4,821 33,963 190 38,973 2033.34 42,422 2,011 1,655 46,088 -13,541 -6,945 -12,740 -753 2,821 -31,159 -7,769 7,159 -1,905 5,254 38,973 214 44,442 2034.35 43,586 2,049 1,685 47,320 -13,742 -6,923 -13,050 -766 2,891 -31,590 -7,769 7,961 -2,155 5,806 44,442 241 50,490 2035.36 45,642 2,089 1,717 49,448 -13,945 -6,901 -13,369 -779 2,963 -32,031 -7,769 9,648 -2,410 7,238 50,490 273 58,000 2036.37 46,009 2,130 1,749 49,888 -14,152 -6,879 -13,694 -793 3,037 -32,480 -7,769 9,638 -2,672 6,966 58,000 308 65,274 2037.38 47,271 2,172 1,782 51,224 -14,361 -6,857 -14,028 -806 3,113 -32,939 -7,769 10,516 -2,940 7,576 65,274 343 73,193 2038.39 48,567 2,215 1,816 52,597 -14,573 -6,835 -14,370 -820 3,191 -33,408 -7,769 11,420 -3,214 8,207 73,193 382 81,782 2039.40 49,898 2,259 1,850 54,008 -14,789 -6,813 -14,721 -834 3,271 -33,886 -7,769 12,353 -3,494 8,859 81,782 423 91,064 2040.41 51,266 2,305 1,886 55,457 -15,008 -6,791 -15,079 -849 3,353 -34,374 -7,769 13,314 -3,781 9,533 91,064 468 101,065 2041.42 53,684 2,353 1,922 57,959 -15,230 -6,769 -15,447 -863 3,437 -34,873 -7,769 15,317 -4,074 11,243 101,065 519 112,826 2042.43 54,115 2,401 1,960 58,476 -15,456 -6,747 -15,823 -878 3,522 -35,382 -7,769 15,324 -4,375 10,950 112,826 573 124,348 2043.44 55,598 2,452 1,998 60,048 -15,684 -6,725 -16,209 -894 3,611 -35,902 -7,769 16,376 -4,682 11,694 124,348 628 136,670 2044.45 57,122 2,504 2,037 61,663 -15,916 -6,703 -16,604 -910 3,701 -36,433 -7,769 17,460 -4,997 12,464 136,670 687 149,821 2045.46 58,687 2,557 2,078 63,322 -16,152 -6,681 -17,009 -926 3,793 -36,975 -7,769 18,578 -5,319 13,259 149,821 750 163,830 2046.47 60,296 2,612 2,119 65,026 -16,391 -6,659 -17,424 -942 3,888 -37,528 -7,769 19,729 -5,648 14,081 163,830 817 178,727
12
Appendix 3 Capital account, projections £'000 Expenditure Financing Major New Build Works & Development Total RTB 141 Other RTB Total Year Year Imps Costs Expenditure Borrowing Receipts Receipts Other MRR RCCO Financing £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 £,000 1 2017.18 12,393 16,517 28,910 5,242 4,649 1,330 6,690 10,999 0 28,910 2 2018.19 6,355 2,556 8,911 0 457 1,086 583 6,786 0 8,911 3 2019.20 6,514 0 6,514 0 0 860 70 5,584 0 6,514 4 2020.21 6,677 0 6,677 0 0 63 70 6,544 0 6,677 5 2021.22 6,844 0 6,844 0 0 58 0 6,786 0 6,844 6 2022.23 7,015 0 7,015 0 0 57 0 6,958 0 7,015 7 2023.24 7,190 0 7,190 0 0 473 0 6,717 0 7,190 8 2024.25 7,370 0 7,370 0 0 479 0 6,890 0 7,370 9 2025.26 7,554 0 7,554 0 0 277 0 7,277 0 7,554 10 2026.27 7,743 0 7,743 0 0 277 0 7,466 0 7,743 11 2027.28 7,993 0 7,993 0 0 277 0 7,716 0 7,993 12 2028.29 8,231 0 8,231 0 0 440 0 7,791 0 8,231 147 13 2029.30 8,437 0 8,437 0 0 444 0 7,993 0 8,437 14 2030.31 8,648 0 8,648 0 0 449 0 8,199 0 8,648 15 2031.32 8,864 0 8,864 0 0 453 0 8,411 0 8,864 16 2032.33 9,086 0 9,086 0 0 458 0 7,067 1,561 9,086 17 2033.34 9,313 0 9,313 0 0 463 0 6,945 1,905 9,313 18 2034.35 9,545 0 9,545 0 0 468 0 6,923 2,155 9,545 19 2035.36 9,784 0 9,784 0 0 473 0 6,901 2,410 9,784 20 2036.37 10,029 0 10,029 0 0 478 0 6,879 2,672 10,029 21 2037.38 10,279 0 10,279 0 0 483 0 6,857 2,940 10,279 22 2038.39 10,536 0 10,536 0 0 488 0 6,835 3,214 10,536 23 2039.40 10,800 0 10,800 0 0 493 0 6,813 3,494 10,800 24 2040.41 11,070 0 11,070 0 0 498 0 6,791 3,781 11,070 25 2041.42 11,347 0 11,347 0 0 503 0 6,769 4,074 11,347 26 2042.43 11,630 0 11,630 0 0 508 0 6,747 4,375 11,630 27 2043.44 11,921 0 11,921 0 0 514 0 6,725 4,682 11,921 28 2044.45 12,219 0 12,219 0 0 519 0 6,703 4,997 12,219 29 2045.46 12,525 0 12,525 0 0 525 0 6,681 5,319 12,525 30 2046.47 12,838 0 12,838 0 0 530 0 6,659 5,648 12,838
13 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 Pages 149 to 180
REPORT FOR: CABINET
Date of Meeting: 16 November 2017
Subject: Request to amend the boundary of the Pinner Road Conservation Area to exclude ‘The Lodge’, Capel Gardens, Pinner
Key Decision: No
Responsible Officer: Paul Nichols, Divisional Director of Regeneration and Planning
Portfolio Holder: Councillor Keith Ferry, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Business, Planning and Regeneration
Exempt: No
Decision subject to Yes Call-in:
Wards affected: Headstone North
Enclosures: Appendix 1: Current boundary of Pinner Road Conservation Area Appendix 2: Representation from the owners of The Lodge, Capel Gardens Appendix 3: Officers’ comment on points raised in representation.
149 Section 1 – Summary and Recommendations
This report addresses a request received from the owners of The Lodge, Capel Gardens, Pinner, for their property to be removed from the Pinner Road Conservation Area, which was designated on 19 March 2015. It summarises the representation received from the owners of the Lodge and provides officers’ responses to these along with the recommendation that Cabinet does not agree to the request to remove the property from the Conservation Area. It does however recommend amending the boundary to include the full extent of the property with the Conservation Area in order to address the anomaly of the current boundary passing through the rear conservatory.
The formal representation from the owners of The Lodge was received during the consultation period on the draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (CAAMS) for the Pinner Road Conservation Area, which ran from 9 November to 21 December 2016 (Cabinet approval to consultation was received at its meeting on 15 September 2016). The outcomes of that consultation will be reported to Cabinet in early 2018.
The full representations from the owners are being considered at this stage as part of the 2016 consultation because of the error described below in the initial designation consultation.
Recommendations:
Cabinet is requested to: a) Note the representation received from the owners of The Lodge (Appendix 2) and officers responses to them (Section 4 and Appendix 3); and b) Agree to officers’ recommendation that the Lodge remains within the Pinner Road Conservation Area, but for the boundary to be amended to include the full extent of the property within the Conservation Area (see map at Appendix 1) in order to rectify the anomaly of the current boundary passing through the rear conservatory and for officers to advise the owners of The Lodge accordingly. c) Delegate authority to the Divisional Director Regeneration and Planning to undertake the necessary statutory processes required to amend the Pinner Road Conservation Area as outlined in (b) above.
Reason: (For recommendations)
Since 1967 local authorities have been required to protect areas which are valued for their special architectural or historic interest – the character and appearance of which it is desirable to preserve and enhance - through the designation of Conservation Areas under the provisions of Sections 69 and 70 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. They are required to carry out reviews ‘from time to time’ to ensure areas are adequately covered. They are also required to produce management strategies / proposals for Conservation Areas.
150
Section 2 – Report
1. Introduction
1.1 The report incorporates the corporate priority concerning:
Making a difference for communities
1.2 The identification of areas of special architectural or historic interest will help maintain the unique historical local character of areas or neighbourhoods within Harrow which residents cherish and value. Consulting on this helps to make a difference for communities.
2. Options considered
2.1 The option of not considering the request to amend the Pinner Road Conservation Area was considered but this would be contrary to the Council’s commitment to consult with residents. Under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, local planning authorities are required to carry out reviews ‘from time to time’ to ensure areas are adequately covered by Conservation Areas, which includes whether any areas should no longer be included within a Conservation Area. Additionally, the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that the value of Conservation Areas is not diminished by the inclusion of areas not having sufficient architectural or historic interest.
3. Background
3.1 Harrow has 29 conservation areas, each having special interest derived from its architectural, townscape or landscape qualities. The Council has a duty to preserve and enhance these, and does so by preparing and following area specific guidance.
3.2 The Pinner Road Conservation Area was designated on 19 March 2015, following a period of public consultation. It subsequently transpired that a formal consultation letter was not sent to the owners of The Lodge, Capel Gardens due to an administrative error translating the map of the proposed area into a list of addresses to be consulted. It should be noted that notices were also placed around the proposed Conservation Area and an advert placed in the Harrow Times as further means of making people aware of the proposed designation. Additionally, under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 the Council is not required to undertake consultation prior to designating a Conservation Area, but does so as a matter of best practice and reflects guidance from Historic England.
3.3 Since becoming aware of the inclusion of their property within the Pinner Road Conservation Area, the owners of the Lodge, Capel Gardens, have made informal and formal representations to Council officers and Members seeking for their property to be removed from the Conservation Area. They consider that had Cabinet been aware of
151
their concerns before the Conservation Area was designated their property would not have been included. This report is therefore presented to the Cabinet to enable its consideration of the representations made by the owners of The Lodge.
3.4 The formal representation from the owners of The Lodge was received during the consultation period on the draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (CAAMS) for the Pinner Road Conservation Area, which ran from 9 November to 21 December 2016 (Cabinet approval to consultation was received at its meeting on 15 September 2016). The full outcomes of that consultation and any proposed amendments to the Appraisal and Management Strategy will be reported to Cabinet in early 2018.
Criteria for Conservation Area designation
3.5 The criteria for conservation area status are set out in the Pinner Conservation Areas SPD (“the SPD”). The SPD states that to warrant designation as a Conservation Area the area should fulfil two or more of the following six criteria:
i) Areas with a high concentration of Listed Buildings whether statutorily or locally listed; ii) Areas of historical, social, economic and/or architectural merit; iii) Areas with a high proportion of buildings built prior to 1920, which remain largely unaltered; iv) Areas built post 1920 that are innovative in planning or architectural detail, and where a large proportion remain unaltered; v) A significant group of buildings with distinct physical identity and cohesiveness; and vi) Areas which have a special quality, where the site layout and landscaping are of exceptionally high quality and/or contain historic open space, natural landmarks or topographical features.
3.6 The Conservation Area is considered to warrant designation as it meets two or more of the above criteria. The area is of high architectural and historic merit. It covers an area of high concentration of listed and locally listed buildings – 12 on just 6 ha of land, which is all of the buildings with the exception of the firemen’s houses and the Lodge. The locally listed Chapel, and stone lodge (circa 1933) are of high architectural quality given their dry Tudor revival design approached through attractive grand iron gates and stone pillars, and their symmetrical layout relates to and harmonises with that of the later flats and fire station.
3.7 The Conservation Area is a high concentration of buildings built post 1920 that are innovative in planning or architectural detail, and where a large proportion remain unaltered (note, only a high portion of buildings need to remain largely unaltered, not all buildings). Buildings comprise both Capel Gardens and Pinner Court (1935-6) which are two remarkable and exceptionally fine and complete examples of
152
suburban inter-war Modernist apartment building design featuring striking and unifying Art Deco features (including strong lines and Crittall-style windows) and Pinner Fire Station, its rear tower and repair workshops and firemen’s cottages which were built in a symmetrical plan form in 1937 as one group to complement the Art Deco architectural design of the flats.
3.8 The area has historic and social merit. The cemetery provides a good example of one of a number of cemeteries which were built to serve the new suburbs between the two World Wars and the fire station is the only known example of an inter-war fire station in Harrow. The flats’ Art Deco design echoes that of the grade II listed Elm Park Court in Pinner given its colonial or hacienda style of the mid-1930s. This has social interest since this style was deemed appropriate for private flats intended for a middle-class community imitating Hollywood lifestyle.
3.9 The area has special quality, where the site layout and landscaping are of exceptionally high quality and/or contain historic open space, given the entire area has a planned, symmetrical layout with each part incorporating a large set back from the road behind generous forecourts and ornamental boulevard gardens, creating attractive open spaces in contrast to most streets in the surrounding suburban Metroland. Likewise the symmetrical Pinner New Cemetery layout incorporates high quality planned boulevard space. Pinner Court and Capel Gardens’ special site layout is further enhanced by the Art Deco style lamp standards laid out throughout the grounds and Pinner Court’s Modernist fountain centrepiece. Again, there is generally a good level and quality of private greenery around the residential properties, adding to the streetscene.
3.10 There is a distinct physical identity and cohesiveness provided by the uniform high quality, good condition and largely unaltered quality of architecture and materials. A cohesion is given as each of the three parts of the proposed conservation area were built as a unified groups (first the cemetery, second the flats, and third the fire station and associated buildings) whose layout was carefully planned to relate to each other.
4. Representation from the owners of The Lodge, Capel Gardens
4.1 A formal representation from the owners of The Lodge was received on 12 December 2016. The full representation and supporting material is included at Appendix 2 (the representation specifically states they wish for the full representation to be presented to the Cabinet). Appendix 3 provides officers’ responses to the specific points within the representation (using the same numbering). Outlined below is a summary of the representations received from the owners of The Lodge and officers’ comments.
4.2 It is accepted that there was an administrative error in translating the map of the proposed conservation area into a list of addresses to which formal notification of the consultation period was sent to and as
153
a result of this, the owners of The Lodge did not receive formal notification of the consultation on the proposed Conservation Area. Notwithstanding this error, there were other forms of notification / publicity used, including site notices, an advert in the local paper and letters to residents associations to give people the opportunity to made aware of the proposed conservation area and to respond if they wished to. It should be noted that under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 there is no requirement for a local planning authority to consult prior to designating a conservation area. It is however considered good practice to consult on any designation / boundary changes as representations from the public can assist in determining whether or not an area has sufficient special architectural or historic interest to warrant designation as a conservation area.
4.3 The owners of The Lodge consider that their property has been 'incorrectly' included in the conservation area for a number of reasons, including that it is not locally listed, does not relate to the adjoining locally listed flats, is significantly different to the adjoining flats and has undergone a number of changes over time that mean its original architectural detailing is no longer evident. Officers do not agree with these assertions and / or their relevance.
4.4 For example, it does not matter that the Lodge is not locally listed as conservation areas relate to the special architectural or historic interest of an area, not individual buildings. Additionally, the original building control plans show that the Lodge was designed to reflect the adjoining locally listed flats and was the 'Lodge' associated with these flats.
4.5 The owners of the Lodge consider that as their property was previously disposed of by the adjoining flats, there is no longer any link between the two properties. The fact that the Lodge is now on a separate land title is not relevant to whether or not a property should be included on a Conservation Area as the criteria relate to architectural and historic interest, not land tenure. Despite the changes to the Lodge since its sale by the adjoining flats, its relationship to the adjoining flats remains evident and the changes are reversible in the longer term and such opportunities would be considered when planning permission is sought for future work; any such changes would be the owners’ responsibility as part of implementing any development proposals.
4.6 The owners of the Lodge also suggest that as the Lodge is not part of the local listing of the adjoining flats, it should not be included in the Conservation Area; a building however does not have to be locally listed to be included in a Conservation Area. The Lodge is not included in the local listing of the adjoining flats due to the changes made to it over time. However, the criteria for inclusion in a Conservation Area do not require that all buildings are either statutorily or locally listed, nor that they remain largely unaltered, just a ‘high proportion’. As noted above, the Lodge still has architectural / visual and historic linkages with the adjoining flats, which themselves form an important part of the overall Conservation Area.
154
4.7 Given the above, officers do not concur with the assertion that the inclusion of the Lodge in the Pinner Road Conservation Area was incorrect.
4.8 Another aspect of the owners of the Lodge’s concerns is that as they were not aware of the consultation and therefore did not raise objections, the report considered by Cabinet in March 2015 'incorrectly' stated that there were no objections to the proposed conservation area, and that consequently, the Cabinet should re- consider the matter in light of the subsequent correspondence. This report to Cabinet provides the opportunity for Members to consider the representations.
5. Implications of the inclusion of The Lodge within the Pinner Road Conservation Area.
5.1 Being included within a Conservation Area has implications for property owners, mainly for those who want to work on the outside of their building or any trees on their property, including:
a) Demolition – the demolition of a building requires Planning Permission.
b) Trees – works to any but the smallest of trees (i.e. cut down, top or lop) requires notification to the Council. The Council will then consider the contribution the tree makes to the character of the area and if necessary create a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect it (which would be subject to consultation before they are made permanent).
c) Impact upon character – on its own, a conservation area does not significantly add to the types of works that require planning permission (the main one being demolition as outlined above). Where planning permission is required, regard will be given to the impact of the proposal on the special architectural or historic interest of the area and special attention paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area; this does not automatically mean no changes can be made to a building, just that any changes need to be appropriate, having regard to the architectural and historic interest of the area.
6. Performance Issues
6.1 Local Authorities have a statutory duty to review their areas to ensure adequate coverage of Conservation Areas and to publish proposals for the enhancement of these areas. Additionally, under the National Planning Policy Framework local planning authorities are required to make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly
155
accessible. Reporting back public consultation responses would help meet these objectives and to have a positive effect on local residents’ perception of the degree to which the Council takes account of their views and how far people can influence decisions affecting their area.
7. Environmental Impact
7.1 The draft Pinner Road Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (CAAMS) includes consideration of how energy efficiency and microgeneration measures can be achieved whilst preserving the special character of the Pinner Road conservation area. This will therefore help the council to meet the council’s climate change strategy in terms of mitigation and adaptation. The draft CAAMS and consultation responses will be considered by Cabinet for adoption in early 2018.
8. Risk Management Implications
Risk included on Directorate risk register? No
Separate risk register in place? No
There are no significant risks arising from the recommendations.
9. Legal Implications
9.1 The Council are required under section 69(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to carry out reviews ‘from time to time’ to determine whether any parts or further parts of their area should be designated as conservation areas; and if it so determines, that part(s) shall be so designated. Although there is no statutory requirement for consultation it is considered appropriate that the Conservation Area boundary and draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy has been subject to a public consultation given the effect that such designation may have on future development proposals within the area. Section 4 and Appendix 3 contain responses to representations received in relation to the request to remove the Lodge from the Pinner Road Conservation Area.
9.2 The report recommends the existing boundary of the Conservation Area is amended to include the full extent of the property containing The Lodge in the Conservation Area in order to rectify the anomaly of the current boundary passing through the rear conservatory. Section 70 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides that a local planning authority shall give notice of any designation, variation or cancellation of any such designation as a conservation area to the Secretary of State, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and that notice of it shall be published in the London Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in the area of the local planning authority.
156
10. Financial Implications
10.1 The costs of reviewing and amending the Pinner Road Conservation Area and finalisation of the draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (CAAMS) is contained within the existing revenue budgets of the Council’s Planning Policy team.
11. Equalities implications / Public Sector Equality Duty
Was an Equality Impact Assessment carried out? No
11.1 EqIA is not considered necessary in respect of the identification, assessment and designation of a Conservation Area. Such an assessment is based on the architectural and historic merit of an area. Furthermore, the higher order Local Plan policy that contains the criteria against which development within Conservation Areas is assessed was subject to an equalities impact assessment prior to its adoption.
12. Council Priorities
12.1 The decision sought will help the Council meet the priority of a making a difference for communities by helping ensure the attractiveness of the borough as a place to live and demonstrating that the Council seeks and listens to the views of its residents.
Section 3 - Statutory Officer Clearance
on behalf of the Name: Jessie Man x Chief Financial Officer
Date: 27 September 2017
on behalf of the Name: Jimmy Walsh x Monitoring Officer
Date: 3 November 2017
Ward Councillors notified: YES
EqIA carried out: NO
EqIA cleared by: See body of report
157
Section 4 - Contact Details and Background Papers
Contact: David Hughes, Planning Policy Manager, 0208 736 6082
Background Papers:
Cabinet report designating the Pinner Road Conservation Area, available at: http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=249&MId=62361 &Ver=4
Cabinet report agreeing consultation on the draft Pinner Road Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (CAAMS), available at: http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=249&MId=62837 &Ver=4
Call-In Waived by the Chair of NOT APPLICABLE Overview and Scrutiny Committee [Call-in applies]
158 159 This page is intentionally left blank 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 3 - Officer comments on representation from the owners of The Lodge, Capel Gardens
Number Representation (summary)1 Officer comment The flats referred to are the adjoining locally listed flats known as ‘Capel Gardens’. The Lodge was originally part of this development, but is not included as part of the local listing. The approved plans for the Lodge (dated 16 September 1938, reference ‘6685’) indicate that the ‘external walls to be rendered and finished to match main building’ (i.e. the adjoining flats) and the roof tiling was to be ‘green glazed interlocking pan tiles’ (i.e. to reflect those used on the flats). The plan itself is entitled ‘Porter’s Lodge’, indicating its functional relationship with the adjoining flats, including access to the front door of the property being off the original Service Road to the adjoining flats. Whilst this service road no longer exists, it is evident from the Title Plan of the adjoining flats that the Lodge was part of the original parcel of land containing the flats. The fact that it has been excised from the original property and sold the current owners 1 Our house is not part of the Flats of the Lodge / their predecessors is not considered relevant to whether the Lodge makes a contribution to the architectural and historic interest of the area included within the Pinner
175 Road Conservation Area.
The quote from the Council letter dated 19 January 2016 that ‘there is no link between your property and the flats’ was a typo, which is evidence when read on the context of the rest of the paragraph: ‘it is accepted that the visual link to the flats has been diminished as a result of the modernisations overtime and plantings along the common boundary, but a visual link (by virtue of the remaining common elements), as well as a historic link, do remain’.
There are discernible differences in the architectural styles and materials used in the dwellings and bungalows further up Capel Gardens and that of the Lodge / locally listed flats. The No architectural definition of ‘Clean Lodge cannot be considered ‘just another house in Capel Gardens’. The 27 remaining houses lines’ and this term could apply to 2 and bungalows in Capel Gardens are considered to be sufficiently distinct from the buildings all of the houses up the Hill (i.e. within the conservation area and are of insufficient architectural or historic interest to be further up Capel Gardens). included within a conservation area. The distinctly different character between the flats / Lodge and the houses and bungalows are reflected in the Harrow Characterisation Study 2011, which identifies these dwellings as having a different character area to the flats / Lodge,
1 See Appendix 2 for full representation Number Representation (summary)1 Officer comment noting that they are ‘1930/40s detached houses and bungalows in brick and render; variety of house types but all in styles typical of the era. Some later semi-detached infill development to south’ The Lodge is not modernistic or modernistic inspired. Neither our 3 Deeds nor House Plans would not be expected to describe the architectural style. Deeds nor House Plans describe it as this Chartered Surveyor has provided a Modernist / Art Deco is a commonly accepted description of an architectural style that is 4 report stressing that the Lodge is reflected in the statutory listed Pinner Court, locally listed Capel Gardens and The Lodge. not ‘modernistic’ It is accepted that there are a number of differences between the design of the Lodge and the adjoining flats, as noted in the representation and correspondence from Mr Pearce. However, The Lodge has ‘virtually no affinity in the context of the criteria for designating a conservation area, it is the overall architectural
176 with the Flats due to many reasons and historic merit of an area that is of interest, not whether or not there is complete including the huge design consistency between the design of individual buildings within the area. It is considered that 5 differences (even when built) and there are sufficient similar design features between the Lodge and the adjoining flats to the differences nowadays are warrant the inclusion of the Lodge within the broader conservation area. The more modest patently obvious. design features of the Lodge is largely a reflection of its role as the ‘Porters’ Lodge’ to the flats i.e. subservient to the larger, grander blocks of flats. Additionally, design features of the flats such as external stairs and balconies are not typical of a single, detached dwelling. It is accepted that a number of modernisations to the Lodge have created differences between Try to conserve something that has the Lodge and the adjoining flats. However, as noted above, it is considered that there are 6 long since gone and no longer sufficient original design, material and visual elements of the Lodge that means it can be exists visually identified to have been part of the adjoining flats when constructed. The Lodge, Capel Gardens historically formed part of the adjoining flats and is considered to maintain sufficient architectural / visual links with the flats to be included within a Conservation Neighbours cannot comprehend Area covering these and other buildings of architectural or historic interest in the area. As 7 why the Council has singled-out noted above, the Lodge cannot be considered ‘just another house in Capel Gardens’. The 27 the Lodge. remaining houses and bungalows in Capel Gardens are considered to be sufficiently distinct from the buildings within the conservation area and are of insufficient architectural or historic interest to be included within a conservation area. Number Representation (summary)1 Officer comment Outdated Google Earth / The sequence of events stated in the representation is incorrect, as Google Street View was Streetview map. Are ‘simply just not used to justify the Conservation Area boundary in the March 2015 Cabinet report as a full the first house on the right hand survey was undertaken. Use of Google Street View was a quick review in August 2015 was in 8 side going up the hill and have preparation for an informal meeting with the owners of The Lodge arranged at short notice on worked very hard and spent much 19th August 2015. However, the fact that it is terracotta in colour rather than the original green money so as to match all the other does not on its own mean that The Lodge should be excluded from the conservation area. houses and bungalows up the hill. Correspondence from Mr Pearce identifies that the boundary of the Conservation Area passes through the rear conservatory / foundation slab. The boundary was drawn based on the original property boundary of the flats / the Lodge in recognition of the historical link between Presence of the rear Conservatory the two (i.e. both originally part of one property). The subsequent purchase of the land to the not being reflected in north has provided space for the conservatory to be built over what was the original boundary. 9 documentation and that this Whilst it is not unheard of for such a situation to arise when conservation area boundaries are suggests research not done based on historic property boundaries, it is accepted that such a situation can also be
177 properly. perceived as anomalous. It is therefore recommended that the boundary of the Conservation Area is amended to include the full extent of the current ownership of the Lodge in order to address this situation. ‘Utterly farcical and ludicrous 10 situation where the Boundary line See response to 9 above. cuts our Conservatory in half. As noted above, it is accepted that the Lodge has undergone extensive modernisation overtime, including new windows, roofing, conservatory and the removal of the former coal Missed seeing the orange roof or 11 bin. However, it is considered that notwithstanding these changes, there remain sufficient modern Conservatory. original design, material and visual elements of the Lodge that means it can be visually identified to have been part of the adjoining flats when constructed. Notwithstanding recent painting of The Lodge, there remains sufficient original design, The Lodge is different colour to the 12 material and visual elements of the Lodge that means it can be visually identified to have adjoining locally listed flats. been part of the adjoining flats when constructed.
No link, or affinity or cohesion There is a clear historic and architectural link with the adjoining flats and whilst the property 13 whatsoever with the Flats has been sold and is no longer on the same title as the flats, there is an historic association. Similarly, there remains sufficient architectural elements such as the smooth render finish, the Number Representation (summary)1 Officer comment clean, straight lines of the house and the raised geometrical render banding detail that matches the flats, provides positive common elements of design between the Art Deco/Modernist flats and the Lodge. The local criteria for inclusion of buildings within a conservation area recognise that not all buildings will be unaltered. For example, criterion 4 indicates ‘Areas built post 1920 that are innovative in planning or architectural detail, and where a large proportion remain unaltered’. The large proportion in this case is the locally listed flats, with the Lodge being a small proportion of the original development and having undergone a greater degree of alterations As noted above, the fact The Lodge was sold off from the Capel Gardens flats is not relevant The Lodge was sold-off by the in determining whether or not it should be included within the Pinner Road Conservation Area. 14 / 15 adjoining flats. The criteria for inclusion within a Conservation Area relate to architectural and historic significance, not current ownership. Correspondence from the then The letter from Head of Planning and Development on 21 November 1994 was simply Head of Planning (1994) indicating clarifying the extent of the locally listed building (of the adjoining flats), noting that the line 178 that The Lodge is significantly drawn to indicate the extent and immediate setting of the buildings had caused confusion as altered and modernised and to which buildings were actually locally listed (compared to those which were part of the 16 therefore not listed or locally listed. setting of the locally listed buildings). Similarly, the report to the Planning Sub-Committee Change of roof tiles pattern and dated 1 November 1994 also notes that the Lodge does not form part of the local listing of the colour to Terra Cotta approved by adjoining flats, but recognises the Lodge / gardens were historically part of the Estate and the Council. continues to provide setting space to it. The flats planted a 4 metre screen The still remains a visual link between The Lodge and the Capel Gardens flats. As noted so they would not see The Lodge 17 above, sufficient visual and historic links exist between The Lodge and the flats to warrant its as they did not want it to be seen inclusion within the broader Conservation Area. as part of the Flats. The ‘above problems’ could have been avoided if the owners of The As noted above, the failure to consult the owners of The Lodge was an administrative error. 18 Lodge had been consulted prior to This report provides an opportunity for their representations to be considered by Cabinet. the designation of the Conservation Area on 19 March 2015.
19 Failure to consult ‘designed us the As noted previously, there is no statutory requirement for a local authority to consult prior to right and opportunity to objet and to designating a conservation area. The accidental omission to do so however goes against the Number Representation (summary)1 Officer comment give all the true facts and approach normally taken by the Council to consult. The recent consultation on the draft Documents’. Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (CAAMS) and this report provides the owners an opportunity for their representations to be considered by Cabinet. Significant modernisation and 20 Previous responses above address this. alterations to the building A conservation area is an area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Conservation areas are different to statutory (nationally) or locally listed buildings in that they relate to the architectural or historic interest of an area rather than individual buildings. A building does not need to be statutory or locally listed to be included in a Conservation Area. Consequently, the fact that The Council has included a ‘fully the Lodge is not locally listed does automatically preclude it from being included within a altered and modern House built in conservation area. 21 1939, within the Conservation area, It is accepted that there are a number of differences between the design of the Lodge and the
179 which otherwise comprises of older adjoining flats. However, in the context of the criteria for designating a conservation area, it is and virtually un-altered buildings’. the overall architectural and historic merit of an area that is of interest, not whether or not there is complete consistency between the design of individual buildings within the area. It is considered that there are sufficient similar design features remaining between the Lodge and the adjoining flats to warrant the inclusion of the Lodge within the broader conservation area. The more modest design features of the Lodge is largely a reflection of its role as the ‘Porters’ Lodge’ to the flats i.e. subservient to the larger, grander blocks of flats. They will do ‘anything necessary to 22 ensure that Councillors are Noted; the full representation is included in Appendix 2. provided with all appropriate facts’. Pinner Road Conservation Area is considered to meet two or more of the criteria for inclusion Reasonably and logically asking for within a Conservation Area, in that it is an area of high architectural and historic merit, a very slight re-defining of the includes a high concentration (but not exclusively) of listed and locally listed buildings, and 23 Conservation Area boundary to also includes a high concentration of buildings built post 1920 that are innovative in planning restore the credibility to the Pinner or architectural detail, and where a large proportion remain unaltered. The area also has Road Conservation Area Scheme. historic and social merit, including the cemetery, fire station, and flats (including the associated Lodge). Additionally, the area has special quality due to the site layout and landscaping being of exceptionally high quality and contains historic open space, as well as Number Representation (summary)1 Officer comment having a distinct physical identify and cohesiveness provided by the uniform high quality, good condition and largely unaltered quality of architecture and materials. Whilst there has been alterations to The Lodge, there remains sufficient historic and architectural linkages with the adjoining flats. The Modern white plastic double glazed widows exactly match the qualities considered by the Council A building does not have to have its original windows to be included within a Conservation 24/25 to be unacceptable potential Area. replacements for the Crittall windows at the adjoining flats.
180