Cabinet Meeting : Tuesday 23Rd July 2002

Cabinet Meeting : Tuesday 23rd July 2002

Meeting to be held at 7pm in Committee Room 6 at the Civic...... Centre, Uxbridge Councillors in the Cabinet

Councillor Ray Puddifoot Leader

Councillor David Simmonds Deputy Leader and Member for Social Services and Health

Councillor Jim O’Neill Environment

Councillor Philip Corthorne Housing

Councillor Solveig Stone Education, Youth and Leisure

Councillor Jonathan Bianco Finance and Corporate Services

Councillor Douglas Mills Performance, Partnerships and Regeneration

Councillor Mike Heywood Planning and Transportation

You are invited to attend the above meeting. Papers for the meeting are attached.

David Brough Head of Democratic Services

Smoking is not allowed in the Committee Room Parking is available to the public attending meetings – entrance in High Street, Uxbridge

DESPATCH DATE: MONDAY 15TH JULY 2002 CABINET MEETING : 23RD JULY 2002

AGENDA

Apologies for Absence

CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

1. Declarations of Interest – in matters coming before this meeting

2. To receive the minutes of meetings held on 18th and 25th June 2002(attached)

3. Exclusion of Press and Public - To confirm that all items marked Part 1 will be considered in public and that any items marked Part 2 will be considered in private

4. Section 106 - to note that no items fall within the provisions of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

1 The Council’s Budget – Report of the Borough Treasurer Page 1 2 Capital Strategy Document Page 12 3 Corporate Governance – Re-inspection Response Page 23 4 Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) Self Assessment Page 44 Outcomes 5 Asset Management Plan 2002 Page 47 6 LEA School Admission Arrangements for Community Schools for Page 84 2003/2004 7 Home to School Transport Policy Page 90 8 Hillingdon Education Business Partnership Business Plan Page 100 2002/2003 9 Housing Revenue Account Business Plan 2003/04 to 2033/34 Page 133 10 Home Care and Day Care Charging Policy Page 138 11 Approval of and Payments to Carers Page 150 12 Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee – Draft Annual Report Page 160 and Business Plan 2002/2003 13 Mental Health Reconfiguration Page 198 14 Social Services Spring Position Statement Page 249 15 Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy – Progress Report Page 335 16 Crossrail Line 1 Page 340 17 Section 106/278 Planning Agreements – Quarterly Financial Page 344 Monitoring Report 18 Development Control – Performance Analysis Page 352 19 Terminal 5 – Quarterly Report Page 357 20 Terminal 5/M25 Spur Road – Ancient Hedgerows on boundary of Page 361 land at Moorbridge Farm, Stanwell Moor Road, Longford 21 Barra Hall, Hayes – employment of consultants Page 365 22 Application to Waive Fee Charge Page 368 23 Hillingdon Healthy Living Centre Page 370 PART 2 – PRIVATE, MEMBERS ONLY

24 Proposed Disposal of Uxbridge Industrial Estate Page 376 25 Housing Services Restructuring Page 384 26 Appointment to the Head of Commissioning and Performance Page 388 Management 27 Disposal of former Elderly Persons Homes : Herne House and Hyde Page 392 House

Items 24-27 are included in Part 2 because they contain exempt information as defined in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. Items 24 and 27 contain terms proposed or to be proposed by or to the authority in the course of negotiations for a contract for the acquisition or disposal of property or for the supply of goods or services. (paragraph 9 of the Schedule) Items 25 and 26 contain information relating to a particular employee, former employee or applicant to become an employee of, or a particular office-holder, former office-holder or applicant to become an office-holder under, the authority (paragraph 1 of the Schedule). CABINET MEETING

Decisions of Cabinet Meeting held at the Civic Centre, Uxbridge, on Tuesday 18th June 2002

Members of the Cabinet present :

Councillor Ray Puddifoot (Leader of the Council) Councillor David Simmonds (Deputy Leader and Member for Social Services and Health) Councillor Jonathan Bianco (Member for Finance and Corporate Services) Philip Corthorne (Member for Housing) Mike Heywood (Member for Planning and Transportation) Douglas Mills (Member for Performance and Regeneration) Jim O’Neill (Member for Environment) Solveig Stone (Member for Education, Youth and Leisure)

Also present :

Councillor Steve Carey (Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group) Councillor Norman Nunn-Price (Leader of the Labour Group)

1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made by members in matters dealt with at the meeting.

2. MEETING TO BE HELD IN PUBLIC

The Cabinet confirmed that all its business would be conducted in public.

3. SECTION 106, LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992

The Cabinet was informed that the item of business did not fall within the provisions of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

4. REGENERATION PROJECT – HAYES PEDESTRIANISATION – ITEM 1

The meeting had been called to consider the decision of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 11th June 2002 to request the Cabinet to reconsider its decision of 28th May 2002 about the Hayes Pedestrianisation Scheme and to consider other options.

A petition about the proposal had been received on the day of the Cabinet meeting and the Cabinet Member for Performance, Partnerships and Regeneration agreed that it would be appropriate for a representative of the petitioners to address the Cabinet.

Resolved

1. That the petition be noted.

2. That the Single Regeneration Budget scheme be accepted, and to include the traffic and parking proposals, namely the partial reopening of Station Road and the provision of 33 parking spaces.

Reason For Decision

Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 1 To take account of the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the scheme.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

To not proceed with the scheme.

5. PUBLICATION OF DECISION

This decision was published on 19th June 2002. This is the final decision of the Cabinet on the matter following the call-in by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the Cabinet decision of 28th May 2002.

The meeting closed at 8.00 p.m

Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 2 CABINET MEETING

Decisions of Cabinet Meeting held at the Civic Centre, Uxbridge, on Tuesday 25th June 2002

Members of the Cabinet present :

Also present :

Councillor Steve Carey (Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group) Councillor Norman Nunn-Price (Leader of the Labour Group)

1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made by members in matters dealt with at the meeting.

2. MEETING TO BE HELD IN PUBLIC

The Cabinet confirmed that all items marked Part 1 would be considered in public and that consideration of that part of the information in Item 9, relating to the Corporate Network Hardware Maintenance Contract; Item 16 Disposal of Elderly Persons Home: Knightscote; and Item 21, Acceptance of Tender for Hayes Neighbourhood Nursery and Early Years Centre Nestles Avenue, Hayes (Minutes 12, 17 & 18 refer) because they contained details relating to any terms proposed or to be proposed by or to the authority in the course of negotiations for a contract for the acquisition or disposal of property or the supply of goods or services. Members of the public and press were therefore excluded from the meeting during consideration of this information.

3. SECTION 106, LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992

The Cabinet was informed that no items fell within the provisions of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

4. ITEMS WITHDRAWN

The following reports were withdrawn:

Civic Centre Conferencing Facilities Lettings Policy – Item 8 Acceptance of Tender for Year Three Asbestos Surveys – Item 17

Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 3 Acceptance of Tender for the Appointment of a Consultant to Undertake Year Two Disability Discrimination Act Surveys and Progress Subsequent Works – Item 18 Acceptance of Tender for Surestart Centre and New Nursery at Minet School Site, Hayes/Refurbishment of the Existing Townfield Playgroup; Surestart Centre and New Nursery at Minet School Site/Refurbishment of the Existing Townfield Playgroup, Hayes – Item19 Acceptance of Tender for Remedial Repair Works at The Chestnuts, Wood End Green Road, Hayes – Item 20 Acceptance of Tender for New Build and Refurbishment Programme at the Early Excellence Centre, Judge Heath Lane, Hayes – Item 22.

5. HILLINGDON’S COMMUNITY PLAN – ITEM 1

Resolved

That the draft community plan be submitted to the Council meeting on 18 July 2002 with a recommendation that it be approved and distributed

Reason For Decision

The draft community plan has been subject to discussion by a borough wide community conference held in February 2002 and amended accordingly. All partners to the Local Strategic Partnership have approved the revised draft.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

In theory the approval of the plan could be withheld for further revision following the recent local elections, but this would have a negative impact on partners and those members of the public who contributed so positively in February 2002 at the community conference.

6. DISTRICT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON THE 2000/01 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – ITEM 2

Resolved

1. That the District Auditor’s report and the action plan be noted.

2. That Officers be instructed to implement the action plan fully.

Reason For Decision

1. In accordance with Council policy, to bring all District Audit reports to the attention of Members.

2. To improve the quality of performance indicator information.

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

There are no alternative sustainable options.

7. SECONDARY SCHOOL PLACES – ITEM 3 Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 4 Resolved

1. That the opportunity for the Local Authority and the Governing Body of Queensmead School to work in partnership to resolve an issue affecting the local community be welcomed.

2. That Officers be instructed to direct Queensmead School to admit the 38 children identified as not having a school place and to require the admissions authority to admit a further 22 pupils through the normal admissions criteria, as a condition of the full capital funding.

3. That the scope, principles and funding of a temporary expansion of Queensmead School from 6 forms of entry to 8 forms of entry for the academic years 2002/03 and 2003/04 be agreed, as set out in paragraph 2 of the report.

4. That Officers be authorised to finalise the details of and enter into an agreement with Queensmead School in accordance with the scope, principles and funding agreed above.

(NB. The Chairman of the Education, Libraries & Arts Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed that Resolutions 2-4 could be implemented as a matter of urgency).

Reasons For Decision Being Made

This is a key decision which: a) relates to a capital project in excess of £0.250m; b) affects residents in more than one ward; and c) is a temporary variation to the arrangements set out in the School Organisation Plan.

If the LEA does not intervene and direct Queensmead to admit the pupils without a school place, there are no guarantees that those pupils would secure a school place in time for the start of next term.

The LEA has only two ways of intervening in the Admissions arrangements at this stage in the process. Firstly, it can provide the wherewithal to allow individual admissions authorities to provide additional places. Secondly, it can direct schools to admit named pupils where they have been refused admission to all schools within a reasonable distance.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

The key issue is to find places for pupils in the north of the borough (north of the A40) who do not have a school place. The alternatives are: a) To do nothing. This would almost certainly result in the Authority failing to meet its statutory duty to provide sufficient school places for all pupils in its area. Individual pupils would need to find their own places in schools in neighbouring boroughs or in the south of the borough. Individual pupils would face long journeys and continued uncertainty over the next few months about Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 5 the destination secondary school of their child. This strategy would be very high risk both in terms of damaging effects on pupils and families of prolonged uncertainty over school places and in almost inevitably having to make arrangements for individual pupils without a school place much later in the process anyway. b) To bus pupils to secondary schools elsewhere in the borough. Currently, pupils from Ruislip are bussed to John Penrose Secondary School in Harefield; indeed new pupils will be bussed to John Penrose from September 2002, but John Penrose is now full. It is an option for Members to bus children from Ruislip and Eastcote to schools with spare places in the South of the Borough: Evelyns, Hayes Manor and Abbotsfield. Officers are concerned that the 3-5 mile journeys involved across the borough through rush-hour, urban traffic for the 6 or 7 years of a child’s secondary school career are undesirable for a range of educational, social and environmental reasons. Part of the case the Authority has put for the separate issue of building a new secondary school in Sidmouth Drive, Ruislip is to avoid bussing children around the borough any more than is necessary. For those reasons, this option has been discounted.

8. JOINT REVIEW BY AUDIT COMMISSION AND SOCIAL SERVICES INSPECTORATE – ITEM 4

Resolved

1. That the timescale and process for the Joint Review of Social Services be noted and the Outline Position Statement attached as Appendix A be agreed.

2. That the Council’s final Position Statement be agreed by the Cabinet Member for Social Services prior to submission to the Joint Review Team on 16 July 2002

Reasons For Decision Being Made

The Position Statement has to be submitted by the 16th July 2002. To be complete the position statement requires statistical data to be included, which is not yet available. The July Cabinet is after the required submission date for the position statement to Joint Review.

Alternatives considered and rejected

There are no alternative options which could be employed to achieve this.

9. HOUSING STRATEGY AND OBJECTIVES 2003/4-2006/7 – ITEM 5

Resolved

That the strategic objectives set out in this report are endorsed and referred to the Council meeting on 18 July 2002

Reasons For Decision Being Made

Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 6 To ensure that the objectives for the Housing Strategy are aligned with the aims of the Community Plan in order contribute to their achievement and to demonstrate this to Government.

The Housing Strategy is an element of the Council’s budget and policy framework and as such the strategic objectives have to be agreed by full Council. The DTLR requirement for the Strategy to be aligned to the Community Plan requires amendment to the objectives in the Strategy before submission to the DTLR by the 31 July, 2002. The Cabinet has the delegated authority to develop proposals that require the Council to amend its policy framework.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

An option is to retain the objectives as agreed by Housing Committee in June 2001. In which case there would be no need to amend the Council’s budget and policy framework. However, this would affect the DTLR assessment of the extent to which the Strategy is “fit for purpose”.

10. BOROUGH SPENDING PLAN 2003/4 – ITEM 6

Resolved

1.That the Borough Spending Plan be endorsed.

2. That the Transport Capital Programme and the list of schemes submitted as the Council’s current bid be endorsed

Reasons For Decision Being Made

The Borough Spending Plan is an important document procuring substantial finance for the Borough, being the submission of bids for funding by Transport for London for transportation projects within the Borough.

Transport for London require the submission to be made by 28th June 2002. This is a departure from previous years when the documents were submitted on 31st July and there was sufficient time for the draft documents to be considered by the relevant Committee.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

There are no alternative options as failure to submit the Borough Spending Plan by due date could put at risk a vital source of funding for Borough transport projects.

11. KERBSIDE COLLECTION OF GREEN WASTE – ITEM 7

Resolved

1. That the statutory basis of the Borough’s recycling programme and associated targets, as detailed in paragraph 1 of the report, be noted.

2. That the use of savings on the Borough’s Waste Disposal budget to finance the implementation of a kerbside collection scheme for compostable garden wastes be Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 7 approved as well the continued development of the Borough’s waste recycling strategy.

3. That Officers be authorised to re-phase implementation as necessary depending on the actual levels of funding provided by the Capital Waste Minimisation & Recycling Fund.

4. That it be noted and approved that garden wastes will no longer be collected on the Borough’s Special Collection service for those households served by the new scheme.

5. That the potential revenue funding implications for 2003/04 – 2005/06, as detailed in paragraphs 38 – 40 of the report, be noted.

Reasons For Decision Being Made

The Capital Waste Minimisation & Recycling Fund is providing a substantial source of external funding which the London Borough’s will be able to access to substantially improve the provision of household waste recycling services across the Capital in pursuit of statutory recycling targets.

However timescales are very short with the fund only lasting until March 2004. Therefore Boroughs will need to move quickly to get schemes approved and ready to roll out as soon as possible.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

There are no alternative options which could be employed to achieve this.

12. CORPORATE NETWORK HARDWARE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT – ITEM 9

Resolved

That Xpert Systems Ltd be awarded this contract for a 5-year term on terms detailed at Appendix A

Reasons For Decision Being Made

As well as offering the best price this company have been able to demonstrate a clear understanding of the Council’s networking needs.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

Acceptance of a more expensive tender.

13. COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT – ITEM 10

Resolved

1. That the Comprehensive Performance Assessment process and the potential significant implications of the result of that assessment for Hillingdon be noted. Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 8 2. That the arrangements for the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to sign off the Council’s self-assessment be agreed.

3. That Officers be requested to report back to the July meeting with a report on the results of self-assessment.

Reasons For Decision Being Made

In order to gain Cabinet agreement to Hillingdon’s arrangements for conducting its own self assessment as part of the CPA process, which all Council’s (excluding District Council’s) are required to complete in accordance with the Audit Commissions timetable and programme.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

There is no option but to participate in the process. However, it is clearly a matter of some local discretion about how much time and resource is committed to the process, particularly the self assessment that Councils are expected to complete.

14. CITY ACADEMY, EVELYNS COMMUNITY SCHOOL, YIEWSLEY – ITEM 11

Resolved

That a lease of the current land and premises at Evelyns Community School shown edged black on plan YIE 18, dated 22 May 2002, be granted to the City Academy Governing Body on a date and upon terms agreed by the Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and Leisure.

Reasons For Decision Being Made

A decision on the disposal is required under Article 7, paragraph 7.09, (b) 11 of the Constitution.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

There are no other options on this matter.

14. PROPOSALS FOR HILLINGDON ADULT CARE SCHEME CARERS FEE INCREASE – ITEM 12

Resolved

1. That the information provided in relation to the fall in carers’ remuneration since 1994 and that Hillingdon’s position at the lower end of the annual fees scale, compared with other local authorities Adult Care Scheme placements, be noted.

2. That the standard agreed increase of 2% for residential placements and foster carers across all service areas be approved for Hillingdon Adult Care Scheme fees for Carers for 2002/2003.

Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 9 3. That a 10% increase as requested by Carers be approved, to be phased in over a two year period, 5% to be applied in the year 2003/2004 and a further 5% in the year 2004/2005.

Reasons For Decision Being Made

There is widespread dissatisfaction amongst Adult Care Scheme Carers regarding their standing as providers of supported accommodation. Their fees have not been increased in line with inflation. They have fallen behind in relation to other Adult Care Schemes in the region.

10 Carers have left the Adult Care Scheme in the last twelve months, and are setting up as independent providers of residential care placements. Carers will continue to leave the scheme and service users may need to be placed in residential care at higher costs.

If all existing service users of the Adult Care Scheme were placed in residential care it would cost the Social Services department an additional £339,331 per annum.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

To apply a standard inflation increase only each year and leave Hillingdon’s position at the lower end of the annual fees scale, compared with other authorities’ Adult Care Schemes in the region. This will gradually phase out Hillingdon’s scheme as more Carers leave, and increase the burden on placements budgets.

15. REGISTRATION OF CHILDREN’S RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH THE NATIONAL CARE STANDARDS COMMISSION – ITEM 13

Resolved

1. That it be noted that the authority is required to register with and meet the standards for the provision of residential care for children set by the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) and that, if these standards are not met, the NCSC will serve enforcement / closure notices on the Council.

2. That it be noted that Hillingdon has submitted applications for the registration of each of the four directly provided residential units run by social services.

Reasons For Decision Being Made

Failure to register with and adhere to the regulations and standards set out by the NCSC will result in the closure of one or more of the children’s residential units.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

There are no other options available.

16. DRAFT INTERNAL PROCEDURES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PLANNING OBLIGATIONS – ITEM 14

Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 10 Resolved

That the draft internal procedure document for the management of planning obligations, attached as Appendix 1, be endorsed.

Reasons For Decision Being Made

Internal procedures and guidance for the management of planning obligations (including s106, s278 and developer undertakings) are required for a number of reasons:

· To maintain a programme of continuous improvements in the management of planning obligations · To establish key responsibilities across the Council in the implementation and monitoring of planning obligations · To comply with recommendations of the District Auditor

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

There are no other options available.

16. PREPARATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE NOTES: WORK PROGRAMME 2002/3 – ITEM 15

Resolved

That the Supplementary Work Programme 2002/03 and indicative timetable, as set out in Appendix 1, be endorsed.

Reasons For Decision Being Made

To secure member level support; To confirm the Council’s priorities with regard to the preparation of SPGs and to ensure Council-wide commitment and prioritisation and To ensure proper resource allocation into agreed priority areas and for the purposes of good project management.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

There is the option of not preparing site/area based Supplementary Planning Guidance but this will reduce community involvement in the planning process and may result in schemes that are not wholly appropriate for the proper planning of the area.

17. DISPOSAL OF ELDERLY PERSONS HOME: KNIGHTSCOTE – ITEM 16

Resolved

That the value of the site be tested on the open market and reported back to Cabinet before a decision is made on disposal.

Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 11 Reasons For Decision Being Made

To make an informed decision on the best way forward

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

Disposal of the site

18. ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FOR HAYES NEIGHBOURHOOD NURSERY AND EARLY YEARS CENTRE, NESTLES AVENUE, HAYES – ITEM 21

Resolved

That Portakabin be awarded the contract on terms detailed in the report.

Reasons For Decision Being Made

The tender recommended offers best value to the Council.

Alternatives Considered And Rejected

There are no alternative decisions

19. PUBLICATION OF DECISIONS AND DEADLINE FOR CALL-IN

These decisions were published on 27th June 2002. The deadline for call-in of all decisions was Friday 5th July 2002 at 5pm, with the exception of Resolutions 2-4 relating to the Secondary School Places report (Minute 7 refers) which the Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee agreed could be implemented urgently, and which decision therefore came into effect immediately.

The meeting closed at 7.58 p.m

Cabinet decisions 18th June 2002 Page 12 THE COUNCIL'S BUDGET - REPORT OF THE ITEM 1 BOROUGH TREASURER

Contact Officer: J Maule Telephone: 01895 250567

SUMMARY

This report deals with:

· The out-turn for the General Fund (Revenue account) for 2001/02 · The out-turn for the Capital Budget for 2001/02 · The revenue budget monitoring for the current year and various issues arising from the above, together with some discussion of · the Government's approach to Revenue Support Grant changes

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Cabinet note the near-final revenue out-turn and recommends Council to release monies from balances to fund the initial work associated with establishing the Community Trust

2. That the capital out-turn be noted and officers be instructed to review capital monitoring processes

3. That Cabinet Members consider the scope for virement within their portfolio areas with Corporate Directors, to keep within cash limits

4. That Cabinet approves the proposals for funding additional ICT licensing costs and additional insurance premiums from the Contingency provision.

5. That officers be instructed to prepare a response to the Government's consultation on Government funding for the September Cabinet meeting.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations 1-4 deal with decisions that support effective management of the Council's budgets. Recommendation 5 arises from the reference in the Leader's Statement and the need to take the opportunity presented by this formal consultation process to make the Council's case for additional government funding.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

Cabinet need not take any decisions at this meeting on the budget items. However, if savings are to be made to offset overspends, the earlier "in principle" decisions are taken, the more options are likely to be available. Corrective action becomes increasing difficult as the financial year progresses. Similarly the recommendations on balances and use of contingency will avoid uncertainty about funding for these items.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 1 There is no requirement to respond to the Government consultation paper.

INFORMATION

REVENUE OUT-TURN 2001/02

1. The table below sets out the budget and the corresponding actual net expenditure (as currently identified) for the year. The overall position shows that the General Fund was underspent by £1.4m, resulting in balances at 31st March 2002 being £4.5m, rather than the £3m originally budgeted.

£000k Budget Out-turn Variation Education, Youth & Leisure 149,187 148,465 -722 Central/Corporate 12,060 11,350 -710 Housing 8,279 8,602 +323 Environmental Services 39,362 39,361 -1 Social Services 63,222 63,507 +285 Risk Contingency 860 0 -860 Interest & Investment Income -1,000 -718 282 External Interest charges 8,674 8,438 -236 Capital charges -44,509 -44,307 202 Net revenue expenditure 236,136 234,698 -1,438 RSG + NNDR + Council Tax 239,836 239,836 0 Surplus -3,700 -5,138 -1,438 Balances brought forward 661 661 0 Balances carried into 2002/03 -3,039 -4,477 -1,438

2. This result is the combination of a number of factors and the main ones for each service are set out below.

3. In Education, Youth and Leisure there was a significant underspend largely due to lower than expected take-up of the additional provision made last year for Special Educational Needs. The overall position includes a loss of expected grant for nursery provision for three year olds, due to a change in the grant criteria that was only identified during the closing of the accounts. This is likely to have a more significant impact in 2002/03 (see below).

4. An underspend in the central departments (Chief Executive's Office and Finance & Property) arose primarily from vacancy savings in a number of services, including Internal Audit, Payroll, Revenues and the post of Director of Finance. Higher than expected rent income levels produced a underspend in the Council's estates budgets in Property Services. Legal Services achieved greater than expected external income. The receipt of the first £500,000 tranche of the gift from BAA relating to the establishment of a Trust has been accounted for in this service grouping and was not anticipated in the budget.

5. An overspend of £323k on Housing was mainly due to the combined impact of increased demand and rising market costs of accommodation on the Homeless

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 2 service, together with some smaller items including the repair costs of damages caused by a recent disturbance at the Colne Park caravan site.

6. An overspend of £285k on Social Services was the net result of overspending on residential placement costs in Children and Families and on Homecare, offset by savings in residential placement costs in Adult services and substantial additional grant income arising from changes to eligible costs for asylum-seeking children and clearance of a number of prior year grants. This increase in grant assumes that the Council will be paid in full for eligible expenses and will not be subject to a national cap on total grant paid. This will not be established for some months.

7. Departments are currently working on the detailed analysis of the overall results. It is already clear that some significant movements that have improved the out-turn could not have been identified by the time of budget-setting as they arose from events outside the Council's control. Certain (mainly technical) accounting entries are outstanding at the time of this report and may affect the out-turn shown. Overall, the result shows a very satisfactory improvement from the previous deficit position, which would not have been achieved without the improvements in budgeting and budgetary control that have been put in place.

Use of Balances

8. The increase in balances may appear to offer an opportunity to fund new expenditure but there are a number of factors to be borne in mind.

9. Firstly, Members should note that there are still some areas of considerable uncertainty, particularly in relation to prior year claims for Housing Benefit for Social Services clients. There remains uncertainty about charging for services provided to clients under the Mental Health Act. Additional income expected from Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children grant may be affected by the operation of a national cap on the grant. These issues could require the Council to repay sums of income already accounted for. As always, factors outside the Council’s control remain a significant source of risk.

10. Secondly, in the current year (discussed below) officers are already identifying areas of potential budget pressure. It would be advisable to await the outcome of corrective measures and more detailed analysis before considering the allocation of any balances to new schemes.

11. Thirdly, the Council's policy is to continue to build-up balances (as confirmed in the Leader's Statement and Council Strategy 2002/03). Even with the addition made in 2001/02, the level falls below the 2% (£5m) net budget I have advised should be the minimum and is well short of the 5% (£12m) target that is expected to form part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment on finances. The Leader has stated that his objective is to achieve balances and contingencies totalling £12m.

12. For these reasons, the Borough Treasurer advises that the Cabinet should make only limited recommendations to Council to release any of the additional

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 3 balances for expenditure at this stage. One exception is suggested, in relation to the establishment of the Community Trust to be funded by BAA.

13. At the time the Council's budget was set, it was unclear whether the first instalment would be received in 2001/02 or 2002/03 and the budget dealt only with one instalment, that to be received in 2002/03. In the event, the first instalment was received in late March and is therefore part of the overall balances.

14. In accordance with the previous decisions of the Policy Committee, legal advisers have been engaged to carry out the work necessary to establish a Community Trust, following a tendering exercise and approval by the relevant Cabinet Member. As these costs are the first call on the BAA gift of £500,000 p.a. to the Council, Council will need to release a sum adequate to fund this work.

15. At this stage, the total cost cannot be predicted as the basis of the tender was an hourly rate and the full extent of the workload cannot be assessed at present. At this stage, In order to enable work to progress smoothly, it would be appropriate for Cabinet to recommend the Council to release a sum of £50,000 from the BAA funding in balances. This sum should suffice to cover the work of the legal advisers, and any ancillary costs. Further recommendations to Council may be made as the need arises.

CAPITAL OUTTURN 2001/02

16. The out-turn for 2001/02 for the capital programme is summarised in the table below. A more detailed analysis is appended to this report.

Item 2001/2002 2000/2001 £k £k 1. Expenditure Programme - Policy Committee February 41,042 47,197 Monitoring Changes since February +61 +1,194 Revised Final Budget 41,103 48,391 Out-turn Expenditure 35,127 42,455 Variation against Budget -5,976 -5,926 % Change Out-turn to Final Budget -14.5% -12.2%

2. Unapplied Capital Receipts c/f Programme - Policy Committee in February 3,787 2,762 Monitoring Changes since February -987 -113 Revised Final Budget 2,800 2,649 Out-turn Capital Receipts c/f 5,289 5,286 Variation against Budget +2,489 +2,636

17. As can be seen from the table the out-turn for 2001/02 showed a very similar pattern to the previous year. The variance, £5,976k is virtually all accounted for by slippage of expenditure into the current year, rather than any underspends on projects.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 4 18. A significant element of the slippage relates to programmes funded by specific resources as opposed to general capital receipts. This is why the increase in unapplied receipts carried forward is a lower figure than the total expenditure variation. With the abolition of the receipts taken into account mechanism (RTIA) the increase in receipts carried forward will not have a detrimental effect on future allocation of resources from government.

19. The main elements of the underspend are as follows:

Item £k Comment HRA – Purchase of 1,700 Delays in processing conveyancing properties due to staff shortage has resulted in completions slipping into 2002/03. Conveyancing work now being undertaken by an external firm. Schools projects incl NDS 1,275 Variation largely attributable to obtaining up to date forecasts from schools on projects they are managing about the cashflow of NDS, formula capital funded schemes. These resources are ring fenced to schools and carry forward into 2002/03 ITP Programmes 1,101 Some of these variations arise due to the later notification of allocations from TfL. In most instances TfL has confirmed that resources will carry forward. The only area where confirmation is still awaited is £235k related to Bridges.

20. The variation on expenditure shown by the final out-turn indicates that there is room for improvement for the information flows around the monitoring of the overall programme. More accurate initial assessments of cashflow, coupled with better information on progress, could have eliminated much of the apparent slippage. Steps to improve monitoring are being put in hand.

21. In 2001/02 the usable capital receipts figure, excluding council house sales, was £4,171k. The major receipts achieved during the year were:

· Land at Harlington High St £1,205k · Harlington School £908k · The Chimes £500k · Kingshill Depot £474k · Langley Farm £440k · Highgrove deposit £210k

22. The prospective level of future capital receipts will continue to be an important determinant of the size of the capital programme, both in the current year and future

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 5 years. Although the Government is planning to relax capital controls, this will require legislation and will not have effect before 2004/5 at the earliest. Under current proposals, direct capital controls will be replaced by prudential guidelines, designed to ensure that borrowing costs are kept within affordable bounds. The Capital Strategy is the subject of a separate report to this meeting, as is the Asset Management Plan.

REVENUE MONITORING 2002/03

23. The routine monthly monitoring of the revenue budget began in June, looking at the expenditure and income in April and May and then adding an assessment of the remainder of the year. Areas of the budget that are demand-led are projected largely on the basis of current trends, which may well change during the course of the financial year. Projections at this time of year are particularly likely to be unreliable guides to the precise out-turn, but can be used to indicate trends and the need for appropriate budget management responses.

Budget Latest Forecast Projected £ £ Variance £ Education Youth & Leisure 141,851,190 141,851,190 0 Central Departments excl 6,893,720 6,824,820 -68,900 CEO Chief Executive’s Office 5,566,510 5,566,710 +200 Housing 7,632,270 7,656,270 +24,000 Environment 39,207,940 39,764,460 +556,520 Social Services 64,955,390 65,155,390 +200,000 Net Committee Expenditure 266,107,020 266,818,840 +711,820 Inflation Provision 8,384,000 8,384,000 0 Savings/BAA gift -1,010,000 -1,010,000 0 Developments Contingency 2,400,000 2,400,000 0 Interest Income -1,100,000 -1,100,000 0 Asset Mgt A/c -31,557,830 -31,557,830 0 Total Net Expenditure 243,223,190 243,935,010 +711,820

Budget Requirement -243,523,190 -243,523,190 0

Surplus (-)/Deficit (+) -300,000 +411,820 +711,820 Balances b/f 1 April -3,127,000 -3,976,800 -849,800

Balances c/f 31 March -3,427,000 -3,564,980 +137,980

24. This table shows that unless corrective action is taken the cash limit for the current year will be breached. The main factors contributing to this are:

Lower than expected income from planning and building control £210k Various other items in Environmental Services £347k Effect of new charging policy for Social Service Day Care £200k

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 6 25. The projection assumes that certain items, identified during the budget setting process will be met from the contingency provision (see below). Within service budgets, some re-alignment is likely to be needed to offset specific pressures. There are also additional potential pressures emerging, not included in the above table, of which the principal ones are identified below.

26. Nursery Grant - a change in the entitlement regulations for the nursery grant for three year olds means that income of some £650k is not now expected to be received. Discussions are taking place with the DfES to seek to reduce the impact in the current year. It may be possible to offset this loss to some extent if the provision for Special Educational Needs is likely to be underspent as in 2001/02.

27. Preserved rights - enhanced income support was withdrawn from certain Social Services clients from April this year. The Council has to bear the financial consequences of this. Although the Government introduced a new grant, supposedly to offset this new cost, it is becoming clear that there is likely to be a considerable shortfall. This appears to be a national problem. In a similar vein, changes to the regulations relating to Residential Accommodation appear likely to impose increased costs on the Council. Work is being undertaken to try and firm up the costs of these changes but they are likely to be substantial.

28. Pay awards - Unison members have been taking strike action across London in support of a major increase in London weighting (from £1,407 to £4,000 in Outer London). TGWU and GMB members will be joining this action. A strike ballot on the annual pay award received support from all three unions.

29. The Employers' representatives (both on the national pay award and the London weighting issue) have made it clear that councils lack the funds to make generous awards and have offered a 3% increase on the basic pay award. London weighting has normally increased by the same percentage as the main award. The union side may have an unrealistic expectation that the Government will provide the extra funding necessary. At this stage, it is impossible to predict what the outcome will be and hence to assess whether the inflation provision made will be adequate.

30. Locally, the effect of the strike action results in some direct savings, as pay is docked for days not worked. However, some additional costs are being incurred in order to keep essential services open. The overall impact will depend on how extensive the strike action is.

31. Cabinet may allocate sums from the Contingency provision to offset budget pressures. It may also recommend Council to release funding from balances. Otherwise, officers will need to identify measures to offset pressures and seek agreement to any necessary virements from Cabinet members or Cabinet.

Release of Contingency Provisions

32. Cabinet is responsible for managing the contingency provision in the budget. A number of items that were identified during the budget process as likely calls on this sum can now be quantified. Cabinet is requested to release the necessary funds. If

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 7 funds are not released from the contingency, savings will have to be identified from existing budgets to offset these unavoidable costs. The Contingency sum originally agreed was £2,400k. The new scheme of Members' allowances that was agreed at the annual meeting of the Council is estimated to cost £635,400 in the current year. Council agreed to this being met from the contingency sum, leaving a balance of £1,764,600.

Microsoft Licensing

33. Microsoft announced new licensing charges some months ago, which would have increased the Council's costs for various desktop packages by some £400,000. Concerted effort by the public sector has resulted in a much improved deal with a single price for all public sector bodies - a good example of the use of collective purchasing power. Nevertheless, there is still a sizeable increase over current budget provision and this amounts to £197,300 i.e. just under the minimum figure previously indicated (£200,000). The agreement has been signed and the excess cost now needs to be covered by an allocation from the contingency provision. Future licences will be managed by the Corporate ICT team during the three year period of the agreement.

34. Education, Youth and Leisure are outside the scope of this agreement because they are covered by an agreement under the London Grid for Learning.

Insurance

35. It was clear during the budget process that premiums would be increasing, partly as a result of the destruction of the World Trade Centre (and the consequent world-wide impact on insurance) and partly due to poor claims experience locally.

36. In seeking to minimise the impact, officers have accepted an excess on the policy but the increased cost over budget provision is £221,700. This compares with an estimate of £250,000 previously reported. This cost is spread over all General Fund services. Increased costs for the Housing Revenue Account will be met from that account, rather than the contingency.

37. Both these items are continuing costs and provision will need to be made in the budget for 2003/04 and subsequent years.

Unidentified Budget Savings Provision - £510,000

38. Officers have so far identified savings of £270,000 including some capitalisation (£40k), rating revaluations (£130k), unallocated growth in Education (£50k) and some vacancy management and non-staffing savings in the central departments (£50k). Work continues on the identification of the balance but this will need to be achieved in conjunction with delivering cash limits as set out above.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 8 Budget Issues for 2003/04

39. The Government continues to be committed to the introduction of a new system for allocating its revenue support to local government. A consultation paper was issued on 8th July and officers are currently analysing it. Responses are sought by 30th September. Essentially, the current approach of a formula based on unit costs is to be retained. The paper identifies various options for changing how the formulae for each service block are calculated, but leaves open the opportunity for authorities to suggest other options. The local authority working groups will continue to consider options during the summer. Some exemplifications, based on the 2002/03 SSA figures, are included in the consultation paper. All that can be said at this stage is that the scale of change could be substantial. The Government wishes to retain the floors and ceilings approach of the past two years and this can be used to modify the effect of change in the system, so that the impact in any individual year is not too dramatic. Further changes to data, particularly the input of the 2001 census information, will also have an effect on the distribution of grant.

40. These factors will make it particularly difficult to produce an early estimate of Revenue Support Grant for budget planning purposes, in advance of the announcement of the Provisional Settlement at the end of November.

41. Officers will be considering the consultation paper in detail during the summer. The Leader's Statement includes a commitment to continue pressing the Government to recognise: the inadequate funding provided for Social Services; the reduction in Revenue Support Grant [caused by ceilings]; and the failure of the system to recognise the costs that Heathrow imposes on residents. Officers will include these issues in a draft response to be reported to the September Cabinet meeting.

42. The outcome of the Government's latest Comprehensive Spending Review is expected on 15th July. This should give a broad indication of the level of support to local government. The Local Government Association has made a submission for increased funding on a wide range of services, totalling £18.7bn - a 30% increase on the 2002/03 level of funding. Economic commentators expect that increases for 2003/04 will be less generous than in the past two years.

Financial Implications

43. These are included throughout the report

Legal Implications

44. There are no legal implication arising from this report

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Working papers and reports Consultation document: Formula Grant Review

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 9 Appendix A

SUMMARY OF CAPITAL Total to Total Revised Outturn Variance Feb Change Budget Exp 01/02 PROGRAMME Cttee since 01/02 Feb £k £k £k £k £k HOUSING - HRA 12,950 12,950 11,079 (1,871) - Non HRA 5,018 5,018 5,012 (6) EDUCATION SERVICES Schools 6,510 179 6,689 5,414 (1,275) Schools Maintenance Programme 181 6 187 170 (17) Libraries, Recreation & Youth & Community 1,649 30 1,679 1,651 (28) Y&L Maintenance Programme 169 23 192 150 (42) ENVIRONMENT SERVICES ITP - Travel Awareness 11 11 8 (3) ITP - Walking 10 10 7 (3) ITP - Safer Routes to Schools 130 130 103 (27) ITP - LSS 494 (22) 472 348 (124) ITP - Borough Packages 64 64 - (64) ITP - Borough Principal Roads 380 22 402 394 (8) ITP - Parking 20 20 13 (7) ITP - Borough Support 12 12 13 1 ITP - LBPN 379 379 244 (135) ITP - LCN 224 224 34 (190) ITP - Bridge Maintenance 1,594 1,594 1,085 (509) ITP - Sweltrac 16 16 2 (14) ITP - West London Transport Strategy 20 15 35 17 (18) Major Road Schemes 40 40 - (40) Other Highway Schemes 34 34 34 - Environment Improvement Programme 1,405 (355) 1,050 1,005 (45) Other Schemes - Miscellaneous 656 (34) 622 400 (222) SRB Schemes 812 812 614 (198) Recreation 980 980 697 (283) Maintenance Programme 533 6 539 508 (31) FINANCE & PROPERTY ICT (including Future Development) 1,300 (7) 1,293 1,051 (242) Property 1,438 1,438 1,166 272) Other (inc SRB) 229 319 548 571 23 Maintenance Programme 1,401 (77) 1,324 942 (382) Contingency Balances 58 (35) 23 - (23) SOCIAL SERVICES Children & Families 266 (9) 257 218 (39) Older Persons 49 49 15 (34) Disabilities 17 17 15 (2) Support/Contingency 1,235 1,235 1,357 122 Under 5's Resource Centres - - 63 63 Maintenance Programme 58 58 54 (4)

REDUNDANCY COSTS/PROVISION 700 700 673 (27) Total Commitments 41,042 61 41,103 35,127 (5,976)

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 10 BASIC & GENERAL CREDIT APPROVALS 6,285 6,285 6,285 -

SUPPLEMENTARY CREDIT APPROVALS 783 147 930 881 (49)

SPECIFIC CAPITAL GRANTS 17,716 305 18,021 16,359 (1,662)

THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTIONS 1,793 227 2,020 1,455 (565)

USABLE CAPITAL RECEIPTS - GF 5,530 1,605) 3,925 4,171 246 - HRA 2,923 2,923 3,043 120

REVENUE CONTRIBUTIONS - GF - - - - - HRA 4,513 4,513 2,936 (1,577)

TOTAL RESOURCES 39,543 (926) 38,617 35,130 (3,487)

Estimated Usable Resources b/f 5,286 5,286 5,286

Cumulative Unallocated Resources 3,787 (987) 2,800 5,289 2,489

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 11 CAPITAL STRATEGY DOCUMENT ITEM 2

Contact Officer: Jim Burness Telephone: 01895 277584

SUMMARY

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) requires the Council to submit the Capital Strategy (CS) by 31 July 2002 for assessment as part of the ‘Single Capital Pot’ (SCP) arrangements for 2003/04. Members are required to formally approve the attached strategy for submission.

The CS is a high level document. The detailed capital programme which will flow from the CS will involve making choices on priorities. This will be the more difficult part of the overall process given the range of aspirations and demands in the CS. This detailed work is part of setting the financial policy framework for 2003/04.

RECOMMENDATION

Members agree the attached strategy for submission to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The document builds on the previous Capital Strategy (CS) submitted to government last year and which was assessed as satisfactory. It has been updated in the light of the Leader’s Statement & Council Strategy document. Agreement is required now in order to meet the Government’s 31st July deadline for submissions.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

Members have the option to suggest changes, but these need to be done at this meeting and need to recognise the prescribed format and length of this document.

INFORMATION

1. Appended to this paper is the draft Capital Strategy document that will be submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) at the end of July. The format and length of the document is prescribed by the ODPM.

2. The CS is used by government to inform how it will distribute the discretionary element of its allocation of capital resources to local authorities. For 2002/03 this was 5% of the total and Hillingdon received £286k by this route. The remainder is distributed by national formulas based on indicators used by government departments. The government has indicated it aims to increase the discretionary element of distribution of capital resources over time, so it is an important document in terms of securing resources for investment.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 12 3. The document has been updated in the light of the Leader’s Statement and Council Strategy document. In broad terms this does not substantial alter the main themes of the previous document, but does place a higher priority on investment linked to changing and modernising our processes and means of service delivery.

4. The CS is a high level strategic document. Part of the strategy is the process for prioritising proposals that will form the final capital programme. This work will form an important element in setting the 2003/04 financial and policy framework for the Council. The officer process will be led by Capital Investment Strategy Group, and this will advise Board and Cabinet around options and their implications. Underlying this there will be work by other existing groups that will deal with the prioritisation within programme areas such as maintenance, e-services, etc. The process will draw on the issues and priorities that will be contained in service plans prepared over this same period.

5. A draft programme will need to be brought to Cabinet in the Autumn prior to being issued for consultation alongside revenue plans. The final programme will be agreed in March following the agreement of the financial policy framework by the Council, and it will take into account announcements on government funding issued from December onwards.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Finance

6. The financial issues are covered in the report.

Legal

7. There are no specific legal implications arising from this report.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

8. The document summarises priorities that have been informed by a range of consultation processes.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Nil

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 13 LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON

CAPITAL STRATEGY

Submission to ODPM July 2002

Contact Point Jim Burness Head of Financial Planning Tel: 01895 277584 Email: [email protected]

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 14 L.B.HILLINGDON CAPITAL STRATEGY

Background to Hillingdon

Hillingdon is situated on the western edge of the Greater London area, and is the third largest London borough by area (11,031 ha). The borough is a mixture of urban and green belt, with the later being primarily in the North of the borough.

The borough is economically relatively prosperous due to its communication links (M25, M40, M4), and the location of Heathrow Airport in the south of the borough. It was ranked 22 out of 32 London authorities in terms of deprivation indices in 1998. The local areas of deprivation are concentrated in the Hayes area and South of Uxbridge.

The Borough has a significant number of large companies based in the area, particularly in the Heathrow environs including Stockley Park.

The Borough’s population is approximately 250,000 of which the ethnic minority population is around 40,000. The largest ethnic minority grouping is Indian representing around 8% of the population. The presence of Heathrow in the borough results in there being a number of local communities originating from asylum seekers, the most significant of which are Somalis. The population as a whole is forecast to show a slow growth (0.5%) over the next decade. Over this period the proportion of ethnic minorities is anticipated to increase to around 20%.

There are 94 schools in the Borough providing education to around 40,000 pupils aged 3 to 19, 29% belong to ethnic minority communities. Approximately 3% of the Borough’s children have statements of special educational needs.

Capital Programme

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 £k £k £k £k HRA 18,990 16,341 16,341 16,341 Affordable housing 3,682 3,682 3,682 3,682 Private sector housing 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 Education 7,819 7,769 703 509 Libraries, Youth & Leisure 3,839 21 - - Local and Environmental Services 3,289 2,630 1,450 1,450 Offices incl maintenance 2,235 1,800 1,800 1,800 ICT incl. e-Govt 2,049 1,000 1,000 1,000 Social Services 128 490 490 - Organisational Change & contingency 1,350 - - - Total 45,431 35,783 27,516 26,832 Sources of funding Credit Approvals 5,630 4,918 5,097 5,000 Grants incl. MRA 14,959 13,520 8,827 8,827 Capital Receipts 12,701 5,623 5,105 5,105 Revenue and other contributions 12,141 7,951 7,900 7,900 Balance to be funded - 3,771 587 -

The Council expects to achieve a minimum GF sales programme of £2.5m pa partly as a result of developing its AMP. The Council has for many years been very proactive in the disposal of surplus site. The Council’s overall treasury management position makes it likely that it will undertake a modest amount of “unsupported borrowing” when it is permitted to do so.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 15 L.B.HILLINGDON CAPITAL STRATEGY Introduction to the Capital Strategy The newly elected Council has agreed five main components for delivering the agenda it was elected on. These continue the broad themes of the previous Council. The five components are: ¨ Value for Money ¨ Modernise the way in which we work ¨ Service improvement ¨ Community engagement ¨ Partnership working These will shape the corporate priorities of the authority together with the community plan arising from community conference held by the authority.

1 Key Objectives – Programme Management, Review and Funding Key Areas of Capital Expenditure are controlled by the following priorities and objectives:– Housing – The needs for housing investment fall into three main areas. Firstly the continuation of efforts to support the provision of affordable housing for homeless households and key workers. Currently there are 1,750 people in temporary accommodation, and projections of numbers and likely increases in costs of temporary accommodation are likely to make this an increasing revenue cost to the authority. The second area is to assist improvements in the private sector stock by the housing improvement grants regime. The estimated backlog of repairs in the private sector based on the 2001 housing needs survey is £93m. The final element is investment in the Council’s own housing stock. Condition surveys have indicated that an annual programme of investment of £14m is required to maintain the assets and ensure they best meet the needs of an increasingly aging tenancy, 60% being over retirement age. Education – To ensure a sufficient number of school places exists in the primary and secondary sector to meet current and projected pupils numbers. This position has been reached in the primary sector but in the secondary sector there the urgent need to provide an additional 150 places in the north of the borough. This is currently proposed to be bridged by the provision of a new secondary school by a PFI partner. The schools AMP has identified an investment need of £30m and this will be tackled in the short term via funding made available for this purpose by the DfES. In the longer term the Council will explore the PFI procurement route to help solve some of this problem. The need to modernise and expand youth provision in the borough as part of a strategy to reduce anti-social behaviour is something that has feature strongly in community consultations. An asset management review of education, youth and leisure facilities will provide new youth and leisure facilities in conjunction with Lottery funding, and projects are in hand with local schools and under the Sure Start programme to support the government’s agenda for early years and childcare. Finally delivering on the Libraries Plan is estimated to require capital investment of at least £0.5m over the next three years and this will be linked to other locally based initiatives to extend the use of libraries as community facilities. Social Services – The priorities of this service are to deliver the modernising and joint working priorities of the Government. Specifically the development and improvement of operational establishments to ensure they meet Care Standards Agency requirements for future client demands. Asset reviews have identified the need to invest in excess of £25.5m on residential units for adults and children. The first phase of modernising the departments information systems has been completed but further investment is required to deliver the full benefits available. Joint work with the PCT has identified a programme of investment required to bring mental health provision in line with planned needs. There is also a need for investment with the PCT and GPs to bring the point of service access for many services provided by the department into GP surgeries and health centres. This will have implications for the accommodation and ICT strategies of these bodies.

Making a Difference

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 16 L.B.HILLINGDON CAPITAL STRATEGY Environment – The priorities for this service are derived from five main area. Firstly there is the very clear demands from the local community for the protection and improvements to the borough, ranging from removing local eyesores, enhancing the green belt, community safety initiatives and supporting the Council’s green spaces strategy through a sustainable programme. Secondly there is the partnership working with TfL in delivering on the Transportation Plan for London via the range of different programmes under that broad umbrella. Thirdly there is a commitment to ensure the highway is in a safe and well maintained condition. Fourthly in the coming years investment will arise as a result of the impact of T5 on the southern environs of the borough. Lastly, there is a need to assess and maximise the benefits from assets ranging from car parks to open spaces.

Modernising the Organisation – A key objective of the Council is to review from top to bottom day to day operations and processes, and to challenge the way they are carried out and to move towards a standardisation of common processes. This is linked to the theme of value for money in delivering services and has a direct relationship to the revenue budget. Two components of this for the capital strategy is via investment in property and accommodation and in the e-services strategy. Property & Accommodation Strategy – a key corporate priority is to invest £1.7m pa, in properties in order that they are efficient, safe and fit for purpose (ð DDA etc), and to bring access to service delivery closer to communities. For office accommodation investment will clearly focus on investing in the Civic Centre to maximise its efficiency. The Asset Management Plan (AMP) for the authority will have a major influence in shaping investment in this area as it will be looking to the future requirements of the authority and not just at maintaining the current portfolio. e-Services Strategy – Investment is planned to move forward the Council’s e Services Strategy and to progress the Council’s IEGS. The strategy has a range of objectives from improving access to services for all our communities, through to modernising business processes and the use of information. The new Council has committed itself to the target of having online by the end of 2003 over 100 services. The programme is also seen as crucial to reducing revenue costs and improving efficiency. Currently a minimum of £1m pa is planned to be spent on delivering the e- Government objectives. Partnerships with the private sector and other public sector organisations will be a significant part of the strategy and a number of these are in place.

Revenue implications of capital investment The Council aims to have a clear relationship between its capital and revenue strategies. Where capital projects are intended to produce revenue savings such as the reduction in the costs of residential care, these are built into future revenue forecasts. The Council’s medium term budget strategy relies on substantial savings being made in “back office” operations, and from the more informed use of resources. The option appraisals used in determining the deployment of resources requires the revenue implications to be clearly considered. The same link between investment and the revenue budget also applies for the HRA. The funding of the major HRA element of the strategy is dependent on the maintenance of the funding from the rents at historic levels, and is therefore reviewed annually in the light of subsidy and other determinations.

The Framework for managing and monitoring the capital programme 1. Forming the Strategy – The Capital Strategy and programme that flows from it, is developed each year by a senior officer group (ð Capital Investment Strategy Group). The programme is built to cover a three year time period and is based upon service plans and corporate strategies (ð AMP, IEGS) of the authority. The strategy takes into account expected resources available to the authority, which will be informed partly by the authority’s AMP. Prioritisation and management of e services projects is assigned to a senior officer group (ð E Services Group) which is charged

Making a Difference

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 17 L.B.HILLINGDON CAPITAL STRATEGY with amongst other things delivering the Council’s IEGS. The resultant overall investment strategy is reported to Management Board and Members for agreement. Services are invited singly or jointly to submit proposals for investment consistent with the overall strategy and their service plans, setting out standard information to enable differing proposals to be prioritised. The information required includes benchmarks for measuring progress and achievement. It also requires option appraisals framed around the best value procurement options. The proposals will identify the revenue implications of the proposal so a view on affordability can be made in the context of the Council’s wider medium term budget strategy. One of the important principles underpinning the strategy is that for programmes expected outcomes will be identified against which to review performance. Project management skills are essential for the efficient achievement of the programmes goals and the Council expects all project managers to follow its project management framework. Extending and re-inforcing project management skills is part of the Council’s corporate training programme for 2002/03.

2. Prioritisation - The prioritisation of projects is undertaken in a number of stages. Maintenance projects are prioritised by an officer group composed of property professionals and service clients. These decisions are influenced by condition surveys and other information being complied for asset management purposes. Schools investment priorities are driven by the work on the schools AMP. The E Services Group prioritises investment using the methodology set out in the authority’s IEGS. The final overall prioritisation is undertaken by recognising the importance in making some progress on meeting all the key objectives of the strategy. The weighting towards certain areas is currently determined by the impact on the medium term budget strategy and in particular the need to reduce revenue costs and delivery of agreed PSA targets. The final proposed programme is considered by the Management Board and Cabinet before being recommended to Council. The priorities set out are to be adhered to by officers and can only be altered by agreement through the process identified above.

3. Monitoring and review – The monitoring process in place is a two stage one. The first stage is a group of officers (ðCapital Management & Monitoring Group) directly involved in the delivery of programmes meeting monthly to review the overall position on spend and resources. The detailed monitoring is summarised and reported into meetings of the Capital Investment Strategy Group to enable tactical management decisions around programmes and resources, including slippage, to be taken. The detailed monitoring of the e-services part of the strategy is carried out by the E Services Group. The overall strategy is reviewed at least annually and a report made to the Management Board and Cabinet. The Cabinet receives quarterly reports on the capital programme.

Additional capital resources - informed bidding Bids for additional capital resources are targeted towards ensuring the viability and sustainability of Council services. Bids will not usually be made to expand services or develop new ones, as the Council is not in a position to sustain such developments. The Council will be considering its role as an enabler with the voluntary sector to secure external resources. This will require a period of capacity building with the voluntary sector to take place. The Council has appointed an external funding officer to co-ordinate information around funding opportunities and advise on bidding processes. Any projects put forward must be consistent with the priorities of the CIS and must not as a rule, increase the Council’s revenue commitments. As part of the process of developing external bids attention is paid to project management and delivery mechanisms as the Council is well aware of the time and output conditions that apply to many funding regimes. All external capital funding applications are reported to the Capital Investment Strategy Group.

Making a Difference

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 18 L.B.HILLINGDON CAPITAL STRATEGY Approach to PFI PFI is one of the procurement options that the Council considers for projects. Due to the costs involved in PFI it is realistically only considered viable for substantial projects. Currently a PFI proposal for a new secondary school has received outline business case approval and is at the stage of seeking planning permission prior to entering the tendering stage. Where substantial projects are proposed jointly with health partners it is recognised that PFI may be the only viable funding route. The Council will also take into account the affordability of PFI options.

Procurement Strategy The new Council has stated that it expects to challenge the method of service delivery to improve the quality of service delivery in every area of the authority. It will use the Best Value process in a robust manner to ensure challenge at every opportunity, in order to effect the delivery of services on a value for money basis. The Council has appointed a procurement manager tasked with developing a procurement strategy during 2002/03. This will involve reviewing and challenging current arrangements. This will give rise to investment requirements if the full benefits of improved procurement are to be achieved. Proposals for capital investment will be expected to have considered the best value procurement options before being submitted. In the area of construction related projects the Council is actively evaluating the implications of adopting PPC 2000 contract for large projects. The Council sees large synergies with the PPC 2000 approach and the direction it is already taking in respect of developing a project management culture.

Prioritisation of Investment The emphasis in the strategy is strongly around the following themes, which in many cases cut across traditional service boundaries. q Property and infrastructure review and maintenance. This area divides between the housing stock, public and private, other Council property, and the highways infrastructure. The plans around non-housing property focus strongly on ensuring that those assets which the authority see as being essential to its core business in the medium term are fit for purpose, efficient and meet all necessary standards (ð DDA). A major element in this is addressing the future requirements of adults with disabilities in the context of meeting CSA requirements and the strategy for supporting vulnerable people. q Modernisation of systems and facilities with the objectives of improving efficiency and reducing costs and thereby improving the sustainability of services. It is recognised that the review of process will result in the need for some investment to improve value for money but this will be demonstrated by clear business cases. Significant investment of £1m pa is planned in addition to any IEGS funding received. q Targeted service enhancements to respond to needs identified from the Community conference and other local consultation processes. Foremost in this area is a programme of £0.75m pa on local projects to extend community safety initiatives and reduce local eyesores and improve local areas in line with the views of those communities. q Increasing the affordable and supported housing supply to respond to a very clear need, including those of key workers, with an annual programme of £3m planned at this stage.

The funding involved in delivering to the full extent all the proposals from services is beyond the level of likely resources. The funding strategies will that underpin the current Capital Strategy are as follows:

Making a Difference

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 19 L.B.HILLINGDON CAPITAL STRATEGY q For the key Government priority of Education the Council will aim to fund a programme broadly in line with the resources made available to the Council via the Education ACG. q Where the Govt is making resources available to fund their chosen initiatives and where the Council is not obliged otherwise to carry out such programmes then spending will be set at level related to the funding secured, provided the results are affordable in terms of the council’s revenue budgets. q Single large projects (ð new secondary school, or a grouped-school PFI) will be considered via a PFI/PPP route together with other sources of capital funding. q Local environmental initiatives will, where available, use external funding to match fund, to a realistic level for the projects to achieve tangible impacts. Council will decide the size of the minimum programme it is prepared to underwrite each year. q Social Services developments will seek to maximise partnership funding with Health, and will seek also to identify possible linkages with Housing in respect of vulnerable people. The rationalisation of Social Services sites as its asset management review progresses, including joint administration functions, will form the main element in providing the Council's funding of these improvement programmes. The primary focus will be on improved value for money in service delivery, not the preservation of existing assets or service configurations. q HRA to continue with revenue contributions as the prime funding source for HRA capital programme, combined with the MRA. q Affordable housing programme will need to be underwritten to an agreed minimum level by general resources and the success in achieving any resources under s106 agreements. In addition consideration will be given to making some land available at a discounted value to RSLs that arise from asset management reviews. In addition the use of housing voids via the “trickle transfer” process is being used as a means of generating resources for affordable housing. q Education Youth & Leisure non-schools developments will seek to minimise level of Council general resources required, by the use of: Ø Enabling development value from sites in the programme Ø Private partnership for design, build and operate (DBO) if feasible Ø Maximising local partner contributions Ø Seeking Lottery funding where realistic

As a general principle external funding will be maximised subject to it not prejudicing overall project timetables and objectives, and that the outcomes are sustainable. 2 Links to Partners The strategy will be advanced in a number of areas with key partners.

The Council will be working with schools to tackle issues around school places, class sizes, exclusions and the physical status of the premises. In addition it is intended to increase the community use of school facilities outside of core school times and commitment exists with a number of secondary schools to undertake projects to achieve this.

The local further education provider Uxbridge College is an established partner of the Council’s in delivering the objectives of Life Long Learning, and training initiatives linked to regeneration projects.

The modernising agenda for Social Services makes essential that there will be joint working with the local Primary Care Trust, which is co-terminous with the borough. By 2003/04 mental health

Making a Difference

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 20 L.B.HILLINGDON CAPITAL STRATEGY services with be managed by the PCT under a s31 agreement which is in place and allows for Hillingdon to undertake similar responsibilities in respect of adults with learning disabilities. A joint project is underway between the borough, PCT and Hillingdon Hospital Trust for the provision of a new intermediate and nursing care facility in the borough to meet identified needs. Communication and linkages are in place with the PCT and hospital trusts for the co-ordination of asset management planning.

Local communities and community organisations are seen at the heart of many of the Council’s plans and the strategy contains theme programmes of local environmental improvements. The Council intends to build on the success of its recent Community Conference as a vehicle for bring together community views on investment priorities.

Increasingly the police are becoming involved in partnerships with the Council and local communities. The Council is keen to explore specifically the potential for developing a joint asset plan with the Police and the scope to share support services.

Key partners in meeting housing needs and dealing with homelessness are the Housing Corporation and RSLs. The future new arrangements for supporting vulnerable people will increase the need for such partnerships. In addition joint working with other West London authorities is becoming increasingly important to develop a regional perspective for projects such as the potential developments around certain MoD sites.

For transport issues there is a clear relationship with the GLA in agreeing programmes that will meet both London wide and Hillingdon priorities. The business community is a very important partner in an area with Hillingdon’s economic profile. In this context the Council is working in partnership with CISCO on aspects of using internet technology to access services and information as part of the Council’s e-services strategy. The business community is also a key partner for public transport and employment and training issues through various processes including planning agreements and sponsorship. BAA features significantly in these partnerships and this is expected to develop further as T5 progresses. BAA have been instrumental in pump priming the setting up of a Community Trust in response to the impact of T5 and this Trust is seen as a potential vehicle to attract additional external funding into the area. 3 Details of consultation The main features of the CIS are shared with local communities and partners by a variety of mechanisms such as; § The Community Planning process is the main focus for engaging local communities § The joint assets working group between the borough, PCT and hospital trusts, plus other joint commissioning groups involved with the health and social care agenda § The LEA and Schools Forum § Tenants surveys and consultations § The annual residents opinion survey Corporately the Council keeps its consultation mechanisms under review to ensure they properly reflect the different interest groups in the borough and use all appropriate channels of communication. 4 Links to Other Relevant Strategies and Plans The CIS is reviewed to ensure its consistency with the Council’s Corporate Plan and BVPP which draw together the key parts of the range of different statutory and non statutory plans and strategies that exist for the various services of the Council. There will be a close relationship with the Asset Management Plan and the corporate officer group Making a Difference

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 21 L.B.HILLINGDON CAPITAL STRATEGY responsible for the CIS is also charged with ensuring consistency with the AMP.

5 Key Performance Measures and Innovations Performance measurement is driven by the project management approach adopted in the approval of projects. It is expected that milestones and outcomes are identified at the earliest possible stage. Emphasis is given to focus projects are where possible relating outcomes to PIs or PSA targets. The strategy contains significant element that will be delivered in partnership with and in some cases delivered by community groups and organisations. This is an area where it has been found important to get these communities to be clear what they perceive the success criteria for the project are, so that there is no friction as the project progresses. In the area of ICT progress is measured against the targets set in the IEGS document and in progress on BV PI157. 6. Cross cutting activity Areas of cross cutting activity include: q Property – The office accommodation strategy is approached on a corporate basis and is also looking to involve health colleagues with the long term objective of sharing facilities. q E-Services – The investment in this area is shaped by a corporate officer group that also includes representative of Health and the Council’s strategic ICT partner. Investment is focused on common issues such as telephony improvements and WAN/LAN development together with enhancements to website for service access. q Environmental Enhancements – the projects from local communities often require more than a single service response and has lead to the establishment of multi service delivery teams q Accommodation for vulnerable people – partnerships between social services, housing RSLs, clients and carers will provide the range of solutions needed for this particular client group.

Making a Difference

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 22 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE RE-INSPECTION ITEM 3 RESPONSE

Contact Officer: Brian Murrell Telephone: 01895 250612

SUMMARY

To report on the results of the Best Value Inspectorates (BVI) follow up inspection on Corporate Governance, and to note that the response made by the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council including an action plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Note the findings of the Corporate Governance follow up and the Council’s response.

2. Agree the action plan for taking this work forward.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

§ To ensure the Cabinet is aware of the issues raised by the BVI as a result of their follow up inspection.

§ The BVI requires that we agree an action plan.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

The option open to the cabinet is to agree or amend the specific items as set out in the Action Plan.

COMMENTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

No involvement at this stage.

INFORMATION

1. In April 2002 the BVI carried out a short follow up visit to check on the Council’s progress in implementing the recommendations of the Corporate Inspection.

2. The BVI subsequently wrote setting out their findings. This letter is attached at Appendix A. It is clear that the BVI consider that apart from matters in respect of financial management that the Council has not made satisfactory progress.

3. As a result the Council were informed that:

(1) The BVI would carry out a full corporate assessment in September. (2) The Council must urgently prepare an action plan to address the issues raised in their letter.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 23 4. The action plan and the Council’s response, sent on 5th July are attached at Appendices B and C.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5. There are no specific legal implications arising from this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6. Most of the items included in the Action Plan involve officer time or have been specifically provided for in the budget. Some items, such as the appointment of external advisors, are not specifically provided for and funding will need to be identified in due course.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Nil

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 24 Dorian Leatham Chief Executive London Borough of Hillingdon Civic Centre High Street Uxbridge UB8 1UW

Monday, 10 June 2002

Dear Dorian,

Re: Corporate Governance Follow up Inspection

Introduction

This letter sets out the findings of the follow-up inspection of Corporate Governance in Hillingdon undertaken in April 2002.

In July 2001 the Audit Commission carried out an inspection of Corporate Governance in the London Borough of Hillingdon. During our inspection it was evident that while some problems were being effectively addressed by the Authority a number of areas required further attention including that:

· “It is behind on the process of political modernisation…;

· Councillors want to improve the area but are not looking at other Councils to see what has been achieved elsewhere…;

· Balances remain inadequate and consequently some ‘demand-led’ budgets could cause future financial crises…;

· Corporate priorities and programmes are not sufficiently driving financial and service planning…;

· There are too many uncoordinated action plans and there is insufficient prioritisation given the resources available…; and,

· Leader/Chief executive working arrangements need improvement.”

These were the primary areas of concern that were addressed in our recommendations in the final report.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 25 In April 2002 Jo Webb and Sean Connolly returned to Hillingdon to carry out a follow-up inspection. The aim of this inspection was to check the progress the council had made since the report focussing, in particular, on the extent to which the recommendations outlined in the final report had been implemented. They examined a range of documents and interviewed leading Councillors and officers, including the Chief Executive, and held three focus groups.

Overall we conclude that while significant and substantial progress has been made in the area of financial management progress on other significant areas is, at best, mixed. Consequently we judge that Hillingdon’s prospects for further improvement are, at this time, uncertain.

In order to ensure urgent progress over the next 6 months Hillingdon should produce a challenging action plan to address the continuing areas of concern. This is to be sent to Ian Hickman, Commissioning Inspector by 24th June 2002. The robustness of the plan, the extent to which it is challenging, and how far Hillingdon has been successful in implementing it, will, together with this letter and the original Corporate Governance report, form the basis for the Corporate Assessment judgement to be made by the Commission this September.

Recommendation 1

To get political modernisation right the Council needs to develop a sense of urgency in delivering the process it has embarked on by: i. Visiting other Councils and councillors and learning from their experience by October 2001.

ii. Using case examples to draft detailed protocols for the new working arrangements by December 2001.

iii. Undertaking some trial decisions using the new structures by March 2002. Preparing a programme of post-election skills-based training for all councillors by March 2002 and linking this to officer training as appropriate.

iv. Preparing a programme of post-election skills-based training for all councillors by March 2002 and linking this to officer training as appropriate.

i. Progress on “Visiting other Councils and councillors and learning from their experience by October 2001.” The council did plan a series of visits for the leader and other councillors. The Leader and Chief Executive did visit two other councils and we were told that particularly the Leader found these visits to be useful and informative. However only one of the planned visits for other councillors happened as planned. We accept that a number of logistical issues made these planned visits difficult but would argue that looking outside Hillingdon is very important for councillors. Our original inspection

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 26 found that the majority of councillors in Hillingdon were traditionally inward looking, a view that councillors themselves accepted. Hillingdon accepted that very little alternative training or development had been provided to councillors to explain the implications of political modernisation. ii. Progress on “Using case examples to draft detailed protocols for the new working arrangements by December 2001.” This recommendation was not implemented by Hillingdon. At the time of our reinspection the protocols for the new working relations were still in draft, though close to completion. Case studies were not used in drafting the protocols.

Officer support for Cabinet and Scrutiny will come from staff employed in the existing committee services section supported by some additional posts. However the council has not yet identified exactly how this support will operate. iii. Progress on “Undertaking some trial decisions using the new structures by March 2002.” This recommendation was not implemented by Hillingdon. It was considered ‘too difficult’ in the context of a hung Council – although it was acknowledged at the time of the follow up inspection that a possible outcome from the election would be another hung Council and this has since proved to be the case. iv. Progress on “Preparing a programme of post-election skills-based training for all councillors by March 2002 and linking this to officer training as appropriate.” Officers have developed a programme of training for councillors following the election of the new council. However in the initial weeks of the new Council it is suggested that only very general training on modernisation is provided and it be offered to all the Councillors as part of the induction programme. Only several weeks later is it suggested that a mediated Away Day be held for Executive members and Board members to deal with their roles and interrelationships. Then, arising from this more detailed training would be offered on the principles of Executive decision making, Overview and Scrutiny and the Standards Committee. In addition training for all councillors is planned in their new Community Councillor role, phased over 12 months. The subsequent training would be carried out by the ALG.

There has been some training for more senior officers on the new political structures and what they will mean. This has mainly been through special briefings either already carried out or planned for early May. When we spoke to staff and middle managers they were all aware of the new structures. However while some felt bombarded with information some told us that they had not been adequately briefed formally and had instead picked up information either by word of mouth or as residents of the borough.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 27 Overview of progress made against recommendation 1.

At the time of the inspection Hillingdon was one of only two London Boroughs, (the other being the Corporation of London), not to be operating a shadow modernised structure in advance of the legal requirement to modernise its political decision making structures in May 2002.

A modernised constitution had been approved and its production, only just prior to the legal requirement, was seen as a major achievement by both senior officers and councillors. It was generally agreed that, latterly, the senior councillors of the three political groups had worked well on the production of the constitution but the lateness of their constructive engagement had placed unacceptable pressure on key officers. The political groups had identified the different approaches that they would take to issues such as cabinet portfolios but there had been no discussions or agreements about the approach if Hillingdon was without a single party with overall political control after the May election.

Without any substantial recent experience of modernised ways of working (even through the use of workshops to trial new approaches to decision making) or agreement about cabinet arrangements in the event of a hung Council we are seriously concerned about Hillingdon’s ability to implement an effective decision- making process. Since the May 2nd elections returned another hung council this is of particular concern.

Recommendation 2

In order for the Leader of the Administration and Chief Executive to have a clear common purpose, good understanding and act as role models for good officer/Councillor working we recommend that they: i. set up and publicise mechanisms for purposeful, regular, two-way dialogue immediately; and

ii. work together on a shared vision based on an understanding of the challenges faced by the Council and the different communities that it serves and publish it by January 2002.

i. Progress on “set up and publicise mechanisms for purposeful, regular, two-way dialogue immediately.” The Leader and Chief Executive do now meet more frequently though not through a set of programmed meetings. However both the leader and the Chief Executive told us their working relationship had improved over the last year. Improvement was also evident in the effectiveness of the working relationship between the minority administration and the Council’s senior management team.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 28 ii. Progress on “work together on a shared vision based on an understanding of the challenges faced by the Council and the different communities that it serves and publish it by January 2002.” This recommendation was not implemented by Hillingdon. The Leader and Chief Executive did not work together on a shared vision. The Chief Executive recently produced an internal document “A Future Perspective” setting out his view of the future direction for Hillingdon. This document was not accepted by the Administration that took the view that it was for councillors to set the vision for the area through its manifesto. “A Future Perspective” has some merit in setting out some of the challenges faced by the authority but it provides, in any case, more of a managerial agenda for the council than a vision designed to address the perceived North/South split in the borough.

Overview of progress made against recommendation 2.

There had been improvement in the effectiveness of the working relationship between the Leader and the Chief Executive and Management Board and the Administration.

Evidence from the original inspection and from focus groups carried out at the time of the follow up inspection with front-line officers, managers and councillors suggest that there is a continuing lack of understanding of the respective roles of officers and Councillors. Progress has been made over the last few years and it would be wrong to now characterise these relationships as poor. However Councillors agreed that there were a large number of “good officers” but also some that they could not trust and officers said that they enjoyed good relationships with some Councillors but that they felt some often “interfered”. The progress that has been made at the most senior levels of the organisation needs to be learnt from and achieved more widely.

Finding a way of addressing the divided nature of borough’s population is now urgent. The continuing hung status of the council would seem to be not so much an indicator that the people of Hillingdon are unable to make up their minds but more a symptom of the very real different experiences and aspirations of different parts of the area. This would also be seem to be a significant factor in preventing the Authority from finding ways of making progress in spite of the lack of a majority administration. Many authorities are hung, serve similarly fragmented communities and yet have managed to successfully introduce political modernisation and have found ways of transcending and/or responding to the differences inherent in the area they serve.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 29 The council needs to serve all of its communities and people and because of this it is vital that councillors and officers work together to set its direction.

Recommendation 3

Councillors need to more actively drive integrated service and financial planning, ensuring that resources are targeted on policy priorities as part of the budget cycle by:

i. allocating resources to fund policy developments and deliver the change programme;

ii. establish service priorities and request options for specified levels of savings and growth; and

iii. effectively using competition and new methods of procurement to deliver improvements quicker.

i. Progress on “allocating resources to fund policy developments and deliver the change programme” There were some examples of where councillors at the end of the budget process identified additional funding for policy development and to deliver the change. These included increasing funding for Youth Services in response to public concern over facilities for youth and youth crime, community safety and funds for the implementation of political modernisation. While these are positive indicators of progress the decisions were taken late in, rather than being central to, the budget setting process. ii. Progress on “establish service priorities and request options for specified levels of savings and growth” The Authority’s budget setting process was improved compared to previous years with Councillors playing a more significant role for example through early consideration of areas of budgetary pressure. There was also a series of papers taken through service committees that provided Councillors with a range of budget savings options. iii. Progress on “effectively using competition and new methods of procurement to deliver improvements quicker.” The council have recently appointed a procurement manager and plan to develop an initial procurement strategy starting in July 2002. The task of changing procurement practises in groups is not scheduled to begin until September 2002 while a review of outsourcing is scheduled to begin in early June. We are concerned that while these are positive actions the timescale involved is too long. Our recommendation was around the council using competition and new methods of procurement to deliver improvements more quickly. While we accept the appointment of the procurement

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 30 manager is a first step the currently planned timescales are unlikely to deliver any real service improvements until the middle of 2003 at the earliest. We feel the council has failed to react with sufficient urgency. We also believe this is another example of the council failing to look outside Hillingdon and see what others are doing in this area. Many other councils are using more imaginative methods of procurement and we feel Hillingdon could learn from their example.

Overview of progress made against recommendation 3.

While progress has been made on implementing the recommendation Hillingdon is still some way from having a service and financial planning framework that supports Councillors to target resources on policy priorities.

Recommendation 4

Action plans to be drawn together, co-ordinated, simplified by January 2002 and monitored through the corporate management team.

Overview of progress made against recommendation 4.

This recommendation was not implemented by Hillingdon. It was the view of the original Corporate Governance Inspection team that Hillingdon had too many action plans and that these were not sufficiently co-ordinated. In response to the recommendation the Authority reviewed and its action plans, produced a paper for Management Board that lists them. The paper concluded that absolutely no changes were necessary.

Recommendation 5 Whilst the Council is to be congratulated for the improvements made following the financial difficulties it faced during 2000/01, it should recognise the need to maintain the momentum and not be deflected by short-term electoral or other pressures. To ensure that it is able to continue this: i. the Finance Scrutiny Panel should meet regularly to review financial procedures;

ii. the Policy Committee should meet regularly to monitor financial strategy and performance;

iii. the Finance Director must be in post and progress made in recruiting finance staff by January 2002; and

iv. the short-term budgetary position should be monitored closely and balances built up in the medium to longer term.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 31 i. Progress on “the Finance Scrutiny Panel should meet regularly to review financial procedures” This recommendation was not implemented by Hillingdon. However most people spoken to agreed that the panel had largely completed its work and that between them Policy Committee and the Finance and Economic Regeneration Sub- Committee fulfilled the same function and progress in financial management has been maintained. ii. Progress on “the Policy Committee should meet regularly to monitor financial strategy and performance” This recommendation has been met. iii. Progress on “the Finance Director must be in post and progress made in recruiting finance staff by January 2002 The decision was taken not to appoint to the post of Finance Director. We understand that this was because while the administration remains committed to the post there was shared concern between the other two parties about whether, given the cost, the post was necessary or whether its functions could be fulfilled between the Treasurer and the Chief Executive.

While the Authority’s finances are healthier the post would improve the Authority’s ability to deal with the following issues:

w Currently all heads of finance report to their relevant service directors which could mean that their loyalties are to service departments rather than the authority as a whole.

w While significant progress has been made Hillingdon still faces considerable financial pressures. In common with other London authorities Hillingdon faces considerable problems when trying to recruit scarce financial staff. However a number of factors mean there are some grounds for optimism.

w The new financial management system was already producing efficiencies in financial processing;

w The authority has got better at recruiting and making use of agency staff to fill gaps quickly; and,

w Funds have been approved to provide more competitive salary levels. iv. the short-term budgetary position should be monitored closely and balances built up in the medium to longer term There was consensus that the rigour and accuracy of financial monitoring by officers and Councillors has continued to improve. At the time of the inspection it was estimated that at out-turn balances would be increased by more than the target set

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 32 for the year. The 2002/2003 budget allows for still further increases to balances and has an increased amount ear-marked for contingencies.

Overview of progress made against recommendation 5.

Overall significant and substantial progress has been made against this recommendation. In addition to the points made above a number of the areas of financial vulnerability identified in paragraph 118 of the Corporate Governance Report have been addressed or resolved. These include a relatively small but none the less symbolic contribution to the insurance fund and the resolution of the issue on National Non Domestic Rates.

Conclusion

Overall it is disappointing that while Hillingdon has made progress in some areas many of the recommendations of the Corporate Governance Inspection have not been implemented and there has generally been a lack of alternative actions that would have achieved the same or a similar outcome. In view of our continuing concerns prospects for improvement the Audit Commission will carry out a full Corporate Assessment in September 2002.

Yours sincerely

Ian Hickman Commissioning Inspector

cc; Brian Murrell Roy Irwin Molly Lewis

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 33 ACTION PLAN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

ACHIEVEMENTS/PROGRESS SINCE APRIL 2002

Modernising

§ Decisions of Council 16 May 2002.

- Cabinet portfolios and membership agreed.

- Overview and Scrutiny roles and membership agreed.

- Planning and budget framework agreed.

§ Additional resources agreed to support new structures.

§ Forward plan operational.

§ Cabinet meeting regularly.

§ Overview and Scrutiny Committees, working with ALG support, developing work plan proposals. Work referred to all by Cabinet.

§ Briefings held for key officers, trade unions and local press.

§ ALG member training progressing.

§ ICT support to all councillors being rolled out.

§ Web based system for monitoring most frequently asked questions.

§ Work programme agreed for completion of all operational procedures, protocols and guides.

§ Modernisation Working Party – scheduled meetings to review progress.

Leader and Chief Executive

§ Leader’s Statement adopted by Council 16 May 2002 setting out key priorities for the new Administration.

§ Executive Briefing established as a regular mechanism for Cabinet/Management Board working. Protocols agreed and agenda/programme established.

§ First Awayday (21/6/02) held to start work on priority setting, budget management and modernising.

§ June Cabinet adoption of Community Plan.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 34 § Regular meetings taking place between the Leader and Chief Executive.

Service and Financial Planning/Action Plans

§ Preliminary work on medium term budget strategy.

§ Revised timetable and framework for service and financial planning operating under new political structures agreed.

§ Work commenced on service/budget plan preparation for 2003/4.

§ Performance Management identified as key corporate portfolio, integrating financial and service planning with Quality, Best Value and performance issues.

Financial Management

§ Arrangements in hand to re-advertise Director of Finance post.

§ Continued progress in recruiting other financial staff.

§ Member commitment to strengthening reporting lines between Heads of Finance and Director of Finance.

§ Outturn increased by a further £1.4million over planned increase to £3million.

§ Good progress on implementation of Oracle Financials (target start date October 2002).

§ Interim strategy and Best Value Review plan for procurement adopted by Management Board.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 35 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FOLLOW UP ACTION PLAN

ISSUE ACTIONS TIMEFRAME MODERNISATION MANAGEMENT AND § Continue regular officer group meetings led personally by Chief Executive to drive Every two weeks. CO-ORDINATION implementation and review process.

§ Regular reports to Management Board on progress. Ongoing.

§ Agreed work programme regularly monitored. Every two weeks.

§ Programmed meetings of member working party to finalise outstanding procedures and Up to November 2002. contribute to review. OPERATIONAL § Completion of comprehensive set of protocols and operating guides for members, officers September 2002. EFFECTIVENESS and public. RESOURCING § Additional £150,000 for servicing new structures. Appointments by October 2002

§ Additional funds for ICT for members. Roll out of first phase to Cabinet by September, all members by end of 2002.

§ Enhanced role of members recognised in allowances. Done. COMMUNICATION § News and information on internet, intranet, Council newsletters. Completed/regular updating.

§ Briefings to trade unions, local press. Completed.

§ Public guides and pamphlets on new system. September 2002. TRAINING § Comprehensive ALG training programme. To Dec 2002

§ Special briefings and a programme of training sessions to Senior Managers and other key Completed staff. REVIEW § Full review of systems effectiveness after six months. October 2002

§ Best Value Review of Democratic Services. April 2003.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 36 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FOLLOW UP ACTION PLAN

ISSUE ACTIONS TIMEFRAME LEADER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SHARED VISION § Detailed work on programming and resourcing Leader’s Statement. By July 2002.

§ Briefings and involvement of senior and middle managers, including senior managers conference, lunchtime Leader and Cabinet member meetings with staff. Over next six months.

§ Involving cabinet members in performance review.

§ Lead and develop the Local Strategic Partnership; establish structures to implement and July 2002 monitor the Community Plan. By September 2002. § Joint Vision published.

By September 2002. REGULAR DIALOGUE § Development and continuation of Executive Briefing. Ongoing.

§ Regular, programmed Awaydays. Up to April 2003.

§ Special briefings on ad hoc issues of strategic importance. T.b.a.

§ Structures developed to ensure regular dialogue between portfolio holders in Cabinet and Arrangements in place July relevant senior managers/corporate directors. 2002 and ongoing.

SERVICE AND FINANCIAL PLANNING

RESOURCE ALLOCATION § Operation of revised timetable including:- - Initial work on key service issues. July 2002. - Revised corporate guidance on standard formats. July 2002. - Growth and volume pressures for 2003/4. By September 2002. - Savings options identified for 2003/4 By November 2002.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 37 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FOLLOW UP ACTION PLAN

ISSUE ACTIONS TIMEFRAME PROCUREMENT & § Implementation and monitoring of programme of Ongoing to April 2003. ALTERNATE SERVICE innovation and efficiencies. DELIVERY § Best Value review of procurement. End 2002.

§ Appoint external advisors to examine all business October 2002. processes and identify substantial savings. ACTION PLANS § Reassessment and review of action plan exercise. September 2002.

§ Realignment of action plans to match service planning September 2002. framework.

§ Implementation of new corporate programme with Board July 2002. sponsors structured focus on: - Performance Management - Financial Management - Customer Care and Equalities - Modernising - Community Programmes

§ Communicate changes and monitor consistency of action By October 2002. planning. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT § Progress and complete appointment of Director of Finance By December 2002.

§ Centralise payments function By September 2002. § Revise reporting lines of Heads of Finance. Over next six months. § Implementation of Oracle Financials. October 2002. § Establishment of medium term strategy (revenue and capital) Autumn 2002.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 38 Chief Executive

Tel: 01895 250569 Fax: 01895 277047 email: [email protected]

Mr Ian Hickman Our ref: DL/CG reinspection response Best Value Inspection Services 17th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

5 July 2002

Dear Ian

Hillingdon’s response to Corporate Governance follow up (April 2002)

We refer to your letter of 10 June 2002 setting out the findings of the follow-up inspection of Corporate Governance. As agreed subsequently with yourself this response has been prepared to a 5 July 2002 deadline to enable other officers and leading members to be properly involved in the process.

Our response is set out in the following way for each of the recommendations:

1. Our comments on your assessment, as set out in your letter of 10 June 2002. 2. A summary of achievement/progress since April 2002 3. Our proposed actions to address the issues raised in your letter.

We start with some general comments:

General comments

Whilst we appreciate that you had very limited time to undertake the task, we are extremely disappointed with your assessment that, “while Hillingdon has made some progress, many recommendations have not been implemented and there has generally been a lack of alternative actions” and your view that you have continuing concerns about our prospects for improvements.

This is fundamentally not our view. Whilst we accept there is still substantial work to be done in all the areas highlighted in your recommendations it is our contention that in all instances we have endeavoured, either to implement your recommendations as faithfully as possible, or where we considered them impractical to conform to the spirit of them by progressing alternative courses of action.

Chief Executive, London Borough of Hillingdon Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 39 We were very clear from the outset in responding to your report that whilst we generally accepted your conclusions it was immediately obvious that certain recommendations were not practicable or deliverable, at least in the period leading up to the elections and re-inspection.

Recommendation 1: Modernisation

Your overall conclusion would seem to be that the lack of any experimentation in the operation of new structures, particularly if Hillingdon were to continue with no overall control, was a major concern. Your assessment is that we have not done enough on trialing decisions, training members and officers, working up detailed protocols, or learning from other authorities.

We would challenge both the assessment and the conclusion. What this assessment and conclusion fail to recognise is:-

§ The extensive work done by officers over a long period of time to engage members in this work. For the first year the members in the working party failed to make significant progress, but for the last eighteen months the work has moved on substantially. This coincides with the new Leader’s approach and the trust developed with other parties, recognised in your report.

§ The difficulties for not only a hung council but any council to trial realistically the new political arrangements, especially in the six months prior to a local election. Our assessment is that authorities who experimented, were in any case limited by the legislative framework, and are not any substantially further forward as a result.

§ The resource implications of this at a time when the priority was to have all the necessary constitutional arrangements in place and to ensure that we had a working system to operate post May.

§ The failure to acknowledge the quite substantial progress made from an admitted low base over a very short space of time, and the considerable energy put in by members and officers to agree a constitution by the statutory deadline.

It was always clear in our response to you that the emphasis would be on being operationally prepared for the new structures, and trial work and protocols would have a lower priority. It is working and will be reviewed after 6 months. We cannot agree with your comments on post election training. A mediated Awayday was firmly in the programme from an early stage. A series of officer training seminars, as well as managerial briefings have been held over the last three months; to coincide with the progress made in finalising new operational and constitutional arrangements.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 40 Neither it is accurate to suggest there has been no discussion about the implications of a balanced Council being elected. All three parties were involved in the development of the Constitution, and all were aware of its implications.

We believe in the proposals set out in our action plan that we have fully addressed this concern.

Fundamentally, your concern that a hung council would lead to an impasse on implementing the new decision-making process has proved to be unfounded. The Council on 16 May 2002 agreed on the composition of Cabinet and the structures for Overview and Scrutiny.

A forward plan is now in operation, Cabinet is meeting monthly, with portfolio holders presenting their items, Directors and members are meeting regularly, Executive Briefing has been established, the call in procedure has been employed and Overview and Scrutiny Committees are holding their initial meetings to establish their work programmes with support from the ALG.

The officer and member working groups continue to meet regularly to monitor the operation of the new system, and a full review, coupled with a Best Value review of Democratic Services, is programmed after six months. Intensive briefing and training has been arranged for officers and members with ALG involvement.

The action plan attached demonstrates how Hillingdon is continuing to work hard to ensure the success and effectiveness of its new decision-making processes.

Recommendation 2: Leader/Chief Executive

We are pleased to note that you have recognised the improvements in the regularity and effectiveness of the working relationship between the Administration and the Management Board.

It is incorrect, however, to suggest that the Chief Executive only recently produced his document “A Future Perspective.” It was actually produced in October 2001, ahead of the final Governance reports publication in November. Once again, this was an area where in responding to you we made it very clear that the timing of this proposal made it entirely impracticable. We made our position clear at the time of your original report that it would be neither timely or appropriate for the Leader and Chief Executive to develop a shared vision document for public consumption so close to the local election. A Joint Vision statement will be issued before your next visit.

Most concerning, however, are the comments you make in your overview that “Finding a way of addressing the divided nature of the borough’s population is now urgent. The continuing hung status of the council would seem to be not so much an indicator that the people of Hillingdon are unable to make up their minds but more a symptom of the very real different experiences and aspirations of different parts of the area. This would also seem to be a

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 41 significant factor in preventing the Authority from finding ways of making progress in spite of the lack of a majority administration. Many authorities are hung, serve similarly fragmented communities and yet have managed to successfully introduce political modernisation and have found ways of transcending and/or responding to the differences inherent in the area they serve. The council needs to serve all of its communities and people and because of this it is vital that councillors and officers work together to set its direction.”

Frankly, we are at a loss to understand how this can be seen as anything other than a political commentary on Hillingdon. It is a matter of socio/economic fact that the borough has distinct characteristic in the north and south. The outcome of the elections are attributable to a number of local factors; of which the differences between north and south are only one. We cannot agree with your inference that the different needs of the borough are not being properly addressed. Our partnership work in Hayes and West Drayton and the development of a Community Trust are major contributions to addressing the needs of the more deprived communities, as is for example, the work on Connecting Communities and Community Safety. The SRB partnership has invested £22m in the most deprived areas with investment in a range of community, business and environmental projects. Surestart is another example of partnership work and investment in the most deprived areas. Work is underway to establish Country Parks at Minet and Lake Farm. At Board level, Corporate Directors have been assigned responsibilities for working at an area level to identify and work on local issues.

The reality of it is that the Council now has a Conservative Administration operating to a set of policies, set out in the Leader’s Statement agreed by full Council on 16 May 2002 as part of the Council’s overall budget and policy framework. The general corporate priorities, set out in the Statement are largely consistent with the five themes that have operated over two previous Councils. The Council has given its clear support to a Community Plan based on its existing community programmes with the addition of Lifelong Learning. There is, therefore, a clear vision from this Administration.

The action plan again sets out in more specific terms the work in this area.

Recommendation 3: Service and Financial Planning

Your overview acknowledges progress but suggest that we have some way to go to ensure the system helps the Council target resources on policy priorities. In general terms we would accept that there is work to be done. However, since your visit, progress has been made on consolidating the service and financial planning framework in the context of the new political structures, and in initiating work on the development of a new medium term budget strategy. This again is set out in the action pan.

We still believe, however, that you have understated the amount of new procurement work already going on and the significance of the growth money set aside for youth, modernisation and community safety as practical examples of switching resources to

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 42 match political priorities. Realignment of resources has to be set in the context of limited resources and cuts in SSA over the last two years. Our priority was to restore balance and put money back into the insurance fund.

We consider that we have recognised the potential benefits of alternative service delivery, but has not adopted a dogmatic approach to outsourcing. By taking a balanced and sensible approach, we have avoided some of the disasters other Councils have experienced. We are now committed to employing external advisers by September to report in October on service delivery options across the Council.

Recommendation 4: Action Plans

Quite clearly we have failed to communicate our position on this issue properly to you. We hope we can agree the action plan as a tool is an essential component of almost any task we need to undertake that requires us to set out clear actions, timeframes and responsibilities. This is simply a normal component of effective project management.

Our concern is that the initial misconception, derived from a comment by the previous opposition leader, that the Council has “too many action plans” has not been addressed.

The review reported to Management Board has been followed up and the issue is being addressed in two ways:

1. By further consolidation and co-ordination of service planning.

2. By clarifying the key corporate programme areas.

Once again the action plan sets out the work we have done and what else we intend to do to tackle this concern.

Recommendation 5: Financial Management

It is, of course, satisfying that on the final recommendation that you have recognised and acknowledged the significant and substantial progress. This is despite not being able to deliver at that time as a Minority Administration on the appointment of a Director of Finance. We are, however, not complacent about the work still required and have therefore included in the action plan the further work and improvements planned for the coming year.

It is our intention to report to the Cabinet Meeting of 23 July 2002.

We await your response and would welcome an opportunity to discuss this further.

Yours sincerely

Dorian Leatham Cllr Ray Puddifoot Chief Executive Leader of the Council

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 43 COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ITEM 4 ASSESSMENT (CPA) SELF ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES

Contact Officer: Brian Murrell Telephone: 01895 250495

SUMMARY

§ To report on the work done in preparing for the corporate assessment scheduled for September 2002. § To report on the outcomes of the self-assessment. § To report on changes in the guidance, and further consultation issues June 2002.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To agree the basis of the self-assessment as set in the latest draft (to be tabled at the meeting).

2. To delegate to the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive finalising the submission by 2nd August.

3. To note the revised guidance.

4. To agree Hillingdon’s response on consultation as set out in the report.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS

§ The recommendation are as set out in order to gain Cabinet endorsement to Hillingdon’s work on self assessment as part of the CPA process, which all Council’s (excluding District Council’s) are required to complete in accordance with the Audit Commissions timetable and programme.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

All Council’s (excluding District Councils) are required to participate in the CPA process and co-operate with the Best Value Inspectorate (BVI). In this respect, there is no option but to participate in the process.

Cabinet should, however, recognise that the result of the Council’s overall assessment may have potentially significant complications. Councils with a high rating will be given greater freedoms and flexibilities, and have access potentially to additional funding Councils, however, will be subject to much more vigorous (and time consuming) inspection and control, and restricted opportunities to access additional funds if they perform poorly under the CPA process.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 44 COMMENTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

The tight timescales involved in the self-assessment process make it impractical to involve Overview and Scrutiny in the self-assessment process.

INFORMATION

1. At its June meeting, the Cabinet received a report on the CPA process and agreed arrangements for conducting a self-assessment prior to a corporate assessment by the Audit Commission in September.

Self Assessment

2. That self-assessment is being completed during July and will need to be submitted to the Audit Commission by 2nd August (a week later than previously reported). The Audit Commission make it a requirement that the self-assessment is signed off by the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive, and their expectation is that it is approved in a public forum.

3. The officer work to prepare the submission is being done in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the cabinet member for Performance, Partnership and Regeneration. The latest draft version of the self-assessment will be tabled at the cabinet meeting for endorsement of the general approach being adopted.

Guidance on CPA

4. A second consultation document, “CPA for single tier and county councils”, has been issued by the Audit Commission. It sets out proposed changes to CPA, including new options for the categories to score authorities. It also seeks comments on other issues including:

- The treatment of cross-cutting issues; diversity and community cohesion; and the context including social deprivation and resources in the assessment framework; - Proposals on weighting and rules to reach a judgement on current performance; - The approach to measuring corporate capacity to improve; and - Proposals for reaching individual service judgements.

5. The most significant issue, however, is the proposed changes to categories used to describe an authority’s performance.

6. Many Councils felt that the suggested categories of high-performing, striving, coasting and failing were ambiguous and did not reflect both existing performance and the council’s capacity to improve.

7. In response to this, the Audit Commission are seeking comments on the two categorisation options:

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 45 Option 1 – a five category system that retains an element of weighting on improvement, but provides scope for a ladder of progression from the bottom to the top category. The proposed categories are: excellent, good, fair, weak and poor.

Option 2 – a four category system that is similar to the five category system, but has less differentiation at the bottom end of the performance scale and a greater emphasis on current performance at the top of the performance scale. The proposed categories are: excellent, good, fair and poor.

8. These changes are intended to remove any ambiguities and more reflect local people’s experience of local services.

9. Cabinet are asked to support a response on this; and are asked to endorse support for option 1, primarily because it offers a greater opportunity to differentiate performance and encourage councils to strive to improve their ranking.

10. The results of the corporate assessment to be undertaken in September 2002 will be reported to Cabinet in October/November, 2002 and the final categorisation reported December 2002/January 2003 depending on the timing of the Audit Commission results.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

11. There are no specific legal implications arising from this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

12. There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

13. Discussions were held with both the District Auditors and the Council’s Commissioning Inspector from the BVI on the most appropriate ways of preparing for the CPA process, particularly in terms of completing a self-assessment. Contact has also been made with other local authorities who have already completed a self assessment for advice and guidance on how to proceed.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

BVI Guidance on self Assessment (Edition 8.9) BVI Guidance on CPA Process (March 2002) BVI Guidance on CPA Process (June 2002)

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 46 ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 ITEM 5

Contact Officer: Peter Cordy Telephone: 01895 277177

SUMMARY

The Council is required to submit the second Corporate Asset Management Plan (AMP) and Capital Investment Strategy (CIS) to the Government Office for London by 31 July 2002.

It is a requirement that the AMP has been reported to Members and endorsed by them. It is also a requirement that the Corporate Property Officer (CPO) has reported to Members in respect of the performance of the Estate.

This report seeks Cabinet approval to the AMP and includes a report on the performance of the Estate.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the Cabinet endorses the Council’s Asset Management Plan for submission to the Government Office for London.

2. That the report on the performance of the Estate and the Property Performance Indicators contained within the Asset Management Plan be noted.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS

The Government guidance on Asset Management Plans includes a requirement that the AMP submission is reported to Members and endorsed by them. One of the primary criteria for assessment and grading of the AMP is that the Corporate Property Officer (CPO) has reported to Members in respect of the performance of the Estate.

INFORMATION

1. The Council is required to submit the second Corporate Asset Management Plan (AMP) and Capital Investment Strategy (CIS) to the Government Office for London by 31 July 2002.

2. The enclosed Asset Management Plan, (attached as Appendix 1), has been drawn up based on the groundwork prepared by previous plans and has been updated to reflect Services’ current assessments for property requirements. It has also been redrafted to provide evidence that the Council has met at least the Primary Requirements set by the Government Guidance for assessment as ‘satisfactory’ as well as a significant number of the Secondary Requirements (listed at Appendix 2). In addition, Councils are required for the first time to provide information in respect of

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 47 5 National Property Performance Indicators (pPIs). (These are recorded as Appendix E to the AMP).

Resource Issues

3. In developing the Asset Management Plan process the following resource issues have been identified:

(1) The Best Value Review of Property Services identified a need to strengthen the corporate property strategy group and to restructure the property information team.

(2) The need for a corporate property database was established in the Best Value Review. This would hold information on condition, suitability etc. in support of the AMP. Work to develop a computerised information system has been underway whilst the business case to support a capital bid for the purchase of a new software platform to support the introduction of an integrated property database is developed.

(3) The collection of information on condition, maintenance backlog, energy costs, and Service initiatives in support of the AMP has identified the importance of continuing support from officers involved in property from all departments of the Council.

Areas for Improvement

4. If the Authority is to make progress in improving its management of assets, and at the same time address a number of issues that need to be resolved in order to move to a “good” rating from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), the following actions are required:

(1) The profile of asset management needs to be raised with senior managers and Members, and a deeper understanding of the issues and benefits of proper asset management developed.

(2) Evidence of greater attention within service plans to asset issues in order to inform the AMP. These should demonstrate service-wide understanding that the Council needs to consider the use of specific assets in the context of its overall plans and priorities. There needs to be a more fundamental challenge taken to the use of assets in delivering service priorities.

(3) The effective development of a strategic property resource for the authority, which includes drawing together and co-ordinating key property asset information for all non housing or school assets.

(4) The Council adopts the ODPM five national property Performance Indicators and develops local performance indicators linking asset use to corporate goals, with review of achievement/improvements, measurement of user satisfaction with assets and identifying surplus property.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 48 (5) Development of a Community Plan with links into the asset management process.

(6) Implementation of Implementing Electronic Government Statement (IEGS). AMP must show how delivery of services electronically could affect requirements for assets (e.g. development of cross service call centres, hot desking, home working).

(7) Demonstrate a commitment to ‘Rethinking Construction’, the government agenda around increased innovation in public sector construction practice and procurement.

Areas in Need of Support and Development

Service Plan Assessments

5. It is essential that Service departments continue to update their assessments of service needs and contribute to a dialogue regarding the role of existing assets and forecast any likely changes that will affect the need for assets. This will need to take account of alternative delivery of procurement options, which offer the opportunity to reduce the asset base and/or transfer risk. The potential for collaborative working and joint developments should be explored as an alternative to the ownership and management of assets.

6. In terms of service plan preparation the following model could be followed:

Ø Start with identification of service needs and priorities Ø Consider suitability of assets according to clear criteria (e.g. condition, location, facilities) to deliver these priorities Ø Consider the alternative means of delivering priorities and what the implications of these are for the property assets involved.

7. Last year, an item on AMP was included on departmental SMTs agenda to consider the issues with finance and property representatives. It is proposed in the forthcoming year to request a quarterly slot to ensure a higher profile for AMP/CIS is maintained in future.

Property Information

8. The development of a computerised corporate property database is seen as a high priority by ODPM and was recognised as an area for improvement in the District Auditor’s report on asset management in Hillingdon.

9. It is important that continuing efforts are made to enhance and improve the timeliness, reliability and accuracy of property information. The important role of service property contacts, in providing updated property information, also needs to be recognised and it is important that Services commit to undertake these roles or consider transferring them to the central property function together with the relevant

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 49 resources. There needs to be a commitment to the development of a corporate management information system on the use and performance of assets, and this should be resourced, once identified, on the basis of a business case of the savings that will accrue to the Council from the improved management of assets it will promote.

Property Performance Indicators (pPIs)

10. The pPIs are included for the first time in the July AMP submission to GOL. Lead responsibility for collating information for these pPIs rests with Property Services but ongoing assistance from Service based property managers is required to provide supporting information via property contacts and accountants within service departments.

Stakeholder Engagement

11. In future, the importance of engaging stakeholders (including Members, public, voluntary sector, business community, other public bodies) when assessing the future use of assets will have to be demonstrated. It is, therefore, important that links between assets and the Community Plan, Best Value Reviews, Public Service Agreements (PSAs) etc. are corporately understood and that in future evidence of stakeholder views can be made available to inform investment decisions about the future use of assets.

12. Once the information has emerged from the service plans and the CIS it will be important for the AMP to identify the initial key projects that need to be initiated or supported if they are already known to the organisation. In order to avoid over stretching limited resources this list of key projects needs to be agreed corporately over the next few months.

Property Performance

13. A primary requirement of the AMP is that Members should have received a report from the Corporate Property Officer (CPO) in respect of the performance of the Estate. This section outlines some of the key aspects in relation to the performance of the Estate.

14. There is limited comparative information either within Hillingdon or across all Local Authorities on property performance within Local Authorities. Some of the assessment criteria for AMPs have been designed to seek an improvement in this and, in particular, it is one of the Primary Criteria that the CPO submit a report to Members and Chief Officers on the performance of the property portfolio including performance outcomes in relation to the National Property PIs required in AMPs.

National Property PIs

15. Hillingdon’s PIs are set out in Appendix E to the AMP. At this stage it is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from this data alone. We have not yet seen PIs for other similar local authorities and therefore not been able to make any

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 50 comparisons which might point to areas for improvement. This is, however, an area we should explore further after all AMPs have been submitted and it is intended to do this through officers membership of ACES (The Association of Chief Estate Surveyors), Benchmarking Clubs and the AMP Network. The appointments to two vacancies, the Asset Manager and Information Manager posts, will be key to progressing this further work.

16. At present the following observations can be made on the pPIs.

Condition and Backlog Maintenance Need

17. For the first time the Council now has basic information on the condition of all its property assets including proportions of property in different broad condition categories and the maintenance backlog under standard priority categories.

Performance of Investment Portfolio

18. This indicator provides an average Internal Rate of Return for three classes of investment property a) Industrial, b) Retail and c) Agricultural. Some local authorities such as Westminster, The City of London and Kensington and Chelsea have substantial portfolios of investment property. This is not the case with Hillingdon, partly because the authority has never set out to acquire or retain property mainly for investment and partly because, over several years, property which had become surplus and may have been let to produce an income has been sold as part of the Sales Programme. The Estates and Valuation Officer has only been able to identify 10 properties which could be classed as held principally for investment purposes and it is not thought that this indicator will be of much benefit to analysis of property performance in Hillingdon. However, it will still be relevant to review on both the properties identified and any others which may become surplus on an individual basis whether they should be retained or sold.

Cost & Efficiency of Property Services

19. The collection of management cost information has proved both difficult and arbitrary. It is an anomaly of the ODPM’s requirements that this indicator alone applies to Schools and Housing as well as other property. As a result we anticipate wide differences in figures between, for example, authorities which have retained their housing stock and those which have transferred them.

20. Indicator 3B which relates to non-operational property management costs may be more useful to draw comparisons between different authorities but we will have to examine closely how each authority has compiled its figures because the definition of what comprises management costs is open to wide differences in interpretation.

Repair Costs and Energy Efficiency

21. This indicator relates to the costs of repairs, energy and water per sq. metre and CO2 emissions in tonnes per sq.metre.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 51 22. We believe it will be important to not only make comparisons with other local authorities but also to devise improved means of collecting this data so that we can examine differences in costs between different buildings and identify those where costs appear especially high for more detailed examination.

Delivery of New Capital Projects (£100,000+)

23. Last year three schemes fell within the defined categories for this indicator on Cost and Time predictability. Two of these were within 5% of both time and cost predicted whilst on the Queensmead Scheme both time and cost was exceeded by more than 5%.

24. The value to the Council of this measure will be for us to identify schemes which exceed estimated time and cost and analyse the reasons for this to enable better management of projects in future.

Best Value Review

25. The performance of the Property Portfolio was referred to in the Best Value Review of Property in 2001 when the following was reported:

“The Audit Commission’s national study of local authority asset management highlighted a number of indicators for property performance, which formed the basis for District Audit’s thematic audit of Hillingdon.

26. The District Audit study identified a number of key findings to inform the Best Value review as follows:

Preparing for Asset Management Planning –

Need to update - Property ownership records; Property condition information; Property running cost information; Corporate asset management objectives; delivery plan

Not in place - Property utilisation and suitability information; Service-by-service objectives and future Business Plans/ requirements for property

Need for Investigation The results indicate some areas where there is a need for further investigation to understand the underlying reasons for differences between Hillingdon’s figures and those identified for “best quartile” authorities.

27. The report also contains comparative financial performance data, which points to potential opportunities to realise significant revenue savings in running costs. The following tables outlining the main conclusions are reproduced from the District Auditor’s Data Report.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 52 L.B. Hillingdon Best quartile London Comments average Boroughs Asset Management Planning Portfolio sustainability

Backlog reduction rate 5.7 years 3.9 years Planned/responsive The cross sector benchmark maintenance (not known) 60/40 is recognised as 70/30

Space usage

Space per employee 8.8 10..2 Top quartile

Space per member (not known) 10.2

Running costs

Energy/fuel costs per m2 £14.09 £8.17 High costs Cleaning and caretaking costs per m2 £12.71 £9.72 Below average cost Water and sewerage costs per employee £21.40 £12.62 High cost Building insurance cost per m2 £5.42 £3.03 High costs Repairs and maintenance The best quartile is not shown cost per m2 £22.27 N/A as spend should be determined by local need.

Non-operational property Net rate of return on investment (not known) 11%

Value of surplus assets £4,973,160 £1,029,000

28. District Audit also carried out an analysis of comparative premises costs for a number of administrative offices compared with the general lower quartile figures of administrative buildings for other London Boroughs. The findings point to the potential for achieving significant revenue savings, which may result from a detailed analysis of premises related costs, and it is proposed to carry out further work to assess the extent to which real savings may be achieved.

29. The Best Value review identified an urgent need to review the availability of reliable information and the systems by which property information is collected to provide the basis for establishing a common standard to reliably inform future benchmarking exercises.”

30. Since these findings, much has been done to both address the need for more available information on the property portfolio and improve space utilisation particularly in the Civic Centre and other offices.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 53 Performance of Property Services

31. Estates & Valuation, Property Consultancy and Facilities Management have all engaged in benchmarking exercises from which, in general, it can be shown that charging rates for professional property services in Hillingdon are among the lowest of London Boroughs.

32. More detailed findings will be able to be reported in future as a result of benchmarking studies now being progressed through the assembly of a wide range of agreed local performance indicators.

33. A strong emphasis is placed in Asset Management Planning on a corporate approach to Asset Management. One decision reached as a result of the Best Value Review of Property was the need to strengthen the Strategic Property Management function of the authority and recruitment will commence shortly to new posts of Principal Property Manager, Asset Manager and Property Information Systems Manager. The work of the Corporate Strategic Property Group is seen as critical to effecting continuous improvement to the performance of property and property services.

FINANCIAL COMMENTS

34. Approval of the AMP has no direct financial implications. If increased resources are devoted to asset management, as set out in paragraph 3 of the report, there is scope to pursue financial benefits from better use of property.

LEGAL COMMENTS

35. There are no specific legal implications arising from the report.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Property Services Agency, Estates and Valuation and Property Consultancy files on Asset Management.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 54 APPENDIX 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON

ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Submission to The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister July 2002

Contact Point Peter Cordy Head of Property Services Tel: 01895 277177 Email: [email protected]

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 55 CONTENTS

Page No.

1. Organisational Arrangements for 1 Corporate Asset Management

2. Consultation 3

3. Data Management 4

4. Performance Management and Monitoring 6

5. Programme and Plan Development 7 and Implementation

5.1 Corporate Issues 7 5.2 Social Services 10 5.3 Education Youth and Leisure Services 11 5.4 Environmental Services 13 5.5 Housing Services 13 5.6 Corporate Property Review 14 and Sales Programme

6. Performance Information 15

Appendix A – Organisation Charts Appendix B – Key Themes Appendix C – Corporate Priorities Appendix D – Capital Projects 2002 - 2007 Appendix E – Property Performance Indicators

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 56 LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002

1. ORGANISATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CORPORATE ASSET MANAGEMENT

1.1 Responsibility for Property Management and the co-ordination of the Capital Programme in Hillingdon has been allocated as follows:

The Head of Property Services, Hillingdon’s Corporate Property Officer (CPO) for Asset Management Plan (AMP) purposes, is responsible for:

· Strategic Asset Management · Exercise of the Corporate Client role for the Council in relation to its property holdings · Management and procurement of professional property services · Day to day property management of the Corporate and Non- Operational Estate

Group Directors are responsible for the day to day management of operational properties used to provide services for which they are responsible.

The Borough Treasurer is responsible for co-ordination of the Capital Programme. A Cabinet Member has been appointed for Finance and Corporate Services who has delegated authority to recommend to the Cabinet on Asset Management Policy and Plan and Capital Strategy for the best use of the Council’s land and property in consultation with Service portfolio holders.

These responsibilities and roles are derived from the Council’s Best Value Performance Plan, its five corporate priorities and departmental service plans. They are communicated throughout the authority by individual officers’ Performance and Development Agreements.

1.2 The Head of Property Services chairs the Property Review Group. This comprises representatives from the Chief Executives Office, Property, Finance, and the service departments (Social Services, Education Youth and Leisure, Environment, Housing). The Group acts as a high level forum at which property matters can be discussed. It reports to the Capital Strategy Group (CSG), which is responsible for the development of asset management in the Authority, and the Council’s Management Board. The Asset Management Plan development is now a major function of Property Review Group. This enables close consultations with services and their input to the Plan. The formal terms of reference for both CSG and PRG explicitly refer to these groups responsibilities for strategic management of property and for PRG “To establish and update on Asset Management Plan”.

1.3 CSG meets at set dates approximately 12 times per annum to deliver a work programme agreed by Board, which includes addressing specific issues, improving process, and, importantly, at the appropriate time in the budget cycle, the assessment of capital bids submitted by Service Groups. Such bids need to conform to service plan priorities and the agreed capital investment strategy. An option appraisal is required for each submission to demonstrate the viability of the proposal. The Group recommends a 3 year programme of Capital Investment to Cabinet. Once approved the Group then monitors performance of the Programme and all projects within it in

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 57 detail through the Monitoring Sub Group and reports regularly on the performance of the Capital Programme to Cabinet.

1.4 The Asset Management Steering Group led by the Chief Property Officer meets on a monthly basis to direct and monitor the work of a number of sub-teams charged with developing different aspects of the Asset Management Plan. Appendix A sets out the Council’s top management structure and the reporting lines of these Groups.

1.5 The Council Strategy for 2002/3 gives an overview of the Council’s policies. “Making a Difference” Hillingdon’s Best Value Performance Plan for 2002/03 sets out the Council’s vision. There are five key themes.

· Value for money · Modernising the way we work · Providing better services · Involving the community and localisation · working in partnership and improving communications

The implications of these for asset management are set out against each theme in Appendix B.

1.6 In addition to these key themes there are five corporate priorities: Community Safety, Health, Quality of Life, Economic Regeneration and Social Justice. Improved asset management will contribute to these programmes as shown in Appendix C:

These priorities and programmes are the drivers to departmental service plans and the Capital Strategy (CS).

1.7 As part of the Best Value review of property Members endorsed the need to develop strategies in the following areas:

· Strategic management of property · Asset management · Policies, standards and processes · Property management information and corporate property database · Approach to PFI/PPP and other alternative tenure options

fostering integration of property into the Council’s Best Value and service improvement programme. The Action Plan commits us to:

· Developing the Capital Strategy (CS) and AMP corporately to ensure the alignment of property objectives with corporate strategy and service plans and submit in accordance with ODPM/GOL time scales · Carry out a review of why we own property and to consider alternative options for all categories of operational and non-operational property · Consider alternative strategies for construction procurement within the context of compliance with EC procedures and in support of ‘Rethinking Construction’ · Apply a corporately agreed system of project management · Complete a programme of surveys in respect of building condition, DDA access audits, asbestos, health and safety, energy and water audits and management and develop an investment programme to meet the needs identified · Develop accommodation strategies for the Civic Centre and other administrative centres

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 58 and work is continuing to progress these aims. Also the decision to strengthen the Strategic Management function is being implemented through the recruitment of 3 additional staff to the Corporate Strategic Property Group.

1.8 The roles and responsibilities of the Head of Property Services (CPO) for asset management have been communicated to all Services through regular meetings of the inter-disciplinary groups (CSG and PRG), meetings with each Service’s Management Team and through circulation of a report to Management Board on 22 May 2002 to senior officers responsible for property management within all Services.

1.9 This Asset Management Plan has been considered by the officers groups mentioned in 1.2 and was approved by the Cabinet on 23rd July 2002.

2. CONSULTATION

2.1 This AMP has been developed in consultation with service departments. In particular this has been considered with service representatives at the regular meetings of the Property Review Group. In addition individual meetings have taken place with each service to review changes in their Service Plans from last year to establish what impacts these may have for property usage and any support required from Property Services.

2.2 A questionnaire was circulated to the Council’s Citizen’s Panel in September 2000 to seek customers views on a wide range of matters relating to Council services and including the condition, location and convenience of Council buildings; also their decorative condition, lighting, cleanliness, ventilation and suitability of toilets, reception and interview facilities. The responses on most of these were predominantly good or fair to good. A number of improvements have been made since then in both the Civic Centre and some other offices and a further survey of users opinions is to be undertaken shortly. The result of this will be compared with the previous survey and any specific areas needing improvement will be identified.

2.3 Also,a number of best value Service reviews have been completed including detailed consultation with stakeholders. These have led to a fundamental challenge as to the way the current service is provided and in some cases (e.g. SS ALD review) have identified a need for delivering property in new ways.

2.4 The Council is developing its Community Plan following a visioning conference held in February 2002. The Plan is now being redrafted for submission to Cabinet and Council this summer. The Council’s Corporate Plan was endorsed by Policy Committee on 5th July 2001.

2.5 All property services provided in house by the Council including the Estates & Valuation Service, Property Consultancy and Facilities Management undertake customer consultation on the services they provide. This is mainly done through the use of questionnaires seeking feedback on different aspects of the services provided and outcomes. The responses are considered by relevant management teams and any low scores are examined further and discussed with clients to identify and implement improvements in practices and delivery.

2.6 The Council is undertaking a maintenance benchmarking survey in conjunction with Sheffield Hallam University covering 28 local authorities throughout the country. Data

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 59 is being collected for both civic accommodation and offices and for other non-housing and schools property. The survey is analysing details of the buildings’ condition, location and age, Maintenance Costs Planned, Reactive and Backlog, Staff, Subcontracting, Use of Help Desks and Maintenance Management Policies.

2.7 The Council undertakes regular space utilisation audits of its central administrative offices. The results of these space audits is used to inform decisions on accommodation by identifying opportunities for improved utilisation of space. The April 2002 audit confirms that the Civic Centre now contains a further 130 staff since the last audit in November 2001, an increase of over 10% from 1276 to 1406. Space Audits of other office buildings have also assisted in identifying opportunities for better utilisation.

3. DATA MANAGEMENT

3.1 The Council’s Property Database has now been computerised and lists a total of 782 property assets. (This excludes individual dwellings and foundation schools). Information is held on each asset to facilitate the management of the estate in accordance with the Asset Management Good Practice guide and to enable the production of management reports to inform decisions.

3.2 Each service is requested to confirm the list of properties in its management and responsibilities for collecting detail has been allocated to the most appropriate department or person in accordance with their responsibilities. The accuracy of information collected on a small sample of properties is cross checked by an officer from Property Services to test the validity of information collected.

3.3 A primary purpose for collecting some of this data is to support the analysis of information required for National and Local Property Performance Indicators. These enable attention to be focused on areas for improvement through the provision of management reports. In addition, the availability of comprehensive information on the Council’s assets assists decision making on use of assets and supports Corporate and Service Property Reviews.

3.4 Management information on the relative running costs of different properties is particularly important in making decisions on which properties to improve or sell. Whole-life maintenance costs also assist in decision making on the retention or disposal of properties.

3.5 The Council has a number of related computerised systems (e.g. GIS) holding property data and work is in hand to integrate these systems with the Asset Management database. Capital funding for procurement of a suitable property database system to assist in this integrated approach is now seen as a priority for developing the Council’s asset information and a bid for funding is being developed.

It will be a key responsibility of the newly created post of Property Information Systems Manager to review our existing information systems and produce the business case for development of a system to provide management information for property including an assessment of proprietary software.

3.6 Environment Services are leading on the development of GIS within the organisation and have a member of staff working on the introduction of the NLPG/NLIS unique property referencing system.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 60 3.7 Condition Surveys

Condition surveys have now been completed for all buildings based on a methodology that was designed to ensure a consistent approach by all engaged in the process. All elements of each building were assessed against condition categories A-D and an overall categorisation made using the assessments.

For each building, costs were allocated against maintenance requirements which provides a total cost for all buildings for the categories A-D.

Using the information obtained from the condition surveys the Council’s maintenance backlog was established in terms of the priority categories 1-4.

3.8 Capital Maintenance Programme

Over the last three years the Council has developed a structured programme to ensure that the limited available the maintenance resources are directed at those buildings most in need of them. The information derived from the condition surveys will be fed directly into the establishment of the 2003/2004 Capital maintenance programme.

Detailed assessments will be undertaken of those buildings that have been determined to require considerable resources spent on them to keep them in operation where disposal is not an option. These assessments may determine, for example, that the way that the building is being used causes significant damage to the fabric and structure, the building requires an investment far in excess of its value or that restrictive conditions – such as Statutory Listing – prevent economical maintenance. The outcome of these assessments will then be used to inform decision making on the future use, retention or disposal of properties surveyed.

3.9 Asbestos

In order to meet statutory requirements regarding the compilation of asbestos information and records for all of its buildings as well as identify any asbestos that could pose a risk to building users, the Council initiated a four year asbestos survey programme in 1999 to update its records.

Year Two of the asbestos survey programme has been completed and Year Three is currently out to tender. The Year Three survey programme will complete the review of all buildings in the Council’s ownership. The Year Four programme will deal with any outstanding land assets.

All asbestos that has been identified as posing an immediate risk has been removed, encapsulated or programmed for removal. Where delays have occurred in removal management procedures have been established to ensure that risks are negated or minimised.

The Asbestos Supervisor is managing the asbestos survey and removal programme and is providing all asbestos advice where required. He has been responsible for the establishment of a measured term contract for asbestos removal which will allow immediate action to be taken if asbestos posing a risk is identified. He is also responsible for updating asbestos procedures where this becomes necessary.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 61 Asbestos awareness seminars continue for all premises managers, property related staff and contractors.

In order to manage all information obtained from the asbestos survey programme and meet statutory requirements an asbestos database has been devised in conjunction with professional specialists. This data base produces hard copies of all surveys – which are distributed to all premises managers and property staff in service departments – and allows further information to be added as the result of building works exposing further asbestos or asbestos being removed. This asbestos data base is managed by the Asbestos Supervisor.

3.10 Disability Discrimination Act Surveys

Under the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 the Council has to ensure that all of its buildings accessible by members of the public must be fully accessible, where appropriate, by the end of 2004. In order to identify the accessibility of its buildings and the costs required to undertake any adaptation works the Council initiated a three year survey programme in 2000. Year One of this programme has now been completed – 90 buildings – and Year Two surveys have commenced. It is intended that Year Three will complete the programme using external consultants.

The methodology for undertaking the surveys was devised in-house after considerable consultation and the external consultants will be following the same processes to ensure a fully consistent approach.

The Council has allocated £300,000 for adaptation works for the 2002/2003 financial year, which will be sufficient for the majority of the works identified in the Year One and some of the Year Two surveys. The Year Two survey programme will provide information for the capital bidding process for the 2003/2004 financial year and providing resources are made available it is hoped that the target for all works to be completed by the end of 2004 can be met.

3.11 Energy, Water, CO2 and Repair and Maintenance Costs

The costs of energy use, costs of water use and repair and maintenance costs for all of the Council’s buildings have been collected. The CO2 figure has been calculated using the energy costs that have been collected.

The majority of energy purchased by the Council is bought through the London Utilities Consortium which represents all London Boroughs and administered through the LASER Consortium operated by Kent County Council. Although a few buildings do not purchase their energy in this way all major buildings and sites do so.

Energy and Water Audits

From 1984 to 1989 the Council embarked on an ambitious energy management programme which yielded considerable energy savings. Whilst further energy savings can still be made only a targeted programme is appropriate to achieve satisfactory spend to save solutions. However, the Council has currently directed its limited resources to asbestos surveys and works with the intention to fund energy and water audits and works at the earliest opportunity.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 62 3.12 Property Performance Indicators – PI 5A and 5B – Time and Cost Predictability

Three projects fit within the criteria for these Performance Indicators

Queensmead Leisure Centre Charville Childrens Home Registration Works Highgrove Swimming Pool and Health & Fitness Centre Rewiring

4. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND MONIT ORING

4.1 The Council has joined the AMP Network and is participating in the National Best Value Bench Marking Scheme. Information on service performance is being exchanged with colleagues in the Association of Chief Estates Surveyors (ACES) and the Inter Authorities Group (IAG). Comparison with neighbouring authorities has been made and reported to Members as part of the Best Value Review of Property Services.

4.2 The Council has joined the London Authorities Construction Benchmarking Club and is assessing its performance against the PIs established in accordance with the Rethinking Construction initiative.

4.3 In addition to National Property Performance Indicators required to be reported with this Plan and referred to below in chapter 6 on Performance Information, it has been decided to collect and compare local performance indicators through two Benchmarking Groups:

(i) The Valuation Services for the London Boroughs of Hillingdon, Hammersmith and Fulham, Camden, Ealing, Waltham Forest, Newham, Merton, Harrow and Hounslow have formed a local Benchmarking Group and have agreed to collect the local performance indicators referred to in Chapter 6. So far, Hillingdon’s Valuation Service has collected data for 4 of these. Comparison will be made between these and those collected by other boroughs in the Benchmarking Group. It will also be possible in future years to set targets for improvement and to compare results collected over a number of years.

(ii) The Council is an active member of the London Authorities Construction and Property Benchmarking Club. There are eighteen members of the club which is chaired by Martin Print of the Construction Best Practice Programme. A range of performance indicators are measured most of which are closely aligned to the National Construction Industry Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) recommended in the Local Government Task Force Working Group Report on Integrating Best Value and Partnership Approaches to Procurement. Again, the data collected will be used to set targets for improvement and comparison over future years.

Property Consultancy is actively looking at the potential of partnering in construction and supports the philosophy within “Rethinking Construction”. Further research is currently being undertaken and will culminate in a report to Members

4.4 The Head of Property Services has reported these Performance Indicators and on the performance of the Property Portfolio generally to the officer group and to the Cabinet on 23 July 2002.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 63 5. PROGRAMME AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

5.1 CORPORATE ISSUES

5.1.1 The Asset Management Plan is designed to align with the Capital Strategy and support the delivery of the physical infrastructure necessary to achieve many of the improvements identified in the Capital Programme.

5.1.2 The Council has adopted a Project Management approach, developed by the Project Management Steering Group. All capital projects undertaken from 2002/03 onwards will be managed in accordance with the Project Management handbook. In each case a Project Manager will present a Project Definition and Approval Form. For Corporate projects this will be considered by the Council’s Management Board, for projects solely within the responsibility of Service departments by the Departmental Management Team (DMT). Projects requiring capital resources will be submitted to DMT and if approved referred to CSG for final consideration. Priority will be given to projects that meet the Council’s key themes and corporate priorities. Training seminars on the project planning and delivery methodology to be employed have taken place.

5.1.3 The Council’s capital programme is determined in the light of the Council’s corporate and service plans, and its capital investment and medium term budget strategies. In this way future capital investment is directed by the Council’s development plans and tied to its revenue budget strategy. The Capital Programme is drawn up and monitored as described in the Council’s Capital Strategy by the interdepartmental Capital Strategy Group. In time appropriate links will be made to the community planning process, which is just developing in Hillingdon with the formation of a Local Strategic Partnership in November 2001 and the planned publication of a first Community Plan in the summer of 2002. The Council’s Management Board, who as individual service heads drive their own service planning process and collectively approve the CIS and AMP, have been acting as an internal steering group to manage the agenda and direct the work of the LSP in introducing the community plan. This has ensured an overlap between these planning processes. This internal steering group will continue but will be supplemented by an executive group of the LSP, comprised of the lead officers for the themes included in the Community Plan, which will now drive the community planning process. These lead officers include the chief executives of the Council and the Primary Care Trust and the local Metropolitan Police Borough Commander. At the appropriate juncture, steps will be taken to widen consideration of capital investment further across the LSP.

The Council is also engaged in partnership working through an Estates Task Force working jointly with Hillingdon Hospital and the PCT to explore scope for shared use of premises.

The Council also ensure appropriate officer representation on its strategic asset management groups so that the officers who attend the Property Review Group and the Capital Strategy Group are also instrumental in preparing future service plans and planning the Council’s budgets. The CSG is attended by the Chief Executive and the CPO is a full member of this Group and ensures that the implications for property and the contribution assets can make to each proposal in the Capital Programme are fully explored.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 64 When it has become clear that there is a priority need to invest to achieve either Corporate or Service improvements an option appraisal approach is adopted on the following basis:

1. An officer team with an Executive Sponsor & Project Manager is formed and project plan prepared in accordance with the Council’s Project Management scheme initially defining the current shortcomings and objectives for improvement.

2. The team identifies all possible options to address the need for improvement including do nothing, traditional forms of procurement, pfi etc.

3. All stakeholders and service users, staff and members are consulted to seek their views on the Service and need for improvement.

4. An initial analysis of alternative options is undertaken, including assessment of appropriate costs and values and decisions taken on which options to explore more fully.

5. The preferred two or three options are then explored in more detail to fully establish likely costs, sources of funding and benefits of Service improvements.

6. The resulting fully costed appraisal with projected outcomes is then reported to the Capital Strategy Group to consider in the context of the overall Capital Programme.

7. If a preferred option is identified and agreed at this stage this is then reported to Cabinet for approval.

This option appraisal technique has most recently been used in assessing the needs for investment in homes for adults with learning difficulties. As a result an option has been chosen to seek a partner to undertake redevelopment of two of the homes and investment to raise standards of all homes to the required Registration Standards by 2007.

5.1.4 The Council has adopted a Corporate Accommodation Strategy. The key objectives of the strategy are to:

· Ensure that the Council meets its health and safety obligations in respect of its staff · Review the requirement for offices at each location and the potential for making savings by reducing running costs · Reduce the need for buildings by introducing new ways of working and moving to smaller service outlets with more staff concentrated in centralised facilities · Maximise the use of space and modernise facilities within retained sites · Provide property in more innovative ways to release capital assets to upgrade facilities, whilst bearing in mind the practical considerations of increased revenue streams

The Council has adopted a policy of making more effective use of its central Civic Centre offices by planning space allocation around an average of 8 sq. m. per employee and reducing, wherever possible, use of outstations thereby reducing outgoings on other buildings. This has been complicated by the growth in staff numbers in a number of services. The resultant substantial staffing moves

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 65 undertaken and planned have required investment to provide up to date work stations and meet modern health and safety standards. The net effect has been a 10% increase in the number of staff accommodated in the Civic Centre and a reduction in annual property costs.

Existing Libraries have been identified as a resource which could be used to perform a wider role to enhance a mixture of mobile working and flexible working with touch down centres and improved access by the public to Council Services locally to contribute to the IEGS strategy. A review is to be undertaken to determine the adequacy of current buildings to contribute to this vision and an investment strategy will be prepared.

The Civic Centre is now over 25 years old and, on the basis of existing information, it is considered that the cost of improvement work to bring the building up to acceptable standards, modernise the infrastructure and replace life expired fixtures, fittings and plant is likely to be in the region of £10 million. In addition, life cycle costs for replacing major building components over the next 10-15 years have to be considered.

For these reasons the Council is now undertaking an option appraisal to examine alternative methods of funding future investment including alternative tenure models and the possibility of developing a partnership through a PFI/PPP. Initial work on examining the Civic Centre site has suggested that there may be some development potential on parts of the site together with opportunity for more economic use of part of the site through redevelopment. It is, therefore, intended to examine this further by seeking innovation through an architectural design competition to support development of a “Master Plan” for the site. The objective will be to optimise the development potential of the site, whilst at the same time protecting and enhancing the architectural importance of the building.

5.1.6 The Council works in partnership with the Voluntary Sector and has set up a Voluntary Sector Forum including representatives from CAB, Community Associations, Ethnic Minority Groups, Scouting and Sports Organisations and local Charities.

The Council provides financial support to voluntary sector bodies both through grants, some of which are used to pay for accommodation and through leasing Council property.

Many organisations are unable to pay a full market rent and the Council has adopted a Voluntary Sector Leasing policy under which the Council:

· Assesses the market rental value for property to be leased · Assesses the financial position of each organisation in relation to the assessed market rent · Negotiates a rent per annum with the organisation either at market value or on a concessionary basis · Holds a register of all concessionary rents granted · Uses a standardised common lease wherever possible

In the majority of cases in return for agreeing to a level of rent below that assessed as the market rent, community groups agree to undertake both the internal and external maintenance of the buildings they are leasing.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 66 New applications for leasing of property from the community are considered and wherever possible property which matches their requirement is made available. However, despite already leasing 81 properties to the voluntary sector the demand for accommodation far exceeds the property the Council has available.

In response to the pressure for accommodation the Council has secured funding to provide a resource centre for the voluntary sector through refurbishment of a surplus Council building. This will provide both permanent accommodation and also accommodation to hire on an hourly or daily basis. The facility will open in early 2003.

5.1.7 Another initiative is the development of the Council’s Implementing Electronic Government Statement (IEGS). The E-Services Group, comprising representatives from ICT Services and senior officers from the service departments leads on this. The Group meets on a monthly basis and the CPO attends, or is represented, to ensure that the implications for asset management of proposed changes to forms of service delivery are considered. A full impact assessment will be made which will consider initiatives likely to affect property requirements including development of a central call centre and increased mobile working in Social Services leading to a rationalisation of area offices.

5.1.8 The Council has recently appointed a Procurement Manager to support the Council and Services in obtaining better value for money through all its procurement processes and he is currently Project Manager for a cross-cutting Best Value Review on Procurement and developing a Procurement Strategy.

5.1.9 The Council has recently redrafted its Standing Orders to accommodate the new methods of working following the Modernisation agenda with, in Hillingdon’s case the introduction of a Leader and Cabinet together with Overview and Scrutiny Committees. This has also led to the need for revised delegations with many matters now being delegated to Cabinet others to Cabinet Members or to Officers.

5.1.10The Rethinking Construction Agenda which promotes radical changes to traditional methods of construction procurement provides an opportunity to maximise the benefits of improved delivery of construction projects, reductions in whole life costs, enhanced performance for users and better design.

5.1.11The Council continues to develop its Corporate Estate Strategy. This is informed by departmental service plans and includes an action plan to address options for each key area of ‘mismatch’ between current portfolio and future needs.

5.2 SOCIAL SERVICES

The structure of this department has recently been revised and there are now two care divisions: Children and Families Services and Community Care. The latter brings together services for adults and older persons. The department is also undertaking a strategic review of its property assets, as part of the corporate Asset Management Plan. An asset review group has been established. Its members include heads of service, social services finance and property staff and stakeholders from other Council services (property, housing) and partners (the primary care trust). The group is critically analysing the assets used by Social Services, the extent to which they meet current service needs and how they might meet these needs in the future.

A major piece of work has been undertaken in respect of the residential and respite homes currently used by adults with learning disabilities. An accommodation and

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 67 residential care strategy was endorsed by the Finance and Economic Regeneration Sub-Committee in February 2002. The strategy sets out proposals for the reconfiguration and development of residential care and accommodation for people with learning disabilities. Changes are necessary to ensure that the accommodation provided meets the standards required by the Care Standards Act and that the accommodation is suited to the client – a strategy for a modernised approach to service provision including additional supported housing has been identified. A project team is now assessing the most appropriate method of procurement but this is likely to involve private sector investment in the form of a public private partnership vehicle. A further report will be made to Cabinet later in 2002.

A best value review of day services for adults is being carried out. There are nine centres, these are being upgraded to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and are considered suitable and sufficient. One site, Honeycroft, may offer development potential. Two centres are affected by the reconfiguration of mental health services provided in the borough. Mental Health Services provided by the Council and Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust are to transfer to the Primary Care Trust. The implementation date for this is now 1 October 2002 subject to consultation and ministerial approval. The centres concerned, Mead House and the Pembroke Centre, will remain in the Council’s ownership but occupation or service level agreements must be agreed with the Trust.

The residential homes used by the Children and Families division have been brought up to registration standards. Another, 62 Bedwell Gardens, is currently surplus to requirements and the future of the property will be considered by the Property Review Group.

One of the two children’s respite homes has been brought up to registration standards. The other, Copperfield Avenue, cannot be refurbished to meet the standards fully and has been linked to the proposals for the development of the units used by adults with learning difficulties to seek funding for a replacement.

A proposal is under consideration for early years centres (day nurseries) transfer from Social Services to Education Youth and Leisure Services. This is likely to be effective by the end of 2002.

Progress on the Civic Centre accommodation strategy has enabled Social Services staff in outstations to be brought into the Civic Centre, delivering revenue savings. Limited improvements are being made to the accommodation at the Chestnuts occupied by Children and Families staff to extend its life for a further three to four years allowing an exit strategy to be implemented.

A further project group is examining the feasibility and options for bringing the management of Children and Families services into a single office building, to improve communications and co-ordination between the currently geographically dispersed teams.

5.3 EDUCATION YOUTH AND LEISURE SERVICES

5.3.1 This service has been developing its schools’ estate AMP for submission to the Department for Education and Employment. The majority of its other assets are affected by the service’s ongoing asset review. Progress on this has been reported to Members of the Education Committee throughout 2001/2. A project management

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 68 budget of £100K is included within the service’s base budget for 2002/3. External consultants and contractors are implementing the first large project and undertaking detailed design and feasibility work on the key major project of a programme to provide modern facilities in all areas of the Borough. The programme is based on disposal of some outdated and expensive to maintain assets to raise capital for re-investment and the establishment of a Leisure Trust. Specific projects include:

Highgrove Pool – The disposal of the surplus overflow car park at Highgrove Pool has been completed and the capital receipt generated is being utilised to finance Phase 1 refurbishment works. These works include developing an extension to the existing pool to provide a health and fitness facility. The programme of works commenced in April 2002 and are due to be completed in the early part of 2003.

Community Leisure & Adult Education Facilities in Uxbridge – Architects, Faulkner Browns have been appointed to prepare detailed designs to RIBA Stage D for the development of a 50 metre pool and leisure complex in Uxbridge. The designs will also incorporate the refurbishment of the existing Lido and restoration of the Grade II listed features of the facility. It is proposed that a detailed planning application will be submitted in October/ November 2002 along with submission of Sports and Heritage lottery funding bid applications. Discussions are continuing to be held with partners, Uxbridge College, over their requirements with regard to the proposed facilities and the provision of a new adult education centre to replace the existing facilities at Frays.

Community Leisure facilities in Hayes – The Hayes and Harlington Planning Committee approved a planning brief for the development of community leisure facilities at Botwell Green. The planning brief proposes the redevelopment of the existing Hayes Pool site in Central Avenue for residential use, which includes a proportion of affordable housing, and disposal to fund the new facilities at Botwell Green. A feasibility study for the new community leisure facilities is due to be commissioned in early part of 2003.

Minet Project – The project is due for completion late 2003/early 2004. The key actions include the creation of a country park and land swaps to create better land use. Some new development for sporting facilities are being created by leasing arrangements to enable outside investment into the project.

5.3.2 Hillingdon’s seventeen libraries have been targeted for improvements and an agreed base budget has been approved by the Council. This will include increasing the library stock fund to £488,000 p.a., extended/amended opening hours and some refurbishment projects to include public toilets at two libraries. All improvements to be completed by March 2003. A dual use school/public library at Harlington Secondary School is currently being extended for improved facilities and IT as well as the adult education facilities thereat. The Council has obtained funding from the People’s Network Bid to provide an extra 150 public internet terminals in Hillingdon libraries within a year and establish 3 learning centres.

5.3.3 A major project is currently under way to provide a new secondary school in Ruislip. This is to be achieved by a PFI. The Outline Business case is to be submitted in Summer 2002 and once planning consent is obtained the Council will invite tenders. The costs of £210k per year for 25 years are estimated taking into account the £14.6m PFI credits and contributions from the School. The anticipated completion of the project is Autumn 2004.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 69 5.3.4 The Council has supported the proposal to create a City Academy at Evelyns Secondary School, Yiewsley and £2m private sponsorship has been obtained. The rebuilding of the school will commence in January 2003 at a cost of £20m funded by the DfES and working in partnership with the Council. Anticipated opening of the new school is late 2004. Furthermore the Council is proposing a second City Academy at John Penrose Secondary School, Harefield with a further sponsorship of £2m for the development of a first all-age Academy for sports science if the bid to DfES is successful.

Service improvements are also being promoted through partnership working with Sure Start and the Health Authority in the development of Early Years and Childcare facilities. There are four schemes under way and whilst agreed in principle confirmation on planning and capital funding is awaited from DfES, GOL and LDA.

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

5.4.1 Environmental Services are responsible for management of the Council’s parks and open spaces. Hillingdon has the second largest area of publicly accessible open spaces in Greater London. This includes 165 parks and open spaces, 101 playgrounds, over 800 acres of woodlands, a National Nature Reserve, 37 allotments, 13 bowling greens and a range of sports facilities. The Council’s recent Best Value Review of outdoor recreation found that the service was under-funded compared to other London boroughs and that there had been a lack of stability in its provision. Resource issues are to be addressed by a Parks Improvement Programme. This is to be implemented over a five year period and is to include the following improvements:

· Refurbishment of playgrounds in parks; · Refurbishment of sports pavilions; · Repairs and improvements to fencing and boundaries; · Repairs to footpaths; · Improvements to entrances including signage; · Refurbishment of hardcourt areas; and, · Installation of additional benches, bins, and so on.

A prioritised annual programme has been approved and a Green Spaces Strategy has been drafted and is now out to consultation. The intention is to prioritise investment in parks and open spaces in line with the views of our customers. Improvement schemes will then be incorporated into the Capital Programme for each financial year for the duration of the Best Value Review. In the interim environmental improvement projects are being addressed via the Chrysalis programme. These include £50,000 to restore the amphitheatre at Barra Hall Park in Hayes.

5.4.2 Other changes being considered to generate revenue savings are a move to self management of all allotment sites, leasing of bowls greens and a review of management arrangements for Ruislip Woods National Nature Reserve.

5.4.3 Resources have been allocated for a formal review during 2002/03 of the assets of this service including an analysis of areas containing a possible surplus of open space to explore options for alternative uses, and management arrangements. Options for the disposal of redundant public conveniences will also be considered.

5.4.4 Environmental Services staff are based in the Civic Centre and at Harlington Road Depot. It is thought that there is potential for re-organisation or development at the

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 70 depot that would allow staff to vacate the Civic Centre. Staff are also based at New Years Green Lane Civic Amenity site, Heathrow airport, the crematorium and the mortuary. These proposals will be developed further as part of the Corporate Accommodation Strategy referred to in paragraph 5.1.4.

5.4.5 The recent decision to permit the construction of Terminal 5 has significant implications for staffing of the planning service within Environmental Services. Space has been found to accommodate the additional staff required for a period of three years within the Civic Centre. There are also some implications for Council Property arising from this decision as the Council has some property holdings in the vicinity of the airport. Decisions on property matters in relation to the Terminal 5 development will be taken in co-ordination with the officers and members dealing with Terminal 5 issues.

5.5 HOUSING SERVICES

5.5.1 The bulk of this service’s property assets are considered in the Council’s Housing Revenue Business Plan. This deals with the housing stock, and the shops, garages and other pieces of land located on housing estates. This AMP will consider the service’s future requirements for staff office accommodation and the impact of its development activities on the property portfolio. The service occupies accommodation in the Civic Centre and three leasehold area offices (126-130 High St. Ruislip, 1390 Uxbridge Road, Hillingdon and 163 High Street, Yiewsley.) It also uses accommodation at Harlington Road depot for its Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) and to run the Council’s stores. Property requirements are being affected by the outcome of Best Value reviews.

5.5.2 The service has engaged in a review of its elderly services, caretaking and repairs and maintenance service. In respect of repairs and maintenance, the Best Value Sub- Committee endorsed a report and action plan in January 2001. The report proposed that a central repairs unit be established and that some client functions be transferred to the repairs contractors. There are currently four surveying teams, based on geographical area, it is proposed that these be combined in one location. The DLO has been subjected to competition and a private contractor is now undertaking day to day repairs for the Hayes & Harlington area contract area.

5.5.3 A second Best Value review on Housing Management is underway with a target completion date of October/November 2002. A probable outcome is that the current functions undertaken by the area teams will be reorganised. There are currently four teams: Ruislip, Yiewsley, Uxbridge and Hayes. The latter two share the accommodation at 1390 Uxbridge Road. In the interim the offices are considered suitable and sufficient for the service’s needs. Some relocation of staff has taken place to optimise use of premises (for example the Tenant Participation team has moved out of the Civic Centre to 1390 Uxbridge Road) and officers monitoring the works to existing stock capital programme have relocated to Ruislip. The outcome of the review will be known before the Council’s lease of 126-130 High Street, Ruislip expires and will inform the decision on whether to seek a further term or relocate within the area. The Council housing services division is also pursuing the setting up of an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) and in the medium term this will require a thorough review of its accommodation needs.

5.5.4 The Development Section have been reviewing the parts of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) portfolio (in particular the shops and garage courts) to identify opportunities for provision of affordable housing. The work of the Development Section

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 71 cuts across service boundaries. The Development Section will continue to work with Social Services, other departments and partner organisations to identify and progress schemes to meet the needs of people who require accommodation with support. The Development Section will also continue to pursue affordable housing opportunities arising from other departments’ surplus property assets. It has been agreed corporately that any residential development sites identified by the Education Youth and Leisure Service’s Asset Review will be disposed of on the basis of 50% affordable housing.

5.6 CORPORATE PROPERTY REVIEW AND SALES PROGRAMME

5.6.1 In addition to the service based asset reviews referred to above the Council has undertaken a number of Borough Wide reviews to identify underused and surplus properties. These have achieved significant levels of capital receipts for reinvestment in the capital programme. The Fourth Land Review that is currently in hand was initiated in parallel with the Review of Expensive to Maintain Buildings in 1998. The principal aim of the Sales Programme is to provide the Council with a substantial level of capital receipts to support the capital programme contained in its CIS.

5.6.2 Sites identified as being suitable for change of use or disposal are referred to the Property Review Group and the following matters considered:

For the Service currently managing the property – Can the property be released for alternative use or disposal and what consequent relocation requirements would need to be met, if any? For all Services – Is there a service or Council requirement that could be met from re-use of the property? What impact, if any, would the sale and/or development of the property have on each service?

In addition any Group wanting to change use of a premise brings it to PRG for an assessment to be made of any competing internal bids and an assessment of the opportunity cost of selling the premise on the open market.

5.6.3 Sales Programme progress is monitored at monthly meetings of the Property Review and Sales Team. The properties for disposal are those which have been identified as surplus from both Corporate and individual Service reviews referred to above. The level of capital receipts achieved during the last 2 years was:-

2000/2001 £6,331,300 2001/2002 £3,858,384

The forecast of capital receipts for 2002/2003 is approximately £6 million. It is more difficult to predict the likely level of achievable capital receipts for future years. However, for planning purposes for inclusion in the Capital Programme, an estimate has been given of £2-3 million per annum for each of the next 3 years to 2005-2006.

As the Council has pursued sales of surplus property vigorously over several years, the amount of surplus property available is reducing. The Council is, therefore, increasingly investigating how, through links with partners, additional funding can be levered in to support priority investment needs. We are also investigating ways of

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 72 collaborating with partners in different methods of working, including through new procurement initiatives.

5.6.4 Proposals for capital investment for the period 2002 to 2006 are set out in the Council’s CS. The Corporate Property Review and Sales Programme supports this plan and it is recognised that this will need to be given a higher degree of priority if it is to contribute to the need for additional capital for later years in the programme at the levels given in the above estimates or better.

5.6.5 The present Capital Programme and identified outputs from each scheme or programme are set out on Appendix D.

6. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

6.1 Information on the 5 Property Performance Indicators required for AMPs has been assembled and the resulting PIs are set out in Appendix E. Following submission of AMPs it is anticipated that comparisons can be made with PIs submitted by other similar authorities and areas identified for improvement.

6.2 It should be noted that only 10 properties have been identified by the CPO as being held primarily for investment purposes (PI 2) although the Council owns many more properties subject to leases or which are non-operational. In all other cases, however, these are considered to be held primarily for other purposes such as to support service delivery or to protect the Green Belt.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 73 APPENDIX A

Chief Executive

Corporate Director Corporate Director Corporate Director Corporate Director Director of Finance Education Youth & Social Services Housing Environment Leisure

Financial Services Head of Property Services

Head of Property Estatates & Valuation Property Consultancy Facilities Manager Manager of Building Services Agency Manager Manager Cleaning & Catering Services

Management Board

CAPITAL STRATEGY GROUP

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT AND PROPERTY REVIEW GROUP ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN MONITORING SUB GROUP STEERING GROUP

Data/Property Corporate Property Condition Surveys Sufficiency/Suitability Performance Information Database Sub Team Sub Team Fit for Purpose Sub Indicators and Resources Sub Team Benchmarks Sub Team Team

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 74 APPENDIX B

Theme Plan for the year ahead Property Implications value for money to improve the Council’s 1. to complete sales of properties financial management, to ensure earmarked for disposal to support it lives within its budget and that the capital programme value for money is secured in all 2. to ensure that property capital it does projects are delivered on time and budget 3. to achieve best consideration when negotiating occupational leases and licences 4. to achieve a high level of income collection 5. to achieve value for money in terms of building running costs modernising the way we to modernise our working 1. to continue to develop existing work practices, investing in new accommodation strategies for the technologies to increase Civic Centre and other efficiency and electronic access administrative centres, including to council services and to ways to improve the existing use of modernise existing service space, adoption of space conditions for staff standards, partnership working, and effects of e-government. providing better to drive forward, via the Best 1. to carry out the tasks contained in services Value programme, major service the Property Services Best Value reviews and programmes to Review Action Plan in respect of improve services for local asset management people 2. to work with Services engaged in service based asset reviews to ensure the corporate perspective is taken into account involving the community to continue programmes for 1. to consult the Community on the and localisation consultation on services. implications of asset reviews Establishment of a Community 2. to establish whether the Plan for Hillingdon in co- community believe that properties operation with key partners and are suitable for their purpose residents 3. to work with the community to identify local needs working in partnership to examine further opportunities 1 to explore potential for joint use of and improving for providing services through premises with key partners communications partnership and progress work 2. to engage with key partners and with the health service through ensure that property strategies are links with the local Hospital Trust aligned and co-ordinate as and Primary Care Trust appropriate

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 75 APPENDIX C

Priority Objectives Property contribution Community To reduce the involvement To ensure that appropriate arrangements are Safety of young people in crime maintained to respond to building emergencies and anti-social behaviour, on a 24 hour a day basis, including security and improve safety in public emergency repairs from breakdown, natural areas, protect vulnerable occurrences etc. members of the community, To be responsive to service needs within this area tackle the misuse of alcohol and consider how property assets can be used to and other drugs facilitate solutions Health To improve everyone’s To improve the delivery of efficient building health so people can live systems to ensure healthy internal environment longer and healthier lives, and provide compliance with health and safety improve the health of the legislation worst-off in society narrowing To be aware of the property dimensions to the health gap increased joint working and service alignment Quality of Life To ensure a better quality of To ensure that property policies, standards and life for everyone, protect and processes focus upon the importance of: enhance the environment, · Energy efficiency satisfy peoples’ basic needs · Maximising the life of the assets and give people the · Using sustainable renewable resources opportunity to achieve their · Taking a “whole life” approach to building costs potential through education, · Promoting sustainable practices by contractors information, participation and · Following sustainable farming practices at good health Park Lodge Farm · Government advice on sustainability objectives Economic To support partnership To ensure that property activities contribute to the Regeneration arrangements with business, prosperity of the Borough by: promote physical and · using local contractors where possible community regeneration, · undertaking projects and negotiations and provide business advice and sales of surplus property for development assist companies to move · supporting local enterprise through the into the area provision of industrial start up units · providing advice on property issues to the SRB partnership · using assets, where appropriate, pro-actively to lead projects promoting the well being of the community Social Justice To tackle inequality and To ensure the application of common standards in remove barriers to Council building repairs and construction services To address equalities issues, ensuring access to buildings for all, including minority and disadvantaged groups

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 76 APPENDIX D

Project Links to Council’s key themes Service period Project and priorities Comment Outcome Education 2002/03 Extension to Highgrove Value for money Ability to fund full scheme of refurbishment Increased use of Youth & to Pool to provide enlarged Providing better services and renewal is dependant upon the amount Highgrove Health & Leisure 2003/04 Health & Fitness Suite Health received from the sale Fitness Suite Quality of Life 2002/03 Provision of new adult Value for money Scheme subject to consultation with the Enabling disposal or to education facilities at Providing better services community alternative use of a 2006/07 Hillingdon House Farm Working in partnership Social services interested in acquiring the building identified as in Uxbridge in Quality of Life Frays site expensive to maintain partnership with Uxbridge College 2002/03 Provision of swimming Value for money Scheme subject to consultation with the Providing modern to pool and sports hall at Providing better services community. sporting facilities in the 2006/07 Hillingdon House Farm Health Adjoining enabling land would be disposed centre of the Borough, in Uxbridge in Quality of Life of for residential development including Borough’s first partnership with 50m pool Uxbridge College and Increased use of sporting Brunel University facilities Provision of a multi-use Value for money Scheme subject to consultation with the Bringing together “ community facility, incl. Providing better services community services currently Leisure pool, library & Health Existing facilities (e.g. Hayes Pool) would delivered from buildings open space at Botwell Quality of Life be closed and disposed of in inaccessible locations Green, Hayes Social Justice and/or expensive to maintain. Increased use of swimming pool 2002/03 Review of Libraries to Providing better services. The Review will need to address the need Improvement in library to meet Government Involving the community and to meet Government Standards. provision. Improvement 2004/05 Standards and provision localisation The opportunity will also be taken to in public access to IT and of wider public facilities improve public accessibility to the Council public conveniences. and other services and facilities. Social 2002/03 Modernisation of Value for money Works to two of the three homes have been Services childrens homes and Providing better services completed. The third will be completed in respite facilities Health September 2001. Users are being consulted Quality of Life on future location of respite facilities.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 77 APPENDIX D

Project Links to Council’s key themes Service period Project and priorities Comment Outcome 2002/03 Improvement and Value for money Best Value review of services provided to to reconfiguration of Providing better services adults with learning disabilities identified a 2003/04 disabilities properties Working in partnership need for more supported housing. jointly with Health Health Reconfiguration of small homes to achieve Quality of Life this proposed. Proposals subject to Supporting Vulnerable People consultation with users and Health partners. Strategy Environmental 2002/03 Regeneration of the Providing better services Council funding supplemented by Lottery Increased use and Services to major urban parks (e.g. Involving the community and bids & private sponsorship/ s106 funds improvement in the local 2004/05 Barra Hall and localisation where possible environment Fassnidge Parks) 2002/03 Local Area Initiatives Social Justice Funding from capital receipts, Local schemes wholly or to (Chrysalis programme) Quality of Life Supplementary Credit Approvals and s106 partly determined by 2005/06 funds consultation with the local community Housing 2002/03 To work with Housing Value for money Funding identified from Annual Capital Reducing the numbers in Services to Associations to increase Social Justice Guideline temporary 2005/06 the supply of affordable accommodation housing in the Borough Central 2002/03 Maintenance Value for money Works will be concentrated on buildings that Maximising the life of Services to programme (to include Health have been identified for retention because property assets and (Chief Exec.s 2005/06 water and energy Quality of Life they are valuable to the delivery of the reducing running costs Office/Finance efficiency improvement Social Justice Council’s services & Property measures and disabled Services) access issues) 2002/03 Refurbishment of Civic Value for money Phase 1 of this project is in hand Maximising use of this to Centre Modernising the way we work asset and enabling a 2004/05 reduction in the number of outstations

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 78 APPENDIX E

PROPERTY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. A. Gross internal floor-space in condition categories A B C D Operational Other 13% 37% 49% 1% Non-Op. General 17% 23% 60% 0% Non-Op. Surplus 0% 13% 5% 82%

B. Total Back log of Percentage of backlog Maintenance Cost maintenance in priority levels 1 2 3 4 Operational Other £22,273,191 16% 49% 23% 12% Non-Op General £987.350 21% 22% 26% 31% Non-Op Surplus £169,450 2% 26% 59% 13%

2. Overall average internal rate of return for:

A. Industrial Investment Property 9.07%

B. Retail Investment Property 8.01 %

C. Agricultural Investment Property N/A %

3. Total annual management costs per sq. m. (GIA)

A. Operational Property £ 7.24 per sq. m.

B. Non-operational property £ 3.50 per sq. m.

4. A. Repair and Maintenance Costs £ 14.63 per sq. m.

B. Energy Costs £ 9.09 per sq. m.

C. Water Costs £ 1.67 per sq. m.

D. CO2 emissions: 0.078 tonnes per sq. m.

5. A. Projects within 5% of estimated Cost out turn 67 %

B. Projects within 5% of estimated time scale 67 %

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 79 APPENDIX 2

ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Primary Criteria

1. Organisational arrangements for corporate asset management

1.1 A Corporate Property Officer (CPO) has been identified with authority to undertake all required developments in asset management. 1.2 Roles and responsibilities for the CPO (as indicated by the prevailing guidance) are clearly set out, explicit and have been communicated to all those concerned, in property management and use, throughout the authority. 1.3 The CPO reports and is accountable to a strategic, decision-making group both at officer and member levels. 1.4 Clear evidence has been provided that a cross-service, senior management forum has been set up which includes the CPO, representatives from major services and, where appropriate, the finance directorate and officers involved in the development of the Capital Strategy and the Community Plan (or its equivalent). 1.5 The forum has formal terms of reference that includes the strategic management of the council’s assets. 1.6 Evidence that the forum: - progresses the corporate Asset Management Plan and ensures that it is approved by senior officers and the Council; - ensures that the AMP is informed by and supports other key corporate and service plans and objectives; - meets regularly (at least twice a year or more often as may be appropriate).

2. Data Management

2.1 CPO has ensured that a record is held and maintained of basic, core data on all the Council's property. 2.2 The validity of this information has been tested. 2.3 AMP can demonstrate a clear understanding of the data required to manage the performance of the property portfolio. 2.4 Statistical information on the overall condition of the portfolio (condition categories: A-D/1-4) and maintenance backlogs is included in the AMP.

3. Performance Management, Monitoring & Information

3.1 The CPO submits a formal report to Members and Chief Officers at least annually on the performance of the property portfolio, which now includes performance outcomes in relation to the DTLR National pPIs. 3.2 The AMP includes information showing how the authority is performing in relation to all five national pPIs. 3.3 Members are informed, as part of overall budget and performance

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 80 monitoring, of the progress and performance of the capital programme.

4. Programme and Plan Development and Implementation

4.1 The AMP outlines the council’s property related requirements and outlines the proposed programmes which are intended to meet these requirements. (For example: acquisition, disposal, investment, development; maintenance; programmes related to surplus and/or under-performing assets; plans enabling shared use and/or co-location.) 4.2 CPO has demonstrated that there is a methodology for option appraisal and corporate prioritising between projects. 4.3 A 3 year capital programme is developed including a forecast of the planned capital receipts. 4.4 Output/outcome targets are set for programmes and plans requiring capital investment.

Secondary Criteria

Organisational arrangements for corporate asset management

1. Evidence that the CPO / Asset Management Forum routinely challenges and reviews the use, provision and performance of the council’s assets and its related property services, in order to achieve the most effective management, planning and use of these assets. Key findings and outcomes are reported to Chief Officers and the Council. Examples can include: Ø the identification and rationalisation of surplus or under-performing property; Ø the promotion of shared use or co-location; Ø the systematic review and challenge of property use, provision and management and; Ø Identification of the property implications arising from relevant plans, audits and reviews. 2. Evidence that the CPO / Asset Management Forum takes into account stakeholder satisfaction information relating to property and property services. 3. A cabinet member (or lead committee member) holds responsibilities for the authority’s property resource on behalf of the council. 4. The CPO is involved in the preparation of the Capital Strategy and contributes to the work of other relevant corporate and business planning groups. 5. There are references to the property asset implications in corporate policies and strategies such as the Best Value Performance Plan, Best Value Reviews, the Capital Strategy, the Community Plan and LPSAs. 6. There is evidence of cross service use, shared use and/or co-location of property resources within the authority and with other organisations.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 81 Consultation

7. Evidence that processes are being developed to obtain feedback from services, users and occupiers. 8. Evidence that consultation findings are used to influence the continuous improvement of property and property services performance.

Data Management

9. CPO has undertaken a full survey of future data requirements for the property portfolio. 10. CPO has identified a programme of necessary improvements 11. CPO has commenced development of a data system for “intermediate” data (i.e. property data which requires updating from time to time such as condition, rents and user details) 12. CPO has implemented Unique Property Reference number (UPRN) system or set out detailed reasons why any alternative property referencing approach is considered more appropriate. 13. CPO has developed an approach for the centralised co-ordination of property management information and its integration with relevant council financial information. 14. CPO has undertaken a review of training needs for users of the data and set in place a system for satisfying those needs.

Performance Management, Monitoring & Information

15. Clear evidence that the CPO is developing and using a set of local performance measures in relation to assets that link asset use to corporate objectives. 16. Clear evidence that the CPO is developing a process to enable the comparison of the performance and competitiveness of property and property services with other similar organisations and other providers. 17. Clear evidence that the development of performance measures and monitoring takes into account stakeholder consultation and user satisfaction findings. 18. Clear evidence that performance measurement feeds into a process of continuous improvement. 19. Local Performance Indicators are in place and being used for measuring and monitoring the amount of surplus property and space utilisation. 20. A written report is produced for Members and Chief Officers on any maintenance backlog recommending appropriate action. 21. The CPO is collecting information on the “suitability” of the various categories of the portfolio for their current and future use.

Programme and Plan Development and Implementation

22. The AMP demonstrates that the Council has identified the implications for property which arise from the Council’s objectives.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 82 23. The AMP demonstrates service wide understanding of corporate ownership of assets. 24. The AMP demonstrates that the Council has undertaken a thorough investigation and analysis of the gaps between future requirements and the current provision and performance of the authority’s present property assets. 25. The Council has identified and appraised the options for closing these gaps. 26. The AMP outlines the Council’s approved 3 – 5 year strategic action plan based on this analysis.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 83 LEA SCHOOL ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS ITEM 6 FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS FOR 2003/2004

Contact Officer: Mary Milne Telephone: 01895 250430

SUMMARY

This report outlines the admission arrangements which operated for children entering school at the ages of 4 + and 11 in the current year, and seeks approval for the admissions policy and process for children who will begin full time education between September 2003 and September 2004, and who will be transferring from Primary School to Secondary School in September 2003.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Members:

1. Approve the admission arrangements for primary schools which are LEA community schools for 2003/4.

2. That Members approve the admission arrangements for Secondary Schools which are LEA community schools for September 2003.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Members of the Local Education Authority are required to formally approve admission arrangements in this LEA for schools for which they are the statutory admissions authority. This paper outlines those arrangements for all the LEA community schools.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

The admission arrangements presented for approval by Cabinet in this paper have been agreed by the Admission Forum.

If Cabinet wishes to see different admission arrangements then these first need to be proposed and discussed at the Admission Forum.

If Forum agrees then their implementation can proceed if Forum disagrees then any admission authority can refer to the Adjudicator for a ruling.

In Hillingdon, to date, the Admissions Forum have agreed all admission criteria of the different admission authorities.

Cabinet could decide not to agree the proposed criteria and ask for different criteria to be considered by the Forum. However it will be too late for Forum to consider this in time for admission in September 2003/04.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 84 COMMENTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

It has not been possible to get the views of this committee to date, however, there is Member representation on the Admissions Forum so Members have had the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on the criteria prior to these recommendations.

INFORMATION

Primary Schools Admission Arrangements in 2002/3

1. As at 21 September 2001 the date when places were allocated, a total of 2575 children were offered places at Hillingdon Community and Foundation schools. This figure does not include Voluntary Aided schools.

2. In accordance with the agreed admission policy parents were asked in July 2001 to nominate three LEA Community or Foundation schools in order of preference and children were allocated to schools accordingly. All first preferences were considered before second preferences and all second preferences were considered before third preferences.

3. Of the 2582 applications for places in Community and Foundation schools (not including Voluntary Aided schools:)

2425 - 94% obtained a place at their 1st preference school. 77 - 3% obtained a place at their 2nd preference school. 34 - 1.3% obtained a place at their 3rd preference school. 39 - 1.5% obtained a school for which parents had not expressed a preference. 7 - 0.2% (the remainder) went elsewhere.

4. In the case of oversubscribed schools, places were allocated strictly in accordance with the agreed criteria across the oversubscribed schools.

5. Admission Arrangements for 2003/2004. The following timescale has been published.

June 2002 Brochure to be sent to parents. 12 July 2002 Closing date for applications 20 September 2002 Letters to parents offering places. 25 October 2002 Appeals deadline Spring Term 2003 Appeals to be held.

6. This follows a similar pattern to the arrangements for 2002/2003 admissions.

7. Arrangements have been made for an advertisement to be published in the local press and the Hillingdon People. Leaflets and posters will be made available to health clinics, doctors’ surgeries and libraries. The booklet produced for parents will

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 85 include brief guidance in certain community languages offering further assistance to parents for whom English is an additional language. The booklet will also contain all schools admission criteria as required by legislation.

8. There were 15 appeals lodged for the 2002/3 admission round. 7 were withdrawn as a place was subsequently offered and 8 were dismissed.

9. Discussions on primary and secondary school admission now takes place at the Admissions Forum. Changes in criteria and numbers must be agreed by this body.

10. At meetings of the Admission Forum there has been consensus on the following:

· The process of administering admissions whereby each admission authority undertook to process their own applications, but to a common timetable, was working well and would be continued.

· A proposal to consider a monitoring form in conjunction with an application from each appropriate secondary school was agreed by secondary school admission authorities. This was to ensure that the LEA is aware of all pupils who have not applied for a secondary school place.

· Discussion is ongoing within a working party sub group to agree a way forward to centralize primary to secondary transfer for 2004/05 in accordance with a new Government bill currently being finalised in Parliament.

Admission Criteria for 2003/2004 Hillingdon LEA for Primary Community Schools

11. The current admissions policy, with the proposed changes added in bold type and giving the criteria in the priority order as follows: i. Children who suffer from a long term medical or psychological condition, or who have been assessed by the LEA as having special educational needs, which makes it necessary for them to attend a particular school. ii. Children who have a member of the immediate family whose medical or psychological condition makes it necessary for the children to attend a particular school. iii. Children who will have an older brother or sister living in the same household or elsewhere and will still be attending the school (including a paired junior school) at the beginning of the term in which the younger child starts full-time education. Siblings will only be taken into account at the time of the initial allocation of places, i.e. only applications which have been submitted by the published closing date will be eligible for siblings to be taken into account. iv. Children of permanent teaching staff at the school of their first preference.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 86 v. Children whose parents name the particular school as their first preference and living nearest the school, measured in a straight line from the school to the home. For children for whom William Byrd, Heathrow or Harmondsworth Primary School is a first preference, criterion (a.b.c) applies. (See after (vii) below). vi. Children whose parents name the particular school as their second preference. Places will be allocated only after all first preference applications have been considered. Distance from home to school is the only criterion. vii. Children whose parents name the particular school as their third preference. Places will be allocated only after all second preference applications have been considered. Distance from home to school is the only criterion.

a) For William Byrd Primary School only

Children whose parents have stated a fist preference for William Byrd Primary School and who live in the area bounded by:

· The M4 to the North · The M4 spur to the West · The River Crane to the East · The Bath Road to the South (including any children living between the Bath Road and the Northern Perimeter Road)

will be allocated places in order of distance, measured in a straight line from the school to the home.

b) For Heathrow Primary School only

Children whose parents have stated a first preference for Heathrow Primary School and who live in the streets and areas below:

Ashby Way Sipson Close Blunts Avenue Sipson Way Bomer Close Sipson Rd 2139 – 501 & 356 to 544 Chitterfield Gate Sipson Lane (from Sipson Road to M4 Spur) Sipson Road 1-10 Copsewood Court Harmondsworth Lane 2 to 46 & 1 to 59 Hollycroft Close Russell Gardens Hollycroft Gardens Vincent Close Kenwood Close Vineries Close Wykeham Close

The Bath Road from the M4 spur to the East and to the warehouse and offices of Penquin Books to the West.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 87 The area bounded by the Bath Road to the North, the M4 spur to the East, Northern Perimeter Road West to the South and Nelson Road to the West,

will be allocated places in order of distance, measured in a straight line from the school to home.

c) For Harmondsworth Primary School only

Children whose parents have stated a first preference for Harmondsworth Primary School and who live in the area bounded by:

The M4 to the North The M25 to the West The M4 to the East. The Bath Road to the South, including any children living between the Bath Road and the northern Perimeter Road and any children living in Perry Oaks Cottages, Wessex Road and who do not fall within the priority areas for Heathrow and William Byrd Primary Schools, will be allocated places in order of distance, measured in a straight line from the school to home.

For children whose parents name William Byrd School, Heathrow Primary School or Harmondsworth Primary School as first preference where criteria i-iv do not apply and who do not live in the priority areas (as outlined in a, b or c) then places will be allocated only after all first preference applications living within the priority areas have been considered. Distance from home to school will be the only criterion (i.e. Criterion v).

Reason for Changes

12. Criterion iv has been added: Children of permanent teaching staff at the school of their first preference. Following consultation with schools and through the Admissions Forum it was agreed that this criterion would benefit primary schools in the recruitment and retention of staff.

Admissions Criteria for 2003 for Secondary Community Schools

13. Parents must apply for each school individually.

14. The current admissions policy giving the criteria in the priority order is as follows: i. Children with documented medical needs which the LEA believe would necessitate a place at the school. ii. Children where the medical or psychological condition of a member of the immediate family makes attendance at the school necessary.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 88 iii. Children who have an older brother or sister living in the same household or elsewhere still attending the school at the beginning of the term the younger child starts. iv. Children living nearest the School, measured in a straight line from the school to home

Common Timetable for Secondary Admissions

15. A common timetable for admissions to secondary school September 2003 has been agreed by the admission forum. The LEA, Voluntary Aided and Foundation Schools have successfully co-operated to co-ordinate admission arrangements and ensure that arrangements are kept as straightforward as possible. It is expected that this co-operation will continue to operate.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

16. There are no legal implications.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

17. This is not a financial report.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

18. The Admissions Forum which is the body constituted to discuss and agree the admission criteria in an area have agreed the recommended admissions criteria.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Admissions Booklet Code of Practice School Admissions DfES 1999 Minutes of Admissions Forums

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 89 HOME TO SCHOOL TRANSPORT POLICY ITEM 7

Contact Officer: Mary Milne Telephone: 01895 250430

SUMMARY

When a Best Value Review was undertaken of Home to School Transport as part of the Pupil Support Review it became clear that Hillingdon spends significantly more on free travel passes than other comparable authorities. This was confirmed when OfSTED published its benchmarking data, extracts of which are produced below. Cabinet is now, therefore, asked to agree to a fundamental review of the policy and a consultation strategy to support it.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Members a) Instruct officers to review the LEA’s transport policy with a view to significantly reducing the number of free travel passes in line with the recommendation of the Best Value Review of the Pupil Support Team which reported to Education Committee in February 2001. b) Request that the LEA consult widely on a revised policy which will, if agreed, be implemented for new applications from September 2004. Current beneficiaries will not be affected by any new policy. c) Agree the consultation strategy timelines and documents set out in Appendices and B. d) Agrees to receive a report on the consultation and proposals for a revised policy in November 2002.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS

One of the outcomes of the Best Value Review of the Pupil Support Team was that the Transport Policy should be reviewed with a view to significantly reducing the number of free travel passes. Therefore we have a duty to implement this recommendation under Best Value legislation. The high costs of the LEA’s use of its discretion to provide extensive free home to school travel has an effect on other school related spending which benefits all the LEA’s pupils. It is, therefore, fair and appropriate to review the LEA’s use of its discretion. The proposed wide consultation is necessary to ensure the view of all those affected and other stakeholders are fully considered before any changes are made to the Policy.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

In considering options, Members need to take into account that we have a statutory duty under the Education Act 1996 to provide free transport to:

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 90 · Pupils under 8 years of age living more than 2 miles and pupils over 8 years of age living more than 3 miles from their nearest appropriate school by the safest walking route. · Pupils of compulsory school age if the child has SEN and requires transport to attend their nearest suitable school, and the statement requires transport. · Over 16s in education if transport is necessary – usually when the pupil has SEN or the parents are in receipt of benefit.

All other provision of free home to school transport is at the LEA’s discretion subject to local LEA policy.

In consulting on the policy for support in the areas where the LEA has discretion, there are three options:

Option [a]

We could consult on all aspects of the current policy where the LEA has discretion.

Option [b]

We could consult on removal of assistance only to some categories of pupils identified in the proposed consultation documents. If Cabinet wishes to adopt this option, members are asked to determine which categories of pupils should be included in the review of current policy.

Option [c]

We could leave the current policy as it is and not have a consultation on this issue.

Whichever option Cabinet decides to take, is important to realise that at this stage officers are seeking approval to undertake a wide consultation, not seeking a decision. It is, in the view of officers, preferable to have as broad a consultation as possible and this could be achieved by consulting on the options which are in the paper attached as a suggested model for consultation on a new home to school transport policy. [Option (a)].

COMMENTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

The views of the Overview and Scrutiny will be sought as part of the consultation.

INFORMATION

1. The most recent data from OfSTED looking at all local education authorities shows the following for Hillingdon.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 91 Hillingdon LEA Statistical Neighbour National Percentile Median 30th 50th 70th % of pupils including SEN who receive free transport 9.6 4.6 4.4 6.7 9.7

% of pupil of who receive free transport for 3.4 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.8 denominational reasons

% of pupils who receive transport for statutory 1.4 1.4 1.6 2.9 5.1 distance reasons

2. What this data shows is that Hillingdon is spending significantly more than similar LEAs [i.e. statistical neighbours] on both special needs and denominational reasons for home-school transport.

3. In the case of statutory distance reasons Hillingdon spends the same as its statistical neighbours. It spends less than the national benchmark but this is because many rural authorities which have very large home to school transport bills have been included.

4. It is, therefore, clear that significant reductions can be made in the LEA home to school transport budget if there was a change to the policy to ensure that in future only some categories of parents who are currently getting assistance in transporting their children were able to get assistance from the LEA.

5. The majority of authorities now have an element of means testing their assistance to some categories of pupils, for example in giving assistance with denominational home to school transport.

6. Officers have drafted a consultation document which looks at the different options for discretionary assistance.

7. This consultation document is attached to this paper. Officers are seeking guidance from Cabinet about the extent of the options they wish to see in our consultation document.

8. This policy was last reviewed in 1994 and therefore it is important that consideration be given to updating this policy in the light of the issues raised in this paper.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT AND PROPOSED

9. 3000 parents, all schools, the voluntary sector, members, diocesan authorities and other agencies were all part of the consultation exercise carried out as part of the Best Value Review of the Pupil Support Team which recommended that the transport policy of the LEA should be subject to a major review.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 92 10. Appendix A - sets out a proposed consultation strategy which will give all interested parties and stakeholders time to express a view all potential changes to the policy. Appendix B sets out a draft consultation document which seeks to provide concise relevant information and gather clear responses from consultees.

CORPORATE CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

Finance

11. The financial savings referred to in the report will depend on the actions proposed as a result of the review. At this stage it is not possible to quantify the savings, but it is anticipated that if commitments to existing parents are honoured until the end of their child’s education at their current school, revenue savings will to be phased in over 6 or 7 years. These savings will be available to improve funding for schools or other educational provision as the Council determines within statutory constraints on school funding.

Legal

12. The duty to provide transport to and from school is imposed on the LEA by section 509 of the Education Act 1996 which requires that arrangements shall be made for the provision of transport as it considers necessary for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of persons receiving education at school. The LEA has a discretion to decide whether or not it is necessary to provide transport, but if it does consider it necessary then it has a duty to provide transport. In considering whether it is necessary to provide transport the LEA must exercise its discretion in a manner which is neither illegal, irrational nor procedurally improper.

13. There are however, circumstances where it will be necessary to provide transport and this arises as a result of section 444 of the Education Act 1996 which sets out the offence by a parent of failing to ensure regular attendance at a school of a registered pupil. A parent will have a defence if it can be proved that the school is not within the walking distances ( 2 miles for children under 8 and 3 miles for those over 8 ) and no arrangements have been made for the pupils transport to and from school.

14. Persons affected by any proposed changes to existing transport policy have a legitimate expectation to be consulted prior to any decision and the consultation should provide sufficient information as to intention, be meaningful and due consideration given to the comments of those consulted and responding.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Best Value Review of Pupil Support Team – February Education Youth and Leisure Committee February 2001.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 93 APPENDIX A

Consultation Strategy for a Revision of the LEA’s Home to School Transport Policy

1. Consultation will include the following stakeholders. a) Schools (Special and Mainstream, to include schools outside the Borough where there are significant numbers of Hillingdon pupils attending as well as the supplementary Saturday schools for Chinese, Somali, and other BAME pupils).

(i) Heads (ii) Governors (iii) Excellence Cluster Executive (iv) Admissions Forum (v) School Organisation Committee (vi) Pupil Support Strategic Advisory Group b) Parents and Pupils

(i) parents of pupils currently in Year 4 in Hillingdon Schools (ii) Youth Council (iii) Parent Partnership Service c) Professional Associations and Unions

(i) NAS/UWT (ii) NUT (iii) ATL (iv) UNISON d) Service Providers within Hillingdon

(i) Social Services (ii) Environmental Services (iii) Ethnic Minority Advisory Support Service (iv) Education Welfare Service e) Other Agencies

(i) Race Equality Council (ii) Local Diocesan Boards and SACRE (iii) Local Voluntary groups representing children with disabilities (iv) HAVS

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 94 2. Nature of Consultation

Wherever possible existing consultation or communication fora will be used. Even where representative organisations are covered it would be helpful to get a sample of the views of the recipients of the Services. This would be particularly helpful for parents and pupils.

3. Timescale

At the conclusion of the consultation period on October 1st, officers will undertake an analysis of the responses and, in November 2002, report the outcomes to Cabinet, together with a proposed revised policy. Cabinet will be asked to consider the consultation outcomes and proposed policy in the context of the overall needs of the LEA’s School and pupils and decide whether and how to change the current policy. A new policy, if agreed, will then be published in early 2003 to provide ample advanced notice to parents before school choices are made for the admissions round for September 2004.

4. Consultation Proforma

We propose to use a simple questionnaire to focus comments on each aspect of the home to school transport policy where the LEA has discretion. This is attached as Appendix B, together with a draft explanatory letter.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 95 APPENDIX B

Proposed Draft letter to be sent to Consultees along with the attached consultation proforma.

Dear Consultee (Name to be inserted)

Review of Hillingdon LEA’s Home to School Transport Policy

We are inviting your comments as part of a review of our Home to School Transport Policy.

The review is being carried out for a number of reasons:

[i] The Policy was last reviewed in 1994. [ii] A review of the Policy was a key recommendation from the Best Value Review of Pupil Support completed in February 2001. [iii] Comparisons by OfSTED and the Audit Commission have confirmed the findings of the Best Value Review that Hillingdon spends significantly more on provision of free home to school travel than other LEAs. [iv] Hillingdon’s current policy provides free home to school transport to a number of categories of pupils where the LEA has discretion not to provide free transport or to limit support to families on low incomes. [v] The costs of the current policy are met from the LEA’s budget for schools, and therefore, have an effect on the funding available for other school-related expenditure which benefits all pupils.

This consultation, therefore, seeks views on what provision Hillingdon should make for free home to school transport beyond our statutory duty under the Education Act 1996. This requires provision of free transport to:

· Pupils under 8 years of age living more than 2 miles and pupils over 8 years of age living more than 3 miles from their nearest appropriate school by the safest walking route. · Pupils of compulsory school age if the child has SEN and requires transport to attend their nearest suitable school, and the statement requires transport. · Over 16s in education if transport is necessary – usually when the pupil has SEN or the parents are in receipt of benefit.

The consultation proforma attached seeks your views and comments on each category of pupil where provision should be determined in the LEA’s policy. We would be grateful if you could complete and return it to Mary Milne, Head of Pupil Support, 4E/01 Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW by 1st October 2002.

We will then undertake an analysis of the responses and, in November 2002, report the outcomes of the consultation to the Cabinet of the Council, together with a proposed revised policy. The Cabinet will consider the consultation outcomes and

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 96 proposed policy in the context of the overall needs of the LEA’s schools and pupils and decide whether and how to change the current policy.

We look forward to receiving your views.

Yours sincerely,

MARY MILNE Head of Pupil Support

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 97 CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE on Hillingdon LEA’s Policy for Home to SchoolAPPENDIX Transport B

In addition to those categories of pupils for whom the LEA has a statutory duty to provide free home to school transport [see attached letter], do you think Hillingdon LEA should provide free home to school transport for the following categories of pupils? Please add any comments you would like to make.

1. Pupils aged between 8-11 who have to travel more than 2 miles to their Please tick one: 3 nearest suitable school by the safest walking route. Yes – for all such Comment: pupils No – for no pupils Yes, but only for pupils from low income families

2. Pupils aged under 8 years of age whose parents express a preference Please tick one: 3 for a faith school, the nearest one of which is more than two miles by the safest walking route. Yes – for all such Comment: pupils No – for no pupils Yes, but only for pupils from low income families

3. Pupils aged between 8-11 whose parents express a preference for a Please tick one: 3 faith school, the nearest one of which is more than two miles by the safest walking route. Yes – for all such Comment: pupils No – for no pupils Yes, but only for pupils from low income families

4. Pupils aged between 8-11 whose parents express a preference for a Please tick one: 3 faith school, the nearest one of which is more than three miles by the safest walking route. Yes – for all such Comment: pupils No – for no pupils Yes, but only for pupils from low income families

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 98 5. Pupils aged between 11-16 whose parents express a preference for a Please tick one: 3 faith school, the nearest one of which is more than three miles by the safest walking route. Yes – for all such Comment: pupils No – for no pupils Yes, but only for pupils from low income families

6. Pupils in exceptional circumstances to support continuity of education Please tick one: 3 regardless of whether a place may be available at a nearer suitable school Yes – for all such Comment: pupils No – for no pupils Yes, but only for pupils from low income families

7. Pupils who do not have a statement of education need but have long Please tick one: 3 term medical needs which would prevent attendance at the nearest suitable school without provision of transport Yes – for all such Comment: pupils No – for no pupils Yes, but only for pupils from low income families

OTHER: Would prevent attendance at the nearest suitable school without Please tick one: 3 provision of transport Yes – for all such Comment: pupils No – for no pupils Yes, but only for pupils from low income families

Name of person completing the form …..………………………………………………………………….….... Address ………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………… Tel No: …….……………………… Email address: ……………….………………………………………. Organisation (if any) you are responding on behalf of: ….……………………………………………….……. …………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………….

Please return this form by October 1st 2002 to Mary Milne – Head of Pupil Support Service, 4E/01 Civic Centre, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW. Thank you for you help in taking part in this consultation.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 99 HILLINGDON EDUCATION BUSINESS ITEM 8 PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS PLAN 2002/2003

Contact Officer: Roger Turner/Peter Sale Telephone: 01895 250789/020 8897 7633

SUMMARY

This report provides information about the process by which Hillingdon Education Business Partnership (HEBP) applies to the Local Learning and Skills Council (LLSC) for funding. This is done through the submission of an annual Business Plan and members are asked to endorse the draft Business Plan for 2002/2003 (Appendix A) .

RECOMMENDATION

That members:

1. Note progress against the 2001/2002 Business Plan

2. Endorse the draft Business Plan for 2002/2003 (Appendix A) and approve the related application for funding to the Learning and Skills Council

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

To ensure the Executive is kept informed of the progress of the HEBP, is provided the opportunity to endorse the future programme of work and support its application for funding from the LLSC.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

The LLSC provides a substantial proportion of the funding of the work of the HEBP and its counterparts in the other five local authorities that comprise the London West LSC area. Whilst the survival of the HEBP would be put in serious jeopardy if an application for funding through the Business Plan was rejected, the Cabinet does have the opportunity to offer any suggested modifications to the Plan prior to its final approval by the LLSC.

COMMENTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Education, Libraries and Arts Overview and Scrutiny Committee have provided no comments.

INFORMATION

1. Education Business Partnerships (EBPs) exist to develop and promote links between employers, community organisations and schools. In doing so, it is hoped to raise the profile, value and quality of education and business link activity.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 100 2. Hillingdon Education Business Partnership is a member of the Education Business Links London West Consortium (EBLLW), which includes Brent and Harrow Work Experience Consortium, Ealing EBP, Hammersmith and Fulham Education Business Section, Hounslow EBP and the North West London Education Business Partnership.

3. The first Business Plan of the EBLLW covered a 16-month period from April 2001 to July 2002, this timescale being necessary as the LSC uses the academic year rather than the fiscal year as its accounting period.

4. Progress to date against the 2001/2002 Business Plan has been good. Achievement of targets across the EBLLW area in the year ending 31.3.2002 includes the following:

· Over 70% of all Year 10 students in the six Boroughs completed 10 day work experience placements · Over 100 teachers completed one day professional development placements · Over 1500 primary school students took part in activities · Over 1000 secondary school students took part in activities

5. Hillingdon EBP has had a number of other significant achievements in the area of business link activity (although these do not necessarily relate to the LSC Business Plan:

· The submission of a successful Engineering bid for £30,000 to the LSC · The submission of a successful joint bid with Uxbridge College for £100,000 to the Department for Education and Science to develop pre-16 vocational courses over the next two years · The submission of a successful bid for £5,000 to The Learning Skills and Development Agency to develop a vocational website · The submission of two successful bids for £5,000 and £2,000 to The London Accord to develop a reading Partners scheme · The submission of a successful bid for £9,000 to the West London Learning to further develop the EBP’s Reading Partner scheme

6. The 2002/2003 LSC Business Plan contains considerable detail about proposed provision. This document is in the final stages of preparation to meet a deadline of 30 June 2002. The Business Plan will be made available to the Cabinet.

7. The key areas of activity in the Business plan are:

· Secondary school 10 day work experience placements for students in Key Stage 4 (years 10/11) · Professional development placements for primary and secondary teachers · Special Educational Needs support for students in special schools

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 101 · Secondary school out- of- school learning activities, including college link vocational courses · Secondary school business and peer mentoring programmes · Secondary school science, technology and numeracy activities · Primary school science, technology and numeracy activities · Secondary school enterprise activities, including industry days and conferences · Primary school enterprise activities · Secondary school work-related learning activities, including Key Skills · Primary school work-related learning activities, including Key Skills · Primary literacy programme, including Reading Partners

8. Agreement of the Plan will result in the Local Learning and Skills Council providing funding of approximately £111,000 to the Hillingdon EBP for the year 1 August 2002 to 31 July 2003 budget.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Resource Implications

9. The Hillingdon Education Business Partnership operates at arms length to the Council and is entirely dependent on external funding for its continued operation and the achievement of its objectives. The bid for Learning and Skills Council funding is a key component of the Partnership’s financial plans for the year.

Legal Implications

10. There are no legal implications arising from this report.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

11. The HEBP has carried out detailed consultations with the HEBP Consultation Group, the other five local authority EBPs and the LLSC during the period the Business Plan has been undergoing development.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Hillingdon Education Business Partnership Delivery Plan 2001/02

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 102 APPENDIX A

EDUCATION BUSINESS LINKS – LONDON WEST

BUSINESS PLAN AUGUST 2002-JULY 2003

DRAFT

30 PAGES

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 103 HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT BUSINESS PLAN ITEM 9 2003/04 TO 2033/34

Contact Officer: Tim Price Telephone: 01895 250509

SUMMARY

All local authorities are required to publish a Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Business Plan that sets out the long term plan for managing the authority’s housing assets and financing the necessary improvements. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and Government Office for London (GOL) publish guidance on what constitutes a “fit for purpose” business plan. This in turn is a performance assessment which will influence how the Government exercises its discretion in the housing element of the Basic Credit Approval (BCA). Once a business plan is deemed “fit for purpose” it only needs to be revised and re-assessed every three to five years.

The business plan takes its direction from the authority’s wider objectives set out in the Community Plan, and the housing objectives set out in the Housing Strategy. The business plan is being drafted for submission by 31 July 2002. This report sets out how the business plan addresses the “fit for purpose” criteria.

RECOMMENDATION

That the framework for the HRA Business Plan, set out in this report, is endorsed.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

· To demonstrate to Government that the HRA Business Plan has Cabinet support and approval. The Cabinet has the delegated authority to develop proposals that require the Council to amend its policy framework. Submission of a HRA Business Plan is a government requirement.

· To ensure that the HRA Business Plan is aligned to the aims of the Housing Strategy.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

The options available to the Cabinet are to:

· endorse the framework set out in this report · make amendments to this framework · request a further report from officers

COMMENTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 133 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has not considered this report.

INFORMATION

1. The HRA business plan should be structured to address the minimum requirements, organised around the ten questions that need to be covered, to achieve a “fit for purpose” rating as follows:-

2. Strategic context: “How well does the plan explain the role the authority’s own stock needs to play to support the overall housing strategy?”.

The plan will draw direct links between the authority’s corporate planning process, the council’s draft Community Plan, and Housing strategic objectives, showing how performance under the business plan will further these aims. In particular it will show how the stock will be effectively managed to contribute to meeting housing need. If amendments are subsequently made to the Housing strategic objectives these will impact on the HRA Business Plan which will then necessitate amendment.

3. Effective consultation: “What evidence is there of effective consultation with tenants and leaseholders in the development of the business plan and that due weight has been given to their views?”

The business plan sets out how the tenant and leaseholder participation and consultative framework informs and shapes the business plan.

4. Stock condition: “Does the authority have a clear understanding of the condition of its stock, including the work required to make it decent, and appropriate arrangements to keep this up to date?”

The five yearly stock condition survey is being repeated this year, and will refine targets for meeting decent homes criteria which in turn formed the basis of our Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) proposals. Appendices to the business plan include technical detail of how stock condition records are managed and updated.

5. Current performance: “Does the Plan clearly demonstrate current performance on housing management, repair services and capital programming?”

As in previous years, performance in these areas is generally good, often in the top quartile. There are nevertheless some areas which although amongst the best in London, are not continuously improving, and the business plan sets out proposals to address this where possible.

6. Resources: “Is there a realistic assessment of current and future revenue and capital resources (including the impact of rent restructuring)?”

This aspect of the business plan is well developed and includes the detrimental impact of rent restructuring and changes in housing subsidy on our ability to continue to provide high quality services to tenants. Government guidance on the introduction

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 134 of service charges for tenants, on top of rents, is due in the summer. Serious consideration will need to be given to introducing service charges to pay for services which otherwise cannot be met from rent income, and consultations with tenants will need to be started this year.

Reference will be made to the Corporate Capital Investment Strategy in deciding what proportion of the housing capital budget is spent on the HRA. Future funding is projected over a thirty year period.

7. Priorities for action: “How well is the statement of priority areas for action justified and linked to the analysis of stock condition and supply/demand?”

The business plan shows how management of the housing stock contributes to the pressure of housing need through tight management of empty dwellings, incentives to reduce under occupation, use of investment to make better use of the existing stock through conversions ,extensions and adaptations, and the void transfer programme which uses the HRA asset to increase supply. It also sets out tenants’ priorities for action and how these are being addressed - notably anti-social behaviour, caretaking and repairs.

8. Analysis of options: “To what extend does the plan demonstrate proactive consideration of alternative ways of addressing priority areas for action?”

The business plan is informed by a recently completed “options appraisal” by housing consultants HACAS Chapman Hendy.. They concluded that the council should proceed with its current strategy of seeking to invest in its housing stock through the ALMO route, and when detailed rules are issued, examine the further potential of the new prudential borrowing system. If the council does not achieve a satisfactory initial conditional ALMO allocation, or does not achieve a 3 star performance rating for the service, it will have to consider other strategic options for investing in the stock, including

· Transfer of the stock to a RSL · Transfer of individual estates or areas (partial stock transfer) · Housing Revenue Account PFI

In addition the council could consider using the whole or part of its capital receipts from council housing sales to supplement the capital investment programme

9. Action plan: “Is there a clear and affordable action plan with SMART objectives and milestones covering both capital works and service delivery?”

Performance plans based on the corporate performance framework inform the business plan including measurable targets and outputs, directly linked to the priority areas for action.

10. Progress of delivery to date: “How well does the Plan report on progress against previous target objectives. Are effective monitoring procedures in place?”

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 135 Progress is given on the action plan printed in last year’s business plan, with a commentary on our performance management framework.

11. Presentation and accessibility: “Could a non-specialist reader quickly understand the key messages in the business plan?”

The business plan will be restricted to thirty pages, and be easy to read. More complex technical information to support the business plan will be placed in appendices.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Financial Implications

12. The HRA Business Plan must include a comprehensive and viable financial strategy to deliver and support the objectives set out in the business plan. The financial strategy must be backed up with financial projections from HRA activities. The main stay of the projections will be factual financial outturn and detailed plans from current and future HRA operations. The main strategic objectives will be assessed against the backdrop of the financial information supplied. The result will be used by the Government to allocate future Basic Credit Approval (BCA) and any other investment resources for the Hillingdon housing. It is important that our strategy is fit for purpose. If we achieve an above average assessment we will get 5% discretionary allocation on top of our basic allocation. Should we fall below average we could lose resources from our basic allocation. The current Housing BCA for Hillingdon is £5,096k and the 5% discretionary element has ranged between £7k and £247k in recent years.

Legal Implications

13. None.

EQUALITIES

14. The business plan will show how the statutory obligations detailed in the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 are to be delivered. It will also reflect the Housing Strategy commitment to meet the Equalities Standards for Local Government which is a best value indicator from 2002.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

15. Tenant and leaseholder representatives were consulted on key issues arising in the business plan, and will be routinely consulted on its ongoing development through the formal consultation framework.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 136 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Housing Strategy Statement 2002/3 to 2004/5 Housing Revenue Account Business Plan 2002/3 to 2031/32 DTLR guidance published March 2002 Government Office for London guidance published May 2002 Hillingdon’s Community Plan 2002 (draft) Best Value Performance Plan 2002/3

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 137 HOME CARE AND DAY CARE CHARGING ITEM 10 POLICY

Contact Officer: Paul Mitchell Telephone: 01895 250398

SUMMARY

This Report sets out new government requirements and the financial implications for the Home Care and Day Care charging policy. Options are costed for 3 models and recommendations made to achieve maximum income. Users views from the consultation are also reported upon.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Option 3 be adopted with effect from 1st October 2002: -

Group of Users Charge System a Users with £19,000 plus capital / · Charge the hourly cost for Home savings and those who choose Care and daily cost for Day Care not to declare their finances up to a maximum charge of £150 per week. b Users with less than £19,000, and · Charge incremental units of £1 net assessable incomes above for each £1 disposable income Income Support level plus 25% above the Income Support level plus 25%. · Maximum charge £150 · Tariff charge to be added to income for £1 for each £250 on savings / capital between £11,750 - £18,999.

2. Note that users with net assessable incomes lower than Income Support plus 25% should not be charged for their services from 1st October 2002.

3. Adjustments be made to the way some disability related expenditure is taken into account:-

a) Cap the level of disability related expenditure allowed to the level of disability related benefits (lower Attendance Allowance and middle Disability Living Allowance £37.65). Some flexibility will need to pertain in exceptional circumstances.

b) Do not take disability related expenditure into account if user is not in receipt of disability related benefits.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 138 c) Members previously agreed to make allowances for holidays / respite care. This is not a requirement. Officers recommend a distinction be made between holidays and assessed or specialist respite care. Allowances should no longer be made for holidays.

4. Note the need for short-term temporary staff to assist with the additional volume of work in preparation for and during implementation of the revised policy. There will be some additional costs of reassessing users and adjusting charges in time for October 2002. It is unlikely to exceed £15K.

5. Note the continuation of the offer of home visits be made to all service users requiring financial reassessment, subject to users consent. Cabinet will be informed if the need for additional Welfare Benefits resources are required.

6. Note additional housing costs and Council Tax should be assessed net of any Housing Benefit or Council Tax benefit payable as near to October 2002 as possible.

7. Work be undertaken to identify how to integrate other non-residential charges into the charging system in time for April 2003.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations will ensure the revised charging policy complies with new government requirements. The recommended option strikes a balance between income maximization and reasonable limitation of the financial impact of the changes on users.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

These are explained in detail and listed below.

INFORMATION

Background

1. The government has issued Local Government Circular LAC(2001)32 - Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other non-residential Social Services and accompanying Guidance for Councils with Social Services Responsibilities. Most of the requirements are to be implemented by 1st October 2002.

2. This requires changes to the existing charging policy, and will affect the Council’s income. This Report picks out the main issues affecting income levels, and proposes options for charging models including where there is potential to compensate for some of the income loss.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 139 Current Policy

3. In March 2001 Social Services Committee agreed a charging policy for Home Care and Day Care in line with draft guidance issued in January 2001. The policy was introduced in July 2001, and has been in operation since that time. Its effect is that users are financially assessed and charged for their service, based on their ability to pay. Disability related expenditure is taken into account. Charges range from £7.50 to the maximum charge of £92. Some 570 users have incomes below the thresholds at which charges start and receive a free service. They account for approx 35% of eligible service payers. The remaining 1050 users contribute towards their service.

New Requirements

4. The new LAC(2001)32 and Guidance is issued under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (Section I). Councils are expected to implement the guidance within set timescales of October 2002 and April 2003.

5. The main aspects requiring action are: -

1 Charges must not bring users incomes below Income Support By 1st October levels plus 25%. We will need to identify those with incomes below 2002 this level and cease charging them. 2 All earnings must be disregarded to avoid disincentives to work. By 1st October 2002 3 Consultation is required on: By 1st October è SAVINGS ALLOWABLE 2002 è MAXIMUM CHARGE RE-MODELLED POLICY DISABILITY RELATED EXPENDITURE 4 Full costs may be charged to those with savings / capital above Discretionary £19,000. 5 Additional housing costs and Council Tax should be assessed net By April 2003 of any Housing Benefit or Council Tax benefit payable 6 Some additional disability related expenses need to be taken into By April 2003 account. 7 Benefits advice to be given to carers and users at the time of the By April 2003 financial assessment 8 Charges for different types of non-residential social services and By April 2003 how they affect users incomes should be considered.

6. There are many other requirements. However, we already comply with most of these and the principles of operation, including the treatment of income and financial assessments which assess income and disability related expenditure. We are ahead of many Authorities in this respect.

7. Current data on users finances:-

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 140 Total number of service users (approx) 1620 (65%) No of users currently receiving a free service 570 (35%) Projection:- Number likely to qualify for a free service from October 2002 830 (52%) Number likely to make a contribution from October 2002 790 (48%)

8. This appears to be in line with proportions of users bearing a charge in other London Authorities.

9. All users are encouraged to provide details of their financial circumstances. However, not all choose to do so. There is a combination of:

· Those who have opted to pay for the hours they receive or the maximum charge rather than give their details. · Those who pay the maximum charge and have care packages which cost more than £92. · Some people have small care packages, their assessed charge is higher than the cost of the care package, therefore they pay for the hours delivered.

Implications and Income Loss

10. From 1st October, charges may not take users incomes below Income Support plus 25% levels, which are: -

Pensioners- 60 plus Adults Adults 25 - 59 18 - 24 Income Support Personal Income Support Personal Income Support Personal Allowance + pensioner Allowance + disability Allowance + disability premium premium + enhanced disability premium + enhanced premium disability premium £122.69 £110.25 £96.19

11. In addition, some disregards to users incomes have to be made, and disability related expenditure taken into account. At this point their “net assessable income” is determined and if this figure is lower than the Income Support plus 25%, no charge can be levied.

12. This is likely to affect about 260 users who currently pay between £7.50 and £15.50 – they are likely to qualify for a free service. It means a loss of at least £130K from this group. It will mean that 48% of eligible users will be liable to pay a charge. 52% will receive a free service.

13. Those who currently pay £15.50 or more, will have to have their charge reduced so that their net assessable income does not fall below the Income Support + 25% level. This means a user currently paying say £16,50 will have their charge go down to £1. This also substantially reduces the Council’s income, the extent of which depends on the model chosen from October.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 141 All Earnings must be Disregarded

14. There are one or two people who have earnings and fall into this category. Currently 45% of earnings are disregarded. This needs to be changed to a total disregard. It can be implemented from 1st October. The overall impact of this will be negligible.

Take into account a) high housing and Council Tax costs (net of housing and Council Tax benefit) for those with less than £19,000 and b) additional items of disability related expenditure

15. These can both be incorporated into the revised policy. The deadline is April 2003 but it is recommended this take place during the re-assessments of all users, as near to October as possible. There will be some income loss, which cannot be accurately predicted on disability related expenditure allowances, but this should not be substantial. Housing and Council Tax costs are less easy to estimate, as we have no information on which to make a projection.

Potential to Compensate - Income Generation

16. Whilst not all the issues below have to be acted upon by October, Officers believe that these changes will go some way to compensate for some of the income loss.

17. Treatment of income for those who declare savings of £19,000 and over is currently calculated by adding a tariff of £1 for every £250 on top of their weekly income. Additional income could be generated by changing the way these users are charged. We do not have to take disability related expenditure or other income into account when making a charge for those with more than £19,000 capital / savings. Instead, the charge could be based on the full cost of the service, and / or an hourly charge up to a maximum limit.

Maximum Charge / Full Cost

18. Authorities may charge people who have savings / capital as set out in the Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide – “CRAG”), LAC(99)9. This means those with savings higher than the upper limit of £19,000 may be asked to pay the full charge for their service.

19. Up to 12 current users have care packages costing in excess of the proposed maximum charge of £150. Currently they pay the £92 maximum charge. The highest cost package of one user is £444. Transition in one jump from £92 to full cost could yield an additional £74K income over and above option 3, but could be considered unreasonable and is likely to met resistance.

20. If the maximum charge were increased, assuming all those people continue to pay more, the additional income could be: -

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 142 Maximum charge £100 £110 £120 £125 £150 £175 £200 £225 Likely additional income £10K £21K £24K £27K £38K £38K £49K £55K

21. Officers recommend the maximum charge be increased to £150 per week.

Tariff Income

22. A smaller number of people estimated at around 110 have savings between £11.750 - £18,999, and it is within the realms of the Fairer Charging Guidance and Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide to take this into account on a tariff basis as described above. It would generate additional annual income in the region of between £24K - £48K depending on the model chosen.

Models and Costings

23. The next section looks at the options considered and the likely achievable income. Option 3 is recommended, as it is the option with least negative impact on the budget. The other options leave the Council in a much worse position financially than currently. The other main issues for consideration are the effect of the recommended option on users disposable income and users opposition as reflected in the consultation.

24. Proposals are made on three options, based on charging against users’ net assessable income above the threshold, at 50p, 75p, and £1 per £1 of additional income. The recommended maximum charge for each option is £150 (currently £92). In each case additional tariff on savings between £11,750 and £18,999 could be levied.

25. Option 1

· Charge at 50p per £1 of additional net assessable income · Estimated income yield (full year): £644k · Tariff income on savings £48k · Estimated income shortfall £508k

This Option is not recommended because insufficient income would be generated.

26. Option 2

· Charge at 75p per £1 of additional net assessable income · Estimated income yield (full year): £884k · Tariff income on savings £48k · Estimated income shortfall £268k

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 143 The impact of charges on net assessable income would be: -

Net assessable income Pensioners Adults 25 - 59 Adults 18 - 24 Charge £124 £112 £98 £1.75 £125 £113 £99 £1.50 £126 £114 £100 £2.25 £127 £115 £101 £3.00 Continue with 75p increments through to £150.00 maximum charge £323 £311 £297 £150.00

27. Option 3

· Charge at £1 per £1 of additional net assessable income · Estimated income yield (full year): £1,160k · Tariff income on savings £48k · Estimated income shortfall £92k

The impact of charges on net assessable income would be: -

Net assessable income Pensioners Adults 25 - 59 Adults 18 - 24 Charge £124 £112 £98 £1.00 £125 £113 £99 £2.00 £126 £114 £100 £3.00 £127 £115 £101 £4.00 Continue with £1 increments to £150.00 maximum charge £273 £261 £247 £150.00

All disposable income in excess of Income Support + 25% would be used to pay the charge

Comparisons Across Models and Effects on Users Disposable Income

28. The table below shows current charges for pensioners and how these would compare across the 3 options: -

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 144 29. All examples in this Report are based on pensioners, as they represent 88% of the charging policy payers.

Net assess Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 income Current charge 50p increments 75p increments £1 increments £123.00 £15.50 Free Free Free £124.00 £16.00 £1.00 £0.75 £1.00 £130.00 £19.00 £4.00 £5.50 £7.00 £140.00 £24.00 £9.00 £13.00 £17.00 £150.00 £29.00 £14.00 £20.50 £27.00 £160.00 £34.00 £19.00 £28.00 £37.00 £180.00 £44.00 £29.00 £43.00 £57.00 £200.00 £54.00 £39.00 £58.00 £77.00 £220.00 £64.00 £49.00 £73.00 £97.00 £240.00 £74.00 £59.00 £88.00 £117.00 £260.00 £84.00 £69.00 £103.00 £137.00 £273.00 £91.50 £75.50 £112.75 £150 max ch £276.00 £92 max ch £77.00 £115.00 £150 max ch £280.00 £92 max ch £79.00 £118.00 £150 max ch £286.00 £92 max ch £82.00 £122.50 £150 max ch £306.00 £92 max ch £92.00 £137.50 £150 max ch £323.00 £92 max ch £100.50 £150 max ch £150 max ch £422.00 £92 max ch £150 max ch £150 max ch £150 max ch

30. As can be seen, compared with the current charge system: -

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 50p increments 75p increments £1 increments All users pay less than Users pay a lower charge Users pay a lower charge up currently up to £43, after which their to £31, after which their contribution will increase contribution will increase from currently from currently

Points to Note

31. Fewer people will make a contribution towards their service, some are at the lower end of the income thresholds and will pay less than currently. This puts the burden on those remaining, whose resources will reduce along with their ability to sustain the level of contribution.

32. Option 3 with a maximum charge up to £150 is the most financially prudent, and the one officers recommend. Tariff income should be taken into account.

33. The recommended model should achieve £1,208K in a full financial year.

34. There is concern about this option on users income, especially those with high incomes or savings over £19,000, who have large care packages. Many people will

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 145 have their disposable income brought down to £123.00, the rest will be used to pay their charge.

35. This will not be popular with users who have to pay more. It is likely some will arrange their own services privately, drop out of Day Care, or resist paying the charges, but it is not possible to estimate how many may do so.

Disability Related Expenditure

36. The Borough has been generous in its assessment of disability related expenditure. Officers recommend some adjustments: - a) Cap the level of disability related expenditure allowed to the level of disability related benefits (lower Attendance Allowance and middle Disability Living Allowance £37.65). Some flexibility will need to pertain in exceptional circumstances. b) Do not take disability related expenditure into account if user is not in receipt of disability related benefits. c) Members previously agreed to make allowances for holidays / respite care. This is not a requirement. Officers recommend a distinction be made between holidays and assessed or specialist respite care. Allowances should no longer be made for holidays.

37. It is not clear how much additional income the above charges would generate, but it would go some way to improve the financial situation.

Other Options / Models

38. In the consultation, five models were put forward for user views. The three costed in this Report are the most practicable. Whilst Options 1 & 2 will not achieve sufficient income, Officers believe Cabinet would want these brought to their attention for comparison purposes.

39. Two of the models suggested in the consultation have not been put forward by Officers as they will not maximise income as effectively and will be more complex to operate.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

40. Some discussions are taking place with colleagues in Housing to ensure the new “Supporting People” requirements dovetail with the Social Services financial assessment process.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 146 FINANCE IMPLICATIONS

Budget Deficit

41. The budget shortfall needs to be addressed. It is unlikely that any model, which complies with the new requirements, can achieve the income target of £1.401K, due to the income profile of users. The out-turn figure for 2001/2 was £1 Million. Income in the current year on the present charging basis could have yielded £1.3m. With the change in charging requirements, option 3 is estimated to produce an income shortfall of £92k (£46k for the remaining six months of this year), as compared with shortfalls of £608k (£304k) and £368k (£184k) for options 1 and 2 respectively.

42. Financial assumptions are based on the current profile of users of services. The ability to generate income does depend on the financial circumstances of the user group in the system at any one time and is not controllable.

43. Additional resources will be required during the implementation period to reassess users and adjust charges. The LAC and Guidance states that ideally, all financial assessments and consideration of disability related expenditure should be carried out via a face-to-face interview. It also strongly urges authorities to put in place welfare benefits advice so that users incomes and potential to charge be maximized. This would have staffing implications. It is recommended that continuation of the offer of home visits be made to all service users requiring reassessment, subject to users consent. Additional staffing to be made available on a short term basis to enable home visits to take place and cover reassessments, communications and updating the debtors ledger system, depending on demand. If it is considered that longer-term Welfare Benefits resources are required, a further report will be brought to Cabinet. It is expected that with further training, existing Income staff can fulfill this role.

44. All additional staffing can be covered by short-term temporary input. This will be met from within existing budget provisions.

Integration Across Other Non-Residential Social Services

45. The LAC and Guidance states that Councils should consider how charges for more than one non-residential social service impacts upon users disposable income. This Report has concentrated on Home Care and Day Care but consideration will need to be given to charging for other non-residential services such as equipment and adaptations not provided through the Disabled Facilities Grant. It is recommended that this is further investigated and recommendations made to Cabinet prior to April 2003.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

46. The Authority is required to implement changes to comply with LAC (2001)32 and accompanying Guidance, the main aspects of which have been set out in the Information section above.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 147 EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

47. A formal consultation exercise has just taken place. The consultation began at the beginning of May and ran through to 21st June. Users were sent a letter and invited to complete a questionnaire or telephone in their comments. Voluntary agencies and providers were also invited to comment.

48. Full results of the exercise are available. Below is a summary of the main responses.

49. Overall, the feedback was that users do not want to see a change to the way they are charged now.

50.. Common themes are that: -

· Means testing for charges is unfair

· People should not be penalised for saving for their later years

· Money should be found to fund existing services and keep charges lower

51.. There were some compliments and expressions of satisfaction, but these were far outweighed by the comments reported in this section.

92 Telephoned in their views 320 Questionnaires were returned

Preferences for Basic Model

52. Users were given 5 choices:-

Choice Option referred to in this report ber 50p incremental stages Option 1 186 Progressive taxation model 29 Banding system – charges in £5 and £10 14 units £1 incremental stages Option 3 9 recommended by Officers 75p incremental stages Option 2 11

Full Cost of Service

Do not agree we should charge full cost of service. 138 Prefer to continue with a tariff for those with over £19,000 Prefer maximum charge, not full cost 43 Agree with full cost 28

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 148 Maximum Charge

Happy for maximum charge to remain at £92 163 Agree £100 46 £150 4 £200 3

Tariff for those with between £11,750 - £18,999

Disagree with this 150 Agree this should be applied 77

Disability Related Expenditure vs. Disability Related Benefits

Disagree that disability related expenditure should only be taken into account for 124 those with disability related benefits Think it should only be taken into account where benefits received 110

Agree we should cap the amounts claimed for disability related expenditure to the 116 level of disability related benefits Disagree with any cap on amount allowed 114

Importance of Services

Feel lower charges most important to them 141 Believe services must be maintained at all costs 20 Prefer reduced services to an increase in charges 17 Money should be found from elsewhere – local taxes 14

53. Clearly, any changes to charges, which mean an increase to users, are not welcomed.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

LAC(2001)32 “Fairer charging policies for home care and other non-residential social services” Guidance for Councils with Social Services Responsibilities DoH November 2001. Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide LAC(99)9 Section 17 of the 1983 Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication’s (HASSASSA) Act Social Services Committees Dec 1999, May 2000, Sept 2000, and March 2001 London Borough of Hillingdon Consultation document May 2002

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 149 APPROVAL OF AND PAYMENTS TO CARERS ITEM 11

Contact Officer: Stephen Liddicott Telephone: 01895 250527

SUMMARY

This report sets out the process by which foster carers and adopters are recruited, assessed and approved by the Council together with changes to the regulations governing the panels that undertake those approvals. In order to ensure that sufficient independant persons can be attracted to serve on those panels, it is recommended that an attendance allowance be paid to such persons.

The report also sets out the allowances curently paid to foster carers, adopters and in respect of residence order allowances and the basis on which those allowances are paid. It recommends that the allowance structure is reviewed in order that the Council can recruit and retain an adequate supply of foster carers.

The fostering and adoption services seek to provide value for money and, in the light of the new regulatory framework governing them, to provide better and more timely services. Where appropriate, local communities are involved in the development of these services which, in the case of the adoption service, is provided through a partnership involving other West London Authorities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To note the current membership of the Adoption and Permanency and the Fostering Panels and the requirement to revise them in the light of new regulations.

2. To agree the payments of a fee to the members of the Adoption and Permanency and the Fostering Panels.

3. To note the current level of allowances paid to foster carers, adopters and in respect of residence orders.

4. To agree that there should be a review of the allowances paid to foster carers.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations will ensure that the Council’s Adoption and Permanency and Fostering Panels meet the relevant regulations, that the Council is able to attract independent persons to serve as members of these panels, confirm the levels of allowances available to carers and prepare recommendations on the levels of allowances applicable to foster carers in the future that will enable the Council’s foster care service to continue to develop.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 150 OPTIONS AVAILABLE

The Council must provide a range of placements for the children that it looks after. This includes the provision, wherever possible, of a substitute family (through fostering or adoption) for a child who is unable to live with their family of origin. The provision of fostering and adoption services is therefore essential to the provision of children’s social services. Hillingdon directly provides fostering and adoption services, managed within the Children’s and Families Division. Currently, 78% of children looked after by the Council’s are placed with foster carers or adopters.

The range of placements available for looked after children was the subject of a best value review (2000) and a placements strategy (2001), which gave rise to the current arrangements. No other options were identified at that time although it was acknowledged that the Council is obliged to purchase additional foster care placements from private and voluntary agencies. The cost of such placements is greater than in-house fostering provision but is necessary, as there are insufficient foster cares within the authority to meet the demand for placements.

INFORMATION

Recruitment of Foster Carers and Adopters

1. Foster Carers are recruited to provide both short and long term care to children looked after by Hillingdon. They undergo a rigorous assessment process, which can take up to 4 months to complete. They must also attend a series of training courses. Applications are accepted from single, married and co-habiting couples of either gender who have the physical space and can demonstrate an ability and commitment to care for children. (See Appendix 1 for required competencies).

2. Local authorities can also make placements under Regulation 38 of the Fostering Regulations 2001 where family or close friends can be approved to care for a named child. These families are assessed and approved, as carers but do not need to demonstrate the same standard of competencies as carers who care for ‘stranger’ children. Specifically, “Regulation 38” carers are only required to demonstrate the majority of competencies in sections 1 and 2 of the schedule attached at appendix 1 whilst other foster carers are expected to demonstrate an ability to satisfy all of the competencies.

3. All foster carers have to be checked for criminal convictions through the Criminal Records Bureau, to provide two referees (who are visited in person by the assessing social worker) and have full medical assessments.

4. The process for the recruitment of adopters is similar to that for foster carers except that the applicant must demonstrate the commitment to care for one or more children on a permanent basis. There is a lower age limit of 21, under which it is not possible to make an adoption application. There is no upper age limit although it is generally accepted good practice that children are not placed for adoption with carers where the youngest is more than 45 years older than the child to be placed with them.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 151 The Fostering Panel and the Approval of Foster Parents

5. A detailed report is written following an assessment and is presented to either the Adoption and Permanency panel or the Fostering Panel for approval. This is dependent on the type of placement offered by the carer. All carers must be approved by one of Hillingdon’s panel, by another local authority or by a registered agency’s panel.

6. The new Fostering Services Regulation 2001, which came into force on April 1st 2002, made it a statutory responsibility for local authorities to establish a Fostering Panel. Hillingdon is currently revising the composition and terms of reference of its Panel to meet the new fostering regulations. Hillingdon’s Fostering Panel currently has 10 members, comprised of:

· Chair · Vice -Chair · An Elected Member, · Two experienced childcare social workers, · One independent member from another local authority · One foster carer · One residential worker, · Staff with experience of disability, asylum issues, and under 8’s.

7. A medical officer and a manager from the Fostering Service advise the Panel, which meets every two weeks.

8. New Fostering Regulations, 2001, stipulate that the panel must not exceed 10 members and must include;-

· Chair · Two social workers employed by the fostering provider · One elected member if the provider is a local authority · At least four other persons who are independent of the fostering provider, one of whom must have been a foster parent within the last two years.

9. In addition the fostering panel member must not hold office for more than three years or for more than two consecutive terms.

The Adoption and Permanency Panel and the Approval of Adopters

10. A detailed report is written following an assessment and is presented to either the Adoption and Permanency panel for a recommendation in respect of approval. This will be dependent on the number and type of placements offered by the prospective adopter. All adopters must be approved by Hillingdon’s panel, by another local authority or by a registered adoption agency’s panel.

11. The membership of the Adoption and permanency panel is set out in the Adoption Regulations 1983 and consists of 10 members and include:

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 152 · Chair · Vice Chair · Medical adviser · Legal adviser · Professional adviser · 3 people independent of the agency · An elected member · 2 members of the adoption agency

12. The Panel must include at least one adopted person and one adoptive parent. The Panel in Hillingdon meet monthly and recommend the approval of adopters and long term care to the Agency Decision maker who is the Head of Children’s Services.

13. The Adoption and Fostering panel requirements for independent members apply to all Fostering and Adoption agencies. This has increased the demand across the country for independent panel members. Hillingdon as a consequence is experiencing difficulty in recruiting independent members to sit on both its Permanency and Fostering Panels.

14. To act as an inducement to enable the Council to attract independent panel members, it is proposed to introduce a fixed fee to independent Panel members who are not paid by an employer to attend. Currently the authority only offers travel expenses. Following precedent set by other authorities and private agencies, it is proposed to offer a payment of £50 per session plus travelling expenses. This will be funded from within existing budgets.

Fostering Allowances

15. There is a national shortage of foster carers, which has a significantly greater impact in the London Area. Recent research commissioned by the Department of Health has shown that recruitment is dependent on economic factors. Where there are high levels of full time employment for women the cost of fostering is higher resulting and there are greater recruitment difficulties. This scenario is applicable to Hillingdon where there are significant job opportunities for women. This is also reflected in the extensive use by London authorities of private and voluntary fostering agencies that are able to recruit foster carers in less prosperous areas, for example Thanet and the Isle of Sheppy in Kent.

16. Hillingdon also uses private and voluntary fostering agencies that are able to provide specialist foster care placements for hard to place children and those remanded into local authority accommodation by the Youth Courts. These are usually young people who, because of severe emotional deprivation or abuse, have challenging behaviours and need full time care. The fostering agencies recruit highly skilled carers for this task, often with previous training and experience with this group of young people. The agencies as well as some local authorities find that by paying carers a fee commensurate with a salary paid to trained childcare workers, they are able to recruit this high calibre of skilled carers.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 153 17. Research carried out by Thomas Coram Research Unit and the Fostering Network has also indicated that the payment of allowances ‘per se’ is not necessarily the only factor in attracting foster carers. Foster carers consulted in Hillingdon have indicated the importance of good support systems, pensions and loan schemes as factors that would attract and retain them as carers.

18. The department is very much aware of the high cost of placing children out of the borough and with private and voluntary fostering agencies whose fees range from £650 - £1,500 per week. The Fostering Service continually looks at ways of attracting more local carers and retain those who offer us excellent service.

Payment of Fees to Foster Carers

19. The department pays foster carers an allowance for caring for a looked after child that reflects the cost of that care. (Appendix 2). No foster carer should be out of pocket as a result of fostering. Hillingdon do not currently pay a reward element but recognises that there is a difference between caring for ‘stranger children’ and those placed with relative and friends under regulation 38 of the Fostering Regulations.

20. The higher level of payment made to ‘stranger carers’ reflects the different knowledge base, training, experience and costs required to look after children who are placed away from their own birth families. This often involves additional expenses connected with attending meetings, reviews, maintaining contact with birth families and dealing with children where there is little knowledge of their past experiences and background. Payments made by Hillingdon to ‘stranger carers’ are considerably higher than the minimum weekly allowance recommended by the Fostering Network where as the payment to relative carers are slightly less.

21. The differences in the weekly allowances paid to stranger carers are based on the additional knowledge, training and expectations required by the department to undergo this task. This is assessed during the assessment process and approval and payment at the higher rate is determined by them achieving all the competencies listed in Appendix 1 in relation to all children. Evidence is required to demonstrate the carer’s level of competency.

22. Foster carers who are approved through Regulation 38 (Fostering Regulations) only need to demonstrate that they meet the competencies in relation to their relative as their approval is restricted to that named child and as set out in parts 1 and 2 of the schedule. They are not required to undertake any compulsory training as part of the approval process.

23. The Inland Revenue is currently working with the Department of Health and the Fostering Network to draw up guidelines relating to the reward elements of fostering payments, which are liable for taxation. The Council does not currently pay a reward element to foster carers. The Inland Revenue have pointed out that, in view of the levels of allowances currently paid to carers, the payment of a proportion of the

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 154 allowance as a reward should be made explicit. It is possible that this could act as a disincentive to the recruitment of carers in Hillingdon.

24. It is proposed that the Fostering Network (formerly the National Foster Care Association) be commissioned to review the current allowance scheme in Hillingdon, in consultation with local foster carers and make recommendations in relation to:

· the payment of a reward element · the payment to carers approved under regulation 38 ( relative and friends) · the introduction of a professional salary for carers of children with challenging behaviour / remanded into local authority care · issues related to the support and retention of carers i.e. pensions, benefits and loan facilities .

25. The review will be funded from within existing budgets.

Adoption and Residence Order Allowances

26. The Adoption Regulations (1983) set out the criteria for the payment of an adoption allowance in certain circumstances. These are that:

· The child has special needs · The child has a pre-existing relationship with the prospective adopter · The child is a member of a sibling group who are to be placed with the same adopters.

27. The level of the adoption allowance paid in respect of any child is determined by the placing authority.

28. The Children Act 1989 introduced the ability to make payments in respect of children who are made subject to a residence order under Section 8 of that Act. Whether or not an authority has such a scheme and the criteria for that scheme are for the authority to determine.

29. Existing policy in Hillingdon is for residence order allowances to be made available where the making of a residence order will bring to a conclusion care proceedings in respect of an individual child.

30. Both adoption allowances and residence order allowances are currently paid at the same rate as that to a foster carer approved under Regulation 38 of the Fostering Regulations. The rational for equanimity is to ensure that there will be no financial disincentive to achieving the right legal framework for the care and protection of a child. Both adoption and residence order allowances will be reduced to take account of the receipt of child benefit, which is not applicable for a child in foster care.

31. The review of fostering allowances will need to take into account the payment of other allowances in order that this consistency can be maintained. Further guidance

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 155 is expected on the payment of adoption allowances in conjunction with the enactment of the Adoption Bill which is currently before Parliament.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

32. The legal implications are contained in the body of the report

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

33. The financial implications of these proposals will be met from existing budgets.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

The Fostering Services Regulations 2001 The Adoption Regulations 1983 Demand and Supply of Foster carers – Thomas Coram Research Unit ( April 2002) The Fostering Network www.fostering.net Residence Orders - LB Hillingdon Social Services Department Operational Instruction

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 156 APPENDIX 1 Information on Prospective Substitute Parents

Competences – Fostering

1 Caring for children 1.1 An ability to provide a good standard of care to children which promotes healthy emotional, physical, sexual and intellectual development. 1.2 An ability to accept the individual child as s/he is. 1.3 An ability to provide care appropriate to the individual child as s/he is. 1.4 An ability to work closely with children's families, and others who are important to the child. 1.5 An ability to set appropriate boundaries, and manage children's behaviour within these, without the use of physical or other inappropriate punishment. 1.6 A knowledge of normal child development and an ability to listen to and communicate with children appropriate to their emotional age and understanding. 1.7 An ability to promote a young person's development towards adult status.

2 Providing a safe and caring environment 2.1 An ability to ensure that children are cared for in a home where they are safe from harm or abuse. 2.2 An ability to help children keep themselves safe from harm or abuse, and to know how to seek help if their safety is threatened. 2.3 An ability to recognise the particular vulnerability to abuse and to discrimination of disabled children.

3 Working as part of a team 3.1 An ability to collaborate with other professional workers and to contribute to the department's planning for the child/young people. 3.2 An ability to communicate effectively. 3.3 An ability to keep information confidential. 3.4 An ability to promote equality, diversity and rights of individuals and groups within society.

4 Own development 4.1 An ability to appreciate how personal experiences have affected themselves and their families, and the impact that fostering is likely to have on them all. 4.2 An ability to use people and links within the community to provide support. 4.3 An ability to use training opportunities and improve skills. 4.4 An ability to sustain positive relationships and maintain effective functioning through periods of stress. © BAAF 2000 All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this Form may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, unless a License Agreement granting permission for this form to be used electronically has been purchased from the publishers. Published by BAAF, Skyline House, 200 Union Street, London SE1 OLX.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 157 APPENDIX 2

Weekly Fostering Allowances 2002/2003

Short Term Placements:

Age Weekly Daily

0 – 12 £231.12 £33.01

13 + £275.17 £39.31

Long Term Placements:

Age Weekly Daily

0 – 12 £220.12 £31.44

13 + £247.61 £35.37

Long term rates are paid in the following cases: a) Planned long term placements are approved by the Permanency Panel before placement. b) Placements that are converted from short to long term by a decision of the Permanency Panel ( weekly allowance will be adjusted from the date of the panel decision). c) Other placements continuing beyond two years from the date the child was first placed, will be adjusted to the long term rate unless there are exceptional reasons for continuing payment at the short term rate. These must be discussed at a Statutory Review before two years have elapsed and agreement to continue the short term rate obtained from the Team Manager or Service Manager of the Fostering & Adoption Team .

The short term rate will apply in all other cases. The difference between the short and long term rates reflects the greater flexibility and associated higher costs likely to be required where carers are taking a variety of temporary placements.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 158 APPENDIX 3

Weekly Fostering Allowances 2002/2003 (Relative and Friends)

Short Term Placements:

Age Weekly Daily

0 – 12 £115.59 £16.51 13 – 18 £137.58 £19.65

Long Term Placements:

Age Weekly Daily

0 – 12 £110.09 £15.72 13 – 18 £123.73 £17.67

Long term rates are paid in the following cases: a) Planned long term placements approved by the Permanency Panel before placement b) Placements that are converted from short to long term by a decision of the Permanency Panel ( weekly allowance will be adjusted from the date of the Panel decision. c) Other placements continuing beyond two years from the date the child was first placed, will be adjusted to the long term rate unless there are exceptional reasons for continuing payment at the short term rate. These must be discussed at a Statutory Review before two years have elapsed and agreement to continue the short term rate obtained from the Team Manager or Service Manager of The Fostering & Adoption Team.

The short term rate will apply in all other cases. The difference between the short and the long term rate reflects the greater flexibility and associated higher costs likely to be required where carers are taking a temporary placement.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 159 HILLINGDON AREA CHILD PROTECTION ITEM 12 COMMITTEE DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT AND BUSINESS PLAN 2002-2003

Contact Officer: Stephen Liddicott Telephone: 01895 250527

SUMMARY

The protection of Hillingdon’s children is the responsibility of all professional and voluntary organisations in the Borough, working in partnership with parents and local communities. This responsibility is exercised through Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC) which is an interagency committee of senior professionals who are responsible for monitoring how agencies work together to safeguard children from significant harm and for making sure that arrangements work effectively to bring about good outcomes for children. The Government requires every ACPC to produce an annual business plan to set out how it will meet it’s responsibilities for the protection of children. This report introduces the Draft Annual Report and Business Plan for Hillingdon’s ACPC for the forthcoming year.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Members of the cabinet note the responsibilities placed on the local authority for the protection of children.

2. That Members of the cabinet note the progress made by the Area Child Protection Committee over the previous year.

3. That Members of the cabinet endorse the ACPC’s Draft Annual Report and Business Plan 2002/2003

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

1. The Social Services Department holds the lead responsibility for child protection fin Hillingdon but child protection is everybody’s business. Effective child protection needs strong interagency working, with Social Services, Education, Health, Probation, the Police and the voluntary sector making significant contributions to the identification, assessment and treatment of children at risk of significant harm from those caring for them.

2. The Government guidance in ‘Working Together’ requires that arrangements for child protection in each area are led by the multidisciplinary ACPC and requires every ACPC to develop a Business Plan.

3. The work of the ACPC is described in the Annual Report and Business Plan and the intended actions for the forthcoming year are identified. Failure to endorse such an important report would mean that an interagency approach to

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 160 child protection may not operate to standards required by Government guidance.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

The attached draft plan (Appendix 1) has been agreed by all constituent agencies of the ACPC, it is consistent with developments required by legislation and standards required by inspection for all agencies. The plan is required by government guidance, failure to produce it would lead to scrutiny by the Department of Health/ Social Services Inspectorate

INFORMATION

1. Child protection is a high profile and complex area of work, it evokes strong emotions in most people, including those who are employed to assist children and their families for whom this is an issue.

2. Most abuse to children is perpetrated by those known to them, i.e. their parents or carers. Its detection, investigation and treatment requires the combined skills of all agencies involved in the child’s life; these agencies are represented on the ACPC.

3. Some children in Hillingdon have been subject to emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect. At any time there are in the region of 100 children living in the Borough who require active child protection plans to safeguard their welfare.

4. Child abuse takes place in all wards and communities, in wealthy families as well as those in poverty, and in all ethnic groups.

5. Research shows that contrary to popular belief 96% of children who are identified as being at risk of significant harm remain with their parents and with support of all agencies are successfully protected by them.

6. The primary responsibility for investigating child abuse lays with the Social Services Department through the Children and Families Division and the Police Child Protection team.

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee

7. The ACPC’s primary function is to ensure that all agencies work effectively together mobilising sufficient resources so that children at risk of significant harm from those caring for them are identified, protected and supported. Child protection policy and procedure for all agencies is contained in the ACPC manual called the ‘Yellow Book’

8. The ACPC has a role in ensuring continual improvement in professional performance in child protection to ensure that the life chances for children in need of protection are maximised. The government have set performance indicators outlined

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 161 in the Quality Protects Management Action Plan and other Department of Health reporting systems, which the ACPC monitor.

9. Whenever a child dies in circumstances that indicate that child abuse may be a factor, the ACPC is required to undertake a case review of all agencies practice to see whether there is a need for any changes to policy or practice and whether there are any lessons to be learnt.

10. The ACPC ensures that interagency training is provided to ensure that staff are equipped to carry out this complex role.

11. The ACPC has a responsibility to ensure that all agencies commit sufficient resources to the task of protecting children, and must ensure that the ACPC itself is adequately funded to carry out its objectives.

Draft ACPC Annual Report and Business Plan

12. The draft Annual Report and Business Plan is in three sections. The first section summarises the activities of the sub committees of the ACPC during the last year and proposes action plans for developments in the forth coming year.

13. The second section, the Business Plan analyses the statistics and performance indicators for child protection work, identifies the resource strategy and describes the ACPC’s strengths and areas for development using the EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) Tool.

14. The final section, the Action Plan summarises the activities to be undertaken during the forthcoming year.

15. Once agreed the plan will be available in public libraries, on the Council’s web site and on the national ACPC website. Copies will be available to all key staff.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

16. The draft plan has been developed in consultation with staff from Education, Youth and Leisure services who are members of the ACPC.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

17. The draft plan has been developed in consultation with Health Services, police child protection team, probation, Hillingdon Association of Voluntary Services, United States Navy, the RAF and the Children And Family Court Advisory Service, who are all members of the ACPC.

FINANCE COMMENTS

18. There are no direct financial implications from this report.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 162 LEGAL COMMENTS

19. There are no comments from legal arising from this report.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Children Act 1989 Working Together to Safeguard Children DoH 1999 ACPC Business Plan 2001/200

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 163 APPENDIX 1 HILLINGDON AREA CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEE

DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT AND BUSINESS PLAN 2002-2003

Introduction

This is the annual report and business plan of Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC). It summarises the work that has been undertaken by all agencies to protect children from significant harm, and gives details about the role of the ACPC and the work plan for the forthcoming year.

Background

Child abuse is a high profile and emotional issue, it is distressing to recognise that children are most likely to be abused by people known to them. Child abuse happens in all sections of the community, it’s detection, investigation and treatment is a highly complex task that requires involvement from all agencies working in partnership with parents and communities if good outcomes for children are to be realised.

The government guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ requires that each local authority area sets up a multi agency Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC) which is responsible for agreeing how different services and professional groups should work together to safeguard children in their area, and for making sure that arrangements work effectively to bring about good outcomes for children.

This structures and procedures for dealing with child abuse continually evolve and have been developed from research findings and from enquiries into the death of children from which lessons have been learnt about improving practice.

The most recent guidance from the Department of Health in ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ issued in 1999 provides the framework for child protection practice in all agencies. This guidance must be followed by statutory agencies unless they can demonstrate good reasons for deviation.

The Government’s Quality Protects initiative sets objectives for the delivery of services to children and performance indicators designed to measure the effectiveness of the services provided. The Quality Protects programme sets 11 objectives which are designed to improve the outcomes for children in need (including those in need of protection) in every local authority area. Hillingdon’s Quality Protects Management Action Plan is a public document available in all libraries.

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC) is a multi agency body comprising of representatives from Social Services, Education Services, the Borough Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 164 Solicitors Department, the Primary Care Trust, the Probation Service, the Metropolitan Police, the Armed Forces, the United States Navy, a local General Practitioner, and a member of Hillingdon Association of Voluntary Services, to represent the views of parents.

The ACPC meets four times a year to review its work plan, to consider interagency issues of concern and to make decisions about local issues. The specific responsibilities of the ACPC are defined as:

· To develop and agree local policies and procedures for inter-agency work to protect children, within the national framework provided by the guidance; · To audit and evaluate how well local services work together to protect children, for example through wider case audits; · To put in place objectives and performance indicators for child protection, within the framework and objectives set out in Children’s Services Plans; · To encourage and help develop effective working relationships between different services and professional groups, based on trust and mutual understanding; · To ensure that there is a level of agreement and understanding across agencies about operational definitions and thresholds for intervention; · To improve local ways of working in the light of knowledge gained through national and local experience and research, and to maker sure that any lessons learned are shared, understood and acted upon; · To undertake case reviews where a child has died or – in certain circumstances – been seriously harmed, and abuse or neglect are confirmed or suspected. To make sure that any lessons from the case are understood and acted upon; to communicate clearly to individual services and professional groups their shared responsibility for protecting children, and to explain how each can contribute; · To help improve the quality of child protection work and of interagency working through specifying needs for interagency training and development, and ensuring that training is delivered; and · To raise awareness within the wider community of the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare and to explain how the wider community can contribute to those objectives.

To support the work of the ACPC a number of sub committees exist bringing together professionals from different disciplines to progress the work plan. The following sub committees have been operating during 2001/2

· Policy · Health Advisory · Training (newly set up) · Serious Cases · Quality (newly set up) · Prevention · Trafficking and Exploitation (newly set up to consider Heathrow child protection issues)

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 165 Mission Statement of the ACPC

Hillingdon ACPC will ensure that all agencies in the borough work together and with the communities of the borough to identify and protect children at risk of significant harm and prevent all forms of child abuse.

Vision of the ACPC

Hillingdon Area Child protection Committee believes that all children should be able to live free from abuse, neglect and exploitation. In applying policies and procedures to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the borough, the ACPC will seek to improve the life chances of children suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.

Values of the ACPC

By providing a strategic lead and inter-agency focus for the planning and development of services, policies and procedures, the ACPC and its constituent agencies will respect the rights of the child; will recognise the rights and responsibilities of parents; and will respect the diversity of race, culture, language, religion and ability of all members of the community.

THE SCOPE OF THE ACPC

The scope of the responsibility of the ACPC has been defined in ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ as including as a minimum:

· Children abused and neglected within families, including those so harmed in the context of domestic violence · Children abused outside of the family by adults known to them · Children abused and neglected by professional carers, within an institutional setting, or anywhere else where children are cared from away from home. · Children abused by strangers · Children abused by other young people · Young perpetrators of abuse · Children involved in prostitution, and · Children who misuse drugs and alcohol

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 166 SECTION ONE

REPORTS OF THE SUB COMMITTEES OF THE AREA CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE POLICY SUB COMMITTEE 2001/2

The Policy Sub committee comprises of representatives from Health (PCT) Education, Social Services and Police, it has met 10 times during the year. Two of those meetings were held jointly with representatives of the executive group of the Domestic Violence Forum.

Issues Considered by Policy Sub Committee 2001/2

Positive Handling Policy for schools

The ACPC was consulted by the Behaviour Support Team about a new policy on positive handling being developed within the local education authority. The policy sub committee provided advice about the policy.

Consultation about Department of Health document Safeguarding children in whom illness is fabricated or induced

The policy sub committee co-ordinated and contributed the ACPC’s response to this document to the Department of Health

Policy and Procedures with Youth Offending Team for dealing with sex offenders under the age of 18

An interagency meeting was convened with the divisional police and youth offending team to consider policy and procedures to be adopted when young people are suspected of sexual offending outside of the family (i.e. against peers). Currently these offences are dealt with by local police rather than the police child protection team. It had been identified that significant numbers of young people were being added to the sex offender’s register for schedule one offences when these offences related to their peers. Local police were not aware of the significance of a young person acquiring a schedule one offence and child protection procedures were not being followed.

Procedures for dealing with these circumstances were agreed with all stakeholders and have since been implemented.

Recruitment of Staff

Personnel departments of all agencies were asked to audit recruitment procedures against the standards in Working Together.

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 167 Mental Health protocol between adult mental health services and children and families social services teams

A protocol was developed between adult mental health services and the social services children and families teams to raise the profile of the needs of children whose parents have a mental illness. A protocol was agreed in line with the new Assessment Framework and training provided to managers and staff

New format for child protection plan

The child protection plan for children on the child protection register was updated to take account of the new Assessment Framework, consulted upon and implemented

Harmondsworth Detention Centre

Harmondsworth Detention Centre opened in September and began to take families. In preparation for this members of the policy sub committee worked alongside the NSPCC and UKDS to develop child protection procedures for the centre which were agreed by the ACPC

Links with Domestic Violence Forum

The policy sub committee held two meetings with the executive members of the Domestic Violence forum to consider the interface and interaction between child protection and domestic violence. These were extremely useful meetings and resulted in training about domestic violence for staff and agreement to provide child protection training for the Domestic Violence Forum. Statistics were also shared between the two committees and plans made for police to notify health visitors as well as social services whenever they encounter domestic disputes.

Interagency audit against standards for Safeguarding

The policy sub committee considered each of the new Safeguarding standards and identified evidence for compliance and highlighted gaps for development. An action plan was developed to ensure that the identified gaps are closed.

OFSTED child protection protocols

OFSTED protocols were considered and implemented

Strategy meetings for complex cases

The profile about allegations against staff and carers was raised within the social services department and a new protocol agreed for independent chairs to chair strategy meetings of all cases where these allegations are made.

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 168 Interagency Referral and Recording Form

An interagency form and explanatory notes consistent with the new Assessment Framework was introduced for use by all agencies

Explanatory Leaflets

ACPC leaflets about child protection enquiries and child protection case conferences were updated and implemented

Complaints The complaints procedure was used on one occasion and the interagency complaints panel met to discuss the independent investigating officers report. Although the complaint was not upheld the complaint did raise a useful issue about the distribution of case conference minutes and this action point has now been actioned.

Review of Work Plan for Policy Sub-Committee 2001/2002

Action Task Outcome

Improve the appropriate Development of attendance of children at Child consultation paper and In progress, children have protection Case Conferences. leaflet – development of been consulted and a draft checklist for social policy and explanatory leaflet workers in preparing prepared children for attendance. Discussion at Social Services Team Meetings.

Develop links between Arrange meeting Achieved and ongoing Domestic violence forum ACPC between policy Sub Committee and Task Group of Domestic Violence Form.

Develop links between the Drug Policy Sub Committee to Yet to be achieved Action Team and the ACPC. review DAT Guidance and to arrange meeting between DRT and Policy Sub Committee Develop links with Adult Mental Social Services to Achieved and ongoing Health Services. implement protocol between Adult and Children Services. Training to be organised for Social Services and Adult Mental Health staff.

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 169 ACTION PLAN 2002/2003

ACTION TIMESCALE Implement action plan about safeguarding standards Ongoing Implement policy on children’s attendance at case conferences Sept 2002

Consider treatment programmes for juvenile sex offenders Dec 2002 Develop links with the Drug Action Team Sept2002 Continue links with Domestic Violence Forum Ongoing Review the involvement of parents and children in the child protection process Ongoing Consider format for risk assessment Sept 02 Revise forms used during child protection enquiries Sept 02 Contribute to development of London wide procedures Ongoing

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HEALTH ADVISORY GROUP 2001/2002

The Health Advisory Group has met five times during the last year. Membership consists of: Designated Nurse, Designated and Named Doctors Named Nurse & Named Doctor – Hillingdon Hospital Named Nurse & Named Doctor – Mount Vernon Hospital Children’s Cardiac Liaison Sister – Harefield & the Brompton Hospitals Consultant Child Psychiatrist Consultant & Senior Nurse – Accident & Emergency Department – Hillingdon Hospital Senior Nurse – Paediatric Department – Hillingdon hospital GP Representative – North Hillingdon Locality

Issues addressed in 2001/2002

‘Medical examination & report for child protection enquiries’ form. Work on the above form was completed and approved by the ACPC. All relevant staff members are currently using this form.

Prevention Sub committee

Attendance to this group has been delegated to the new manager for community midwives. She has replaced the named nurse for Hillingdon Hospital (Head of Midwifery)

ENB 970 (Child protection course at Thames Valley University)

This course has been attended by staff from community, paediatric and maternity units. It has been successful in raising the awareness and improving the knowledge of these staff members in child protection issues. It is hoped that places will be secured for staff working in the Accident & Emergency department.

Child protection Process Chart [desk map]

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 170 It was decided to develop a laminated A4 chart, which provides staff with a map of the child protection process. The chart will follow ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ guidelines [DOH, 1999] as is reflected in the Hillingdon Area Child protection Committee (ACPC) Policies and Procedures (Yellow Book). On completion, the chart will be distributed to all health professionals.

Support for Child protection in the Primary Care trust [PCT]

Three Link Nurses were appointed in January/February 2002 – one per Locality – to support Child protection. Their work includes audit, giving advice, supervision and some support at case conferences. They have attended the above ENB 970 course, and have been able to consolidate and apply their knowledge to practice. Their role will be reviewed at the end of April 2002.

Representation from Mental Health

One/two senior staff members of the community mental health team will be joining the group.

New appointment

A new Consultant Paediatrician – Community Child Health, was appointed in January 2001. She will be based at the Child Development Centre at Hillingdon Hospital and will be the Designated Doctor for Child protection. The PCT will have a separate named Doctor.

Service provision

Following the circumcision of a male child at home by his father, the group considered whether the need of the diverse community should be addressed by the provision of this service [circumcision] within the health economy.

Hospital/Community Links

A meeting was held with the Directors of nursing (Hillingdon hospital and the PCT), the Designated Nurse and the head of Midwifery to discuss concerns around the lack of a community/hospital liaison professional. Subsequently a paper is being presented to the Hospital Board to highlight the lack and to propose a solution. Procurement of this post will be in accordance with guidance in ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’.

Child protection training

Work is being undertaken with the ACPC training and development officer to develop training for hospital staff and General Practitioners [GP’s].

ACTION PLAN 2002/3

Consider the involvement of named doctors and nurses Consider medical resources available in locality Improve contribution of GP’s to child protection

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 171 Implement action plan for safeguarding children standards Develop and distribute Child protection Guidelines and Flow Charts for Health Professionals Continue to develop [and distribute as above] Child protection Process laminated desk map. Develop form for completion by GP’s unable to attend Case Conferences Re-visit Medical Aspects of Child protection training Review Medical examination form Work with ACPC Training and Development Officer to develop [and implement] training programme for GP’s and Hospital staff Develop the model of named nurse/link nurse support within the health economy

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TRAINING SUB COMMITTEE 2001/2

The Training sub committee has met regularly during the year to implement the training strategy for all professionals involved in Child protection. Its’ focus has been to review training needs and to design, deliver and evaluate a training programme which reflect the needs identified.

A new post of ACPC Development and Training Officer was established during the year and recruited to in September 02. Since this appointment the training sub committee have met at least monthly.

Composition

The training sub-committee is made up of representatives from Education, Health (Hillingdon Primary Care Trust), Police Child protection Team and Social Services. It is chaired by the ACPC Development and Training Officer.

Review of Training Strategy 01/02

The aims of the training strategy 2001/02 were achieved.

Training Provided 01/02

Foundation Policy and Procedures 1 x 2 days Specific agency policy and procedures Mental Health 3 x 1 day Early Years Centre 1 x 1 day Joint Investigation incorporating memorandum interviews 1 x 7 days Medical Aspects of Child Abuse 1x1 All courses were evaluated by immediate post course written responses, which were monitored by the ACPC training sub committee. All courses received positive evaluation.

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 172 Training Strategy 20002/03

The ACPC training focus is to provide inter-agency training and specific training in areas of particular need. It is not the intention to provide all child protection training for all staff. Each member agency has a responsibility to identify the training needs of their staff and to provide training specific to their role.

The ACPC Training Strategy is based on the following principles:

· The focus of the training is Child protection. · The training is appropriate for a inter-agency group · The training is provided without cost to agencies, except specially agreed programmes · Training provided by ACPC is relevant to all staff within the child protection network. · Member agencies remain responsible for role specific training: e.g. Designated teachers · Member agencies remain responsible for identifying the training needs of staff and ensuring that appropriate staff attend training · Specific discipline based training will be provided by ACPC if it is identified as a particular area of need.

Identification of Training Needs

Identification of training needs is crucial to the development of an effective training programme. Each agency is required to identify the child protection training needs of their staff and to submit those to the Training Sub-Committee together with details of their in-house child protection training programmes. This information enables the Training Sub-Committee to scrutinise training plans as required by Working Together and to identify inter-agency child protection training needs.

Training issues arising within the Case, Policy and Quality Sub-Committees also contribute to this process.

Aims of Training Strategy

· To integrate Anti-Discriminatory Practice into all aspects of child protection training · To evaluate all Area Child protection Committee training through immediate post course written response and to develop a series of consolidation courses to evaluate previous training delivered. · To establish learning outcomes for all courses · To explore the possibility of linking ACPC training to continuing professional development for all professionals · To identify the training needs of Area Child protection Committee Members in relation to child protection and co-ordinate training in respect of these needs. · To receive reports from all member agencies about in-service child protection training provided. Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 173 · To provide an Annual Report. · To co-ordinate the Annual ACPC Conference. · To co-ordinate and deliver the ACPC training plan.

Training Plan 20002/03

· Policy and Procedures 1 x 2 days · Policy and Procedures consolidation 2 x 1 days · Child protection Plans and the roles and responsibilities of professionals 8 x ½ day · Inter-agency Assessment Framework 2 x 1 day · Children with Disabilities and Child protection 2 x 1 day · Risk Assessment 1 x 3 days · Joint Investigation 1 x 2 days · Memorandum of Good Practice 1 x 5 days · Consolidation of Memorandum of Good Practice and Joint Investigation 2 x 1 day · Child protection and Domestic Violence 2 x 1 day · Child protection and Parental Mental Illness 6 x ½ day · Specific training for General Practitioners

Training needs analysis underway – will inform training structure and delivery.

ACTION PLAN 2002/3

ACTION TIMESCALE Implement interagency training programme Ongoing Provide training for GP’s Sept 2002 Evaluate the effectiveness of training Ongoing Organise ACPC Conference Autumn 02 Organise training for ACPC members Ongoing Implement action plan for safeguarding children standards Ongoing

Funding Arrangements

The ACPC Training Programme is provided by the Training Sub-Committee and attendance is free of charge to participants. The Social Services Department will contribute funding from the Training Support Grant to support the above programme. Training for ACPC Members is funded by the ACPC budget.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CASE SUB COMMITTEE 2001/2

The case sub committee has met 6 times in the course of the year. The sub committee is chaired by the head of children’s services social services and attended by the child protection manager, head of pupil support education services, police

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 174 inspector child protection team, designated nurse and designated doctor for child protection.

Terms of Reference

The Case Sub Committee shall;

1. Exercise the role of the serious cases review panel in considering the need for case reviews as required by chapter 8 of working Together and initiate reviews when appropriate. 2. To receive complaints from agencies about inter-agency working in child protection cases and deal with such complaints when appropriate 3. Review as appropriate selected cases known to the child protection agencies 4. Prepare an annual report on the working of the sub committee for the ACPC Business Plan 5. Meet at least quarterly

Work Undertaken

Part 8 Review The action plan for a part 8 review undertaken in the previous year was monitored and concluded

Procedures Procedures for undertaking a serious case review under chapter 8 of Working Together were agreed.

Cases

A case concerning a child minder who was charged with shaking a baby was discussed

A case concerning children whose mother had committed suicide was reviewed by social services but did not progress to a serious case review. An action plan was agreed and implemented.

A case concerning a child that was seriously burnt was considered and management reviews and chronologies undertaken by all agencies, the case did not progress to a serious case review and consideration of the issues arising from the case are ongoing

A case concerning the death of a child is currently under consideration and may progress to a serious case review

Complaints

The ACPC complaints procedures were applied on one occasion. An independent investigation was undertaken following the procedures and presented to the

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 175 interagency complaints panel. Although the complaint was not upheld the complaint did raise an issue about the distribution of case conference minutes which was subsequently actioned. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TRAFFICKING AND EXPLOITATION SUB COMMITTEE 2001/2

Background

This committee was established during the year to respond to child protection issues emerging at Heathrow Airport in respect of children and young people entering the country from abroad. Particular concern had been raised by West Sussex social services and police child protection team that significant numbers of young people from certain parts of Africa were entering the country at Gatwick and disappearing. There were concerns that these young people may be brought into the country for prostitution, domestic slavery and domestic reward. Hillingdon social services did not have such a record of young people disappearing from their care, but were never the less concerned that a change in certain flights from Gatwick to Heathrow may result in identification of the same concern. The ACPC were keen to be pro active about this issue and formed an interagency sub committee to monitor the situation and consider how best to respond to the potential for such concerns.

Membership of the Committee

The committee is chaired by the Head of Children Services in social services and attended by the child protection manager, police child protection team, Heathrow police, smuggling unit police, local police, immigration intelligence unit, immigration officers from terminals, Anti Slavery International, Refugee Arrivals Project, it is hoped that Customs officers will join the membership in due course.

Terms of Reference

1. To share information and intelligence between agencies 2. To develop and implement local interagency protocols to protect children and young people 3. To establish links with national and international work to facilitate the protection of children and young people who may be at risk from trafficking and exploitation 4. To identify the scale of the issues affecting Heathrow Airport and the impact on local services 5. To identify any additional resources required to address the issues and liaise with relevant agencies and government bodies 6. To monitor the effectiveness of local interagency policy and protocol 7. To provide reports to Hillingdon ACPC about the sub groups work 8. To develop a local body of expertise to establish quality standards for practice across all agencies 9. To provide a co-ordinated local response to media enquiries

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 176 Issues Discussed

The committee has met 3 times during the year and has reviewed it’s membership. Information has been exchanged about issues of concern and an interagency protocol has been developed in line with ACPC child protection procedures to assist in the protection of children deemed to be at risk

Profiles developed by agencies for the identification of children thought to be at risk are being drawn up and shared.

Information is exchanged about the progress of other London wide groups whose role and focus interfaces with this committee.

Work Plan

As the issues of concern to the group are still emerging it has not been possible to develop a work plan for the forthcoming year, however the committee will continue to meet on a regular basis related to the Terms of Reference

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ACPC QUALITY SUB COMMITTEE 2001/2

The Quality Sub committee was established in May 2001. It comprises of representatives from Health (PCT and Hillingdon Hospital), Education, Social Services and the Police. It has met 6 times during the year.

Terms of reference

1. Review the overall management health of the organisational arrangements for child protection in Hillingdon, and identify where improvements are needed. 2. Audit and evaluate how well local services work together to protect children, for example through wider case audits; 3. Put in place objectives and performance indicators for child protection, within the framework and objectives set out in Children’s Services Plans; 4. Develop systems for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the ACPC, both in results and the processes needed to achieve them, including reviewing complaints. 5. Develop inter-agency audit and jointly review how individual agencies systems contribute to the child protection system from a quality perspective 6. Develop a communication, participation and consultation strategy for the ACPC and monitoring arrangements 7. Prepare an annual report on the working of the sub group for the ACPC

Boundary with Case committee

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 177 The Case sub committee focuses on reviewing individual cases whilst the Quality sub-committee reviews issues covering groups of cases.

Issues Considered by the Quality Sub Committee 2001/2

Use of self assessment with the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence model to support the business planning process of the ACPC

The sub-committee began its work by using the EFQM excellence model to evaluate the overall management health of the organisational arrangements for child protection in Hillingdon, and develop a work plan for 2001/2. Key areas for improvement were identified as Leadership from the members of the full ACPC, and monitoring and measuring the views of parents, children and staff on the effectiveness of the child protection processes.

Feedback from professionals on child protection processes A child protection case conference feedback form was used for health and education staff (Police did not wish to use). Education reported on how they adapted the social services department audit tool to use with their professionals to obtain their views on the child protection process. It was noted that cancellations of conferences due to being inquorate are much reduced. A system was set up to monitor the timescale for distribution of minutes of conferences (target within 3 weeks); and added to monthly monitoring reports. A system was also designed to note the length of any delays in the start time of conferences and the reason for any delay.

Inter-agency Inspection of Safeguarding Children The standards were circulated and discussed. Policy sub-committee was asked to carry out an interagency audit

Consultation A participation and consultation strategy for the child protection and monitoring arrangements was drafted and child protection leaflets about child protection enquiries and child protection case conferences were updated and implemented

Performance monitoring There was discussion of the statistical analysis of 2000/1 child protection statistics. Management Information collected on child protection was reviewed and noted that there is now also monitoring of unallocated child protection cases. In general we considered the monitoring of the register was good enough.

Local indicators proposed were agreed with the addition of the percentage of those whose names were removed from child protection register who thought that issues of their race, culture and religion had been considered appropriately in the work with them.

We introduced regular review of case conference monitoring reports at the sub committee. We identified that it would be valuable to also measure multi-agency

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 178 participation in the child protection plan and core group reviews. An audit of thresholds for registration was undertaken and the other area needing monitoring is outcomes after removal from the register, repeat referrals for assistance as well as re-registration. It was agreed we should build looking at that into future work programmes.

Standard child protection letters The need for Standard child protection letters to be set up on CareFirst and requests to Social Services to prioritise this were made. Also the need was identified to include a final sentence on the “closure” letter inviting contact if the professional wants more information or remains concerned.

Review of Work Plan for Quality Sub-Committee 2001/2002 Action Task Outcome

Leadership Undertake EFQM self assessment with full ACPC Achieved and across all ongoing agencies Performance 1. Audit of thresholds/children who would have been in 1. Achieved monitoring the system and ongoing 2. Monitoring unallocated child protection Cases 2. Achieved and ongoing 3. Review Management Information contained in the draft 3. Achieved Business Plan 2001/2 4. Introduce regular review of Case Conference 4. Achieved Monitoring reports at the sub committee and ongoing 5. Develop a balanced scorecard of key performance 5. Yet to be indicators for summarising the performance of the achieved ACPC 6. Paper audit of 16+ yr olds and those on register for 2 6. Yet to be years achieved 7. Draw up a list of all Performance Indicators relating to 7. Yet to be Child protection work in each agency achieved

Standards 1. Identify standards for child protection work Achieved including joint working 2. Paper Audit by Quality Standards staff against these standards Standard Set up on CareFirst Yet to be child achieved protection letters Communicati 1. Agree and implement a Communication and In progress on and Participation Strategy for the ACPC and monitoring Participation arrangements including with key management units Strategy e.g. schools, locality boards 2. Set up systems to routinely seek views of parents and older children and measure their satisfaction with child protection process when they come off the register. 3. Obtain Crystal Mark from Plain English Campaign for child protection leaflet

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 179 Complaints Create processes for learning from complaints and look at Yet to be interaction between ACPC and other complaints achieved procedures

ACTION PLAN 2002/3

Action Task Who

Leadership Undertake repeat EFQM self assessment with full ACPC in DM/CB 2002/3 Performance 1. Maintain regular review of Case Conference Monitoring DM/CB monitoring reports at the sub committee 2. Develop a performance framework for the ACPC including a balanced scorecard of key performance indicators for summarising the performance of the ACPC for staff and for ACPC 3. Break down performance data by locality 4. Paper audit of 16+ yr olds and those on register for 2 years 5. Draw up a list of all Performance Indicators in each agency both general and relating to Child protection work and develop cross-cutting indicators Audit of A&E Review report of audit by HIMP sub of children presenting at DM/CB cases A&E when completed and identify any relevant actions Communicati 1. Agree and implement a Communication and Participation DM/CB on and Strategy for the ACPC and monitoring arrangements 4. AM Participation 2. Set up systems to routinely seek views of parents and older Strategy children and measure their satisfaction with child protection process when they come off the register. 3. Obtain Crystal Mark for child protection leaflet 4. Identify views of ex child protection young people in ViewPoint Standards 1. Implement Action Plan from Audit against Safeguarding of DM/CB Children standards 2. Set up Standard child protection letters on CareFirst IT Manager Staff 1. Ensure child protection tasks are added to performance CB/DM appraisal systems in all agencies 2. Monitor recruitment processes 3. Survey a sample of staff about awareness of child protection procedures 4. Develop communication with frontline staff Complaints Create processes for learning from complaints and look at DM interaction between ACPC and other complaints procedures

REPORT OF PREVENTION SUB COMMITTEE 2001/02

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 180 The Prevention Sub Group includes membership from Health, Social Services and Education. The group have met five times within the last year. We now have a representative from HAVS on the committee.

Work Undertaken by Prevention Sub Committee 2001/02

1. Launch of the booklet 'Keeping Children and Young People Safe from Abuse' Following the publication of the above booklet, the Prevention Sub Group organised a half day launch, with the assistance of The Lucy Faithful Foundation and Hillingdon Association of Voluntary Services (HAVS). The event was chaired by Steven Liddicott, Head of Children's Services (within Social Services), and the Speaker was Donald Findlaker from the Lucy Faithful Foundation.

Following the Launch an article appeared in the Hillingdon Gazette series and 'Hillingdon People; and the booklets were distributed widely through libraries and HAVS.

2. Following the success of Child protection and Child Safety articles in 'Hillingdon People', we have agreed to repeat the articles again. In the March/April edition, a new article on Internet Safety will be published. Flyers have also been obtained from the National Children's Home (NCH), on their Netsmart Rules. These are being distributed via schools, libraries and the Civic Centre reception.

3. The issue of raising the public's awareness of the dangers of shaking babies still remains high on the agenda for the Prevention Sub Group. The article first published in 'Hillingdon People' in 2000, is to be repeated. The Prevention Sub Group purchased leaflets from the NSPCC 'Handle With Care', that are distributed to parents by Health Visitors on a new birth visit. This awareness will be ongoing.

Review of Workplan of Prevention Sub Committee - 2001/2002

Action Task Outcome 1. To raise awareness of Article in Hillingdon People Achieved. Article in Hillingdon Internet safety with parents to People and NCH flyer distributed allow children to use IT safely 2. To increase publicity on the Review what is currently Achieved and ongoing dangers of shaking babies available. and young children Article in 'Hillingdon People' Promote NSPCC leaflet 'Handle with Care 3. To look at issues of Child Link with Phoenix Project - Referred to 2002/2003 workplan Prostitution and to raise Healthy Hillingdon awareness with parents and Training professionals, of risks and Article in Hillingdon People what they can do 4. Promoting Role and Function Agency newsletter Yet to be achieved of ACPC Poster for Professionals 2002/2003 workplan

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 181 ACTION PLAN 2002/3

ACTION TIMESCALE Produce and distribute a leaflet for members of the public on Dec 2002 ‘What Child Abuse Is', and what to do if they have concerns Raise awareness with parents and professionals of risks, and Feb 03 what they can do about child prostitution. Promote the role and function of ACPC Ongoing Publicise Childline and other helplines for Children Sept 02 Continue to raise awareness of the dangers of shaking babies Sept 02 Implement Action Plan for Safeguarding Children's Standards Ongoing

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 182 SECTION TWO BUSINESS PLAN

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION 2001/02

REFERRALS TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

The social services children and families teams received 4440 referrals during the course of the year. Of these children 853 or 19% had been previously referred to the department within 12 months, although this may have been for different reasons.

INITIAL ASSESSMENTS

The National Assessment Framework requires that all referrals to the social services department are screened within 24 hours and that where required Initial Assessments are completed within 7 days. This is a difficult indicator to meet because meeting the timescale is influenced by some variables outside of the departments control such as availability of interpreters, availability of the family etc.

2736 initial assessments were carried out in the course of the year within 7 days i.e.51%

CHILD PROTECTION ENQUIRIES

From the 4440 referrals, 297 children were the subject of child protection enquiries. This represents a decrease of 79 children or 21% from 00/01 figures. This figure represents children, rather than number of investigations. The decrease in enquiries is significant and is likely to relate to a change in ACPC policy requiring more children to be dealt with as children in need via initial assessments to determine whether or not there is a need to apply the child protection procedures. However further analysis will be needed to verify this hypothesis.

INITIAL CHILD PROTECTION CASE CONFERENCES

Of the 297 children who were the subject of child protection enquiries, assessment indicated that 195 i.e. 67% were suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and an initial child protection case conference was called in respect of them.

This is a 33% increase from 2000/01 which indicates that fewer children are being subject of unnecessary enquiries.

TIMESCALES FOR INITIAL CASE CONFERENCES

Initial case conferences should be convened within 15 working days of the beginning of the enquiry, but the completion of the assessment within this timescale is subject to a number of variables not all of which are under the control of the social services department e.g. availability of the family, interpreters, other professionals. Of the initial case conferences held, 175 i.e. 90% were held within 15 working days.

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 183 DECISION MAKING AT INITIAL CHILD PROTECTION CASE CONFERENCES

During the year 88 initial case conferences were convened concerning 195 children, 50 of these case conferences were in the East Team and 38 were in the West Team. Of these 195 children, the threshold for registration was made out for 128 children who were then placed on the child protection register. This represents 67% of children considered.

This represents 2.71 per 1,000 children (London average 98/99 = 3.0 Audit Commission Indicator)

CHILDREN PREVIOUSLY REGISTERED

6 children placed on the child protection register during 2000/2001 had been previously placed on a child protection register. This represents 4.7% of children registered in the year. This is consistent with the previous year. (National average 14%)

REVIEW CHILD PROTECTION CASE CONFERENCES

There were 146 review case conferences held during the year 88 in the East Team and 58 in the West Team.

96% of children on the child protection register were reviewed within 6 months. This represents a 9% improvement on 2000/01 figures.

VISITS TO CHILDREN ON THE CHILD PROTECTION REGISTER

Of 21 children on the child protection register for one year 100% had been visited at least 6 weekly.

CHILDREN REMOVED FROM THE CHILD PROTECTION REGISTER DURING THE YEAR

In the course of the year 132 children were removed from the Child protection Register, of these: · 40 (18) children were on the register for less than 3 months. · 13 (52) children were on the register for between 3-5months. · 37 (42) children were on the register for between 6 – 11 months · 37 (43) children were on the register for between 1 - 2 years · 5 (9) children were on the register for between 2 - 3 years · 0 (5) children were on the register for more than 3 years

3.8% of children stayed on Hillingdon’s child protection register for two years or more. (National average 00/01 11%).

During (00/01) 169 children were removed, this years figures represent a 28% reduction in de registration (National average 00/01 1%reduction). Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 184 This significant change in the pattern of de registration is attributable to the implementation of the Assessment Framework and the new requirements of Working Together which establish the first review case conference three months after the initial.

CHILDREN ADDED TO THE CHILD PROTECTION REGISTER DURING THE YEAR

In the course of the year 128 children were added to the child protection register. In 2000/01 156 children were added to the register. This is a reduction of 18 % (National comparison 00/01 is reduction of 11%).

The age or the children at the time of registration was;

☺ 19 under 1 year ☺ 39 1-4 years ☺ 32 5-9 years ☺ 30 10-15 years ☺ 3 over 16

The categories for registration were

Emotional Abuse 15 Neglect 62 Physical 12 Sexual 13 Multiple 26

PARENTAL ATTENDANCE AT CASE CONFERENCES

Research indicates that where social workers are able to work in partnership with the parents the outcomes for the child are nearly always better. At least one parent attended 81% of the case conferences held. The high number of parents attending conferences is a good indicator for successful outcomes.

Of the parents that attended 93% had been provided with the ACPC leaflet and 92% had been adequately prepared in the opinion of the chair.

CHILDREN ON THE CHILD PROTECTION REGISTER AT 31/03/02

As of 31/03/02 there were 109 children on the child protection register under the following criteria. This represents 5 children less than 2000/01.

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 185 Criteria for Registration Male Female Unborn Total

Emotional Abuse 7 4 11 Sexual Abuse 3 8 11 Physical Abuse 3 3 6 Neglect 32 26 58 Physical Abuse and Neglect 3 0 3 Neglect and Emotional Abuse 0 4 4 Neglect and Sexual Abuse 2 4 6 Physical and Emotional Abuse 5 5 10 Total 109

This snap shot shows the same trends as 2000/01 and is consistent with national trends. Registration for neglect in Hillingdon is 65% (National average 00/01 46%)

CHARACTERISTICS OF PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN ARE ON THE CHILD PROTECTION REGISTER MARCH 20001

It is important to recognise that most parents who have personal difficulties do not abuse their children. However research indicates that there is higher incidence of the following parental characteristics amongst children on child protection registers. The following provides a snap shot of Hillingdon’s position.

Domestic Violence 19 17% Substance Misuse 21 19% Mental Illness 8 7% Physical Disability 8 7% Learning Disability 10 9% Domestic Violence and Mental Illness 5 5% Domestic Violence and Substance Misuse 5 5% Domestic Violence and Learning Disability 0 0% Substance Misuse and Mental Illness 1 0.9% Mental Illness and Learning Disability 0 0% DV, Substance Misuse & Learning Disability 0 0% None 29 27% Unknown 3 3%

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN ON THE REGISTER AT 31/03/02

Number of children Age Range

0 Unborn 17 Under 1 31 1-4 29 5-9 31 10-15 1 16+

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 186 ETHNICITY OF CHILDREN ON THE CHILD PROTECTION REGISTER AT 31.03.02

African 4 Bangladeshi 2 Indian 9 Any other Asian background 3 White and Asian 1 Black Caribbean 2 Any other black background 1 Any other mixed background 2 White British 68 White Irish 3 Any other white background 6 Any other ethnic group 8

LEGAL STATUS OF CHILDREN ON THE CHILD PROTECTION REGISTER

Interim Care Order 11 Section 20 6 No legal status 89

PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN ON THE CHILD PROTECTION REGISTER

Foster Placement 11 Placed with Parents (interim care order) 6 At home 89

ANALYSIS OF ACPC’S STRENGTHS AND AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Introduction

In March 2002 the ACPC used a quality management tool EFQM (the European Foundation for Quality Management) to evaluate the overall management health of the organisational arrangements for child protection in Hillingdon. The event was well attended with 13 people from eight organisations present.

The group assessed the performance of the ACPC, both in results and the processes needed to achieve them, and identified where improvements are needed. A summary of the conclusions under each of the nine categories is below.

LEADERSHIP, POLICY AND STRATEGY There was general agreement that the ACPC act as a team, ensure two way open communication, set priorities, and develop and support improvement work across all agencies. Also that managers are active inside and outside the organisation in promoting improvement activity. However it was felt that in some agencies senior managers did not check progress and recognise involvement or say “thank you”. It was agreed that continuous improvement is the culture and philosophy. Strategic direction is communicated but not all stakeholders understand and therefore own it. Resources are made available for continuous improvement. Plans do include comparative information but not user satisfaction measures. Key points from Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 187 plans are not always owned and understood by front line staff nor do they always accept responsibility for their role in delivering on them.

Chair of the ACPC The position of Chair of the ACPC was discussed and it was agreed that the Head of Service, Hillingdon Social Services Children & Families Division, would take this position in the interim and that arrangements would be reviewed at the end of the year in the light of the Interim arrangements for Director of Social Services, the report of the Laming inquiry and the forthcoming Council elections

Mission Statement

As part of the event the Committee reviewed the Mission statement and concluded that it combined Mission, Vision and Value statements which should be separated. The reviewed edition is at the beginning of this document.

Strengths

There is a shared philosophy and vision in middle management members of the ACPC with a small number of people very active. There is a good understanding of the ACPC’s collective strengths and areas for improvement. These have delivered successful new initiatives such as the implementation of inter agency child protection procedures, the new assessment framework and positive SSI and OFSTED Inspection outcomes re child protection.

There are clear policies and strategies at the top level. The Quality Protects Management Action Plan , Agency and Departmental Business Plans and annual reports, communicate and deliver on the actions. All schools have a designated teacher. Link nurses in the localities for child protection have been very successful.

Areas for improvement

There needs to be more joint ownership across the whole health and social care economy (e.g. engagement of doctors). Leadership currently depends on individuals and does not come from the ACPC as a whole. Sub Committees tend to lead the ACPC rather than the other way round. It seems that some constituent agencies are disengaged and that Child protection has dropped down some agency’s priorities (although it has gone up in the Police). There is a specific need for a dedicated health budget for child protection. There may be a culture in some agencies that if they spend time on child protection work they are doing social services and police’s job for them. Related to this people feel free to criticise child protection arrangements but do not offer help to improve and there is a concern that some people on the ACPC view their role as “representing” their agency and holding a watching brief not actively being part of the culture and organisation.

The ACPC needs to develop a communication strategy and plan how to improve communication about policies and strategies at all levels. It needs to find ways to release staff from all agencies more for training and for staff and users to be more involved in strategy development, frontline managers and staff need to be more involved in improving the quality of child protection work.

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 188 Actions 1. Develop more ownership by ACPC of a Joint Vision and what it takes from each organisation to get there 2. Discuss report on Awayday at ACPC, PCT and other agency management groups 3. The Head of Service, Hillingdon Social Services Children & Families Division to Chair the ACPC on an interim basis 4. Develop a communication, participation and consultation strategy for the ACPC and monitoring arrangements

PARTNERSHIPS AND RESOURCES

There is agreement that ACPC sets up partnership arrangements with key stakeholders. Data is available and talked about but not used to improve as much as it could be Decisions are made on the basis of information. Planning systems are in use. Benchmarking needs development as an improvement driver.

Strengths

Partnerships are very good at middle level in agencies but need more leadership at the top particularly outside social services and police. The development of the interagency procedures is evidence of strong partnerships. The ACPC is good at evaluating each agency’s contribution to child protection work and effective monitoring takes place in the social services and police and through the Hospital Clinical Practice Committee

Areas for improvement

There is a need to identify clear reporting lines and governance arrangements for child protection work; to co-ordinate work between partner agencies to ensure all monitor progress on the ACPC Business Plan and Action Plans. Deliver and evaluate value for money in child protection work. The profile of the work of the ACPC needs to be raised in the HImP and Community Plan

Action

1. Co-ordinate work with partner agencies to ensure we all monitor progress on ACPC and Quality Protects Business Plan 2. Obtain Crystal Mark from Plain English Campaign for child protection leaflet 3. Develop an ACPC resource strategy

PROCESSES

This is generally an area of strength. Key processes are owned in each organisation and there is support to monitor and improve them. However procedures and standards are not always owned by the staff. Different cultures in each agency need to be recognised e.g. the police focus is on crime outcomes.

Strengths

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 189 The Assessment framework., the revised and comprehensive ACPC procedures and the Quality Protects process and Management Action Plan are all evidence of strengths.

Areas for improvement

The ACPC needs to set up processes for user feedback and improve processes for learning from complaints including looking at the interaction between ACPC and other complaints procedures; to improve monitoring of equalities and diversity issues. Systems need to be improved for social services to notify other agencies (e.g. Health Visitors) if investigations are completed but no conference called. Feedback from staff obtained and evaluated.

Action

1. Ongoing quality monitoring of standards for child protection work including joint working 2. Paper Audit by Quality Standards staff against these standards 3. Set up processes for user feedback (see below section 7) 4. Improve processes for learning from complaints and look at interaction between ACPC and other complaints procedures 5. Improve systems for notifying HV if investigations are completed but no conference called

PEOPLE

The ACPC has appointed a Development and Training Officer during the year. This is a tremendous step forward. A lot of training has been provided but in some agencies training is seen as a cost and it is difficult to get staff on courses. There remain practical difficulties of releasing some groups of staff for interagency training e.g. teachers. Delegation of responsibility is to people at appropriate levels e.g. this group. Appraisal schemes in all agencies are in place to match the aspirations of the people and the organisation. Police training is now being considered across all London; this is a strength in terms of a consistent police approach but limits flexibility to respond to local differences.

Strengths

Training is provided and there are regular meetings with police, social services. schools and health visitors. Training is evaluated. Supervision arrangements are in operation in all agencies. Multidisciplinary team working happens.

Areas for improvement

There is under-development of monitoring and analysis and action on human resources results, a need to evaluate training and submit reports to ACPC on the effectiveness of training, and feed information from human resources results into future planning thus developing systems for continuous improvement. The ACPC also need to identify potential benchmarking colleagues, develop competencies for Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 190 head teachers, and review allocation of dedicated staffing resources from each agency to the ACPC. The ACPC needs to be made an attractive organisation for people from agencies to commit time to

Action

1. Review allocation of dedicated staffing resources from each agency 2. Evaluate training and submit reports to ACPC on its effectiveness 3. Review and improve human resources monitoring including recruitment 4. Review latest DoH returns when available and identify two possible best in class benchmarking partners

USERS VIEWS (Children and young people and their parents/carers)

Views of children and their parents are routinely collected at case level. Discussion highlighted that the ACPC needs to set up systems to routinely seek views of parents and older children about their experience of the child protection process.

Strengths

Complaints are reported on and one survey of parents has been undertaken and people have been surveyed by the SSI. Conference chairs routinely seek views of parents and older children on conferences and feedback is sought from social workers on the chairing of conferences. A Consultation strategy for the Council and health exists

Areas for improvement

The ACPC need to set up systems to routinely seek views of parents and older children

Action 1. Set up systems to routinely seek views of parents and older children and measure their satisfaction with child protection process when they come off the register.

KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS (see also statistical report)

Action is in hand to improve management information systems in Social Services with the introduction of the CareFirst system and the new performance arrangements, corporately and in the Social Services Department. Systems exist in agencies e.g. social services to monitor and display performance, trends are monitored and used to set targets and they are communicated to staff and improvement targets are indicated.

Benchmarking is used to compare results but there is a problem with the consistency of definitions used in different areas. Inter agency approaches need to be developed by the ACPC. It was noted that many of the core functions of the ACPC contributed to community improvement and the ACPC contributes to the social inclusion agenda (e.g. through its Prevention work) but that environmental issues had not been seriously addressed in previous action plans. The ACPC needs to develop a systematic approach to issues and action plans in LA21.

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 191 Strengths

Systems have come along way in the last two years and Social Services has been removed from Special Measures. Targets already exist in plans such as the QP MAP and the numbers of review Case Conference held to target timescale has risen to 96 % The chairs of case conferences quality monitor every meeting against prescribed indicators and outcomes are reported to ACPC and departmental management groups.

Areas for improvement

The ACPC needs to improve scrutiny of what is happening with (a) Neglect cases (b) the increasing trend of staying on the register (c) the volume of cases where there are strategy discussions and no conference; and conferences but no registration. The ACPC needs to draw up a list of all Performance Indicators relating to Child protection work in each agency.

Action

2. Develop key performance indicators for the ACPC (especially to measure quality) 3. Begin to develop local performance indicators for the ACPC 4. Draw up a list of all Performance Indicators relating to Child protection work in each agency 5. Implement systematic analysis and action on LA21 targets in future plans

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 192 REVIEW OF WORK PLAN 2002/3

ITEM COMMITTEE OUTCOME 1 Create Quality Sub Committee to Quality Completed consider new requirements for quality monitoring, audit and local performance indicators 2 Analyse performance ACPC/ Quality Sub Completed indicators/statistical information 3 Establish interface with Domestic Policy Established Violence Forum 4 Establish links with Drug Action Policy Transfer to 2002/3 Team 5 Clarify and establish links with other ACPC Ongoing planning processes for children 6 Establish Health Advisory Health Advisory Established Subcommittee with appropriate membership and links to ACPC 7 Establish interface with Adult mental Policy Established health services 8 Ensure that a training plan to meet Training Completed the needs of all agencies is developed. 9 Develop a resource strategy for the ACPC Ongoing ACPC 10 Review the procedures for Case Completed undertaking case reviews in light of ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ and to consider funding arrangements for any independent contribution to case reviews 11 Develop and implement a Prevention Ongoing programme to keep the community informed about child protection and how to assist in its prevention 13 Raise public awareness of internet Prevention Completed safety to allow children to use IT safely 14 To publicise the dangers of shaking Prevention Completed babies and young children 15 To consider the prevention of child Prevention Transferred 2002/3 prostitution 16 Promote the role and function of Prevention Transferred 2002/3 ACPC 17 Provide materials to assist the Policy Completed interagency implementation of the assessment framework 18 Ensure that the threshold for child Policy/Training Ongoing protection enquiries and /Quality conferences is consistently applied

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 193 19 Agree the topic for the annual ACPC Completed conference of the ACPC 20 Improve the appropriate attendance Policy Ongoing of children at child protection case conferences

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 194 ACPC QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACTION PLAN 2002/3.

WHAT BY WHO WHEN POLICY AND STRATEGY 1. Develop a communication, participation and involvement Quality sub Sept 02 strategy for the ACPC 2. Implement Action Plan of Policy Sub Committee Policy Sub Ongoin g April 03 LEADERSHIP 1. Review options for a lay chair of the ACPC ACPC Dec 02 2. Review Strategic Direction of ACPC PEOPLE 1. Review allocation of dedicated staffing resources from each ACPC April 02 agency Training Sept 02 2. Evaluate effectiveness of training and submit reports to ACPC Sept 02 on its effectiveness Training Sub April 03 3. Implement Action Plan of Training Sub committee Prevention Dec 02 4. Improve communication with frontline staff sub

PARTNERSHIPS AND RESOURCES 1. Develop and implement a programme to keep the community Prevention Dec 02 informed about child protection and how to assist in its Sub prevention Policy Sub Dec 02 2. Obtain Crystal Mark from Plain English Campaign for child ACPC protection leaflet Prevention April 03 3. Review commitment of resources by each agency to child Sub protection work ACPC Dec 02 4. Implement Action Plan for the Prevention Sub Committee Health Advisory Ongoin 5. Develop ACPC Resource Strategy Quality g 6. Implement Health Advisory Sub Committee Action Plan Ongoin 7. Monitor progress of QP MAP and ACPC Business Plan g PROCESSES 1. Contribute to London wide procedures for child protection Policy sub Dec 02 work Quality sub Dec 02 2. Set up processes for user feedback (see below User Results) Quality sub Dec 02 3. Improve processes for learning from complaints Training Sub Dec 02 4. Organise Awayday to review outcomes of Laming enquiry Dec 02

5. Continue systems to monitor compliance with child protection Quality sub Dec 02 procedures including joint working Quality sub Dec 02 6. Survey staff awareness of child protection procedures Training Dec 02 7. Establish links with Drug Action Team Policy sub ongoin 8. Clarify and establish links with other planning processes for ACPC g children

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 195 PEOPLE RESULTS 1. Review human resources monitoring including recruitment Quality sub Apr 03 processes, police checks etc USER RESULTS 1. Create policy and Set up systems to routinely seek views of Quality sub Aug 02 parents and older children and measure their satisfaction with child protection process when they come off the register. CSSG Dec 02 2. Develop consultation and involvement with children and parents especially from black and ethnic minorities

SOCIETY RESULTS 1. Implement systematic analysis and action on society results All Ongoing in future plans KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS 1. Develop a performance framework for the ACPC Quality sub By October 2. Begin to develop local performance indicators for the ACPC 2002 3. Review management/Performance Information relating to By April Child protection work in each agency and develop cross- 2003 cutting PIs By April 4. Review value of analysing data by localities and Mapping 2003 using GIS By April 5. Implement Action Plan of Quality Sub Committee 2003

FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS/RESOURCE STRATEGY

Education, Social Services, Health Services and the Police each contribute £3000 to finance the work of the committee, Probation Services contribute £500. It is acknowledged by the Committee that the total of £12,500 is insufficient to finance the Committees work and it is recognised that the Social Services department are subsidising the costs of administration and interagency training. During the course of this year a resource strategy will be developed which sets out a realistic proposal to be put before relevant Boards and Cabinet for the future funding of this interagency work.

ATTENDANCE AT ACPC

Social Services 20.04.01 01.06.01 07.09.01 19.04.02 Graeme Betts x - x na Stephen Liddicott x x x x Cathy Bambrough x x x x Sam Tarling na na na x

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 196 Education 20.04.01 01.06.01 07.09.01 07.12.01 19.04.2 Mary Milne - - x x - Andrea Nixon x x x x Brian Paul - - x - -

Health Dr Kukendra/ - - - - x Dr Hamid Jenny Reid - x - - x Siobhan Clarke - x x x x Dr Marriot x x Dr Cussons - x x - x

Police Keith Driver/ x x x Gordon Valentine x x

Probation David Griffiths x x x

US Navy Bob Richard - - - - -

RAF Chris Agass - - - x x

Parents Rep Margaret Wainwright/ x x - - x Fiona Millar

CAFCAS Lesley Mervin - - - x -

Hillingdon Area Child Protection Committee Draft Annual Report And Business Plan 2002-2003

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 197 MENTAL HEALTH RECONFIGURATION ITEM 13

Contact Officer: Chris O'Gorman Telephone: 01895 452007

SUMMARY

This report introduces proposals for the reconfiguration of Hillingdon’s mental health services including the establishment of a partnership with Hillingdon Primary Care Trust under the Health Act 1999 for the provision of community mental health services. The report contains four specific questions on the proposals on which the Cabinet is asked to take a view.

Cabinet is also asked to agree a process for final decision on the proposals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To consider the consultation paper Hillingdon’s Mental Health Services: Better Together, and the draft Partnership Agreement, and to provide a response to the consultation questions.

2. To agree to accept a report detailing the final proposals for the reconfigured mental health service, together with a brief update on key themes emerging from the consultation, at the Cabinet meeting on 3 September 2002

3. To agree to consider a tabled report, providing a further update on themes from the consultation, at the Cabinet meeting on 3 September 2002.

4. To agree that Cabinet may approve the final proposals for reconfiguring Hillingdon’s mental health services on 3 September 2002, subject to any significant amendment to the proposals arising from the final day of consultation (4 September 2002)

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations will:

· Help inform the consultation process and shape the future management arrangements for Hillingdon’s mental health services

· Ensure that the implementation of future management arrangements, if approved, can be implemented in shadow form without further delay on 1 October 2002

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

In respect of recommendation 1, the Cabinet may:

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 198 a) Agree not to submit a response to the consultation questions b) Agree to submit a collective response to the consultation questions c) Agree that individual Cabinet members may (either as well as, or in place of, a collective response) submit individual responses to the consultation questions

In respect of recommendation 2, the Cabinet may: d) Agree to accept a report detailing the final proposals for the reconfigured mental health service, together with a brief update on key themes emerging from the consultation, at the Cabinet meeting on 3 September 2002 e) Not agree to accept a report detailing the final proposals for the reconfigured mental health service, together with a brief update on key themes emerging from the consultation, at the Cabinet meeting on 3 September 2002

In respect of recommendation 3, the Cabinet may: f) Agree to consider a tabled report, providing a further update on themes from the consultation, at the Cabinet meeting on 3 September 2002. g) Not agree to consider a tabled report, providing a further update on themes from the consultation, at the Cabinet meeting on 3 September 2002.

In respect of recommendation 4, the Cabinet may: h) Agree that Cabinet may approve the final proposals for reconfiguring Hillingdon’s mental health services on 3 September 2002, subject to any significant amendment to the proposals arising from the final day of consultation (4 September 2002) i) Not agree that Cabinet may approve the final proposals for reconfiguring Hillingdon’s mental health services on 3 September 2002, subject to any significant amendment to the proposals arising from the final day of consultation (4 September 2002)

INFORMATION

Background

1. Following extensive informal consultation across the mental health community during 2001/02, support has been obtained from the North West London Health Authority and the Social Services Inspectorate to seek approval from the Secretary of State for Health to implement proposals to reconfigure Hillingdon’s mental health services.

2. Whilst the submission to the Secretary of State is being prepared, it is necessary to undertake a three-month period of consultation on the proposals. The

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 199 consultation is being undertaken on behalf of the North West London Health Authority, the Social Services Inspectorate, The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust, Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and Hillingdon Council Social Services. The consultation period will be between 5 June and 4 September 2002. It is hoped that, contingent upon the outcome of the consultation process, shadow arrangements for the partnership and the management of NHS mental health services by Hillingdon Primary Care Trust, can be put in place from 1 October 2002. This compares with a previous deadline of 1 April 2002 which had to be delayed owing in the main to the necessity to complete further work on the legal framework behind the reconfigured mental health services.

3. The consultation process is not a public consultation but a consultation with ‘affected parties’. The affected parties have been deemed to be: service users of the affected mental health services, staff of the affected mental health services, and others. The ‘others’ have been identified as: carers; other staff within Hillingdon Council Social Services, e.g., child and family staff, generic older people’s staff; other staff within the London Borough of Hillingdon, including housing, leisure and education staff; other staff within Hillingdon Primary Care Trust; other staff within The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust, e.g., Accident and Emergency Department staff; elected members of the London Borough of Hillingdon; other statutory organisations which work with people with mental health problems, including the Metropolitan Police Service and the London Probation Service; voluntary organisations which work with people with mental health problems; Hillingdon Community Health Council; staff at Healthy Hillingdon; West London Mental Health NHS Trust.

Proposals for Consultation

4. There are two specific proposals that are being considered during the consultation period, as follows:

· The first proposal is that the current Mental Health Division at The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust consisting of about 400 staff and with a budget of about £10,000,000, transfers to Hillingdon Primary Care Trust.

· The second proposal is that Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and the London Borough of Hillingdon form a partnership to provide community mental health services for adults of working age with mental health problems. The partnership will be a formal, legally-binding agreement under the provisions of the Health Act 1999.

5. Further details of the proposals, and their rationales, are set out in the consultation document Hillingdon’s Mental Health Services: Better Together, which is included as appendix 1 to this report. Additionally, a draft partnership agreement between Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and Hillingdon Council Social Services will also be considered during the consultation period. This document is also included as appendix 2 to this report, and it should be noted that the agreement remains in draft form only and may be subject to amendment as a result of negotiations between the two partner organisations. The Borough Solicitor has approved the

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 200 draft for consultation, and will be working with the Primary Care Trust’s lawyers during the consultation period on the final draft of the Agreement.

6. During the consultation, presentations and briefings will be offered to affected groups and individuals, including professional groups and user groups. A log will be maintained of all responses and views submitted during the process and will be used to compile a feedback report to accompany the final proposals. It is intended to run a seminar, open to all elected members of the London Borough of Hillingdon, to brief members on the details contained within the proposals and to ensure that members’ questions can be responded to as fully as possible.

7. Ideally, once the consultation period had been completed, the feedback report together with the final proposals would be taken back to the Cabinet, and the Boards of Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust and Hillingdon Primary Care Trust for approval by mid-September 2002. This would enable the final proposals to be submitted to North West London Health Authority for consideration at its Board meeting on 24 September 2002.

8. However, the September 2002 meeting of the Cabinet of the London Borough of Hillingdon takes place on 3 September, one day before the formal close of the consultation period. If it were deemed that this Cabinet meeting could not offer any firm conditional approval for the reconfiguration proposals, the resulting delay would mean that no shadow arrangements could be put in place on 1 October 2002. The resultant slippage to the overall project timescale would most likely risk increased frustration and uncertainty from front-line staff, and loss of credibility to the project as a whole.

9. In order to support the project achieving its current timetable, therefore, a mechanism of conditional approval has been developed. Under this mechanism, it is proposed that a final set of proposals for the reconfiguration of services together with a brief paper summarising the key themes that had emerged from the consultation to date be submitted in advance of the Cabinet meeting on 3 September 2002. At the meeting itself, an update paper would be tabled detailing any additional issues that had arisen in the period between the submission of the key themes paper and the date of the Cabinet meeting. The final set of proposals would reflect as far as possible modifications arising from consultation feedback.

10. The recommendation to the 3 September 2002 meeting of the Cabinet would be that the proposals to reconfigure Hillingdon’s mental health services would be approved subject to any significant change resulting from responses to the consultation received on the last day of the consultation period.

11. In considering these proposals, the Cabinet will wish to take into account the fact that Social Services’ Committee previously approved the main components of the consultation proposals on two occasions: 6 March 2001 and on 8 April 2002.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 201 Consultation Questions

12. During the consultation, affected parties are being asked to respond to four specific questions in relation to these proposals. These questions are as follows:

· Do you agree with the proposal to transfer the Mental Health Division of The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust to Hillingdon Primary Care Trust? Please tell us the reasons for your answer.

· Do you agree with the way in which it is proposed that the new Mental Health Directorate in Hillingdon Primary Care Trust will be organised? Please tell us the reasons for your answer.

· Do you agree that the proposal for a partnership between Hillingdon Council Social Services and Hillingdon Primary Care Trust is the best way to provide community mental health services for Hillingdon people? Please tell us the reasons for your answer.

· Do you agree that the proposal for a partnership between Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and Hillingdon Council Social Services is the best way for the staff in community mental health services to be managed? Please tell us the reasons for your answer.

13. It is the responses to these questions that will form the basis of the post- consultation report which is referred to in sections 8-10 above.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

ESTATES IMPLICATIONS

14. A joint working group comprising the Estates Director of Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust, the Director of Estates & Facilities at the Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and the Head of Property Services at London Borough of Hillingdon has been meeting to consider the property issues in respect of options for property ownership and the future maintenance and management of the assets.

15. The Council owns two buildings from which shared services are currently delivered, namely the Pembroke Centre, Pembroke Road, Ruislip and Mead House, Hayes End Road, Hayes End.

16. The underlying strategy for the development of the estates plan will be to provide for continuity of occupation of these premises to secure the future of the services transferring to the Primary Care Trust as from 1 October 2002, whilst the implications of the alternative options for tenure and future estate management are considered.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 202 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

17. Both parties’ budget setting processes are similar in practice (based around uplifts on historic spending and growth pressures) but their funding sources and approvals processes are quite different. Notwithstanding policy encouragements to the pooling of budgets, the respective health and local government audit regulations require detailed discrete accountabilities for expenditure and service outputs. The parties therefore do not perceive any benefits from the pooling of resources and have identified practical complications and disadvantages. For the foreseeable future, health and social care budgets will be aligned and managed jointly by the partnership but retain their separate identities. Whilst this proposal will improve efficiency, co-ordination and decision-making, there will be no immediate savings on support costs. There are therefore no direct financial implications at present.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

18. There is a requirement that consultation takes place with affected parties in relation to both of the proposals identified in the report. As far as the second proposal is concerned (i.e., the establishment of a partnership), the requirement to consult is imposed by the Health Act 1999.

19. The statutory authority for the second proposal is section 31 of the Health Act 1999 which permits the Secretary of State to make regulations so as to allow partnership arrangements to be entered into between prescribed NHS bodies and local authorities if the arrangements are likely to lead to an improvement in the way in which the functions of the NHS bodies and the health-related functions of local authorities are exercised.

20. As indicated in the body of the report, the Borough Solicitor has approved the draft partnership agreement for consultation purposes and will continue to work with officers and the Primary Care Trust's lawyers to ensure that the final agreement is robust and adequately safeguards the Council's interests.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

21. Wide-ranging external consultation is taking place on the proposals for reconfiguring Hillingdon’s mental health services, involving all of the affected parties listed at 1.3. As noted at 2.3, a range of means of communicating the proposals within the consultation document are being progressed including face-to-face meetings, team briefings, and presentations to professional groups. In addition, a reconfiguration project website has been established at www.hillingdon.nhs.uk and website users can e-mail their responses to the consultation questions direct from this site to the Project Manager.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

National Service Framework for Mental Health, Department of Health, 1999 Health Act 1999

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 203 APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - Hillingdon’s Mental Health Services: Better Together Appendix 2 - Draft Partnership Agreement between London Borough of Hillingdon and Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 204 integrated community The Hillingdon Hospital mental healthNHS Trust servicesNHS

June 2002 Hillingdon Primary CareNHS Trust

HILLINGDON’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: BETTER TOGETHER

Consultation Document on Two Proposals

1. For the Mental Health Services of Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust to be transferred to Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

2. For Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and the London Borough of Hillingdon Social Services Department to enter into a partnership to provide

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 205 Foreword Reconfiguration Project Team, and it is this team, supported by the A proposal currently lies before the Reconfiguration Project Manager, Secretary of State for Health to which will be running the approve the reconfiguration of consultation itself. Hillingdon’s mental health services for adults and older people. Under You are therefore invited to read the terms of this proposal, this document and to consider the Hillingdon Primary Care Trust specific questions that are posed would manage NHS services for on pages 7-8. Having done so, adults and older people with your responses to the questions mental health problems and would and the document itself, may be also manage, on behalf of the submitted to the Reconfiguration London Borough of Hillingdon Project Team. Details of the ways Social Services Department, social in this can be done are also found care services for adults with mental on page 8. Early submission of health problems. responses is especially welcome.

If the Secretary of State were to Your views are very important in approve the proposals which have determining the future of been presented to him, he would Hillingdon’s mental health services do so on the condition that the and will be considered with care by groups and parties affected by the the Secretary of State in making his proposals were consulted. It has final decision on the future been agreed to hold a consultation management arrangements for process between 5 June and 4 those services. You are therefore September 2002, in order to warmly encouraged to submit your hear the views of those affected by views on these proposals to us. the proposals.

The consultation process is being undertaken on behalf of the North West London Health Authority, the Health and Social Care Directorate for London, Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and London Borough of Hillingdon. The first two named bodies, however, have agreed to delegate the responsibility for organising the consultation process to the three locally affected organisations: the Hillingdon Graeme Betts Jayne Martin Hospital NHS Trust, Hillingdon Chief Executive Interim Director of Social Services Primary Care Trust, and Hillingdon Hillingdon Primary Care London Borough of Hillingdon Social Services. These Trust organisations have formed a

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 206 Contents

Page Foreword 2

Executive 4 Summary

Section 1 Introduction and Background 5-8

Section 2 The Transfer of Hillingdon 9-11 Hospital NHS Trust’s Mental Health Division to Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

Section 3 A Partnership Between Hillingdon 12-16 Primary Care Trust and the London Borough of Hillingdon to Provide Community Mental Health Services

Section 4 Mental Health Services in 16-23 Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

Section 5 Where to find further information 26

Section 6 Glossary 27

Consultation 28 pro forma

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 207 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

managed in Hillingdon Primary Mental health services in Hillingdon Care Trust. are being re-organised to fulfil Government requirements that mental Readers of this document who are health services should: affected by the changes it proposes are invited to respond to the · Be managed by organisations following four questions during the which can provide them with a consultation period, 5 June to 4 high profile and proper September 2002 management attention · Do you agree with the proposal · Demonstrate that health and to transfer the Mental Health social care are integrated Division of Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust to Hillingdon Primary This document describes how it is Care Trust? Please tell us the proposed that Hillingdon’s mental reasons for your answer. health services are re-configured to address these requirements. · Do you agree with the way in which it is proposed that the The first proposal is that the new Mental Health Directorate current Mental Health Division at in Hillingdon Primary Care Trust Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust will be organised? Please tell us consisting of about 400 staff and the reasons for your answer. with a budget of £10,000,000, transfers to Hillingdon Primary Care · Do you agree that the proposal Trust. for a partnership between The second proposal is that Hillingdon Social Services and Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and Hillingdon Primary Care Trust is the London Borough of Hillingdon the best way to provide form a partnership to provide community mental health community mental health services services for Hillingdon people? for adults of working age with Please tell us the reasons for mental health problems. The your answer. partnership will be a formal, legally-binding agreement under · Do you agree that the proposal the provisions of the Health Act for a partnership between 1999. Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and Hillingdon Social Services is The document describes the the best way for the staff in reasons why these proposals are community mental health thought to be the best for services to be managed? Hillingdon’s mental health services Please tell us the reasons for and provides some details of how your answer. mental health services will be

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 208 SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This part of the consultation document organisations to manage mental describes the background to the health services in the future. proposals to change the management arrangements for mental health services in Hillingdon. It also We in Hillingdon have therefore to describes the consultation process decide: itself in more detail. · Which organisation will manage Why are we changing the our NHS mental health services in the future management arrangements for local · How our NHS services will work mental health services? together with Hillingdon Social Services The government has made clear that it has high ambitions for Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust, mental health services across the Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and country. It wants them to be Hillingdon Social Services have modernised, to be of high quality, established a Reconfiguration and to be focused on the needs of Project Team in order to prepare the people who use them and of proposals to address these two their carers. issues. The Reconfiguration Project Team consists of senior As part of the government’s managers from the three programme for mental health organisations involved and has services it expects mental health worked throughout 2001-02 to services: identify the best way forward for Hillingdon’s mental health services. · To be managed by Throughout this period they have organisations which can provide consulted informally with many them with a high profile and individuals and groups, including all proper management attention key stakeholders in mental health services. The Reconfiguration · To demonstrate that health and Project Team, on behalf of the social care are integrated three affected organisations, has prepared this document which The government believes that the contains the following two organisations best placed to proposals: provide mental health services with the management and profile they · The first proposal is that the need are either specialist mental current Mental Health Division health NHS trusts, or primary care at Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust trusts. Acute general hospitals, consisting of about 400 staff such as Hillingdon Hospital NHS and with a budget of Trust, are not regarded by the £10,000,000, transfers to government as the right Hillingdon Primary Care Trust.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 209 We will refer to this as proposal consult with affected parties 1. on these changes.

· The second proposal is that · In the case of the proposal to Hillingdon Primary Care Trust establish a partnership to and the London Borough of provide community mental Hillingdon form a partnership health services (proposal 2), to provide community mental we are required to consult health services for adults of with affected parties by the working age with mental Health Act 1999 health problems. The partnership will be a formal, However, we are not proposing a legally-binding agreement major change to mental health under the provisions of the services themselves – only to Health Act 1999. We will refer their management. The to this as proposal 2. consultation is aimed at affected parties. We understand the The Reconfiguration Project Team affected parties in respect of both has considered alternatives to proposals to be: these proposals, including the proposal that mental health · People who use the affected services transfer to a specialist mental health services mental health NHS trust. However, we believe that the · Staff who work in the affected proposals made here are a better mental health services for Hillingdon’s mental health services and their users than any · Other key stakeholders other. We believe, additionally, that continuing the current There is no definitive list of other management arrangements is not key stakeholders, but we expect an option. them to include at least the following groups: Why is this consultation · Carers necessary and who may take part? · Other staff within Hillingdon Social Services, e.g., child and We are required to undertake this family staff, generic older consultation because people’s staff

· In the case of the transfer of · Other staff within the London the Mental Health Division of Borough of Hillingdon, including Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust housing, leisure and education to Hillingdon Primary Care staff Trust (proposal 1), we are proposing a significant change to the management · Other staff within Hillingdon arrangements for the service, Primary Care Trust and for the staff who run the service. We are required to · Other staff within Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust, e.g.,

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 210 Accident and Emergency Reconfiguration Project Team Department staff about the details of the proposals.

· Elected members of the London Throughout the consultation Borough of Hillingdon process, affected parties will be invited to consider four questions · Other statutory organisations and to submit their responses to which work with people with the questions to the mental health problems, Reconfiguration Project Team. including the Metropolitan Police Service and the London Proposal 1 Probation Service · Do you agree with the proposal · Voluntary organisations which to transfer the Mental Health work with people with mental Division of Hillingdon Hospital health problems NHS Trust to Hillingdon Primary Care Trust? Please tell us the · Hillingdon Community Health reasons for your answer. Council · Do you agree with the way in · Staff at Healthy Hillingdon which it is proposed that the new Mental Health Directorate · West London Mental Health in Hillingdon Primary Care Trust NHS Trust will be organised? Please tell us the reasons for your answer. What form will the consultation take? Proposal 2

The consultation period will run · Do you agree that the proposal for a partnership between from 5 June-4 September 2002. At the beginning of this period, a copy Hillingdon Social Services and of the consultation document will Hillingdon Primary Care Trust is the best way to provide be circulated to all staff in the community mental health affected services, and copies will be sent to service user groups and services for Hillingdon people? Please tell us the reasons for representatives of all of the key your answer. stakeholders. · Do you agree that the proposal During the consultation process, for a partnership between presentations will be made on the content of the proposals to staff Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and user groups, and to key and Hillingdon Social Services is the best way for the staff in stakeholder groups. These presentations will be an community mental health opportunity to ask face-to-face services to be managed? Please tell us the reasons for questions to members of the your answer.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 211 You can submit your answers to The Boards and the Cabinet will these questions on the form study what has been said during attached at the end of this the consultation process carefully. document. Or, you can enter them Following this consideration, three directly on the reconfiguration options will be open to them: website at www.hillingdon.nhs.uk You should make certain that your · Option 1 – to adopt the responses are received by the proposals as they are set out in Reconfiguration Project Team by this document 5.00p.m. on 4 September 2002. Early responses are especially · Option 2 – to modify the welcome. Contact details for the proposal to take into account Project Manager are on page 25. some or all of the aspects of the proposal that had not been What happens when the supported consultation closes? · Option 3 – neither to modify nor adopt the proposals. During the consultation process, a record will be kept of every issue If this last option were chosen, the that has been raised during Reconfiguration Project Team consultation events, and of the would need to develop an issues raised through written alternative set of proposals for the feedback using the form at the end future of Hillingdon’s mental health of this document and through the services. reconfiguration website. It is important to be aware that it This feedback will be collated into a would be possible for proposal 1 report, and the report will be (the transfer of the Mental Health submitted to the Boards of Division of Hillingdon Hospital NHS Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and Trust to the Primary Care Trust) to Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust, and be supported and implemented and also to the Cabinet of the London proposal 2 to be not supported and Borough of Hillingdon. This report not implemented. will be publically available.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 212 SECTION 2 – THE TRANSFER OF HILLINGDON HOSPITAL NHS TRUST’S MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION TO HILLINGDON PRIMARY CARE TRUST (PROPOSAL 1)

This section looks at the proposal for Hillingdon Primary Care Trust to · NHS staff in Community Mental Health Teams (Mead House, Mill manage NHS mental health House, Pembroke Centre) services. It describes the benefits which it is anticipated will be · NHS staff in Hillingdon Outreach obtained by the implementation of Support Team and Hillingdon the proposal, and also on the practical arrangements which will Community Drug and Alcohol be made to manage mental health Team (Old Bank House) services in the Primary Care Trust. · NHS staff in the Smoking Cessation Service (Barra Hall) Which services are and the Primary Care included in this proposal? Counselling Service.

This proposal relates to all of the Why is it a good idea that services currently provided by the Hillingdon Primary Care Mental Health Division of Hillingdon Trust should manage NHS Hospital NHS Trust. They are: mental health services? · Inpatient services for adults with mental health problems, ü Hillingdon Primary Care Trust adults with substance misuse is a well-established problems and adults with organisation which is well- learning disabilities and mental placed to manage mental health problems (Riverside health services effectively Centre) Hillingdon Primary Care Trust was one of the first Primary Care Trusts · Inpatient services for older people with mental health established in the country (April problems requiring assessment 2000). It has already had two and treatment, and continuing years’ experience of its work and care (Woodland Centre) that it has had time to become properly established. · Inpatient services for adults with mental health problems Hillingdon Primary Care Trust has requiring rehabilitation services become, over the past two years, (2 Colham Green Road) the provider of many of Hillingdon’s health services. It currently

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 213 provides community and district to Hillingdon Primary Care Trust, nursing services, health visiting and we will have an opportunity to many therapy services, services for improve the quality and range of children including children and care for everyone who experiences adolescents with mental health psychological distress. problems, school nursing services and several other local community The structure of mental health services. In addition, it hosts West services in Hillingdon Primary Care London NHS Direct on behalf of the Trust will emphasise closer links other West London Primary Care between the Community Mental Trusts. Health Teams and primary care services. This will help to ensure In addition to providing many local better communication and liaison health services, Hillingdon Primary between the services. It will also Care Trust is also responsible for further help the services working commissioning virtually all health together in developing ways of services to meet the needs of local meeting the needs of some people people – including mental health whose needs are currently not services. This means that the being consistently met by the organisation is responsible for services, e.g., people who neither spending the allocation of public fit the criteria for care in primary money which it receives from the care nor in the Community Mental government (£211m in 2002/03) to Health Teams. buy the health services Hillingdon people will need. These services ü Hillingdon Primary Care Trust come from local hospitals (such as has shown that it is committed the Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust to mental health services and itself), from specialist NHS hospitals that it will continue to make elsewhere in London, and from them a priority in allocating private and voluntary sector resources organisations which offer specialist services to local people. Hillingdon Primary Care Trust has demonstrated its commitment to ü Hillingdon Primary Care Trust mental health services throughout is ideally placed to help its period of existence. It has improve everyone’s mental given a high profile to health implementing the National Service Frameworks for Mental Health and Hillingdon Primary Care Trust Older People and has worked works closely with General closely with the Hillingdon Hospital Practitioners and other NHS Trust and Hillingdon Social professionals in primary care. Services to support the programme Nationally, about 90% of people of modernising Hillingdon’s mental who have mental health problems health services in line with the NHS are seen in primary care. By Plan. In this financial year, 2002- bringing mental health services in 03, Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 214 has committed in excess of Hillingdon Primary Care Trust £800,000 of new resources to believes in providing proper support mental health services. support to its staff and services, This commitment needs to be seen and also in setting high standards in the light of the very challenging for quality and performance. financial situation the Primary Care Mental health services in the Trust is in overall during this Primary Care Trust will therefore be financial year, and also in light of managed to ensure that they are of the fact that mental health services high quality and that they are are, together with children’s focused on the needs of the people services, the only service areas who use them. funded by Hillingdon Primary Care Trust which have seen growth in Hillingdon Primary Care Trust real terms. places a strong emphasis on improving the working lives of all ü If Hillingdon Primary Care its staff, and believes that this Trust manages NHS mental complements its focus on placing health services, it means that service users and carers at the Hillingdon services are centre of its service planning and managed by Hillingdon people, delivery. for Hillingdon people How will mental health The management of mental health services be organised in services by the Primary Care Trust will mean that Hillingdon’s mental the Primary Care Trust? health services remain exclusively under the control of Hillingdon This question is answered in people, and provided for Hillingdon section 4. people. This will help address the risk that, for instance, resources in Will running mental health Hillingdon’s mental health services services in the Primary might be transferred to services, Care Trust cost more than for example, closer to inner London. Equally, it will help reduce at present? the risk that Hillingdon people who are admitted to the Riverside or No, the management of mental Woodland Centres might be health services by Hillingdon transferred to other NHS hospitals Primary Care Trust does not result in West London. in more money being spent on managing the services. ü Hillingdon Primary Care Trust will emphasise high quality services and will performance manage mental health services effectively

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 215 SECTION 3 - A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN HILLINGDON PRIMARY CARE TRUST AND THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (PROPOSAL 2)

This section describes the benefits of the proposed partnership · Inpatient services for adults between Hillingdon Primary Care with mental health problems, Trust and Hillingdon Social Services adults with substance misuse to provide community mental problems and adults with health services. learning disabilities and mental health problems (Riverside Which community mental Centre) health services are included in the proposal? · Inpatient services for older people with mental health problems requiring assessment The proposal relates to the and treatment, and continuing following services: care (Woodland Centre) · Community Mental Health · Inpatient services for adults Teams for adults (teams based with mental health problems at Mead House, Hayes, Mill requiring rehabilitation services House, Uxbridge, and the (2 Colham Green Road) Pembroke Centre, Ruislip Manor) What does the proposal · Hillingdon Outreach Support mean? Team (based at Old Bank House) The proposal means that a formal partnership will be created between · Hillingdon Crisis Team the London Borough of Hillingdon Social Services Department and It does not include Hillingdon Primary Care Trust. Under the terms of this partnership · Community Mental Health Hillingdon Primary Care Trust will Teams for Older People · manage NHS community mental · Hillingdon Community Drug and health services Alcohol Services

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 216 · take the lead on managing that are being proposed now will Hillingdon Social Services consolidate these existing community mental health arrangements, making them legally services in a partnership robust. arrangement ü Service users will experience a In effect the Primary Care Trust will well co-ordinated and properly take the lead on managing planned service in which community mental health and different professionals from the social care services with the NHS and Hillingdon Social agreement of the Local Authority. Services work together in a single team. Under the terms of the proposal, no employees of Hillingdon Social The basic principle behind singly Services will transfer their managed Community Mental Health employment to the Primary Care Teams is that people with mental Trust and there will be no change health problems obtain a better to any of their terms and conditions service when the organisations of employment. There will, which provide services work however, be a change to their together closely, consistently and management arrangements and systematically. By putting in place more details of these changes can a formal partnership between be found in section 4, particularly Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and in table 3. Hillingdon Social Services, it is expected that service users will What are the benefits of continue to see improved the partnership between communication between different Hillingdon Social Services professionals, more streamlined assessment and review processes, and Hillingdon Primary and will continue to have the Care Trust? benefit of single points of entry into mental health services. ü The partnership will formalise the arrangements that are Additionally, under this proposal, already in place, making them single management will not just more robust. apply to the Community Mental Health Teams, but the entire Hillingdon’s Community Mental management structure of mental Health Teams are currently joint health services will become teams between NHS and Hillingdon integrated. From the service Social Services and have been so director downwards, NHS and since 2000. All staff, regardless of social care services will be which organisation employees managed as a single entity. The them, are managed under a single existing benefits of the integrated management structure. The Community Mental Health Teams formal partnership arrangements will therefore be expanded to the

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 217 whole community mental health NHS and Social Services staff will service and into the locality- retain their existing terms and structured inpatient wards. conditions and this means that some procedures cannot easily be ü Staff and service users will altered. have a common set of policies and procedures which will ü Best use can be made of the avoid inefficiency and resources available to confusion community mental health services because there is less Under the current, less formal, scope for duplication or arrangements, Hillingdon Social inefficiency and planning for Services staff and Hillingdon service improvements and Hospital NHS staff working in service developments can be community mental health services completed more effectively sometimes have to operate according to different sets of Under proposal 2, it is intended policies and procedures according that both Hillingdon Primary Care to which organisation employs Trust and Hillingdon Social Services them. make their financial and human resources available to provide This may have an effect on service community mental health services. users because, for example, there As there will be a single are currently two different management structure not only for approaches to the management of the Community Mental Health caseloads within the Community Teams but for the mental health Mental Health Teams, one from service as a whole, managers can Hillingdon Social Service and one see more readily how to make best from Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust. use of the resources they control. This can mean that there are For service users, this will improve differences between the time that a the efficiency and speed at which professional is able to spend with decisions can be made about joint their clients, and can affect the funding arrangements for care quality of care provided. Under the packages. proposal to create a partnership between Hillingdon Primary Care It will also improve planning Trust and Hillingdon Social Services efficiency, and it will ultimately also differences of this kind will be improve decisions about developing reduced, as joint policies will be new services. Senior managers in produced and implemented. the service will have responsibility for all of the resources committed It is true, however, that, as no to mental health services and Hillingdon Social Services member decide how to use these resources of staff will be transferring their without having to undertake employment, not all policies and unnecessary negotiations between procedures will be harmonised. two organisations.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 218 Hillingdon Primary Care Trust ü Consideration of both health (thereby creating a pooled budget and social care priorities under the terms of the Health Act throughout the management 1999). It does envisage ‘aligning’ structure of the Mental Health the budgets so they can be used Directorate more effectively without the legal complexities of pooled budget Under the present arrangements arrangements. In the future, some for mental health services, it is pooled budgets might be created easy for each organisation to think where they will genuinely improve only, or mainly, about its own the quality or efficiency of services services and not to think more provided to users. broadly across other agencies. Under proposal 2, NHS and Will the partnership affect Hillingdon Social Services priorities the commissioning of will be considered jointly community mental health throughout the whole organisation. This will mean that services?

· The whole mental health service No. It has been decided that the works better together as a joint commissioning of mental single system health services should not be part of the partnership arrangements, · Mental health problems will be as it is an important point of more consistently seen in principle that commissioning and holistic terms, from biological, provision should be kept separate. medical, psychological and The current arrangements for the social perspectives joint commissioning of mental health services through the Joint · The scope for conflict between Commissioning Team at Hillingdon organisations and their priorities Social Services and Hillingdon will be reduced Primary Care Trust will continue.

Each of these points will help Is there a risk that develop a better, more efficient proposal 2 will disconnect and more user-focused service. community mental health services from inpatient Will there be a ‘pooled services? budget’ created under proposal 2? The Reconfiguration Project Team is aware that there is a risk that, if Not at first. Currently, proposal 2 not properly thought through and does not envisage ‘pooling’ the organised, one of the effects of a financial resources held by partnership around community Hillingdon Social Services and mental health services might be to

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 219 draw too sharp a line between inpatient and community mental community and inpatient mental health services are consistent health services. To avoid this, a and complementary and that a number of measures will be put in strong emphasis is placed on place: thinking about the whole system and on communication between · There will be regular meetings the two parts of the service between senior community and inpatient staff, especially · Training and development, between the Locality Services including team building Manager and the Inpatient initiatives will be put in place to Services Manager (see structure bring inpatient and community chart on page 19) service professionals and staff together to improve · The business plan for the communication and common Mental Health Service will understanding. ensure that developments in

SECTION 4 – MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN HILLINGDON PRIMARY CARE TRUST

This section describes how mental · Executive Director of Finance health services will be organised and Support Services and managed in Hillingdon Primary · Executive Director of Operations Care Trust and Nursing · Executive Director of Commissioning and How is Hillingdon Primary Performance Management Care Trust organised at · Executive Director of Public the moment? Health and Health Improvement · Chair of Professional Executive Hillingdon Primary Care Trust is Committee currently going through a reorganisation so the structure we Advising the Board on clinical shall describe is the one which will issues will be the Professional be in place from 1 July 2002. Executive Committee. This can consist of up to 18 members, and it At the top of the organisation is the has been agreed that these places Board. This will consist of should be filled as follows:

· Chair and 6 Non-Executive Directors

· Chief Executive

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 220 · Chief Executive How will mental health · Executive Director of Finance services be organised in and Support Services Hillingdon Primary Care · Executive Director of Public Health and Health Improvement Trust?

· 6 GP members If the two proposals contained in · 2 mental health members this consultation document are · 3 nurse members approved, Hillingdon Primary Care · 1 independent contractor Trust will establish a Mental Health member (dentists, optometrists, Directorate. This directorate will pharmacists) consist of all of the staff and · 2 allied health professional services of Hillingdon Hospital NHS members Trust Mental Health Division plus · Director of Hillingdon Social the Hillingdon Social Services staff Services in community mental health services. Responsible for the day-to-day management of the organisation The chart in table 2 shows how the will be the Management Team, services will be managed. which will consist of the following: Do the management · Chief Executive arrangements ensure that · Executive Director of Finance mental health services will and Support Services have the profile they need · Executive Director of Operations and Nursing in Hillingdon Primary Care · Executive Director of Trust? Commissioning and Performance Management The government has placed a · Executive Director of Public strong emphasis on the profile of Health and Health Improvement mental health services when they · Chair of Professional Executive are managed by Primary Care Committee Trusts. Government wants to · Director of Mental Health ensure that mental health services Services are not neglected or their priorities · Director of Therapies lost within the wide range of other · Director of Health Informatics priorities which Primary Care Trusts · Director of Estates and Facilities need to have. · Director of Human Resources and Corporate Affairs Amongst the arrangements which · Director of Local Acute will be put in place to ensure that Commissioning and mental health services will have the Modernisation profile and priority they require in · Director of Locality Services Hillingdon Primary Care Trust will be the following:

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 221 understanding of mental health · For the first twelve months after services within Hillingdon the establishment of the Mental Primary Care Trust and to Health Directorate, the Board support team building across will consider mental health mental health services in their services as a standing item at new management home. each Board meeting. How will the Mental · The Director of Mental Health Health Directorate relate Services will attend every Board to other parts of meeting and be able to contribute to all items on the Hillingdon Primary Care Board agenda Trust?

· The Director of Mental Health The Mental Health Directorate in Services will be line managed by Hillingdon Primary Care Trust will the Chief Executive be free-standing, but it will be part of the group of operational services · Mental health services will have two members on the (continued on page 20) Professional Executive Committee. It is anticipated that one of these members will be a consultant psychiatrist and one will be a nurse. However, it is up to mental health services themselves to determine their final representation.

· In recruiting to the post of Executive Director of Public Health and Health Improvement Hillingdon Primary Care Trust will aim, as far as possible, to appoint a clinician with experience of, or interest in, mental health services.

· A non-executive director has been designated as the non- executive lead for mental health on the Board.

· An organisational development programme will be implemented both to build up the

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 222 Table 2, proposed structure for Mental Health Directorate in Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

Posts in bold are new Director of Hillingdon Chief Executive Social Services

Director of Combined Mental Health Services

Associate Medical Assistant Director of Director, Mental Health Mental Health Services (Social Care) Clinical Director Clinical Director Clinical Director Adults Older People Specialist Services Care Programme Mental Health Act Policy and Practice Approach Administrator Development Development Manager Manager

Inpatient Services Locality Services Specialist Services Manager Older Adults Service Nurse Manager Manager Psychological therapies Manager Consultant Adult inpatient Adult Community Assertive outreach Community Mental Practice wards Mental Health Drug and alcohol Health Teams Development Home Treatment Teams services Woodland Centre Team Occupational therapy Rehabilitation services

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 223 which are the responsibility of the and delivery of community mental Executive Director of Operational health services. This will mean Services and Nursing. The other services within this group will · Improved joint working include: between local primary and community care services, and · Therapies (not including mental health services psychological therapies) · Locality services (community · Improved experience by people nursing, district nursing, health using the service of a well- visiting, school nursing, family organised, and co-ordinated health services) service to meet their needs · West London NHS Direct · Children’s services (child and · Increased responsiveness by adolescent mental health the Community Mental Health services, child development Teams to the particular needs services) of each locality

It will be very important that the How will appointments be Mental Health Directorate forms a made to the new Mental strong relationship with all of these Health Directorate? services, especially the Locality Services. There are very few staff who are One of the key principles directly affected by the structure of underpinning Hillingdon Primary the new Mental Health Directorate. Care Trust since its establishment The staff who are directly affected has been that services should, as are senior managers of the existing far as possible, be planned and Mental Health Division at Hillingdon provided in a way which reflects Hospital NHS Trust and Hillingdon the needs of each of three localities Social Services. within Hillingdon: Hayes and Harlington, Uxbridge and West The following NHS posts have been Drayton and North Hillingdon. The identified as at risk: new structure of Hillingdon Primary Care Trust preserves this · Director of Mental Health commitment and the Mental Health Services Directorate will also reflect the · Adult Services Manager importance of the Locality structure · Clinical Nurse Manager to the delivery of services. · Specialist Services Manager · Social Care Policy and Practice In particular, the Mental Health Development Manager Directorate and the Locality Services Directorate will work very The following Hillingdon Social closely together on the planning Services have been identified as at risk:

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 224 Hillingdon Primary Care Trust · Service Manager (Mental recognises that it needs specialist Health) support in order to manage mental health services effectively. There The following new posts will be are two ways that the Primary Care created in the new structure: Trust is addressing this need.

· Director of Combined Mental First, links and connections are Health Services being made with West London · Assistant Director (Social Care) Mental Health NHS Trust, as our · Clinical Director of Specialist local specialist mental health NHS Services Trust, to form a ‘clinical network’. · Specialist Services Manager In the first year, the aims of this · Policy and Practice clinical network will be relatively Development Manager modest. It will focus on providing · Inpatient Services Manager support to the senior medical staff · Locality Services Manager of the mental health service and the Board of the Primary Care It has been agreed that Trust, especially in the event of a recruitment to these new posts will serious untoward incident (for be restricted in the first instance to example, the suicide of a person those managers whose jobs are at who was under the care of risk under the new structure. Only Hillingdon’s mental health where there was no suitable role services). Events such as serious for a manager to move on to, or untoward incidents are testing where a manager was not times for everyone involved, successful in being recruited to a especially family and friends but new post would there be a also for the organisations involved, question of redundancy. and it is important that they get clear, expert advice and support at External advertisements and this time. recruitment would take place if one or more of the new posts was not In following years, however, the filled by existing managers whose aspiration is that the clinical posts had been identified as at risk. network will broaden out to include opportunities for Hillingdon staff to There is no risk of redundancy to take part in: any staff below senior management level. · Research and development work Will there be any specialist support to the Primary · Clinical governance programmes Care Trust in managing mental health services? · Rotation arrangements (where professionals work in a series of

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 225 services one after the other in The partnership between Hillingdon order to gain experience of Primary Care Trust and Hillingdon different service types), Social Services will be a legally- binding arrangement, which will be · Other initiatives to support the agreed between the chief officers recruitment and retention of of the two organisations. The staff and the development of terms of the partnership will be quality services. detailed in a Partnership Second, Hillingdon Primary Care Agreement. Attached to the Trust has already started a Partnership Agreement will be a programme of training and series of documents (‘schedules’) development for members of the setting out what each partner will Board on mental health issues. commit to the partnership in terms The aim of this training – which of finance, staff, and estates. has so far covered an introduction Another schedule will describe the to mental health services, the services that will be provided under Mental Health Act 1983, and the the partnership, and another will management of serious untoward detail the arrangements to monitor incidents – is to ensure that the the performance of the services. Board of the Primary Care Trust is not only fully aware of its It has been agreed between the responsibilities to mental health partners that a Joint Committee (a services, but also has the essential Partnership Board) will be knowledge and skills to provide the established between Hillingdon Board-level leadership to mental Primary Care Trust and Hillingdon health services when they come Social Services which will be into the Primary Care Trust. responsible for monitoring the partnership arrangement and In addition, the Reconfiguration ensuring that it is achieving what it Project Team have identified the was intended to achieve. A further importance of offering training and document, therefore, attached to development to others within the the Partnership Agreement, is the Primary Care Trust as part of a Constitution of the Joint wider ‘organisational development’ Committee. programme so that the whole organisation is properly prepared The Joint Committee will consist of for the arrival of mental health senior representatives of Hillingdon services. Primary Care Trust and the London Borough of Hillingdon (including How will the partnership elected members) and it will meet between Hillingdon probably about six times per year Primary Care Trust and to review the progress of the partnership arrangements. A Hillingdon Social Services diagram explaining the Partnership be organised? Arrangements is included at table 3.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 226 It is intended that the draft Partnership Agreement does form part of this consultation process and copies may be obtained from the Project Manager and from the reconfiguration website. The Partnership Agreement continues to be under discussion between the two prospective partners and changes may continue to be made to it during the consultation process.

The other documents referred to in this section (Schedules and the Constitution of the Joint Committee) have not been included as part of this consultation document both because they are quite technical and detailed but also because they have not yet been finalised. However, detailed summaries are available on request from the Project Manager.

Will the partnership arrangements be permanent?

No. The partnership agreement will be time-limited (probably to three years in the first instance). At the end of that period it can either be renewed, or ended. During its lifetime, it can be terminated if there are serious breaches of the terms of the agreement, or if either partner wishes to end the agreement, perhaps because of serious financial pressures.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 227 Table 3, diagrammatic explanation of partnership arrangements between Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and Hillingdon Social Services HILLINGDON PRIMARY

CARE TRUST Community mental health services are managed by LONDON BOROUGH Inpatient services (adults and older people) Hillingdon Primary Care Community Drug and Alcohol Services Trust on behalf of the OF HILLINGDON Rehabilitation services partners HILLINGDON Community Mental Health Teams (Older People) SOCIAL SERVICES

Membership of Joint Integrated Community Committee Mental Health Services

Adult Community Mental Membership Joint Committee Health Teams of Joint Hillingdon Outreach Support Committee Constitution Team Crisis Team Partnership Agreement Finance schedule Monitors Staff schedule community mental Estates schedule health services Service specification Performance monitoring

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 228 SECTION 5 – WHERE TO FIND FURTHER INFORMATION

Government policy on mental health services

· National Service Framework for Mental Health, Department of Health, 1999 http://www.doh.gov.uk/nsf/mentalhealth.htm

· NHS Plan – A Plan for Investment, A Plan for Reform (Department of Health, 2000) http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhs.htm

Websites of affected organisations

Hillingdon Primary Care Trust: www.hillingdon.nhs.uk

London Borough of Hillingdon: www.hillingdon.gov.uk

Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust Under construction

Local Mental Health Strategy

Local Implementation Plan for National Service Framework for Mental Health (October 2001): www.hillingdon.nhs.uk

Reconfiguration Project Team

· Graeme Betts, Chief Executive, Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

· Catherine Knights, Director of Mental Health Services, Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

· Jayne Martin, Interim Director of Social Services, London Borough of Hillingdon

· Chris O'Gorman, Reconfiguration Project Manager

· Dr Julia Palmer, Consultant Psychiatrist and Association Medical Director, Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 229 Project Manager contact details

Chris O'Gorman Reconfiguration Project Manager Hillingdon Primary Care Trust Kirk House 97-109 High Street Yiewsley West Drayton UB7 7HJ

Tel: 01895 452007 Fax: 01895 452109 E-mail: Chris.O’[email protected]

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 230 SECTION 6 - GLOSSARY

Care Trust. An NHS organisation more) organisations which specifies which provides NHS health services how the two organisations will and social care services. work together to provide a range of services or undertake a set of Clinical governance. The processes tasks. by which NHS organisations ensure that their clinical care is of a high Performance management. The standard and that it is continually processes by which health and improving. social care services are monitored and reviewed to ensure that they Commissioning. The processes are properly managed and are involved in planning, resourcing achieving their objectives within and monitoring health and social the resources allocated to them. care services. Joint commissioning occurs when two or more Primary Care Trust. An NHS organisations pool their organisation responsible for commissioning responsibilities, and commissioning most health services a single team or individual for a local area. Primary Care commissions services on behalf of Trusts may also provide community both organisations. health services and mental health services. Primary Care Trusts aim Non-executive director. A member closely to involve primary care of the Board of an NHS professionals in decision-making organisation who lives or works in about local health services. the local area served by the organisation. Non-executive directors are appointed to use their knowledge and experience to help NHS organisations to use their resources well and to fulfil their obligations as statutory organisations.

Organisational development. The processes involved in helping organisations to function as effectively as possible. Organisational development includes training, professional development, and team-building.

Partnership Agreement. A legal document agreed between two (or

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 231 Consultation on reconfiguration of Hillingdon’s mental health services

Having read the proposals set out in this document, please consider the following four questions and send your answers to the Project Manager by 5 September 2002 (contact details on page 25)

1. Do you agree with the proposal to transfer the Mental Health Division of Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust to Hillingdon Primary Care Trust? Please tell us the reasons for your answer.

2. Do you agree with the way in which it is proposed that the new Mental Health Directorate in Hillingdon Primary Care Trust will be organised? Please tell us the reasons for your answer.

3. Do you agree that the proposal for a partnership between Hillingdon Social Services and Hillingdon Primary Care Trust is the best way to provide community mental health services for Hillingdon people? Please tell us the reasons for your answer.

4. Do you agree that the proposal for a partnership between Hillingdon Primary Care Trust and Hillingdon Social Services is the best way for the staff in community mental health services to be managed? Please tell us the reasons for your answer

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 232 THIS AGREEMENT is made on the day of 2002

BETWEEN:

(1) LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON (“the Council”) of The Civic Centre

Uxbridge [ ]

(2) HILLINGDON PRIMARY CARE TRUST (“the PCT”) of Kirk House West

Drayton [ ]

WHEREAS:

(A) The Council and the PCT wish to enter into a partnership arrangement

pursuant to Section 31 of the Health Act 1999 and the provisions of the NHS

Bodies and Partnership Arrangements Regulations 2000, SI2000/617

(B) The arrangement is for the integrated provision of some social and health

care mental health services in the London Borough of Hillingdon

them to be affected by the proposed arrangements and believe that the

proposed arrangements will fulfil the objectives in the Health Improvement

Plan of [Northwest London] Health Authority

NOW IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS

1.1 In this Agreement the following terms and expressions shall have the

following meanings:

“the Services” means the services defined in Clause (5) of this Agreement as

varied in accordance with that Clause

“Authorised Representative” shall mean the person appointed by the Council

or the PCT respectively to manage all aspects of the Agreement and who is

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 233 authorised by the relevant partner to make day to day decisions in respect of

the operational performance of the Agreement

1.2 There shall be deemed to be incorporated herein the Schedules and

Annexures to this Agreement but in the event of conflict between the terms of

the Agreement and a Schedule or Annex this Agreement shall take

precedence over a Schedule or Annex to the Agreement save in respect of a

variation to this Agreement recorded in a Schedule when that variation shall

take precedence over the terms of the Agreement itself

2. AIMS AND OUTCOMES

2.1 The aims of this Agreement are:

(a) A unified health and social care mental health directorate managed in

the context of the PCT;

(b) A well integrated service and good communication between its

constituent elements so that service users can move between different

parts of the service easily;

[health]care to that part of the population with mental health problems

who are provided with care and support by primary care service

providers (and not secondary care providers); and

(d) An efficient, affordable service focused on the needs of its service

users.

2.2 The expected outcomes for the people of Hillingdon are:

(a) The provision of safe, sound and supportive modern integrated mental

health services;

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 234 (b) Mental health services which encourage and empower users, carers

and other stakeholders;

and the NHS plan;

(d) The delivery of services within the statutory and legal framework;

(e) The provision of services in line with best practice and guidance issued

by the DOH, SSI(P), CHI and the Mental Health Act Commission;

(f) That mental health services are commissioned and provided in line

with the assessed need of the people of Hillingdon and as far as

possible in accordance with the evidence base;

(g) Ensuring that the contracting arrangement for mental health services

fulfil the relevant requirements of the partner agencies;

(h) Ensuring that arrangements meet the standards of the Council and the

PCT in respect of standing financial instructions;

(i) That financial resources are subject to the necessary audit and

monitoring arrangements; and

(j) Ensuing that a skilled experienced and appropriately trained workforce

provides mental health services.

3. FUNCTIONS

3.1 The health related functions of the Council which are the subject of these

arrangements are those set out in Schedule (1) to this Agreement

3.2 The NHS functions which are the subject of these arrangements are those set

out in Schedule (2) to this Agreement

3.3 The functions of either party which are the subject of these arrangements may

be varied as provided in Schedule (3)

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 235 3.4 The parties agree that, notwithstanding any other provisions or agreement,

the functions which are the subject of these arrangements will only be those

permitted to be made the subject of this Agreement by the provisions of the

NHS Bodies and Local Authorities Partnership Arrangements Regulations

2000 (or any statutory re-enactment or enlargement of those provisions)

4. SERVICE USERS

The persons to whom the services will be provided are adult and older adults

as recognised by the services provided by [Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust] on

1st April 2002 and adults as recognised by the Council on 1st April 2002 and

such other persons as the parties may agree pursuant to Schedule ( )

5. THE SERVICES

The services will be:

(a) The contribution made by the PCT and the Council Social Services

staff to each adult community mental health team;

(b) [The contribution made by the PCT to each older adult community

health team];

(d) Those members of the Assertive Outreach Team provided by the

Council’s Social Services;

(e) Day care services for people with mild dementia;

(f) Such other services as the parties may agree pursuant to Schedule (3)

6. STAFF, GOODS, SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATION

6.1 The staff, goods, services and accommodation to be provided by the Council

shall be those specified in Schedule (4)

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 236 6.2 The staff, goods, services and accommodation to be provided by the PCT

shall be those specified in Schedule (5)

6.3 The contents of Schedule (4) (and Schedule (5)) may only be varied in

accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3.

7. PCT OBLIGATIONS

The PCT will use or procure the use of the money, staff, goods, other services

and accommodation made available or provided pursuant to this Agreement

by the Council in the provision of the Services

8. COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION

This Agreement shall be deemed to have commenced on the [date] and shall

continue in force until the [date three years’ hence] unless terminated sooner

by not less than 6 months’ written notice (expiring on 31st March in any year)

by either party (or otherwise terminated or the term varied in accordance with

this Agreement)

9. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES AND CONTACTS

Each party shall notify the other in writing of the identity of their Authorised

Representative

10. MONEY RESOURCES

10.1 The Council will make available to the PCT for the purposes of the partnership

£[ ] in the first financial year and will satisfy that obligation by meeting the

agreed costs of providing all staff, foods, services and accommodation set out

in Schedule 4 and paying the balance by equal monthly instalments paid on or

before the 15th day of each calendar month to the PCT

10.2 The PCT will make available £[ ] in the first financial year for the

commissioning or provision of the services

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 237 10.3 For the financial year commencing 1st April 2003 and for each subsequent

financial year the amount of money to be made available for the services by

the parties shall be agreed and managed in accordance with Schedule (6)

10.4 The partners may only reduce their financial contribution [within a financial

year] by following the procedures set out in Schedule (6)

11. CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES

11.1 The partners anticipate that over the lifetime of this Agreement it may be

possible to simplify and improve the operation of this Agreement as the

experience of the partners grows and the partners will co-operate to achieve

that

11.2 The Council and the PCT agree to secure best value in the provision of the

Services within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Local Government Act

1999 where appropriate

12. BEST VALUE REVIEW

12.1 Notwithstanding any specific obligations in this clause both partners shall

continuously monitor and review the operation of the Agreement and the

provision of the Services throughout the term of this Agreement

12.2 The Services may at the discretion of the Council be subject to a best value

review in accordance with the Local Government Act 1999

12.3 A best value review may be conducted no sooner than 1st April 2003 and

thereafter at intervals of not less than 18 months

12.4 If the partners are unable to reach agreement on any change sought in

consequence of a best value review the dispute may be subject to the Dispute

Resolution procedure in Clause 20.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 238 13. MONITORING AND REPORTING

[13.1 The PCT shall provide promptly to the Council in confidence appropriate

information which in the reasonable opinion of the Council will facilitate the

monitoring of the Agreement

13.2 The PCT shall assist the Council in complying with the Council’s statutory

powers and obligations in respect of the Services by providing such statistics

and other information as the Council may reasonably require from time to time

13.3 The PCT will fully co-operate with and assist in any statutory inspection or

review of the Services to which the Council may be subject]

13.4 The PCT will provide quarterly and annual reports on the exercise of the functions and the provision of the Services which are the subject of this Agreement unless and until a joint committee is established which takes responsibility for monitoring the arrangements and Services and receiving reports and information on the operation of these arrangements. The content of the quarterly and annual reports will be agreed (by the PCT Chief Executive and the Director of Social Services of the Council) and in default of agreement be in such form as satisfies the (London Regional Office and the Social Services Inspectorate) 13.5 [Within one year the parties will establish a joint committee including (X)

representatives nominated by the ( ) of the Council and (X)

representatives nominated by the (Board of the PCT). The joint committee

will be chaired on an annual rotation between the Council and the PCT and

the chair for the first year will be found from ( ). The

Chairman will have a casting or additional vote in the event of a tie.]

13.6 Further provisions relating to the function role and remit of the joint committee

appear in Schedule (7)

14. NON-DISCRIMINATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 239 14.1 The PCT and the Council shall not unlawfully discriminate within the meaning

of the Race Relations Act 1976, the Sex Discrimination Acts 1975 and 1986,

the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Race Relations (Amendment) Act

2000 and any other applicable anti-discrimination statutes or any statutory

modification or re-enactment thereof relating to discrimination

14.2 The parties shall take all reasonable steps to ensure the observance of the

provisions of this clause

14.3 The parties shall comply with the Human Rights Act 1998

15. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

15.1 The parties shall supply to each other upon request copies of policies and

procedures in relation to the provision of the Services

15.2 The parties agree that the documents and working papers relating to the

exercise of the functions and the provision of the Services which are the

subject of these arrangements are the property of the Council and the PCT

and officers of either party may have free access to those documents and

papers and make any copies which they wish

16. FORCE MAJEURE

16.1 For the purposes of this Agreement the expression “Force Majeure” shall

mean fire, flood or any disaster or industrial dispute affecting a third party for

which a substitute third party is not reasonably available which affects the

performance by a party of its obligations and which is beyond the relevant

party’s reasonable control

16.2 If either of the parties become aware of circumstances of Force Majeure

which give rise to any such failure or delay on its part it shall forthwith notify

the other by the most expeditious method then available and shall inform the

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 240 other of the period which it is estimated that such failure or delay shall

continue and shall subject to the service of such notice have no liability in

respect of the performance of such of its obligations as are prevented by the

Force Majeure events during the continuation of such events and for such

time after they cease as is necessary for that party using all best endeavours

to recommence its affected operations in order for it to perform its obligations

16.3 It is expressly agreed that any failure by a party to perform or any delay by a

party in performing its obligations under this Agreement which results from

any failure or a delay in the performance of its obligations by any Agents shall

be regarded as a failure or delay due to Force Majeure only in the event that

the Agent shall itself be prevented from or delayed in complying with its

obligations in such contract supply arrangement or sub-contract or otherwise

as a result of circumstances or Force Majeure provided always that an

industrial dispute affecting such Agent for which a substitute Agent is not

reasonably available will be considered to be an event of Force Majeure in

relation to the Agent concerned

16.4 For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby expressly agreed that the only events

which shall afford either party relief from liability for failure or delay shall be

any event qualifying as Force Majeure hereunder

17. VARIATION

The process by which either party may propose a variation to the terms of this

Agreement and any variation is made shall be that set out in Schedule (3)

18. EFFECTS OF TERMINATION

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 241 18.1 On termination or expiry of this Agreement and for a period of 6 months

thereafter each party shall at its own expense co-operate by providing such

information to the other as may reasonably be required to assist in the

continued provision of the Services

18.2 On termination or expiry of this Agreement each party shall indemnify and

keep indemnified the other against any claim liability expense or demand by

any member of staff or former member of staff made available by that party

for the provision of the Services as a result of anything done or omitted to be

done in relation to that member or former member of staff whilst providing the

Services including but not limited to:

18.2.1 Any statutory redundancy payment (or contractual redundancy

payment)

18.2.2 Anything done or omitted to be done by either party in respect of any

contract of employment or any collective agreement of a member or

former member of staff

18.2.3 The failure of either party to pay any of the staff or former staff any

sums alleged to be due in respect of the period prior to the date of

termination or expiry

18.2.4 Any claim by any trade union staff association or staff body recognised

by the PCT or the Council in respect of all or any of the staff or former

staff arising out of either party’s failure to comply with its legal

obligations in relation to information and consultation to or which any

such trade unions staff associations or bodies

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 242 18.2.5 Any claim liability cost and demand arising out of any breach of

contract wrongful dismissal unfair dismissal discrimination claim for

equal pay or otherwise by a member or former member of staff

18.3 The PCT hereby undertakes not to employ dismiss or vary the terms and

conditions of employment of any member of staff engaged in the provision of

the Services who is an employee of the Council without the consent of the

Council.

19. SURVIVALS

19.1 Termination or expiry of this Agreement shall not affect the accrued rights and

obligations or either party all of which shall survive such termination or expiry

19.2 The provisions of Clauses (20) and 21 shall continue to apply notwithstanding

the termination or expiry of this Agreement

19.3 In the event of Partial Termination this Agreement shall survive each

termination in respect of that part of the Services to be provided a the date of

termination

20. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

20.1 In the event of any dispute arising between the parties in connection with this

Agreement which cannot be resolved pursuant to day to day consultation

between the parties, senior representatives of the parties shall within 14 days

of a written request from either party to the other communicated in

accordance with Clause ( ) meet in good faith to attempt to resolve the

dispute without recourse to legal proceedings

20.2 If the dispute is not resolved as a result of such meeting either party may at

such meeting or within 21 days of its conclusion propose to the other in writing

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 243 that structured negotiations be entered into with the assistance of a neutral

adviser or mediator (the “Neutral Adviser”)

20.3 If the parties are unable to agree on a Neutral Adviser or if the Neutral Adviser

agreed upon is unwilling to act either party shall within 21 days from the date

of the proposal to appoint a Neutral Adviser or within 21 days of notice to

either party that he is unable or unwilling to act apply to the Centre for Dispute

Resolution (“CEDR”) to appoint a Neutral Adviser

20.4 The parties shall within 14 days of the appointment of the Neutral Adviser

meet with him in order to agree a programme for the exchange of any relevant

information and the structure to be adopted for the negotiations if considered

appropriate the parties may at any stage seek assistance from CEDR to

provide guidance on a suitable process

20.5 The Neutral Adviser shall produce recommendations based upon a view of

information provided by the parties

20.6 If the parties accept the Neutral Adviser’s recommendations or otherwise

reach agreement on the resolution of the dispute such agreement shall be

reduced to writing and once it is signed by their Authorised Representative

shall be binding on the parties. The parties shall bear their own costs in

connection with this clause but shall share equally the costs of the Neutral

Adviser

20.7 Unless concluded by the written binding agreement referred to in this clause

all negotiations connected with the dispute shall be conducted in confidence

and without prejudice to the rights of the parties in any future proceedings

20.8 Failing agreement on the basis referred to in this clause either of the parties

may invite the Neutral Adviser to provide a non-binding opinion in writing.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 244 Such opinion shall be provided on a without prejudice basis and shall not be

used in evidence in any proceedings commenced pursuant to the terms of this

Agreement without the prior written consent of both parties.

20.9 If the parties fail to reach agreement in the structured negotiations within 21

days of the Neutral Adviser giving such an opinion then any dispute between

them may be referred to the Courts unless within such period or further period

of 7 days the parties agree to refer the matter to arbitration before an

arbitrator whose method of appointment is agreed between them

21. INDEMNITIES

21.1 Each party shall be liable for and shall fully and properly indemnify the other

against all liabilities damages costs (including without limitation legal costs on

an indemnity basis) losses expenses claims demands and proceedings

incurred by the other party howsoever arising whether in contract or under

statute or otherwise directly or indirectly out of the wrongful act default breach

of contract or negligence of that party or that of its sub-contractors staff

employees or agents in the course of or in connection with the provision of the

Services

21.2 A party’s liability pursuant to this clause shall be without prejudice to any other

right or remedy available to the other party

22. INSURANCES

Each party shall be responsible for effecting such insurance in respect of its

liabilities as it wishes and the cost of such insurance in respect of the Services

shall be borne by the funds made available to this partnership

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 245 [23. ASSIGNMENT AND SUB-CONTRACTING

23.1 The PCT may only assign its rights under this Agreement with the written

agreement of the Council which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed

and only to another (health body) any such assignment will in all cases be in

terms that the assignee will covenant with the Council to perform all the

obligations of the PCT under this Agreement

23.2 The PCT may only sub-contract the provision of the whole or any part of the

Services to a sub-contractor of whom notice has first been given to the

Council

23.3 The Council may at any time service notice on the PCT requiring it to cease using a particular sub-contractor but the Council will only do so where it has reasonable grounds to object to the use of such sub-contractor] 24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the two parties

relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and save as may be expressly

referred to or referenced herein supersedes all prior representations writings

negotiations or understandings with respect thereto

25. SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

25.1 Both parties shall take all measures necessary to comply with the provisions

of any enactment (and in particular the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the 1998

Act”)) relating to security which may be applicable to either party in the

performance of the Services without prejudice to the generality of the

foregoing the parties will ensure that client data is only transferred from one

party to the other in compliance with the protection afforded by the 1998 Act

or any statutory re-enactment thereof

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 246 25.2 Each party shall treat as confidential all information obtained from the other

party under or in connection with the Agreement and shall not disclose any of

that information without the prior written consent of the party except as may

be necessary for the proper performance of the Agreement or in compliance

with a legal requirement

26. NO PARTNERSHIP

26.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall create or shall be deemed to create a

partnership within the meaning of the Partnership Act 1890 or the relationship

of employer and employee between the parties

26.2 The staff are not and shall not hold themselves out as being nor shall they be

held out by the PCT as being servants or agents of the Council for any

purpose other than those expressly conferred by this Agreement

27. VALUE ADDED TAX

28. COMMUNICATIONS

Any notices required to be served under this Agreement shall be sufficiently

served if sent in writing to the other party addressed, in respect of the Council,

to the Borough Solicitor, Civic Centre, Uxbridge ( ) or

in respect of the PCT, to the Director of Mental Health, Kirk House, (

) and shall be deemed to be sufficiently served 2 working

days after the time of posting

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 247 28. REMEDIES CUMULATIVE

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement all remedies

available to the Council or the PCT from breach of this Agreement are

cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or separately and the exercise

of any one remedy shall not be deemed an election of such remedy to the

exclusion of other remedies

29. CONTRACTS (RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES) ACT 1999

A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall have no right under the

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to enforce any of its terms

30. LAW AND JURISDICTION

This Agreement shall be considered as a contract made in England and

subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts to which both parties

hereby submit

AS WITNESS the hands for and on behalf of the parties the day and year first before

written

SIGNED by ……………………………………… For and on behalf of the Council

SIGNED by ……………………………………… For and on behalf of the PCT

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 248 SOCIAL SERVICES SPRING POSITION ITEM 14 STATEMENT

Contact Officer: Jayne Martin Telephone: 01895 250393

SUMMARY

This report informs Cabinet of the Spring Position Statement produced by Hillingdon Social Services as required under the Personal Social Services Performance Assessment Framework.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Cabinet note the contents of the Spring Position Statement.

2. That the Portfolio lead for Health and Social Care uses this document to assist his monitoring of performance.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations will support the process of performance improvement within the department.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

Cabinet have no options in regard to the production of the Spring Position Statement as it is a statutory requirement.

INFORMATION

1. The Performance Assessment Framework set out in the White Paper, Modernising Social Services, has three elements within it; the production of performance data; evaluation of a range of data, and a process of ongoing monitoring. These three elements are combined to produce the Annual Review of performance of all social service departments. The Annual Review for Hillingdon Social Services was reported to Cabinet at the meeting of the 28th May 2002.

2. The attached Spring Position Statement is part of the in-year monitoring of progress towards the achievement of national objectives and targets. It is a requirement of the Department of Health that the Spring Position Statement is reported to Cabinet. The Spring Position Statement is designed to follow on from the Annual Review and is timed to allow social service departments the opportunity to confirm their budgets and targets for the year before the statement is requested.

3. The document is structured according to client groups and includes national objectives, the relevant performance indicators and other information about grants and national policy. There is also a separate section that focuses upon performance

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 249 management, quality and resources. The targets included in each of the sections relate to PAF and Quality Protects but also give scope for additional local targets to be included.

4. The document is produced using a spreadsheet that is designed to limit the amount of information that can be provided within each section to 50 or 100 words in most cases. The spreadsheet also locks out certain boxes that will need to be filled as part of the Autumn in-year monitoring exercise.

5. In the Cabinet Report of May 28th 2002, Social Services Annual Performance Appraisal, Cabinet attention was drawn to the urgent need to improve capacity planning to reduce delays of transfer of care from the hospital. In the attached document lines 2120 to 2129 and 2159 to 2163 deal specifically with this area and set out the action the department will be taking to improve performance. Lines 2101 to 2117 give an overview of older people services and include specific reference to promoting independence and partnership with NHS bodies.

6. The document is structured to begin with Children and Family services on line 1101, older people on line 2101; people with learning disabilities on line 2201; physical and sensory disabilities on line 2301; mental health services on line 2401. Line 3101 onwards covers human resources, racial equality, performance, information technology and quality.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

7. There are no resource implications within this report.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

8. There are no legal implications within this report.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

9. None required.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Cabinet report – 28th May 2002, Social Services Annual Appraisal

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 250 APPENDIX 1 - EXCEL

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

SOCIAL SERVICES INSPECTORATE

SOCIAL CARE REGIONS

84 PAGES

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 251 UXBRIDGE/COWLEY ECONOMIC SUPPORT ITEM 15 STRATEGY – PROGRESS REPORT

Contact Officers: Nikki Wyatt/Jales Tippell Telephone: 01895 277198

SUMMARY

This report updates members on the progress of the Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy and outlines priorities for project implementation.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Cabinet notes and endorses the arrangements proposed for partnership working and the key priorities identified in this report.

2. That the Cabinet agrees that officers seek funding from the Council’s Capital Programme in order to progress the implementation of the Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy and to meet the Council’s regeneration objectives for the area.

3. That the Cabinet requests officers to submit future progress reports of the Economic Support Strategy for consideration.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations seek to ensure member level support for the arrangements for partnership working and the key priorities for implementing the Economic Support Strategy adopted in 2000.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

The Council has agreed the regeneration priorities outlined in the Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy and is committed to its implementation through the allocation of S106 funding. Although there is an option of implementing alternative projects, the key projects and priorities have been prepared in accordance with Council priorities and consultation with local businesses.

COMMENTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee have not considered this report.

INFORMATION

Background

1. Uxbridge/Cowley contains three Industrial and Business areas (IBA’s) as designated in the UDP (Uxbridge, North Uxbridge and Packet Boat Lane), within which the preferred uses are industry and warehousing. These areas have seen a

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 335 number of major planning applications in recent years and are currently undergoing structural change. The Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy aims to encourage economic and urban regeneration in the Uxbridge/Cowley Corridor particularly within its designated IBA’s.

2. The Economic Regeneration/SRB Sub-Committee first endorsed the Support Strategy in 1998, with five themes:-

· Defining and marketing of Uxbridge; · Improving and expanding industrial areas; · Assembling and freeing sites for development; · Maximising the economic benefits of investment; · Promoting local labour participation.

3. Following extensive survey work and consultation with local businesses, the Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy was adopted by the Environment Committee in August 2000 and a Planning Brief for the Uxbridge Industrial and Business Area (IBA) was adopted by the Uxbridge Planning Sub-Committee in April 2001. These documents contain a series of actions and improvement programmes that need to be worked up in more detail and implemented.

4. In June 2000 a progress report to Environment Committee prioritised the following projects for implementation:

· Drafting an environmental improvements programme; · Determining a canal-side improvement programme; · Reviewing Property Services work within the Council’s ownership on the Uxbridge IBA (Asset Review and management initiatives/road conditions and parking survey/small units strategy) to help manage change; · Consideration of a Small Industrial Units Strategy (researching the issue, seeking additional S106 contributions to small unit development where appropriate and producing an implementation plan); and · A consultation exercise with local residents.

Progress since January 2002

5. Following the departure of the initial project officer in May 2001, the post of Uxbridge/Cowley Project Officer remained vacant for almost a year. A new part time officer was appointed in January this year to continue the work of the regeneration project by progressing the Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy and implementing the action plan therein. The main priorities have so far been to:

· Review and prioritise the projects and actions outlined in the Economic Support Strategy in order to take account of events since the document was adopted. These include for example recent and potential planning applications within the IBA’s and the uncertainty surrounding the future management of Uxbridge Industrial Estate. (See para 10).

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 336 · Rebuild partnership links with relevant agencies such as British Waterways, Groundwork and the Local Police in order to initiate projects.

· Re-establish the Uxbridge/Cowley Officers Group. The Group meets monthly and is made up of representatives from Environmental Services, Chief Executives Office and Property Services.

· Review and update the Uxbridge/Cowley S106 budget to take account of subsequent contributions during the time that the post was vacant.

· Initiate links with local Uxbridge/Cowley businesses through the establishment of a Business Forum to consider the issues and actions outlined in the Strategy, to share ideas and forge links with the Council and each other.

Budget

6. The Uxbridge/Cowley project was established using money from a S106 legal agreement for the Denbridge Industrial Estate. This funded the Project Officer’s post for two years and contributed towards survey work and the regeneration programme. Funding was then to be augmented by further S106 contributions, wherever appropriate, and supplemented by external funding and/or public/private partnership. This approach was endorsed by Environment Committee in June 2000.

7. In the two years since the Strategy was adopted the project has attracted more S106 funding as sites have come forward for development. However, the nature of S106 agreements means that the majority of funds are allocated to specific projects outlined in the Strategy, for example to provide small industrial units, for environmental improvements or improved public transport links. This limits the amount of funding available to implement any one project and other sources of funding therefore need to be identified if the Action Plan is to be delivered.

8. The Officer Group is currently investigating alternative sources of funding from the private sector and from government grants in order to progress projects. Officers are however concerned that in view of the uncertainty surrounding the future management of the Uxbridge Industrial estate (see para 10) and the limitations placed on funding obtained through S106 agreements, the Council will not be able to progress many of the projects outlined in the plan. Officers therefore propose that additional funding should be sought through the Council’s Capital Programme in order to implement the Strategy and deliver the Council’s regeneration aims for the area.

Uxbridge Industrial Estate

9. A major element in implementing the Strategy is the review of Property Services work within the Council’s land ownership on the Uxbridge IBA. This includes management initiatives, road conditions and parking surveys and a strategy to provide small industrial units. However, following a Report to Finance and Economic Regeneration Sub Committee in November 2001, officers from Property Services have been instructed to explore the possible sale of the estate to a private owner. A

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 337 report is included on this agenda. If the decision were taken to sell the Estate this could have a major impact on the implementation of the Strategy and the action plan would need to be reassessed, particularly if the new owners were not sympathetic to the Council’s economic regeneration aims.

Future projects and priorities

10. In view of the current uncertainty surrounding the future management of the Uxbridge estate, and funding limitations, the Officer Group has decided to concentrate initially on projects that will benefit the whole of the Uxbridge IBA, such as signage, fencing and security. This will avoid any possible criticism of the Council using S106 monies to enhance the value of the estate prior to its sale. The key projects and priorities for implementation at this stage of the Strategy are therefore considered to be a programme of environmental improvements and a review of security and public transport links. These are currently being progressed as follows.

Environmental Improvement Programme

11. Since the adoption of the Strategy much of the North Uxbridge IBA has been subject to comprehensive redevelopment which is still in progress. The Officer Group has therefore decided to concentrate limited resources on the Packet Boat Lane and Uxbridge IBA’s. Potential projects have now been identified within the Packet Boat Lane IBA and a working draft is currently being produced. It is intended that this will be put forward for discussion at the inaugural meeting of the Business Forum. A similar survey to identify projects on the Uxbridge IBA (excluding the LBH land holding) is also under way.

Review of Business Watch/ CCTV

12. The practicalities and costs of providing CCTV within the IBA’s are currently being investigated. It is intended that options will then be put to the Business Forum for discussion. Alternative methods of improving security will also be investigated with the area crime prevention officer.

Public Transport Review

13. Preliminary discussions have taken place with TfL to look at extending and improving the existing bus route that currently runs to Uxbridge Town centre to serve both the Uxbridge and North Uxbridge IBA’s. This could be part funded by S106 money and would be considerably cheaper than funding a new route. Further options for improving public transport to the IBA’s are to be explored in conjunction with TfL.

Partnership Arrangements

14. Officers have been rebuilding key partnerships with relevant agencies such as British Waterways, Groundwork, TfL and the Police, as well as local Uxbridge/Cowley businesses. Contacts have been re-established on an informal basis and the first meeting of the Business Forum was held on 2nd July at Trimite’s offices. Representatives from nine local businesses attended the meeting and are

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 338 keen to work in partnership with the Council to progress the Strategy. Meetings are to be held on a quarterly basis or more frequently as projects progress.

Views of the Business Forum

15. The Business Forum considered suggestions for environmental improvements and improved security measures and agreed that these should be progressed for further consideration. They also suggested improvements to the Council’s web site to help clients locate Uxbridge/Cowley businesses. Whilst the Business Forum agreed that these projects are likely to make a difference, they considered that the key issues relate to the poor condition of roads, parking, street cleaning and travellers. Officers will be working in partnership with the Business Forum to consider these wider issues.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Finance

16. S106 agreements provide specific funding for projects referred to in this report, and funding cannot be used for alternative purposes. Whether the Council provides additional funding from its own resources will be determined by the priority for investment in this area within its overall Capital Investment Strategy (CIS), and whether the objectives can be progressed by other means.

Legal 17. No comments.

ICT 18. Not relevant.

Sustainability 19. This was taken into account during the preparation of the Strategy.

Equalities 20. This was taken into account during the preparation of the Strategy.

Community Safety 21. This was taken into account during the preparation of the Strategy

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

22. No external consultations have been carried out at this stage, however the programme will be discussed at the inaugural meeting of the Uxbridge/Cowley Business Forum

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS Uxbridge/Cowley Economic Support Strategy (August 2000) Uxbridge Industrial and Business Area Planning Brief (adopted April 2001)

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 339 CROSSRAIL LINE 1 ITEM 16

Contact Officer: Chandra Raval Telephone: 01895 277206

SUMMARY

The CrossRail scheme forms an important part of public transport development in London, providing new links across central London and greatly improved accessibility to the centre.

Line 1 is a high capacity east-west scheme linking in the route from Paddington via Ealing Broadway, Hayes and together with the spur into Heathrow. It can also link to other routes through Hillingdon.

The joint venture company sponsoring CrossRail has offered a briefing meeting with Hillingdon Members, which is now to be arranged. The Cabinet’s guidance is sought on the principle of CrossRail and its eventual form.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the report be noted.

2. That the Cabinet indicates its views on CrossRail, in preparation for the meeting with Members requested by the sponsoring company.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

This report advises Members of current discussions with the company sponsoring CrossRail and seeks their views in advance of a meeting with the company.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

Not applicable

INFORMATION

1. CrossRail is the scheme for rail links across London, using new tunnels under the central area to link existing radial rail routes on opposite sides of London and to provide vastly improved accessibility to the central destinations in between. The scheme has been under consideration for many years and is now being actively promoted by Cross London Rail Links Limited, a joint venture company set up by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and Transport for London (TfL).

2. CrossRail Line 1 is the original CrossRail concept of an east-west route linking the lines running into Paddington from the west and Liverpool Street in the east. This line is of particular relevance to Hillingdon as it links in the Slough - Paddington route via Hayes and can also link to lines serving other parts of the Borough. In the

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 340 east, the original concept was to link in the Liverpool Street - Shenfield route but discussions are currently under way into adding links to Docklands and south-east London, the outcome of which is awaited.

3. CrossRail Line 2 will develop the earlier notion of an Underground line on a south-west / north-east axis between Wimbledon and Hackney. The original concept took in the District Line branch to Fulham thence via a new route through Chelsea. The alternative of a new route via other areas is now being examined. The other major cross-London rail route under development is the Thameslink network, which has a north-south orientation but will probably take in various lines on either side of the main axis.

4. Line 1 in the west of London is based on the existing route running out of Paddington via Hayes and West Drayton, thence possibly on to Slough and Reading. The Heathrow spur leaves this route west of Hayes, running to the airport central area and on to Terminal 4 on the south side. Other routes to the north of this can be included, one of which is the route out via Harrow-on-the-Hill to Amersham and Aylesbury. Within Hillingdon, Northwood Hills and Northwood stations lie on this route and are served by local Metropolitan Line services, while longer distance services run through without stopping.

5. It is not clear at this stage whether CrossRail would replace the local services at Northwood Hills and Northwood or run in parallel with them, connecting at Harrow- on-the-Hill. Other lines which could be linked in on the west side include the route via Wembley Central to Watford Junction (entirely outside Hillingdon) and the route via South Ruislip and West Ruislip to High Wycombe.

6. The joint venture company has appointed an Area Consultation Manager for west London and Hillingdon has been approached for a meeting with Members. While welcoming this idea, Hillingdon officers felt that it would be proper to wait until the new Members could provide any views to be put at the meeting. The Borough has previously given general support in principle to CrossRail as a scheme which could help to promote public transport and to create a more integrated network across London.

7. A related issue is the future development of services via the Heathrow spur, which may include CrossRail, longer distance services from the Midlands, the North and East Anglia and which could link through to the south of the airport via the proposed Airtrack spur off the Waterloo - Staines line.

8. The Cabinet’s views are sought on all these matters, in preparation for the intended meeting with the sponsoring company. Map of the potential routes is attached.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 341 CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Finance

9. The recommendations have no financial implications for the Council. The project itself will take some years to develop, and financial implications, if any, will need to be taken into account at the appropriate time.

Legal

10. There are no legal implications arising from this report.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

11. None

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Nil

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 342 MAP

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 343 S.106/278 PLANNING AGREEMENTS ITEM 17 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL MONITORING REPORT

Contact Officer: David Morrissey Telephone: 01895 250327

SUMMARY

This report provides financial information on s106 and s278 agreements up to 31 March 2002.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Cabinet:

1. Notes the updated financial information on S106/278 agreements up to 31 March 2002 attached as Appendix 1.

2. Notes that subsequent quarterly reports will present more detailed financial information on cases against relevant portfolio/service areas.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation R13 of the District Audit report “The Management of Planning Obligations s106)” required the Council to produce regular financial statements. There is a continuing need to improve the nature and format of information to identify key responsibilities and monitor implementation of expenditure.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

There are no other options available. It is a requirement of the District Audit report and an obvious example of good practice to monitor income and expenditure against specific planning agreements. The regular reporting of such information is necessary to aid transparency and assure probity in the area of planning obligations.

INFORMATION

1. The Council is committed to implementing the recommendations of the report and action plan in the District Audit’s ‘The Management of Planning Obligations’ Action Plan of May 1999 and relevant recommendations of the subsequent Monitoring Officers Report to Full Council on 18 January 2001.

2. At the Environment Committee in October 2001 Members endorsed a set of actions in accordance with the District Audit report, one of which was to produce regular monitoring reports of the financial position on all s.106/278 cases.

3. It furthermore identified the need to report progress on budget and implementation to Members. The review of historic cases that form the basis of

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 344 information before members is nearly completed and, subject to legal consultation, will be completed by the end of July. This work will form the basis of a more detailed future report which will identify the steps necessary to ensure proper project management and result in more detailed monitoring information in accordance with the draft procedures for the management of planning obligations which was reported to Cabinet in June 2002. The attached appendix builds on the information that has been previously reported to Environment Committee by including wards, indicative service area/portfolio responsibilities and basic details of financial elements of agreements. This information will be further refined and enhanced by the next quarterly report to assist monitoring and scrutiny.

4. It should be noted that the financial status in respect of the Stockley Park Trident site agreement that was previously held separately by Central Finance has now been added to this schedule to provide a full picture of funds held.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Finance

5. This report provides information on the financial status on s106 and s278 agreements up to 31 March 2002. There are no other specific financial implications arising from this report.

Legal

6. It is a requirement of the District Audit report into planning obligations and the Monitoring Officers report that financial information is regularly reported to Members. There are no other direct legal implications arising from this report.

7. The Corporate S106 team have been consulted on this report.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

8. No external consultations have been carried out or are proposed.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

DETR Circular 1/97 ‘Planning Obligations’ District Auditor’s “The Management of Planning Obligations” Action Plan May 1999 Monitoring Officers Report January 2001.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 345 EXCEL WORKSHEET

SECTION 278 AND 106 AGREEMENTS – SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURE

4 PAGES

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 346 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL – PERFORMANCE ITEM 18 ANALYSIS

Contact Officer: Kelvin Williams / Geoffrey Elliott Telephone: 01895 250556 / 01895 277920

SUMMARY

This report provides details of the recent performance of the Planning and Transportation Service in the processing of applications for planning permission, listing building consent, conservation area consent, advertisement consent, etc. It also sets out details of initiatives to improve the service’s customer focus.

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet notes the performance levels achieved by the Planning and Transportation Service in the processing of planning and other applications over the past 15 months, as set out in paras 4 and 6 and endorses the initiatives that seek to improve the service’s customer focus, as set out in paras 8 to 11

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Providing information about service performance and proposals to meet customer needs reflects Member interest and concerns as well as increasing Government attention to this aspect of local government.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

There are no real options to the fundamental objective of improving and then maintaining the performance of a Service. Options only arise in the approaches taken to achieve improvements.

COMMENTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

The Overview and Scrutiny committee has not considered this report.

INFORMATION

1. The importance attached to the speed and efficiency with which Councils deal with planning and other applications is reflected in the various Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) the Government use to assess the performance of local planning authorities. It has been reinforced by the recent Planning Green Paper which stresses, in particular, the damaging impact slow decision making can have on businesses and, therefore, the economy.

2. Up until 31 March 2002 the development control performance of local planning authorities was judged primarily by the percentage of planning applications dealt with

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 352 within the statutory period of 8 weeks (original BVPI 109). Since 1 April 2002, and the introduction of the amended BVPI 109, development control performance is judged by:

(a) the percentage of major industrial and commercial applications dealt with in 13 weeks; (b) the percentage of minor industrial and commercial applications dealt with in 8 weeks; and (c) the percentage of other applications dealt with in 8 weeks. (These adjustments were introduced to address criticisms of the inadequacies of original BVPI 109).

3. For the period immediately prior to 1 April 2001 this Council did not prepare detailed development control statistics on a regular basis. This was largely because of reasons relating to staff turnover, vacancy levels and recruitment difficulties also mentioned in para. 5 below. Subsequent analysis indicates that, had the requisite statistics been produced and published, they would have revealed Hillingdon to be one of the worst performing London Boroughs.

4. For the period since 1 April 2001 the percentage of planning applications dealt with in 8 weeks by this Council has been as follows:

1 April - 30 June 2001 (First Quarter) 34.8% 1 July - 30 September 2001 (Second Quarter) 32.8% 1 October - 31 December 2001(Third Quarter) 50.5% 1 January - 31 March 2002 (Fourth Quarter) 61.0% 1 April – 30 June 2002 (First Quarter) 68.0%

5. This improvement in performance is notable although it needs to be qualified. Firstly, modest performance in the greater part of 2001/02 was probably inevitable given Service restructuring, staff turnover, vacancy levels and recruitment difficulties. Secondly, significant increases in output have to be viewed against a wholly unsatisfactory start point. Thirdly, whilst there has been a steady improvement in performance, the time period in question is still relatively short to attach too much weight to the progress that has been made. Fourthly, although a significant backlog of older cases has been markedly reduced, some remain and clearing them will adversely effect performance in processing more recent applications.

6. The targets Hillingdon has been set for the amended BVPI 109 are lower than the targets set for the majority of local planning authorities in the United Kingdom. This reflects this Council’s record against the previous development control BVPI and the Government’s recognition of the need to avoid onerous and unrealistic targets for this Council (and others) in the immediate future. The results for amended BVPI 109 for the first quarter of 2002/03 are as follows:

(a) Percentage of major industrial and commercial applications dealt with in 13 weeks - Hillingdon’s performance: Nil% Hillingdon’s Government-set target: 45% The national, Government-set target: 60%

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 353 (b) Percentage of minor industrial and commercial applications dealt with in 8 weeks - Hillingdon’s performance: 54% Hillingdon’s Government-set target: 50% The national, Government-set target: 65%

(c) Percentage of other applications dealt with in 8 weeks - Hillingdon’s performance: 75% Hillingdon’s Government-set target: 65% The national, Government-set target: 80%

The definition of major application:- For dwellings: where 10 or more units are being constructed or, if no number given, the site is more than 0.5 hectares in area For all other uses: where the floorspace is more than 1000sq metres or the site is more than 1 hectare in area.

7. The results for the first quarter of 2002/03 show there needs to be improvements made in the speed with which major applications are dealt with. Unfortunately this may prove difficult since Hillingdon does not normally receive applications that can be deemed major but are otherwise relatively uncomplicated (i.e. just falling within the Government’s definition of ‘major’). This Council frequently receives very large and complex applications which, other than requiring Environmental Impact Assessments and necessitating planning obligations, are rarely suitable for determination within 13 weeks.

8. Going hand-in-hand with efforts to improve development control performance, the Planning and Transportation Service is introducing improvements in its customer focus. The agendas of the three Area Planning Committees now include an Ordnance Survey extract for each application as well as schedules of (i) cases dealt with under delegated powers by the Head of Service; (ii) enforcement activity; and (iii) planning obligations (or Section 106 Agreements). In the near future application reports will be reshaped so that they are shorter, less repetitive and more user friendly. Within the next quarter the electronic presentation of planning applications will be piloted at the Ruislip and Northwood Planning Committee.

9. Advances in the use of ICT for Committee meetings will be followed by proposals to introduce e-planning more widely within the Service over the next 9 to 12 months. Applying Government funds recently secured by the Service, it will soon become possible for anyone with access to a computer to (a) submit their applications; (b) view the applications the Council is currently dealing with (and track their progress); and (c) submit comments on applications on-line.

10. Supplementing technological advances is the equally important broadening of the Service’s reception service. As from July 2002 a duty planning officer will be available from 9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Fridays to assist visitors to the Civic Centre with planning enquiries. This service incorporates a shadow duty officer for

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 354 exceptionally busy periods and replaces the half-day service in operation over the past year or so.

11. The development of a customer-focused culture throughout the Service will be reinforced by the Development Control and Office Procedures Manuals currently under preparation, as well as the Service’s Business Plan, with its customer-focused performance measures highlighting, amongst other things, letter and telephone answering targets. The publication of these Manuals in this quarter and the Planning and Transportation Business Plan will constitute significant steps in preparing the Service for Comprehensive Performance Assessment this coming Autumn.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Finance

12. Most of the improvements and initiatives described in this report relate to ‘officer time’ for which there is budget provision. The e-planning proposals set out in para.9 above will be funded in part through a successful bid the Service made to obtain one of central Government funding in 2002/03. The greater part of these funds will meet the salary costs of the Project Manager.

Legal

13. Legal Service’s comments are incorporated into the main body of this report.

ICT

14. Comments in this respect are incorporated into the main body of this report.

Community Safety

15. Not directly applicable although service improvements over and above those highlighted in paras.8 to 11 above include a Police Officer working part-time within the Planning and Transportation Service who provides guidance on the safety and security aspects of development proposals.

Sustainability

16. Not directly applicable although e-planning should secure sustainability benefits in the longer term by reducing the need to travel to submit, view and/or comment upon planning applications.

Equalities

17. Not directly applicable although e-planning should be beneficial in the longer term in allowing greater accessibility to information regarding planning applications for all sections of the community.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 355 Personnel

18. Not applicable

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

19. No external consultations have been carried out in the preparation of this report.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Quarterly returns on development control performance to the DTLR and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 356 TERMINAL 5 – QUARTERLY REPORT ITEM 19

Contact Officer: Aileen Carlisle Telephone: 01895 277824

SUMMARY

This report provides an overview of the Terminal 5 project since 17 December 2001, when, at a full Council meeting, it was decided not to pursue a legal challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision.

Since then, the Council has accepted a financial gift of £600,000 per annum, reviewable every 6 months. This funding has been used to employ staff and consultants to deal with submissions and applications relating to Terminal 5. The Council has also accepted a community benefits package of £15 million.

The majority of applications currently being processed relate largely to conditions that will enable work to commence on preparing the basic infrastructure for Terminal 5 including earthworks and service provision. The Heathrow Planing Committee, at is meeting of 13 June 2002, granted planning permission for the Twin Channel Diversion Scheme for the Twin Rivers although the application has had to be referred to the Secretary of State. This is one of several key issues or conditions that have to be resolved or discharged before development commences.

A community forum has been set up to keep the local community informed. Representatives from the five villages around Heathrow meet with Council Officers on a regular basis to discuss Terminal 5 issues.

As a result of a loss of land for development due to the Twin Rivers Channel Diversion, combined with restrictions placed on the development by the Planning Inspector and changes in airport management, BAA are now planning to put forward amended plans for the site. These are expected to be received in August.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Terminal 5 quarterly report be noted.

REASON FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

This report provides an overview of progress on the Terminal 5 project. Its purpose is to keep members up to date with progress on this large-scale project.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

There are no alternative options.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 357 INFORMATION

1. The main planning applications for Terminal 5 were submitted to the Council in February 1993. The Council was opposed to the development on many grounds and spent several million pounds opposing and seeking to amend the proposals at the longest planning inquiry in British history.

2. It was not until 21 November 2001 that the Secretary of State finally granted planning permission for the project. After taking independent legal advice on the Secretary of State’s decision, the Council decided not to pursue a legal challenge to the decision. This was ratified by full Council at its meeting of 17 December 2001.

Funding Council Work on Terminal 5

3. During the second half of 2001, a growth bid budget for anticipated Terminal 5 work (assuming it obtained planning permission) was included in budget planning with a full year estimate of £780,000. This funding estimate was based on the assumption that the majority of work involved would entail discharging conditions attached to the main outline planning permission and related applications.

4. On 8 November 2001 the Council passed a number of motions relating to the expected imminent decision on Terminal 5. They included the commencement of discussions with BAA with a view to limiting the financial burden on the efficiency of the Planning and Transportation Service and on Hillingdon residents.

5. Following a number of meetings with BAA, an offer letter dated 8 January 2002 was reported to the Council’s former Policy Committee on 8 January 2002. BAA offered a gift, under section 139 of the Local Government Act 1972, of £600,000 per annum for 3 years reviewable at six monthly intervals. This amount was based on previous officer assessments as to the anticipated cost to the Council.

6. A legal opinion was obtained on the legality of accepting such a gift for Terminal 5 work. On this basis, the Council accepted this gift.

7. It should be noted that at the same time as the Council initiated discussions on resources for processing applications relating to Terminal 5, it also sought a long- term commitment to compensate residents. On 14 February 2002 the Council accepted an offer of a Community Benefit Package. This element of Terminal 5 funding is being dealt with corporately.

Staffing

8. The Council has set up a team to deal with Terminal 5 submissions. A Project Co-ordinator has been appointed to manage the project. Two planners have been employed to process the bulk of submissions under the guidance of the Aviation Manager who spends 60% of his time on the project.

9. In addition to these staff, consultants have been appointed to provide specialist input on urban design (John McAslan & Partners), transportation (Babtie Group), and

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 358 landscape issues (The Landscape Partnership). The use of external resources ensures excess demand is not placed on limited staff resources in these areas.

10. Input from other Council staff, including legal and traffic sections is sought as required. This work is charged to the Terminal 5 budget.

11. In the Environmental Protection Unit, a temporary Environmental Health Officer has been employed to assist Terminal 5 work. Two permanent positions have recently been advertised for Environmental Health Officers to undertake air quality, noise auditing and monitoring work associated with the project. These positions will also be funded from the Terminal 5 budget.

Milestones

12. Since planning permission was granted in November last year, there have been a number of milestones achieved in relation to the project:-

· On 23 June 2002, planning permission was granted by the Heathrow Planning Committee for the diversion of the Duke of Northumberland’s and Longford Rivers around the Terminal Five site. The decision has been referred to the Secretary of State who could call in the application. A decision is expected before mid-July. · On 28 May 2002 the Council approved the details of the Archaeology Strategy. · On 26 March 2002 Consent was granted by the Secretary of State for the Transport and Works Act Orders for extension of the Piccadilly line and Heathrow Express to the Terminal Five site. These Orders have a number of conditions attached to them that require BAA, amongst other things, to obtain Council approval for the layout and design of the stations.

13. These milestones relate to key conditions that have to be discharged before development commences on the Terminal 5 project. BAA is currently preparing a Construction Workers Public Transport Strategy, another key condition requiring prior approval before the development commences. This strategy is under consideration by the Council.

14. Many of the other submissions being processed at present relate to conditions that will enable work to commence on preparing the basic infrastructure for Terminal 5 including earthworks and service provision (e.g. drainage, car parking for construction workers). At present a total of 15 applications/submissions are being processed. A further 6 applications have been approved.

Five Villages Forum

15. Regular meetings are held between officers and representatives from the resident’s associations in the five villages around Heathrow to discuss the Terminal Five project. These meetings provide an opportunity to discuss issues and concerns relating to submissions received by the Council with community representatives.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 359 These meetings have been positive and assist in keeping the community informed on this major project.

Recent Developments

16. BAA is currently revising their original proposals for Terminal 5. Their decision to do this has been influenced by a number of factors including:-

· Changes to the Twin Rivers Channel Diversion scheme resulting in the loss of 1.5 hectares of land in the landside area. · The Inspector’s decision to reduce the height of landside buildings by 3m. · The Inspector’s decision to place a car parking cap of 42,000 spaces at Heathrow, rather than the 46,000 envisaged by BAA. · Changes in the way airport terminals are managed and operated since the plans were originally drawn up.

17. These revised plans are expected to be received in August 2002.

18. In light of these proposed changes, a statement that sets out the Council’s position on Terminal 5 is being prepared. Its main purpose is to clarify the outcomes that could be sought given the changes proposed by BAA. The analysis is based on the outcomes sought by Hillingdon through the Inquiry process, the Inspectors and Secretary of State’s decisions and more recent policy initiatives.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

19. There will be legal implications arising from BAA’s proposed changes to the Terminal 5 development. These will need to be addressed once the extent of the changes is known.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

20. The workload associated with the Terminal 5 development is likely to be considerably higher as a result of the proposals expected to be put forward by BAA.

21. As part of its agreement with the Council, BAA have agreed to meet all reasonable costs associated with the Terminal 5 development.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Decision Letter from the Secretary of State dated 20 November 2001 Transport and Works Act Order for the Piccadilly Line (Heathrow T5 Extension) dated 26 March 2002 Transport and Works Act Order Heathrow Express Railway Extension Order dated 26 March 2002

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 360 TERMINAL 5 / M25 SPUR ROAD – ANCIENT ITEM 20 HEDGEROWS ON BOUNDARY OF LAND AT MOORBRIDGE FARM, STANWELL MOOR ROAD, LONGFORD

Contact Officer: M. Francis Telephone: 01895 2503925

SUMMARY

In a report to Policy Committee on 5th. July 2001 it was indicated that the Spur road proposals for linking T5 to the M25 motorway would destroy two lengths of Ancient Hedgerow, one of which was on land owned by the London Borough of Hillingdon. This report advises that in view of the Terminal 5 decision published on 20th November 2001, and subsequent Council decisions, it is considered inappropriate to pursue this matter.

RECOMMENDATION

That in the light of the decision announced in Parliament on the 20th November 2001 by the Secretary of State for the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions granting BAA consent for the Terminal 5 development, and the decisions of the Council made at Full Council meeting on the 17th December 2001 not to mount a legal challenge, that no further action is taken on the matter of the ancient hedgerows.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Any pursuit of this matter through legal process would be costly, would have no certainty of success and would be contrary to Council policy on Terminal 5 development now it has been approved.

Under the Compulsory Purchase Order procedures which were ratified by the Secretary of State the Highways Agency have now served Notice to Treat on the Council for the land required for the Spur Road development.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

1. Commit Council resources to pursuing legal remedies through Courts with little chance of delaying project or of success.

2. Take no further action, apart from ensuring the Highways Agency / BAA meet all conservation requirements agreed at the Inquiry for this area of land.

INFORMATION

1. At the meeting of the Policy Committee on the 5th July 2001 it was resolved that partner organisations that worked with the Council during the Planning Inquiry into

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 361 Terminal 5 should be contacted to see if they would support any move to protect this ancient hedgerow (see Plan ref. HAY 675 attached for location) and the West London Friends of the Earth be informed of this consultation and be asked to lobby (but see para 7.1 below).

2. It was also agreed that no further action be taken until the results of the Terminal 5 inquiry were announced (P 13 Policy Committee minutes 5/7/01 – Item 21)

3. In view of the decision of the Full Council on the 17th December 2001 not to make a legal challenge on the decision, it is recommended that no further action is taken on the matter of the Ancient Hedgerow, apart from ensuring that the Highways Agency plant and maintain a suitable replacement hedgerow alongside the boundary of the remainder of Moorbridge Farm land when the Terminal 5 / M25 Spur Road has been completed. This will be in addition to other conservation issues raised at the Inquiry.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

4. Planning Services (Terminal 5 Team) comments that the issue of protection of this hedgerow via legislation dating from the original Enclosure Acts is not a planning matter but a legal one. Planning issues relating to the removal of the hedgerow were dealt with during the Terminal 5 Planning Inquiry and the Secretary of State saw no planning justification to retain the hedge.

5. Legal Services comment that they were previously asked to advise on this matter when the Council were first approached by Friends of the Earth seeking support for a legal declaration concerning the status of the hedgerows in question. The Council was provided with a legal opinion obtained by the Friends of the Earth from Counsel. The advice contained in that opinion was that whilst there may be grounds for obtaining a declaration it was not certain that such a declaration would be obtained. The Friends of the Earth had approached the Attorney General seeking his consent to an action and he declined to lend his name to such an action.

6. Having considered the law in this area and the legal opinion provided by Friends of the Earth it was the view of Legal Services that the risks associated with obtaining a declaration were such as to make it inadvisable for the Council to pursue the course of action in question . Following the terminal 5 decision and the change in Council policy towards the development that advice would remain the same.

7. Finance Services comment that if the recommendation is approved there are no financial implications with this report.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

8. West London Friends of the Earth advise that they have dropped the issue due to lack of funds. They do however ask that BAA / Highways Agency are kept to the promises made at the Inquiry on conservation issues in the area (especially relocation of Water Avens close to the hedges)

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 362 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Committee report and plan Item 16 Policy Committee 5/7/01 Report to Full Council 17/ 12/ 01

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 363 MAP

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 364 BARRA HALL ITEM 21

Contact Officer: Nigel Cramb Telephone: 01895 250394

SUMMARY

The report requests that the Cabinet identify funding to enable the employment of two consultants, totalling £ 21,432. The work undertaken by the consultants will put the Council in a position to submit a bid for Heritage Lottery Funding in relation to Barra Hall.

RECOMMENDATION

That a sum of £ 21,432 be identified to enable the recruitment of consultants as detailed on the attached paper.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The commitment of funds is required to employ the consultants who will provide the detailed information required enabling the submission of a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund. The Council is not in a position to undertake this work; therefore a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund is not realistic without the employment of two consultancies.

OPTIONS

The options in respect of Barra Hall are somewhat limited. The condition of the building continues to give cause for concern. Funds are not currently available within the Council. If the building is to be retained for community use of whatever form funds for refurbishment work need to be identified. Without funds being spent on the building its condition can only deteriorate and there is also a possibility that English Heritage could require the Council to commit funds on the building as it is grade II listed.

If the Council do not pursue the option of external funding, and funding from within existing budgets is not identified, the most logical option would be to look to dispose of the property on the open market, possibly linking the sale with the land the Chestnuts currently stands on.

INFORMATION

1. Over the past year, The Barra Hall Development group which includes the Leader of the Council, Councillor Ray Puddifoot, the Member of Parliament for Hayes and Harlington John McDonnell, representatives of the local community and officers from a range of Council departments have been meeting on a regular basis. The objective of these meetings has been to explore ways of retaining Barra Hall for community use.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 365 2. Although the building provides accommodation for some Council services, its general condition limits its use and there is currently very little in the way of local community use. Estimates put the cost of refurbishment at anywhere between £1, 300,000 and £ 2, 000,000.

3. There is no scope for the Council to fund renovation on this scale, therefore the logical step is pursue external funding opportunities, with the most obvious of these being the Heritage Lottery Fund.

4. Any bid to the HLF requires the following components,

¨ Conditions survey for the building ¨ Architectural Heritage Plan ¨ Business plan (which details how the running costs of the refurbished building will be met).

5. The Development group concluded that for any bid to the HLF it required the services of specialists in the appropriate areas. It was further agreed to pursue the appointment of two specialist consultancies, one for the production of the Conditions survey and Heritage Plan and one for the production of a business plan.

6. Short lists of consultants were drawn up and interviews undertaken, with the result that officers are happy to recommend to the Development group the appointment of Purcell, Miller Tritton to undertake the conditions survey and produce the heritage plan, and Charity Link to produce a business plan.

Funding

7. No provision currently exists within the Councils base budget to fund the cost of employing the consultants.

Corporate Consultations

Financial

8. Barra Hall has been identified as one the Council's most expensive to maintain buildings and therefore action needs to be taken to establish what a sustainable future use for the facility would be. Whatever course of action is taken to enable the asset to provide some form of public or community use, it will require a significant amount of initial investment as described in the report. In the context of the limited resources available to the Council it is sensible to seek external funding for the initial investment and the HLF is the most likely source of such funding. As the report indicates a HLF bid would require a significant amount of preparatory work which, the Council does not have the internal resources available to undertake, therefore it is proposed to engage consultants to undertake the work. No budget exists to fund this work, estimated to be at least £21,000. Therefore if Members are minded to support the suggestion funding will need to be identified. The only sources of funding for this would be from the revenue contingency, which is a decision Cabinet can take, or from usable balances which would require a report to Council. The

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 366 revenue contingency was established for the current year at £2.4m in the knowledge of a range of likely pressures such as the costs of Members allowances and therefore Members should be mindful that there will need to be careful management of this contingency.

Legal

9. The Procurement and Contract Standing Orders and associated Code of Practice provide that proposed contracts for the appointment of consultants with a value of between £5,000 and £50,000 are to be accepted by the appropriate Cabinet Member. However, the constitution provides that the Cabinet can make decisions in relation to those matters delegated to individual Cabinet Members'.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Nil

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 367 APPLICATION TO WAIVE FEE CHARGE ITEM 22

Contact Officer: P Holmes Telephone: 01895-250933

SUMMARY

Under the Minor Disposals Policy for any sales, leases, etc. to be processed the applicants must agree at commencement of negotiations to pay a contribution of £1,000 towards administration, property and legal costs. In this case the applicant, Mencap, a charitable organisation, have requested a waiver of being charged this fee.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Cabinet approves the waiver of the full standard fee of £1,000 payable in respect of the grant of a lease for land which comes under the Minor Disposals Policy to Mencap on a site at the Wren Centre, Bourne Court, South Ruislip and approves Mencap only pay the Council’s appropriate legal costs.

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Under the Policy for Minor Disposals set on 31st May 2001 by the Finance and Economic Regeneration Sub-Committee one of the resolutions was to charge the fee of £1,000 irrespective of the value of the land or nature of application. There appears to be no flexibility to waive or vary the fee in certain circumstances by officers and so the matter has to be referred to Cabinet for a decision on each case.

OPTIONS AVAILABLE

In this case the applicant being a charity has asked for the fee to be waived. The alternative is to refuse the request and charge the full fee if the matter proceeds.

INFORMATION

1. Mencap applied some two years ago to acquire or lease a small area of land adjoining their current establishment at the Wren Centre. They have been parking their minibus on a very small piece of land adjoining their premises and now seek to formally incorporate the land into their lease so that they can build a shelter over it. The application was approved to proceed under the Minor Disposals Policy. In discussion with Mencap about the application the issue of the payment of the £1,000 charge was brought up. Mencap, being a charity, asked for exemption for paying this charge. Whilst terms have been agreed to lease the area of land concerned, the application cannot proceed now unless Members approve the waiver.

2. In agreeing to a waiver of the full fee the Council should ask Mencap to at least pay the Council’s legal costs for the necessary legal work. This has been estimated at £ 300. Mencap have stated that they are reluctantly agreeable to pay the Council’s

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 368 legal costs and they are a small local society not supported by the Royal Society. A waiver of part of the fee is therefore recommended.

3. The Director of Social Services has supported the request to waive the fee in respect of this land at the Wren Centre.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS

4. The Head of Legal Services advises that it is within the discretion of Members to agree to a waiver having regard to the representations made in this case.

5. The Head of Finance Service comments that there are no significant financial implications.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Finance and Economic Regeneration Sub-Committee 31st May 2001 Item 6 Letter of application from Mencap dated 24th May 2002

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 369 HILLINGDON HEALTHY LIVING CENTRE ITEM 23

Contact Officer: T Kelly Telephone: 01895 277616

SUMMARY

In February 2000 the Healthy Hillingdon Strategy Group, the forerunner to the Health and Social Care Executive (HSCE) agreed that a bid to develop a Healthy Living Centre (HLC) in Hillingdon should be prepared and submitted to the New Opportunities Fund (NOF). Subsequently, a partnership of 15 statutory, voluntary and private sector agencies met to develop this bid. The bid covers five years and aims to address the needs of three significantly excluded communities in the borough: Asylum Seekers/ Refugees, Single Homeless and Travellers and to solve a number of long standing problems with service provision for these communities.

The proposal that went to NOF and which has been accepted by them is for a network of services and initiatives addressing some of the major factors that impact on the health status of people. This network of services includes: an ‘Outreach’ Primary Health Care Team, a network of interpreters/ advocates drawn from and working with Refugee Communities, a Lifeskills co-ordinator for Single Homeless, a facility on the Traveller site in West Drayton from where services can be provided and a mobile facility to access people in community locations.

Staff of the HLC will be employed by the relevant agencies with the Council employing a Project Manager and admin assistant on a time limited contract. The whole project will be overseen by a Partnership Board.

Total funding secured for the HLC is approximately £2m from a number of sources, including NOF (£1m), Hayes/ West Drayton SRB Partnership (£180k), Hillingdon PCT (£0.5m) and existing Health Promotion budgets. The Council is not a funding partner to this bid.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council agree to act as Lead Organisation on behalf of the Hillingdon Healthy Living Centre Partnership and to hold the contract with New Opportunities Fund (NOF) to enable the Partnership to accept a grant of £999,693 for the development of a Healthy Living Centre (HLC) in Hillingdon

REASONS FOR OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

The grant offer from NOF is due to lapse on 21st July. However, an extension to this deadline has been obtained in order to give the Cabinet opportunity to consider the recommendation. In order to access the NOF grant one of the statutory partners needs to agree to act as Lead Organisation and effectively hold the contract with NOF on behalf of the partnership. It has been suggested by both the Partnership and NOF that the most appropriate agency would be the Council.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 370 OPTIONS AVAILABLE

A further option might be for the Hillingdon Primary Care Trust to be Lead Organisation. This would need to be negotiated with NOF. However, this should be viewed as a contingency option as the Council remains the most appropriate Partner to be Lead Organisation given the range of services provided by the Council to the three communities covered by the HLC. All four main service delivery Groups of the Council have been involved in developing the project. The services provided by the HLC will make a significant contribution to addressing some of the problems faced by Council officers in providing service to these communities (e.g. lack of access to interpreting services for Refugees).

COMMENTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

No comments from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee have been sought

INFORMATION

1. In 1999 the National Lottery Board set up NOF with a remit to distribute lottery funding to community based initiatives. The first fund set up by NOF was £300m for a network of 300 Healthy Living Centres across the UK. Such Centres were to be aimed at addressing the needs of the 20% most disadvantaged populations in the Country and were to take an holistic view of health, addressing some of the main factors that influence people’s health (e.g. access to health and other services, educational attainment, employment and income) as well as ‘lifestyle’ issues such as diet, exercise and drinking/ smoking levels.

2. In February 2000 a proposal was accepted by the Healthy Hillingdon Strategy Group, the forerunner to the Health and Social Care Executive (HSCE) to develop a Healthy Living Centre bid for Hillingdon. This proposal was incorporated into the HIMP and went to Policy Committee.

3. A Partnership group with representation from the Council, Health Services, Voluntary, Community and Private Sectors was formed to develop the bid. A first stage application was submitted to NOF in October 2000. In March 2001 we were invited to submit a second stage (final) stage bid which went to NOF in June 2001 and we were informed that the bid was successful in May 2002. The bid was agreed by the HSCE at each stage and has been consistently incorporated into the HIMP targets and progress reports.

Structure of the Proposed Healthy Living Centre (HLC)

4. The vision for the HLC is more a network of services operating from different community locations rather than one centre. It is based on two main aims: i) Addressing the needs of significantly disadvantaged communities in the borough and reducing inequalities in health ii) Addressing a number of ongoing issues relating to service delivery to the communities identified

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 371 5. Because even the most deprived political wards in the borough would not have met NOF criteria the Partnership identified communities based on population rather than geography. Three of the most deprived communities with the greatest level of premature death and long-standing ill health are:

· Asylum Seekers/Refugees · Travellers and · Single Homeless.

6. These communities meet both the NOF priorities and HLC grant criteria. The HLC therefore, proposes to work with them to address the major factors that impact on their health.

7. Each of the above communities has an overarching need related to lack of access to Primary Health Care and each have specific needs that the HLC aims to address.

8. With regard to Refugees the specific need is for translation/ interpreting and advocacy services. This has been flagged up also by Housing, Social Services, Education and Health Services as an issue that results in use of an inordinate amount of officer time.

9. The specific issues for Travellers, particularly those housed in Hillingdon, either on the Council site or in Council accommodation include difficulty with access to education and Life Long Learning, high levels of unemployment, high levels of child morbidity and mortality and reduced life expectancy.

10. The specific needs of Single Homeless relate to their ability to sustain tenancies and employment on a long term basis.

11. In order to address the above needs the HLC aims to provide:

- An ‘Outreach’ Primary Health Care Team, consisting of GP time, health visitors and a nurse practitioner. This team will access members of the three Communities in community locations to: identify and respond to immediate health care needs; facilitate registration with mainstream Primary Care and work with Primary Care colleagues to increase their capacity to work effectively with the communities concerned. - A network of interpreters/ advocates drawn from Refugee communities and trained by Uxbridge college on a course specifically designed for them. Participants on the course will be expected to work one day per week within their own communities as part of their accreditation and will also work with statutory and voluntary sector agencies to develop cultural awareness of the needs of Refugee communities. Long term aims will be to open up further training and employment opportunities for Refugees and to develop a community owned, commercially viable translating and interpreting service in Hillingdon.

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 372 - A system building (e.g. Portacabin) on the Traveller site in West Drayton where health checks can take place. This building will also enable adult education, child education support and other services to be provided on site. It will also refurbish some of the common areas on the site. - A mobile unit to access Refugees and Single Homeless in community locations and to access Roadside Traveller groups. The aim with the Roadside traveller groups, in particular, is to provide a continuity of health care and education. This service will not be inconsistent with the Council policy on Roadside Travellers in that it will not increase either the numbers visiting nor the length of stay. - Basic Life skills training (e.g. budgetting, shopping, cooking, dealing with utilities) for single homeless. These are skills that we often take for granted but that are often underdeveloped in some groups in society. They are skills essential to sustaining tenancies and employment.

12. The above priorities and structure for the HLC have been agreed by all partner agencies and the HSCE. Significant progress has been made in planning the development of the services, including the drafting of the Interpreters/ advocates course by Uxbridge College, funding for the system building on the Traveller site through Hayes and West Drayton SRB Partnership with planning application submitted and project surveyors appointed, the PCT is ready to commence recruitment to the Primary Care team, Project manager recruitment process has been commenced.

Management and Staffing

13. The project is driven by a detailed Business Plan and will be overseen by a Partnership Board (currently meeting as a shadow board). An accountable body (Healthy Hillingdon) has been appointed by the Partnership Board and a Project Director (Head of Health Promotion) agreed. Day to day management will be undertaken by a Project Manager employed by the Council through Healthy Hillingdon, with admin. support. Other staff will be employed by the relevant Partner organisation (e.g. Primary Care Staff by the PCT, Refugee network co-ordinator by REAP and tutors by Uxbridge College). Other non-core staff e.g. adult education tutors, life skills trainers will be bought in on a contract basis.

Funding

14. The full value of the project is approximately £2million. The sources of funding are as follows:

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 373 Funding Body Amount Funded Status of Funding New Opportunities Fund 999,963 Confirmed Hayes/ West Drayton SRB 182,000 Confirmed Hillingdon PCT 510,000 Confirmed (1) Healthy Hillingdon 400,000 Confirmed (2) Total 2,091,963

(1) Of this £370,000 is currently invested in services for Refugees with a further £140,000 growth funding for a Health Visitor to work with Refugees and Travellers agreed in 2001/02 (2) This funding is a mix of in-kind and existing Health Promotion programme funding

15. The PCT has agreed to hold the funding and provide management accounts to the Project and the Partnership Board.

Conditions of Grant

16. In order for NOF to release their grant they need to contract with a constituted organisation. Neither Healthy Hillingdon nor the HLC Partnership Board meet this condition. The Acceptance of Grant form provided by NOF states that the signatory to this should be the same person as signed the final stage application form i.e. the Chief Executive of the Council.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Financial Implications

17. There is no direct cost to the Council as they are not a funding partner to this bid. There may be opportunity cost of Officer time. However, this time is already spent with the communities that will benefit from the HLC and the project will address some problems that have proved to be somewhat intractable in the past. There is a potential cost in that as Lead Organisation the Council will be required to refund NOF should the Project not use NOF funding for its intended purpose. The monitoring process that needs to be followed should limit this risk to one quarter’s NOF funding, approximately £45 –50k. Monitoring of appropriate use of the funding will be undertaken on a monthly basis by the Partnership Board as part of the risk management procedures.

18. The NOF grant will open up other funding opportunities, some of which have already been identified and are being pursued.

19. It will be important to ensure that the Council's representatives on the Partnership Board closely monitor the scheme and take any necessary action to ensure that no unauthorised costs fall on the Council.

Legal Implications

20. If the Council becomes the Lead Organisation, it would be obliged to sign an Acceptance of Grant Offer letter which would have the effect of it entering into a contract with NOF. The terms of the contract are not negotiable at this stage and variations can only be made to once it has been entered into. For example, significant changes can be made to the project in accordance with changing

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 374 circumstances but these need to be notified to NOF and agreed by them. Significant changes would include factors that change the scope, impact, activities or targets set for the project including any changes to funding.

21. The Lead Organisation will assume responsibility for ensuring that the project is fully completed as specified in the grant application. If the terms and conditions of the contract are not met, there is a right for the grant to be withheld or the NOF has the right to ask for the grant to be paid fully or in part. In practice, such rights are likely to be exercised if the grant is used for an unauthorised purpose, the project is not delivered or there have been negligent or dishonest acts. There are no ongoing liabilities for the Council beyond this.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Hillingdon Primary Care Trust Hillingdon Association of Voluntary Services Hillingdon Refugee Forum Hillingdon Race Equality Council Longmead Traveller Liaison Group 2041 and Navigator Projects Uxbridge College Refugees into Effective and Active Partnership (REAP) Hayes and West Drayton SRB Partnership HASBRO BA Somali Womens Group Traveller Site Residents Chinese Community Association Bell Farm Christian Association Churches Refugee Group Hillingdon Community Health Council

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Hillingdon Health Improvement and Modernisation Programme Hillingdon Healthy Living Centre Bid and Business Plan Minutes from Healthy Hillingdon Strategy Group and Health and Social Care Executive meetings (February 2000, December 2000, June 2001, April 2002)

PART I – MEMBERS & PUBLIC (INCLUDING THE PRESS)

Cabinet Reports – 23 July 2002 Page 375