MAYOR AND CABINET Date: WEDNESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2003 at 6.30 p.m.
Committee Room 2 **Please note time of meeting** Civic Suite Lewisham Town Hall A
London SE6 4RU A
Enquiries to: Mike Brown Telephone: 020-8-314-8824 (direct line) G G
MEMBERS
The Mayor (Steve Bullock) (L) Chair E Councillor Moore (L) Vice-Chair and Deputy Mayor E Councillor Best (L) Cabinet Member for Environment Councillor Donnelly (L) Cabinet Member for Lifelong Learning Councillor Garcha (L) Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion N Councillor Holder (L) Cabinet Member for Social Care & Health N Councillor McGarrigle (L) Cabinet Member for Culture Councillor Whiting (L) Cabinet Member for Resources Councillor Wise (L) Cabinet Member for Housing and Community D Safety D
Members are summoned to attend this meeting
Barry Quirk A A Chief Executive Lewisham Town Hall Catford London SE6 4RU Date: 11 February 2003
The public are welcome to attend our committee meetings, however, occasionally, committees may have to Consider some business in private. Copies of reports can be made available in additional formats on request.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc ORDER OF BUSINESS - PART 1 AGENDA
Item Page No. No.
1 Minutes 1
2 Declarations of Interests 1
3 Exclusion of the Press and Public 17
4 Fairer Charging Appeals Procedure 18
5 Anerley Special School - Consultation on Proposed Closure 28
6 Proposed Introduction of a Warden Scheme on Four Deptford 42 Housing Estates
7 Sheltered Housing Charging Policy 61
8 Summary Performance Information (Previously known as the 73 Summary Best Value Performance Plan)
Information Item
A Aerial Installations Boroughwide 85
The public are welcome to attend our Committee meetings, however, occasionally committees may have to consider some business in private. Copies of reports can be made in additional formats on request. c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title MINUTES
Key Decision Item No.1
Ward
Contributors CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Class Part 1 Date: 19 FEBRUARY 2003
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Minutes of that part of the meeting of the Mayor and Cabinet held on 29 January 2003, which was open to the press and public, be confirmed and signed (copy attached ).
MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
Key Decision Item No.2
Ward
Contributors CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Class Part 1 Date: 19 FEBRUARY 2003
Members are asked to make any declarations of pecuniary interests or other interests they may have in relation to items on this agenda (if any). Members are reminded to make any declaration at any stage throughout the meeting if it then becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
MINUTES of that part of the meeting of the MAYOR AND CABINET, which was open to the press and public, held on WEDNESDAY, 29 JANUARY 2003 at LEWISHAM TOWN HALL, CATFORD, SE6 4RU at 6 p.m.
Present
The Mayor (Steve Bullock); Councillor Moore (Vice-Chair); Councillors Best, Donnelly, Garcha, Holder, McGarrigle, Whiting and Wise.
Under Standing Orders: Councillors Handley, Ingleby and Morrison.
Minute No. Action
1MINUTES (page
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Mayor and Cabinet held on 8 January 2003 be confirmed and signed.
2 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS (page
None was declared.
3 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC (page
RESOLVED that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3, 7 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act:-
101. Silwood SRB Year 4 Review and Phase 3 Proposals
102. Disposal of the Millwall Lions Centre
4 APPOINTMENT OF LEA GOVERNORS (page and Appendix page
RESOLVED that
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
(i) the information concerning non-party ED E & C nominees set out in Appendix 1 to the report be noted; and
(ii) the nominees set out in paragraph 6.1of the report be appointed as authority governors.
5 VIEWS OF SOCIAL CARE AND HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE - 12 DECEMBER 2002 MEETING (page
RESOLVED that a response be made to the Select ED SC Committee within an appropriate & H timeframe.
6 DOWNHAM PARTNERSHIP BOARD - APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER (page
This item was withdrawn from consideration.
7 DCMS CULTURAL STRATEGY (page and Appendix page
Councillor Ingleby was in attendance for this item and made some observations/comments on the Strategy attached as an Appendix to the report.
RESOLVED that the Cultural Strategy for Lewisham set ED E & C out in Appendix 1 of the report be approved.
8 LADYWELL REPORT - OUTCOME OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION (page and Appendix page
It was noted that there were procedural problems in respect of the report in that the Constitution does not provide for a ward report to be submitted to the Executive without the prior consent of the Mayor. However, the Ward members were to be congratulated on the serious and constructive way in which people's comments were obtained. It was agreed that a response should be made to the report.
RESOLVED that
(i) the issues identified in the Ladywell Ward report be noted; and
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
(ii) officers be asked to review the ED implications of the issues raised in the Action Regen. Plan and report back, if possible, before the end of March 2003.
9 CLARENDON RISE RESOURCE CENTRE FOR DISABLED CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE (page and Appendices page
It was noted that a late submission of interest had been received from another organisation.
RESOLVED that
(i) the plans to develop a new Resource ED SC Centre for Disabled Children and their & H carers and the application of capital monies previously agreed be noted;
(ii) plans to retain the consultants (Frankhams) as lead consultants to design and manage the construction project be noted;
(iii) plans to adopt a competitive procurement route for the construction contract using reputable contractors from Lewisham's approved list be noted;
(iv) the procurement route as identified in paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7 of the report by inviting the three organisations to tender and to negotiate with the successful bidder be approved; and
(v) delegated authority be given to the Executive Director for Social Care & Health, acting on the advice of Head of Law, to finalise the terms of the contract with the successful provider.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
10 ADOPTION AND PERMANENCE PANEL MEMBERSHIP (page
Recommendation 2.4 was deleted from the report.
RESOLVED that
(i) the membership of the Adoption and ED SC Permanence Panel be confirmed; & H
(ii) future appointments and removals from the Panel (except for elected members) be delegated to the Chair of the Panel; and
(iii) in future the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Panel be elected annually by the Panel and the result be referred to the Mayor and Cabinet in accordance with "Effective Panels".
11 MAKING LEWISHAM A CLEANER GREENER PLACE - BEST VALUE REVIEW, OPTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN (page and Appendices page
The Mayor proposed that the report be noted at this stage to allow more time to consider the outcome of the Review and the long and short term proposals. Some proposals needed wider ownership and some would be dealt with over the next two years. He therefore suggested that a further report on short term proposals, which can be implemented quickly, be submitted within the next few weeks.
RESOLVED that the report be noted at this stage and ED officers be thanked for the work undertaken Regen. on this comprehensive review.
12 LMS SCHEME 2003/04 - RESULTS OF CONSULTATION ON AMENDMENTS (page and Appendices page
RESOLVED that
(i) the Schools Budget be set in accordance with the DfES final target figure and the DfES be informed accordingly by 31 January 2003; ED E & C
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
(ii) the changes to the LMS formula proposed in the report and Appendix A be agreed, subject to resources being made available;
(iii) officers ask the DfES to allow a contingency mechanism to be used for infant class sizes above 30;
(iv) the potential growth requirement to implement the new proposals be included in the budget report elsewhere on the agenda; and
(v) officers be given authority to make minor amendments to the documents to clarify points and/or take on board any new issues that arise, provided that these do not conflict with the stated intention of the Mayor and consider the views of the Schools Forum.
13 RESITING AND EXPANSION OF GREENVALE SPECIAL SCHOOL - ISSUING OF PUBLIC NOTICE (page
The Mayor declared an interest in this matter as he is a Governor of Greenvale Special School. He therefore vacated the Chair and Councillor Moore chaired the meeting for this item.
RESOLVED that
(i) a public notice (in accordance with ED E & C the requirements of the Schools Standard and Framework Act 1998) be issued proposing that following the planned rebuilding works, Greenvale Special School cease to operate from the Perry Rise site at the end of Summer term 2006 and from the beginning of the Autumn term 2006 operate instead on the Waters Road site; and
(ii) a public notice (in accordance with the requirements of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998) be issued on the
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
proposal that the admissions limit for Greenvale Special School be extended from 70 - 100. This change be made from the beginning of Autumn term 2006 to coincide with the planned move to the new building.
With the Mayor in the Chair
14 SILWOOD SRB COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (PHASE 3) (page and Appendices page
Following the approval of the recommendations contained in the report on Part 2 of the Agenda - Silwood SRB Year 4 Review and Phase 3 proposals and subject to receiving confirmation of funding for Phase 3 from the Housing Corporation it was
RESOLVED that
(i) a Compulsory Purchase Order be made in pursuance of Section 17 of Part II of the Housing Act 1985 for the acquisition of all interests in the site of Phase 3 of Silwood SRB, as shown on the accompanying plan in heavy black edging, other than those interests in the ownership of the Council; and
(ii) the appropriate Chief Officers be authorised to take such action as may be necessary to make and obtain confirmation of and implement the CPO and to acquire all interests under it, either by agreement or compulsorily.
15 HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT BUDGET 2003/04 (page and Appendices page
RESOLVED that the following proposals be agreed for ED submission to the Council for approval as Regen/ part of the budget for the year 2003/04: ED Res.
(i) a rent increase of an average of 3% be agreed with effect from 7 April 2003, (an average increase of £1.77 per week) and
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
the proposals set out in paragraph 9.2 of the report be agreed;
(ii) the introduction of service charges, as set out in paragraph 7.14 of the report be agreed;
(iii) the method and level of charges for hostels and Linkline, set out in paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of the report be agreed; and
(iv) the Housing Revenue Account draft estimates as set out in Appendix 3 to the report and the measures to achieve a balanced HRA budget as set out in (i) above be agreed.
16 OSCP AND HIP CAPITAL PROGRAMME MONITORING 2002/2003 (page and Appendices page
RESOLVED that
OSCP
(i) budget allocations for Theatre Phase 1 ED Res/ of £75k, the Albany £130k and Capital ED House £350k, as set out in section 5 of the Regen. report, be agreed;
(ii) delegated authority be given to the Executive Director for Resources and Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Head of Law, to approve the terms of the proposed funding agreement between the Council and LDA in relation to the LDA's agreement to provide funding of £620k towards the cost of the works to the Albany and to agree any necessary consequent changes to the proposed funding agreement between the Council and the Deptford Fund;
HIP
(iii) the scheme at Brownhill Road requiring contract and budget variations of
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
£30k as detailed in paragraph 30 of the report be agreed;
OSCP
(iv) the current level of spend to budget for 2002/03 as set out in table 6 of the report and the current level of overprogramming of £948k of budget to resources over the current three year programme be noted;
HIP
(v) the additional schemes approved as part of the second quarter monitoring report (30 October 2002) and the subsequent HIP variations report (8 January 2003) as detailed in paragraph 6.26 of the report be noted;
(vi) the current level of overprogramming of £1.37m as detailed in paragraph 6.27 of the report be noted; and
(vii) the site assembly costs associated on the Silwood SRB5 scheme in 2002/03 as detailed in paragraph 6.28 of the report be noted.
17 PEOPLE WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES (LIFESTYLES) DAY CENTRE (page
An addendum was circulated giving details of revised recommendations for consideration in place of those set out in the report (copy attached at page ).
The Mayor and Cabinet heard representations from parents and carers who are members of Lewisham MENCAP. (A copy of their representations is attached at page ).
In conclusion it was
RESOLVED that
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
(i) the Council consult all stakeholders on ED SC proposals that the number of day centres & H be reduced from 5 to 4; that the Naborhood Centre be closed and released for alternative use; with a reconfiguration of the service to ensure so far as possible that there is no significant loss in service provision; and
(ii) the Executive Director for Social Care and Health be requested to bring a further report back to the Mayor for consideration and decision in March 2003 when the consultation process is complete.
18 2003/04 REVENUE BUDGET, 2003/04 TREASURY STRATEGY, SETTING THE COUNCIL TAX FOR 2003/04 AND 2003/06 CAPITAL PROGRAMME (page and Appendices page
An addendum to the report was circulated at the meeting updating the Mayor and Cabinet on two issues:
• the statutory consultation with business ratepayers; and
• the agreement with the Department for Education and Skills of the amount of the base budget for the schools block.
The addendum also set out amendments to the recommendations set out in the report (copy attached at page ).
A copy of the comments of the Public Accounts Select Committee on the Budget Report and proposals was also circulated at the meeting (copy attached at page ).
RESOLVED
Revenue Budget
(i) the Council is presently projecting a net overspend of £1,543k on its 2002/03 budget of £310.178um be noted;
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
(ii) the savings of £10.750m previously agreed by the Council be noted;
(iii) a submission of a proposed schools budget of £145.734m (including specific formula grant of £3.279m and the provisional LSC allocation of £5.439m) be agreed and submitted to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills;
(iv) the following recommendations be approved for initial consideration by the Council on 10 February 2003. They are predicated on the outcome of the GLA precept, the final Local Government Finance Settlement and the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the Council's proposed schools budget:
(a) the Non-Education SSA pressures and growth items outlined in paras. 9.3 to paras. 9.12 of the report form part of the Council's base budget with effect from 2003/04;
(b) the use of corporate once-off resources of £1.65m as detailed in para. 7.24 of the report;
(c) that the specific formula grants set out in paragraph 11.20 of the report be used for the purposes set out in that paragraph;
(d) the Executive Director for Resources & Deputy Chief Executive issue revised cash limits for all directorates following the adjustments set out in paragraph 9.42 of the report;
(e) a General Fund Budget Requirement of £342.254m in 2003/04;
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
(f) an increase of 9.40% in Lewisham Council's element of Council Tax for 2003/04, as set out in the report, be recommended to Council on 10 February 2003;
(g) an overall increase in Council Tax for 2002/03 of 14.18%, which includes the GLA precept increase at its budget consultation figure of 35.73%;
(h) the Executive Director for Resources & Deputy Chief Executive be allowed to agree drawing on the funds proposed for Social Care & Health in paragraph 9.5 of the report;
(i) Executive Directors bring forward during 2003/04 proposals for thematic areas of specific growth for the year for Mayor & Cabinet approval;
(j) Executive Directors report on spending (to date and projections for the year) at the end of May 2003 in those areas where the budget has been the subject of savings for 2003/04;
(k) the recommendations to the Council, as set out in Appendix C, be agreed; and
(l) the Mayor's Overview Budget Strategy for 2003/04 (see Appendix D) be forwarded to Full Council for endorsement.
Treasury Management Strategy
(v) to recommend the Council to:
(a) agree the treasury strategy;
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
(b) approve the borrowing limits set out in paragraph 16.46 of the report;
(c) note the amendments set out in Appendix X made to the counterparty list by the Executive Director for Resources and Deputy Chief Executive under his delegated powers;
(d) approve the amendments to the counterparty list set out in Appendix Y; and
(e) approve the revised counterparty list attached at Appendix Z.
Capital Programme
OSCP and HIP
(vi) to recommend the Council to amend the capital virement limits in accordance with paragraph 15.122 of the report;
OSCP
(vii) the recommendations contained in paragraphs (a) to (f) be approved, insofar as they are the Mayor's responsibility and Council be recommended to approve the recommendations, insofar as they are the responsibility of full Council under the Constitution:
(a) a budget allocation of £3.5m to a Highways programme of works, the details and profile of spend be reported to this committee in the next capital report (ref. paragraph 14.19);
(b) a budget allocation of £0.5m to the Forster Park school scheme as
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
detailed in paragraph 14.28 to be profiled £0.25m in 2004/05 and £0.25m in 2005/06;
(c) top up the AMP budget for 2003/04 schemes by an additional £1m as referenced in paragraph 14.26;
(d) the transfer of £0.5m of resources from OSCP to HIP in 2003/04 to compensate HIP for costs associated with the Downham Depot Scheme, reference paragraph 14.29;
(e) to delegate to the Executive Director for Resources & Deputy Chief Executive the decision on funding for Forest Hill School urgent rewiring and asbestos works, reference paragraph 14.33; and
(f) the remaining capital resources available to the OSCP of an estimated £3.4m over the 3 year programme be used to create a pot for bidding against early in the new financial year.
HIP Recommendations
(viii) the recommendations contained in paragraphs (a) to (d) be approved, insofar as they are the Mayor's responsibility, and Council be recommended to approve the recommendations, insofar as they are the responsibility of full Council under the Constitution:
(a) the contractual and policy commitments as shown in paragraph 15.39 to 15.105 of the report;
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Minute No. Action
(b) the policy of recycling receipts be extended to meet site acquisition costs for the duration of the current regeneration schemes as outlined in paragraphs 15.20 to 15.32 of the report;
(c) the priority list for new schemes to be included in the 2003/04 housing capital programme as outlined in paragraphs 15.107 to 15.116 of the report; and
(d) that schemes can be worked up to tender stage prior to funds becoming available on 1 April 2003 as outlined in paragraph 15.117 of the report
(ix) the level of anticipated resources for 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 shown in the table in paragraph 15.13 of the report be noted; and
Public Accounts Select Committee
(x) the comments of Public Accounts Select Committee be noted.
19 RACE EQUALITY ACTION FOR LEWISHAM - APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER (page
RESOLVED that Councillor McGarrigle be appointed to serve on the Management Committee of REAL for the remainder of the municipal year.
Chair
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
Key Decision Item No. 3
Ward
Contributors CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Class Part 1 Date: 19 FEBRUARY 2003
Recommendation
It is recommended that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3, 7 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act:-
101 Minutes
102 Disposal of Barlborough Street Garages Site (Phase 2A Kender Triangle) Kender Estate, SE14
103 Disposal of 180/182 Evelyn Street, SE8
104 Purchase of Freehold of Merridale - 1-42 Carston Close, SE12
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title FAIRER CHARGING APPEALS PROCEDURE
Key Decision YES Item No.
Ward
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR SOCIAL CARE & HEALTH/HEAD OF LAW Class Part 1 Date: 19 FEBRUARY 2002
1 Summary
This report sets out the appeals procedure for the fairer charging regime.
2 Policy Context
2.1 Section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication's Act 1983 (HASSASSAA 1983) gives the Council a discretionary power to charge adult recipients of non-residential services. Charges have to be considered reasonable in respect of relevant services. Guidance issued under this Section is mandatory and must be followed by Local Authorities. The Council is also required to comply with statutory guidance related to its duties and responsibilities.
2.2 The Carers and Disabled Children Act (2000) requires the Council to assess and provide services for carers independently. It allows the Council to charge carers for the services they receive. The Government does not presume that all Councils will charge for non-residential Social Services. Where they do, the Council retains discretion in the design of the charging policy. The Fairer Charging Guidance sets out a broad framework to assist Councils to ensure that their charging policies are fair and operate consistently with their overall social care objective. The Council therefore must ensure that its Charging Policy is demonstrably fair as between different service users and that the overall objectives of social care, to promote independence and social inclusion of service users, are not undermined by a poorly designed Charging Policy.
2.3 The Fairer Charging Guidance requires that a model of financial assessment is applied, and a calculation of disposable income against which a charge can be raised for each service user. Through application of this model an equitable charging regime can be achieved, which
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc considers the level of the service users whole care package, their financial circumstances and ability to pay.
2.4 Section 17(3) of the HASSASSA Act 1983 gives a user the right to ask the Council for a review of the charge which has been assessed, if the user considers that he/she cannot afford to pay it. Under the legislation, the Council must be satisfied that the user’s means are insufficient to pay the amount they would otherwise be charged, before deciding to reduce or waive a charge.
2.5 It is important that any request to review a charge is carefully considered. The fairness of the charge should be considered in the light of the individual’s financial circumstances and in relation to the position of other users and charge payers. The review may need to go beyond considering whether the assessed charge accords with the terms of the Council’s policy, since it is unlikely that policies will be able to make provision for all conceivable personal circumstances. Requests for review, which should be considered seriously, may include those for a relaxation of the savings limits for a period where the individual user has needs such as purchase of equipment related to their disability.
2.6 Information for charge payers should make clear that they may either seek a review of their assessed charge, or they may make a formal complaint if they are dissatisfied with any aspect of the assessment.
2.7 Members agreed the Fairer Charging regime in July 2002. They agreed the current appeals procedure in November 1999. In the light of the introduction of the Fairer Charging regime, the procedure has been reviewed and the revised procedure is now presented. This paper sets out the mechanism for making and considering appeals arising from fairer charging assessments.
2.8 The Council is committed to targeting resources to improve the quality of life for poor and disadvantaged people.
3 Recommendation
The Mayor is recommended to agree the Fairer Charging Appeals Procedure as stated in appendix one and described in the body of this report and that this replaces the current Appeals Procedure.
4 Narrative
Section 17(3) of the HASSASSA Act 1983 gives a user the right to ask the Council for a review of the charge which has been assessed, if the user considers that he/she cannot afford to pay it. Under the legislation, the Council must be satisfied that the user’s means are insufficient to pay the amount they would otherwise be charged, before deciding to reduce or waive a charge. c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 4.1 Reviews may need to go beyond considering whether the assessed charge accords with the terms of the Council’s policy, since it is unlikely that policies will be able to make provision for all conceivable personal circumstances. Reviews will need to consider the individuals ability to pay and issues of consistency.
4.2 The information made available to charge payers needs to clearly distinguish between the following circumstances:
♦ Errors in calculation ♦ Changes in circumstances ♦ Issues relating to the level of service received ♦ An appeal against the reasonableness of the charge ♦ A complaint about the process
4.3 It is therefore proposed to distinguish clearly between the two aspects of review, ie a routine financial re-assessment and an appeal against reasonableness. The third aspect is a complaint.
4.4 Financial re-assessments will deal with assessments that the client believes the assessment to be wrong in fact, i.e. because of a misapplication of the rules, the use of wrong information about income, savings and the service received, or changes in those circumstances. These will be dealt with as part of the routine operation of Fairer Charging and requires no specific policy or process. Requests for re-assessment may be made verbally, in person or in writing, although the Financial Assessment Team may require some details to be put in writing or documentary evidence of circumstances.
4.5 Appeals will deal with circumstances where the correct information and calculation have been applied, but the client wishes to exercise their right to satisfy the Authority that she/he has insufficient means to pay the assessed charge. In many cases this will be because they have other circumstances that are relevant to their income or outgoings that the assessment does not take account of. For example they may have savings, but need this to purchase equipment related to their disability.
4.6 The complaints process will apply where a client wishes to complain about or compliment the operation of the Fairer Charging assessment or their associated interaction with the Council. It will also apply if an appeal is unsuccessful and the client wishes to pursue the matter further. The general Social Care & Health Complaints Procedure will apply.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 4.7 Requests to change the service received will need to be addressed to the service unit managing the service received. The two aspects of review are dealt with in more detail below.
Financial re-assessment
4.8 Errors in calculation, including where incorrect information on circumstances has been used, should be notified to the Financial Assessment Team who will check that the assessment has been carried out correctly. This may require further enquiries or a home visit. Where errors have been made the charge will be re-assessed and the client notified accordingly. Where no error is found the client will be notified in writing of this. The client may wish to exercise their rights under the appeals or complaints procedure.
4.9 Changes in circumstances will be picked up in two ways. Clients may notify the Financial Assessment Team of changes in their circumstances that may affect their charge at any time. If they do so the team will re- assess their circumstances.
4.10 The Financial Assessment Team will also conduct annual reviews of clients’ circumstances. This will enable the assessment to pick up changes in benefits, pensions and other income, changes in savings and uplifts in service charges.
4.11 Because assessments for Fairer Charging are currently being completed it is proposed that the first annual reviews will not take place until April 2004.
4.12 If a correct assessment has been made, but the client feels it is unreasonable for the Council to expect them to pay the assessed charge they may lodge an appeal under the appeals procedure.
Appeals
4.13 The appeals procedure that members are being asked to approve is attached as appendix one.
4.14 The criteria for appeal is that the client wishes to satisfy the Authority that it is not practicable for them to pay the charge calculated by the Fairer Charging assessment. The test to be applied is that the client satisfies the panel that they have circumstances that affect their ability to pay or otherwise that it is not reasonably practicable for them to pay the assessed level of charge in their case.
4.15 The key elements of the appeals process are:
♦ services continue to be provided whether a user asks for a re- assessment, lodges an appeal or makes a complaint. Services will not
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc be withdrawn or refused because a user is refusing to pay the assessed charge; ♦ appeals will be heard by a panel of officers of at least group manager level who were not involved in the original decision; ♦ the user will have the opportunity to attend the panel hearing in person or to send a representative if they wish; ♦ the panel will notify the user of the outcome in writing; ♦ if the appeal is successful the charge may be waived or reduced. The panel will refer the case back to the Financial Assessment team to review the charge.
4.16 Clients in receipt of Supporting People services who are being charged following a fairer charging assessment will have the right to appeal the charge through the fairer charging appeals panel.
4.17 If an appeal is unsuccessful a user may exercise their rights under the directorates complaints procedure. If they do so, their complaint will automatically be taken to stage two. Stage one complaints are handled by the service manager. Stage 2 complaints are handled independently.
Other issues arising
4.18 Current systems do not allow for frozen meals or those taken at day centres to form part of the clients weekly charge and are therefore not included in the 4 weekly invoicing system. In the short term clients will still be required to pay for these services at the point of delivery, in the longer term IT systems are being amended to accommodate the charging for these services.
4.19 The current practice of differentiating the cost of the meal depending on where that meal is delivered has been reviewed by officers and is considered unreasonable. A uniform charge of £2.50 per meal regardless of whether the meal is hot or frozen, or eaten in the clients home or at a day centre is therefore being charged on review.
5 Conclusion
Although the assessment process for Fairer Charging aims to be fair, it is not possible to anticipate all of the circumstances that might arise. It is therefore important that users have an opportunity to appeal. The appeals process gives them the opportunity to make the case that they have insufficient means to pay the charge.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 6 Financial Implications
Successful appeals against charges will result in reduced income. It is difficult to assess the overall impact of this at this stage. The effect of individual decisions are unlikely to be material. However, the appeal panel may make judgements that require amendments to the assessment process to ensure fairness and consistency. In these circumstances the financial impact may be material and will have to be estimated at the point that changes to the process are brought before members for approval.
7 Legal Implications
7.1 The Council has a power under Section 17(1) of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication’s Act (1983), to charge for non- residential social services.
7.2 The Council can levy a charge (if any) if it considers it to be reasonable. This is subject to the right of the person receiving the service or services to satisfy the Council that he/she should not pay more than it is reasonably practicable for him/her to pay. The Council is required to reduce or waive the charge if they are satisfied that a person’s financial means are insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for the individual to pay the charge.
7.3 In order to determine this the Council has established an Appeals Procedure for client’s receiving non-residential social services. Members are referred to the Appeals Procedure which is appended to this Report.
7.4 Members should be aware that at all times the Council must act in a way that is reasonable taking into account all relevant factors and disregarding those which are irrelevant. Failure to act in this way could result in challenge either by way of Judicial Review, or referral to the Local Government Ombudsman or to the Secretary of State.
7.5 Further legal comments have been included within the body of the Report
8 Crime and Disorder Implications
There are no crime and disorder implications.
9 Personnel Implications
There are no personnel implications.
10 Equalities Implications
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 10.1 Social services provide services to some of the most historically disadvantaged residents in the borough, older adults, people with learning difficulties, people with physical disabilities and people with mental health problems. The nature of needs of those service users is likely to mean they will have difficulties understanding complicated changes in the method of charging for services. The Fairer Charging model provides the Council with a system for raising charges for Adults non-residential services which is equitable across all service user groups, consistent, and takes into account the service users’ income expenditure and ability to pay the charge. The Appeals mechanism provides a mechanism for review where the user does not believe it is practicable for them to pay the assessed charge.
10.2 Consultation has already indicated that many clients may find financial assessments, required under the statutory Guidance, as being intrusive, and may refuse to provide the necessary information. Under the statutory Guidance, the user will be deemed to be able to meet the calculated full costs of services. The Council will then be under a legal duty to collect the debt , if necessary pursuing the debt through civil action in the Courts. It is therefore essential that the Directorate works closely with other agencies, voluntary organisations etc to ensure smooth transition and clear communication to users at all the stages. Staff will require support and training to enable them to explain clearly, to help clients and to diffuse potentially stressful and confrontational situations.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short Title of Date File File Ref Contact Exempt Information Document Location Officer
Charges for 3rd GSU N/A Adi N/A services for people November Cooper with Learning 1999 Disability SS Cttee 18th July GSU N/A Adi N/A Fairer Charging 2001 Cooper
SS Cttee 30th GSU N/A Adi N/A Non Residential January Cooper Service Charges 2002
Mayor & Cabinet 8th July GSU N/A Adi N/A Implementation of 2002 Cooper Fairer Charging
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc If there are any queries on this report, please contact Adi Cooper, extension 48669 or Richard Ellis, extension 43582.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET 19 FEBRUARY 2003 APPENDIX ONE ITEM NO.
APPEALS PROCEDURE FOR FAIRER CHARGING
The criteria for Appeals will allow appeals against the charge arising from a Fairer Charging Assessment on the grounds that the user believes that they have insufficient means or other circumstances that make it unreasonable for them to pay the charge as assessed.
Users of the service will be informed, in writing, of their level of charge calculated according to the fairer charging policy.
They will also be informed of their right to ask the Financial Assessment Team for a re-assessment of the charge if they believe it to be incorrect.
Further they will be informed in writing of their right to appeal on the grounds that they believe it is unreasonable to expect them to pay the calculated charge.
Services will continue to be provided to the user.
Qualifying persons
Persons able to use this procedure are the service users assessed under Fairer Charging or interested parties acting on their behalf.
Appeals
Appeals must be made in writing, in the first instance, and should be addressed to the Head of Adults Services, 3rd Floor Town Hall Chambers Catford SE6 4RU.
On receiving an appeal that meets the criteria the Head of Adults Services or her nominee will convene an Appeals Panel within 10 working days, subject to agreement with the user should they choose to attend.
The Appeals Panel will consist of at least two of the following:
The Head of Resources or the Group Manager (Finance) The Head of Adults Services or the relevant Group Manager (GM Adult Care Management or GM Lewisham Partnership)
The appeals panel will be advised by the Head of Law or her nominee. A Minute Taker will also be present to record the panel hearing and its decisions.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc The user will be notified of the proposed date, time and location of the appeal panel and will be invited to attend or to nominate an interested party to act on their behalf. If the user is physically unable to attend the proposed venue, wishes to attend and notifies the Head of Adult Services accordingly, the panel will seek to convene at a venue convenient for the user.
The panel will consider the written and in-person representations and evidence of the user and/or their nominee. They will have before them details of the assessment and the information on which that has been based. They may seek a report on the clients circumstances from the Financial Assessment Team.
They will make their decision on the basis of whether it is, in their opinion, reasonably practicable for the user to pay the assessed charge. The test of reasonableness will be that the user has circumstances that affects their ability to pay.
The panel will notify the user of the outcome in writing.
If the panel is satisfied that the user is unable to pay the charge, they will refer the matter back to the Financial Assessment Team to reassess the charge. If an appeal is upheld, a charge may be waived or reduced.
Any person not satisfied with the decision will be informed of their rights under the directorate’s Complaints & Compliments Policy.
Complaints arising from an unsuccessful appeal will automatically be taken to stage two of the complaints procedure.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title ANERLEY SPECIAL SCHOOL - CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED CLOSURE
Key Decision Yes Item No. 5
Ward
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION & CULTURE/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES/HEAD OF LAW Class Part 1 Date: 19 FEBRUARY 2003
1. Summary
This report seeks approval for officers to begin formal consultations on a proposal to close Anerley Special School at the end of the summer term 2005 and to suspend its delegated budget with effect from 17th March 2003. Approval is also sought to open formal consultations on a consequent proposal to expand the provision at New Woodlands school to include for the education of Key Stage 3 pupils.
2. Recommendations
It is recommended that the Mayor agrees that :
2.1 in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the delegated budget powers of Anerley School be suspended from 17 March 2003;
2.2 formal consultations, in accordance with the requirements of Section 31 of and Schedule 6 to, the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Education (Maintained Special Schools) (England) Regulations 1999 be carried out on a proposal to close Anerley School at the end of the summer term 2005; and
2.3 formal consultations, in accordance with the requirements of Section 31 of and Schedule 6 to, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Education (Maintained Special Schools) Regulations 1999 be carried out on a proposal to extend the age range of New Woodlands School to include for the provision for Key Stage 3 pupils.
3. Background
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 3.1 Anerley special school has places for 51 secondary aged boys and currently has 44 on roll. At the time when the school was transferred to Lewisham from the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) in 1990, Anerley served as a boarding school for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) from across the whole ILEA area. This offered pupils the opportunity for boarding away from the difficulties of their home background where this was considered appropriate. Lewisham pupils had the opportunity for placement in other boarding schools at a suitable distance, away from their homes in the Borough. However, it is not ideal for pupils with these special needs to be offered boarding at a school so near to the Borough and neither is it ideal for the LEA’s predominantly day provision for EBD pupils to be located outside the Borough. This anomalous position has been a significant contribution to the school’s difficulties and has been highlighted by two Best Value Reviews.
3.2 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI) and Ofsted have formally identified Anerley as a school having serious weaknesses, following its inspection in May 2002. Prior to this it was known to the LEA as a school causing concern.
3.3 Although confirming the school as having serious weaknesses, the inspection report did identify a number of positive points:
• 95% of the teaching was satisfactory or better • accreditation for Key Stage 4 had been good • the Key Stage 3 curriculum was satisfactory • the school had gained a school achievement award in 2002
3.4 The inspection report raised a number of key issues, which the school must address:
• to develop an effective senior management team • to raise attendance to acceptable levels • to ensure that pupils’ needs, as identified in their statements of special educational need, are fully met • to develop a relevant key stage 4 curriculum matched to pupils’ individual learning needs, to include good quality college links • to meet statutory requirements in physical education, information technology and religious education • to ensure that governors evaluate the work of the school with rigour and make certain that the budget is used wisely to give value for money
4. The Future for Anerley school
4.1 Following the identification of the school as having serious weaknesses, the Education & Culture Directorate has worked closely with the Headteacher and governing body to prepare an action plan. The action plan was submitted to the c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc DfES as required under Section 17(3)(b) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and written notice was subsequently received from the Secretary of State acknowledging that it is a satisfactory plan.
4.2 However, Anerley’s location at well over a mile from the Borough’s southern boundary is a major problem that will continue to be an obstacle to the school in its efforts to raise standards. Any mainstream school in such a situation would face significant problems. For a school for secondary aged pupils with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties the problem is considerable.
4.3 One of the major issues raised by the Ofsted inspection was attendance. Even if the school were centrally placed in the Borough, this would be an issue that would take a significant amount of staff time. For an EBD school so far from the centre of the Borough, it will continue to be a chronic anchor-weight to progress, no matter what improvements are made in the other areas identified in the inspection report.
4.4 The Best Value Review Pupils Out of School looked extensively at how the Authority should organise provision for secondary pupils with statements of EBD. It considered that the distance pupils had to travel was impacting negatively on attendance rates. Although the school had generated some links with partners in the health and vocational sectors there is a limited approach to multi-agency working. The unit costs of placements at Anerley are prohibitive and the review concluded that the LEA was not achieving value for money.
4.5 In July 2002 the Mayor agreed to proposals, set out in the Best Value Review of Pupils Out of School, to support good behaviour in schools and provisions for pupils out of school. The proposals involved the strategic reshaping of services to provide a comprehensive continuum of support for children with challenging behaviour. The Mayor agreed in July 2002 that, subject to consultation, provision at Anerley School should cease and authorised officers to develop plans and timescales for KS3 + KS4 provision within Lewisham.
5. Suspension of the Budget
5.1 As a first stage in the process of re-structuring the Borough’s EBD provision, it is recommended that the delegation of Anerley’s school budget be suspended.
5.2 Under Section 17 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, an LEA has the power to suspend the school’s rights to a delegated budget. The suspension of the delegated budget would give the LEA the opportunity, in partnership with the school, to prioritise the issues highlighted in the inspection report and to make decisions regarding staffing and budget issues.
5.3 The Governors are tasked with overseeing the implementation of the Ofsted Action Plan and developing detailed plans for the intended cessation of provision. In order to help them through this difficult transition period the LEA is planning to withdraw delegation of funding, in order to assist the Governing Body.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 5.4 The Governors have already agreed to the secondment of the Headteacher, on a part-time basis, to work with the Head of Pupils Services in developing and implementing the closure programme. This includes funding alternative placements for pupils. Resources need to follow pupils and the LEA can manage this better with Governor support. The withdrawal of the delegated budget will also allow for more flexibility in staffing.
6. Future Provision for secondary age pupils with statements of Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
Key Stage 3 (11-14)
6.1 The Best Value Report identified the need to build upon the good provision made by New Woodland’s special school. In full consultation with the headteacher and governors of New Woodland’s school a fully costed feasibility study has been made of extending the school to provide a Key Stage 3 curriculum. This study confirmed that it is possible to provide the necessary classrooms and specialist accommodation required by the secondary curriculum but that this would require the relocation of the 40 staff members of the Pupil Services Division which currently occupies a separate building on the school site. The full study is available in the Estate Management Section of the Directorate. If this proposal were agreed formal consultations would need to start to change the nature of New Woodlands so that Key Stage 3 provision could be made at the school. The school is currently registered to provide education for primary age boys and girls with statements of Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. Key Stage 4
6.2 It is proposed to phase out the Key Stage 4 provision at Anerely from Septmber 2003. The 14+ transitional reviews for the current Y9 cohort of Anerely pupils should identify appropriate curriculum options and vocational pathways. The individual programme will consist of a core offer to be provided by the Broad Oak Pupil Referral Unit or John Evelyn Centre. Other components will be community placements, work experience and vocational programmes. Programmes will be accredited and will lead to further training opportunities. This will mean that in the academic year 2003/04 there will be no Y10 pupils at the school.
6.3 The following table shows the proposed phasing.
Anerely Broad Oak/John Evelyn September 2002 Y10 & Y11 September 2003 Y11 Y10 September 2004 Y10 & Y11
7. Relocating the Pupil Support Services currently located on the New Woodlands site
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 7.1 The staff teams based on the New Woodlands site include – Special Educational Needs team, specialist teaching teams for sensory impairment and specific learning difficulties, educational psychologists and the early years SEN Team. Discussions have been taking place with colleagues in the Primary Care Trust about co-locating these teams into the Children and Young People’s Centre to be developed in Rushey Green. However, this development would not be available until 2005, and interim accommodation would therefore be required.
7.2 An interim solution would be to provide office accommodation on the Bromley Road PRU site. The Headteacher of the PRU has identified clear benefits in relocating all the pupils on to one site. The pupils have responded very well to the high quality environment available at the new Broad Oak site. The Bromley Road site is a residential house and is difficult to adapt into classrooms. The management of the provision would be easier on one site.
7.3 It is therefore proposed that all of the pupil provision at the PRU Centre at 25, Bromley Road be transferred to Broad Oak and that the staff teams currently at New Woodlands be moved in turn to Bromley Road. Broad Oak could accommodate the pupils from Bromley Road without the need for adaptation or additional building. There would need to be some adaptation work at Bromley Road to accommodate the staff teams from New Woodlands.
8. Management of Change
The Headteacher of Anerley is playing a central role in managing the changes. He has set up a Placement Panel to oversee the appropriate placements of pupils and the transition plans for children moving into Key Stage 4 provision. Parents are being consulted on an individual basis. There is very good co-operation between Anerley and New Woodlands Schools. Both Headteachers are working on interim proposals for KS3 which will provide quality education for children and secure the confidence of parents and staff. Throughout the BVR Pupils Out of School consultation took place with all stakeholders. There have been subsequent consultations with:
Anerley Governing Body Anerley Staff Staff Associations Pupil Projections
It is proposed to cease admission into school from September 2004. The profile of pupils would then be:
Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Roll Sept ‘02 7 13 11 6 5 42 Sept ‘03 5 7 13 0 6 31 Sept ‘040570012 Sept ‘05000000
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 9. Staffing Implications
Every effort would be made to work in partnership with staff Trade Unions and governors to avoid job losses, and full use would be made where appropriate of the re-deployment procedures. If Anerley were to close the Local Authority and Governing Body would exercise their duty to seek ways of avoiding redundancies through re-deployment to other schools. The expansion of New Woodlands and the vocational developments at John Evelyn and Broad Oak would lead to some job creation. The recognised trade unions would be consulted in line with Council policy.
10. Financial Implications
10.1 The proposals would entail capital expenditure to provide the additional buildings at New Woodlands and for adaptations at 25, Bromley Road to accommodate the staff in the Pupil Services Division who would be displaced. A bid has been made to the DfES for funding, based on costings from feasibility studies completed on the New Woodlands site and 25 Bromley Road, from the Targeted Capital Fund Programme. A decision from the DfES will be received by the end of March 2003.
10.2 Financial implications revenue
10.2.1 The Anerley budget is currently £793,711 per annum, net of School Standards Grant. This is meant to fund 51 places, and includes an allocation of £116,760 for boarding places. Since 1999-2000, the number of places filled has been as follows:
Year Composite Roll 1999-2000 45 2000-01 41 2001-02 38 2002-03 41
10.2.2 No boarding places have been used for some years.
10.2.3 Elimination of the boarding allowance would save £111,000, after allowing for an offsetting allocation for catering, and a reduction in the number of places to the current usage of 42 would save a further £97,000.
10.2.4 If the proposals in the report are accepted, then the pupils who would have transferred to Anerley in 2004 will have to be placed elsewhere, as the provision in New Woodlands will not be ready. The table below assumes that they are placed outborough. It is also assumed that the provision in New Woodlands would provide the 42 places currently occupied at Anerley.
10.2.5 The table shows the estimated pupil related costs until the secondary c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc provision at New Woodlands is fully occupied. The eventual saving of £307,000 does not allow for any additional premises costs at New Woodlands due to the expansion in provision, but even a doubling in size would not cost more than £60,000 at 2002-03 rates.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Anerley 793,711 517,712 335,714 - - - -
Broad Oak - 61,581 178,344 168,747 51,984 - -
New Woodlands - - - 81,034 114,798 91,645 24,117
Total-current pupils - 793,711 579,292 514,059 249,781 166,782 91,645 24,117 -
Outborough-new pupils 0 233,333 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 166,667
New Woodlands-new pupils 486,203 60,775 164,962 262,395 355,006 447,616
Total New pupils 486,203 - - 233,333 460,775 564,962 662,395 755,006 614,282
486,203 793,711 579,292 747,392 710,557 731,744 754,041 779,123 614,282
Saving 307,508 214,419 46,319 83,154 61,967 39,670 14,588 179,429
NOTES £117k of the reduction is due to deletion of the boarding allowance No account has been taken of additional premises costs at New Woodlands Assumed that Sep 2004 intake is placed outborough at £50k per pupil Pupil numbers-current pupils Apr-Aug 4242423625125 Sep-Mar 42423625125 0
New pupils who would X New X otherwise have gone to Woodla Outbor Anerley nds ough Sep-04 Sep-05 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08 Sep-09 Sep-10 Y7 8 998888 Y8 8 99988 Y9 8 9998 Y10 8 899 Y11 8 89
Totals 44 42 38 39 42 42 42 11. Legal implications
11.1 Suspension of the budget
Section 17 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 gives an LEA the power to suspend the delegated budget of a school with serious weaknesses.
11.2 Closure of Anerley
Section 31 (1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 requires an LEA to publish proposals if it intends to discontinue a community special school, and Section 31 (4) requires that before publishing proposals the LEA must consult such persons as seems appropriate, having regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
11.3 The guidance for consultation is set out in Circular 15/99 paragraphs 10 and 11 which states that the Secretary of State considers that the interested parties who should be consulted should include;
• any school which is the subject of proposals • any LEA which maintains a statement of a child attending the school • parents of pupils at the school • any Health Authority whose area covers any part of the area of the maintaining LEA • any NHS Trust responsible for a hospital or other provision in the area of the maintaining LEA.
11.4 Schedule 6 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the relevant regulations contained in the Education (Maintained Special Schools) (England) Regulations 1999, stipulate that once proposals for the closure of a community special school that has been identified as having serious weaknesses have been published, there will be a period of one month for any person to make objection to those proposals. If there were no objections to the proposals the LEA would have, within four months from the date of publication of the proposals, to determine to implement them. If there were objections, the decision would have to be referred to the Lewisham School Organisation Committee.
11.5 Section 75 of, and Schedule 10 to, the Education Act 2002 will, when invoked by the making of Regulations, stipulate that in addition to objections, any person may also make comments on the proposals. However, the need for an LEA to refer the proposal to the School Organisation Committee would only arise if there had been objections and these had not been withdrawn in writing during the one month representation period.
11.6 Section 176 of the Education Act 2002 makes provision for Secretary of State’s Guidance, when made to stipulate that LEAs must also provide for pupils’ views on a proposal to be considered, in the light of their age and understanding.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 11.7 Expansion of New Woodlands School. Section 31 of, and Schedule 6 to, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, stipulate that proposals have to be published if an LEA intends to make a prescribed alteration to a community special school. Schedule 1 to the Education (Maintained Special Schools) (England) Regulations 1999 stipulates that any proposal to increase the upper age limit of a school is such a prescribed alteration.
11.8 The same provisions apply to the need for, (and extent of), consultation as would apply to the closure of Anerley. The procedures for publication of proposals and the arrangements for objections and comments would be the same, save that the representation period (for objections and comments) would be two months and not one, as would be the case for the proposal for the closure of Anerley.
11.9 Implications for Key Stage 4 pupils All pupils with statement of SEN have a transitional review at 14+. The Connexions Service are involved in this review and assist in planning a young person’s transition to adulthood. Provision at KS4 would be made on the basis of this individual review of need. The authority would have several pathways, including vocational programmes, to meet young peoples’ learning needs.
12. Timetable for the Proposals
12.1 It is proposed, subject to a satisfactory response from the DfES to the bid for capital resources, to open formal consultations on a proposal to close Anerley special school and re-provide secondary provision within Lewisham at New Woodlands School (KS3) and at the Broadoak PRU and the John Evelyn Centre (KS4). The consultation would be for all stakeholders and anyone else with an interest in these proposals keeping in mind the statutory requirements as set out in section 10 of this report.
12.2 If approval were given for the consultations, and the DfES were to allocate sufficient capital resources (not known until late March), the consultations would begin in late April 2003 (avoiding the Easter holidays) and conclude at the end of June 2003. The results of those consultations would be reported to a meeting of the Mayor and Cabinet in July 2003.
12.3 If approved by the Mayor in July 2003, the public notices would be issued at the beginning of September 2003 (avoiding publication over the summer holidays). There would then be a period of one month for any person to make objection to or comment on, the proposals for the closure of Anerley school, and a period of two months for objections or comments on the proposals for the enlargement of New Woodlands. If there were objections, the final decision would be referred to the Lewisham School Organisation Committee which would, in these circumstances probably meet in late November to early January 2004 to make a decision. If there were no objections, the Mayor would need to determine to implement the proposals.
12.4 The building works at 25, Bromley Road, to allow for the transfer of staff c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc from the Pupils Services Division at New Woodlands, could take place once a hopefully successful result of the bid for resources had been announced in March 2003. These works should be able to be completed by December 2003 when a decision on the closure of Anerley and the expansion of New Woodlands had been taken. The new building at New Woodlands could then begin in January 2004 and be completed in time for the formal expansion of the school into a 5-16 school by September 2005.
13. Crime and Disorder Implications
The link between truancy, pupil attendance and behaviour is well documented. The proposals outlined in this report will ensure better and more relevant provision for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. They will contribute to better outcomes for pupils and will ensure a targeted response by all key agencies particularly the Police, Social and Health services.
14. Equalities Implications
It is very important that pupils with challenging behaviour have easy access to high quality education and training. The proposals in this report seek to provide a better quality provision for this group of vulnerable pupils. Location of the provision within Lewisham would not only provide reasonable access but also enable better co-ordination of services and planning for training and employment when pupils leave school.
15. Environmental Implications
There are no specific environmental implications arising out of this report.
16. Conclusions
The recommendations outlined in this report build upon the work and consultations carried out during the Pupils Out of School Best Value Review. The proposals offer the best option for secondary provision for pupils with challenging behaviour and the prospect of better outcomes.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
None
If there are any queries on this report, please contact Christine Grice, Education & Culture, extension 47331.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title PROPOSED INTRODUCTION OF A WARDEN SCHEME ON FOUR DEPTFORD HOUSING ESTATES Key Decision YES Item No.
Ward Evelyn/New Cross
Contributors DEPTFORD AREA/HOUSING DIVISION/LEGAL SERVICES/REGENERATION FINANCE Class Part 1 Date: 19 FEBRUARY 2003
1. Summary 1.1 A recent review of the concierge service on Deptford housing estates recommended that the service is re-organised into a ‘Neighbourhood Warden’ scheme. 1.2 There are 5 independent CCTV systems on housing estates in Deptford: Pepys Estate, Pepys Towers, Evelyn (including Sayes Court), Hawke Tower on the Milton Court Estate and Silwood Estate. 1.3 In addition to the CCTV systems, concierge staff at Daubeney and Hawke Towers also provide an around-the-clock security and door entry service to the two blocks. 1.4 The current concierge service offers little benefit to the wider community being very expensive and not offering value for money. The wardens would initially cover, Pepys, Milton Court Evelyn Estate and Sayes Court, where the current funding is directed. 1.5 A formal consultation process has taken place with particular attention paid to the residents of Daubeney and Hawke Towers’, as the reception / concierge service they currently enjoy will be removed to finance the Neighbourhood Warden scheme. Evelyn and New Cross ward members have been consulted. 2. Purpose To seek approval to re-organise the current concierge service into a Neighbourhood Warden scheme on Deptford housing estates.
3. Recommendations
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 3.1 Withdraw the Daubeney Tower and Hawke Tower concierge service. 3.2 Redirect existing resources to provide a warden service to Pepys, Evelyn, Sayes Court, and Milton courts complemented by CCTV 3.3 Agree the proposed staff structure. 3.4 Agree that a staff re organisation be conducted in line with existing procedures. 4. Background 4.1 Since the Pepys and Hawke Tower concierge systems were introduced over 10 years ago, ‘thinking’ in terms of security has moved on. It could be said that the ‘meet and greet’ personal door opening service operated by concierge staff (many residents do not use their fobs and rely on the concierge to let them in) has become an expensive luxury. The current service offers little value for money for the wider community on the Pepys and Milton Court Estates. 4.2 Agency staff are employed to cover the service mainly at weekends. There have been a number of complaints about the agency staff as their standards are generally lower. However a human presence is maintained for very basic security and the employment costs of agency staff are lower than permanent staff. 4.3 The Evelyn CCTV monitoring equipment has recently been transferred to Eddystone Tower. The CCTV operator monitors both Evelyn and Pepys cameras 10 hours a day, 7 days per week. The Hawke system is monitored 24 hours a day, 52 weeks a year and the Silwood system is not monitored but tapes are viewed retrospectively should an incident occur. 4.4 In terms of value for money, the concierge staff based at Daubeney Tower provide a security presence and can only access CCTV images of Daubeney Tower. This provides a security service to only 9% of the estate and is of little benefit to the security of the whole estate. The same restrictions apply to Hawke Tower, which has a security service for 92 residents and again offers no service to the wider community on the Milton Court Estate. 4.5 The daytime receptionist at Hawke Tower provides a small housing surgery. There is not a huge take up of this service. On average 10 residents use this surgery per week. Housing staff based at the Deptford Area Office will continue to offer this service three, two hour sessions per week. 4.6 The unit cost of providing 24 hour concierge cover at Daubeney Tower (144 units) is £12pw per maisonette. The unit cost of providing 24 hour concierge cover at Hawke Tower (92 units) is £18pw per flat. 4.7 Hawke Tower was analysed in a DETR Housing Research Summary (no 91 1998) comparing controlled entry systems for high rise blocks throughout the country. This research showed it to be the most expensive type of system that they evaluated. 4.8 The system at Silwood is not monitored. Incidents are viewed retrospectively. The wardens will continue to manage the CCTV tape management within the new structure. c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 4.9 The Pepys CCTV system is also a tool for monitoring repairs and maintenance (lights, lifts, entry systems, vandalism and for monitoring cleaning standards). Wardens work closely with colleagues from environment division to improve reporting and chasing uncompleted repairs. The system can be programmed to view the most vulnerable spots; lifts, entrances to blocks, car parks etc. 4.10 If the proposal goes ahead, wardens will be trained to operate CCTV systems. CCTV would enable wardens to direct their resources to areas on the estates where problems occur. 4.11 The warden approach has proven in the Honor Oak pilot to be successful in terms of meeting Lewisham’s key target to help reduce overall crime levels in the borough. It is also extremely popular with residents. Adding CCTV can only make a warden system in Deptford more effective. 4.12 A small CCTV focus group has been set up made up of Pepys residents. The group is very much in favour of a warden scheme, as were Pepys Neighbourhood Committee in 2001, to whom the Head Warden from the Honor Oak scheme, gave a presentation. 4.13 A newsletter promoting the new CCTV system at Pepys was distributed to all residents at the end of April 2002. It contained an article about the possibility of an estate Warden scheme on the Pepys Estate. It also included a questionnaire asking for feedback. Of the 15 responses in the first week all were in favour. 4.14 However, removing the round-the-clock dedicated concierge service will have a big impact on Daubeney and Hawke Tower residents. Aragon Tower noticeably deteriorated when the concierge staff was moved to Daubeney Tower several years ago and Hawke was notorious for crime, vandalism and drugs, which were eliminated when the concierge service was introduced. If a warden scheme goes ahead a steering group made up of all stakeholders including residents from tower blocks, would consider the special requirements of the tower blocks and the role of the wardens generally In Deptford. Currently Catford wardens have experience of tower blocks on the Lewisham Park estate. However Daubeney and Hawke Towers’ also have a CCTV facility which the Lewisham Park blocks do not have. 4.15 Some daytime and some evening/weekend presence at Hawke Tower could be maintained, perhaps as a base from which to carry out patrols and for daytime housing surgeries. Working entry systems must be provided should the proposal go ahead. At the time of writing this report, Daubeney entry system is working, however the system has been unreliable and the system is obsolete. The Technical Unit has found an alternative system and has recently secured funding to finance the replacement. 4.16 The Deptford scheme will be leaner than the Honor Oak scheme, which covers 972 households with 6 wardens compared with the Deptford scheme that will cover 6000 units with 9 wardens. It is the intention that the wardens will focus on the large estates in Deptford comprising of 3060 units. c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 4.17 The Deptford warden scheme will be able to draw on the wealth of experience gained from these existing successful schemes to enable our wardens to “hit the ground running”. 4.18 Consultation included presentations at several Deptford tenant and residents association meetings, leaflets (attached) hand delivered to all residents on estate’s in Deptford and an article in the Deptford Newsletter. 4.19 A presentation detailing the proposed warden scheme was made on 17th October 2002 at Deptford Housing Panel. Some existing Catford and Honor Oak wardens attended the meeting and gave an account of their work for the benefit of the panel. 4.20 Whilst there was general support for the project and a desire to see it progress, several panel members expressed their concerns that the scheme should target only certain areas. There was a clear view that the project should be responsive to issues /problems on all estates across Deptford and should not be constrained by artificial barriers. In response to this view of the majority of panel members, the proposal has been amended to cover the Deptford area. 4.21 Appendices 1 & 2 contain notes from meetings held with residents at Hawke and Daubeney Towers in November 2002. All 10 of the 144 residents from Daubeney Tower and 17 residents of the 96 from Hawke Tower who attended the meetings unanimously stated that they did not want to lose their concierge service. However, if their concierge service remained, they would support the warden scheme. 4.22 Some residents at Daubeney and Hawke Towers’ expressed an interest in contributing directly for a concierge service this has been included as a possible option. 4.23 In addition to this, leaflets have been sent to all Council residents in Deptford. The feedback from the leaflet has also been analysed and is attached in appendix 3. 4.24 Petitions from both Hawke and Daubeney Towers’ have also been received stating that the concierge service should not be withdrawn. 5. Options 5.1 Additional policing: The police would be unable to provide a level of patrolling approaching that of the proposed warden scheme. 5.2 Other types of Scheme: Using established security firms to provide the service for us. The advantages would be that they may have greater capacity to cover unexpected absences, the contractors themselves may have addressed some of the required training and the scheme may have been cheaper. However, the Deptford scheme will be much more than a security patrol. Through operating the scheme directly, we can achieve a transparent and accountable service to local people and ensure maximum flexibility to meet their needs. 5.3 Do nothing: The current concierge service offers little security benefit to the wider community. It is very expensive and does not offer value for money. The Government have recently given local authorities the go ahead to charge tenants directly for the services they receive. At the moment residents in Daubeney Tower and Hawke Tower are not
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc paying directly for the concierge service. This charge is subsidised by all residents living in Lewisham. 5.4 Warden Approach: The introduction of a Warden approach has proven from the Honor Oak pilot to be successful in terms of meeting Lewisham’s key target to help reduce overall crime levels. It also benefits the community at large and it is extremely popular with residents. Adding CCTV to the equation can only make a warden scheme in Deptford more effective. Using the successful implementation plan and expertise from similar schemes in Lewisham means that the chances of early success are good.
5.5 Residents living at Hawke and Daubeney Towers’ pay directly for the concierge service. Some residents living at Hawke and Daubeney Tower have expressed an interest in contributing directly for their concierge service. Depending on the level of service this would cost each resident in the region of £4-£6pw for 37 hours per week and £12-£18pw for a 24 hour cover, 365 days per year.
6. Financial implications.
6.1 Please see appendix 4 for budget provision.
6.2 The scheme’s running costs will be contained within the current concierge / CCTV operators budgets. 6.3 Initial set up expenditure will be incurred for recruitment, training, uniforms and equipment.. A gradual reduction in the current service and a phased implementation of the warden scheme and the redirection of these funds will finance this initial expenditure. 6.4 If in the unlikely event that all existing staff are made redundant there will be one off costs of £62,819 with annual payments thereafter of 7,856pa. 6.5 The wages budget position for Deptford concierge staff as at December 2002 is showing a projected underspend of £23,700 which will contribute towards any redundancy costs. 6.6 As part of the reorganisation process support and encouragement would be provided to existing concierge staff to apply for the newly created posts. Concierge staff and Trade Unions have been consulted. There may be financial costs relating to redundancies arising from the re- organisation of the current service, such costs will be met from the HRA. 7. Legal implications 7.1 Section 105 of the 1985 Housing Act provides that the Council must maintain arrangements for consulting with those of its secure tenants who are likely to be substantially affected by proposed changes in matters of housing management. The Council is required to consider any representations made by those secure tenants prior to making changes. A matter is one of housing management, if in the opinion of the Council it
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc relates to the provision of services or amenities in connection with those dwelling-houses. 7.2 The Council have consulted in accordance with those published arrangement where secure tenants are likely to be substantially affected by the proposed warden scheme. 7.3 Under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 the Council has a duty to eliminate unlawful discrimination, and to promote equal opportunities and good relations between people of differing ethnic groups. In making any decision the Council needs to consider the impact of its policy on its duties under the act. 7.4 Should the service be re-organised in the manner which is recommended the posts of those currently employed by the Council in the concierge service shall become redundant. Those employees shall become eligible for redeployment and, in the event that this does not prove possible may become entitled to an appropriate redundancy payment. 8. Crime and Disorder Implications 8.1 The Warden approach has proven from the Honor Oak pilot to be successful in terms of meeting Lewisham’s key target to help reduce overall crime levels, benefiting the community at large and is extremely popular with residents. Adding CCTV to the equation can only make a warden system in Deptford more effective. 8.2 Crime is a prominent issue for most Lewisham residents. The 2001 crime audit reports crime to be the major concern for over 43% of residents. 8.3 Reducing the fear of crime, especially low level crime and disorder for example graffiti, vandalism, abusive behaviour and vehicle crime all of which have a major impact on the quality of life on Deptford Housing Estates will be addressed by the physical presence of the wardens on patrols 8.4 The wardens' visibility and more extensive use of CCTV will help reduce crime and disorder in residential areas in Deptford. Further, reporting security repairs and light failures will help deter crime. Offering advice and support to victims of crime, will also be part of the wardens role. 8.5 The wardens will liaise with the police and other agencies promoting and encouraging the co-operation of residents in tackling crime vandalism and anti social behaviour. The wardens will also act as a professional witness in legal proceedings if necessary. 8.6 Inspector Smith from Deptford Sector, has given his endorsement to the scheme. Chris Battison the Deptford Community Beat Officer also supports the introduction of a Deptford housing warden scheme incorporating CCTV. He has worked very closely with the Silwood wardens. He is also happy to assist with any consultation with residents. 8.7 At the Daubeney Tower residents meeting in November 2002, PC Battison advised that reported crime was very similar to the figures in Eddystone Tower, an identical adjacent block that does not have a concierge service. He advised that generally most crime on Pepys is
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc committed externally and car crime is the biggest problem on Pepys estate. 9. Equalities implications. 9.1 There are positive equality implications to this scheme. 9.2 The warden approach will offer reassurance and support to vulnerable residents. The wardens will assist in the reduction of racial harassment and hate crime by being a physical presence, provide additional out of hours support to victims of racial harassment or hate crimes by visiting then in their homes and escorting them if necessary. They will share information in relation to racial harassment hate crimes and nuisance with housing management and ASBAT. They will escort HEST (Housing Emergency Support Team) when called to the estate as necessary. 9.3 Initiatives will be taken to positively encourage applications from women and minority ethnic clients. It is also hoped to attract local people. We would also recommend to our partners in the Employment service that we would like the candidates to be representative of the community in Deptford as sucessfully done in Honor Oak. 10. Environmental implications 10.1 The wardens will work closely with environmental services staff to maintain and improve the physical appearance of Deptford housing estates. 10.2 The wardens will report and/or arrange for the defective communal lighting, removal of abandoned vehicles, fly tipping and graffiti and damaged paving, they will also remove litter or report litter that needs clearing and encourage local residents and visitors to remove litter more thoughtfully. 11. Conclusion This report recommends the introduction of a Warden scheme. The wardens will work in conjunction with the police and local residents to improve the quality of life for the residents living within the boundary of the scheme and reduce the fear of crime, actual crime and anti social behaviour.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Deptford Housing estate Concierge and CCTV Review dated May 2002 by Special Projects Team, Deptford Area Housing Office.
For further Information please contact Jillie Smithies on 8314 6764 or. Helen Dobbs on 8314 7140.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET 19 FEBRUARY 2003 APPENDIX 1 ITEM NO.
Daubeney Tower Residents Consultation Meeting - 20th November 2002.
Proposal to Introduce a Neighbourhood Warden Scheme on Deptford |Housing Estates.
Present 10 Residents from Daubeney Tower: Jillie Smithies Area Manager, Deptford Area Helen Dobbs Operations Manager, Deptford Area Sarah Annan Housing Officer, Deptford Area PC Battison Community police Office Deptford Sector
Purpose of Meeting
Helen Dobbs (HD) gave details of the proposal to introduce a warden scheme on Deptford Housing Estates. She summarised the points raised in her letter and accompanying leaflet that was sent to every resident in the block giving details of the proposal.
She explained that Lewisham is committed to regular service reviews and that the concierge service at Daubeney had now been reviewed. She advised that Daubeney Tower had enjoyed the lion’s share of the service since 1995 and that the rest of the estate and the wider community had not benefited.
HD acknowledged that the proposal to remove the dedicated concierge service will have a big impact on Daubeney Tower residents but outlined some of the weaknesses of the concierge service; It provides a security service for just 9% of residents on the Pepys Estate and is often reduced to a door opening service. Complaints had been received about agency staff, staff are generally under utilised. In addition the unit cost is very high and difficult to justify given the limitations.
HD explained that since the early 1990’s when concierge schemes were introduced ‘thinking’ had moved on. The warden approach had proved a success at Honor Oak.
The general concepts of the wardens’ service including their role and responsibilities were described.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc HD also advised that consultation with tenants / residents on other Deptford housing estates has started. This includes leaflets/discussions at several tenants association meetings including the Deptford Area Housing Panel.
Finally HD confirmed that the purpose for her arranging the meeting was to hear specifically Daubeney Tower residents’ views on the proposal as they may lose their concierge service.
David Fleming (DF) responded by stating that initially the concierge was to be linked to cover the three tower blocks on Pepys. When the concierge at Aragon Tower was removed, crime in the block increased. He explained that the warden Scheme at Honor Oak is running successfully. However, there are no tower blocks in the area and therefore problems encountered are different to those experienced by Daubeney Tower residents.
HD explained that if a warden scheme went ahead a steering group made up of all stakeholders including residents from tower blocks, would consider the special requirements of the tower blocks and the role of the wardens generally In Deptford. She also advised that the Catford wardens cover the Lewisham Park estate tower blocks.
Residents Views / Concerns
Cost comparisons for running a concierge / warden scheme Residents complained that a cost comparison for running the warden scheme and a concierge have not been provided. A resident felt that the information given in the leaflets was not useful, as it does not give any detailed or relevant information. Residents enquired how much it will cost per flat to run the warden scheme. HD advised that the cost of running the warden patrols would be cheaper than the concierge service as more residents would benefit.
Tenants queried why agency staff are being used to run the concierge when it would have been cheaper to employ permanent staff. JS advised that this was not the case and gave wage comparisons.
Security in the Block - Residents of Daubeney Tower are concerned that security in the block will be lost if the concierge is removed from their block. There were concerns that unauthorised people would gain entry.
Crime Implications Residents feel that the presence of a concierge reduced crime. PC Battison advised that reported crime was very similar to the figures in Eddystone Tower, an identical adjacent block that does not have a concierge service. He advised that generally most crime on Pepys is committed externally and car crime is the biggest problem on Pepys.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc He did acknowledge that the fear of crime is always a concern is being addressed.
Environment Issues Several concerns were raised in connection with abandoned cars, refuse collection and graffiti, residents felt that wardens would not make a difference. HD highlighted the success of the Silwood wardens with their joined up working with the Environment Division, especially around removal of cars , graffiti and cleaning.
Breakdown of Lifts / Safety of Fire Escape Doors Tenants expressed specific concerns about services to the block that will become problematic should the concierge service be withdrawn. An example was frequent lift break down. The role of the concierge is to report lifts breakdowns and to help residents up the stairs. HD advised that a caretaker inspects the lifts daily . CCTV can be used as there is a camera in each lift which can also be checked remotely from Eddystone Tower. Further a sign with instructions including who to contact should a lift breakdown are provided by the lifts.
Concerns were raised about fire escape doors, children congregating in the block, banging doors and causing a nuisance. HD explained that wardens would be trained to deal with such issues and with other acts of anti-social behaviour. They would be able to liaise with housing officers who are responsible for investigating such cases. Wardens could also be witnesses in serious cases of anti social behaviour.
Domestic Violence A resident pointed out that further advantages for having a concierge in the block was to help give support to residents experiencing domestic violence and to ensure that violent ex-partners are not allowed in the block. Tenants feel that the wardens will not be able to tackle such cases. Again HD advised that wardens would be trained to assist in such cases. CCTV could also be used as a deterrent.
Wardens Training / Commitment / Level of Authority Residents queried the effectiveness of training for wardens, the level of their commitment and their authority. Tenants currently feel there isn’t any commitment to the concierge and for this reason cannot believe that there will be any commitment to the warden scheme. HD responded by saying that extensive quality training courses have been designed for the existing wardens and these would be repeated for the Deptford wardens. She also suggested a warden could attend another meeting to explain their training, duties and responsibilities.
Quality of Life Issues Residents expressed concern that if the concierge is replaced with the warden scheme the quality of life for residents in the block will deteriorate. The c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc presence of a dedicated concierge in the block helps to tackle problems such as lift breakdowns, unauthorised people in the block and crime. They felt that these problems would gradually return.
Residents again expressed concern that the warden scheme will not be able to tackle the specific problems associated with living in tower blocks.
Residents at the meeting could not understand why the Council is proposing to dismantle a service, which in their view is working successfully and has improved the quality of life for residents in Daubeney Tower.
HD responded to this by stating that there are tower blocks in Lewisham covered by the Catford wardens and that the tower blocks on the Pepys Estate have CCTV facility which other blocks do not have. Residents stated that a physical presence in the block can deal with problems and that CCTV is not as effective.
Residents felt that they were not against wardens but that they would like to keep their concierge service in addition to a warden scheme. They have been informed that Aragon Tower once it is refurbished will have a concierge service and are confident that if residents in the other Pepys blocks without concierge were consulted, they would prefer the concierge and would not mind paying for the service.
Steering Group HD asked if anyone was interested in being part of a steering group working on the practicalities of a warden scheme, should it go ahead, to let her know.
Malcolm Cadman, believes that a warden scheme is a different service and tenants prefer a concierge service, which has been tested, deemed useful and cost effective.
Decision making process; Residents enquired whether there is someone from the Council representing them in this consultation process. JS agreed to ensure that a record of this meeting was included in the report for the Executive Director when considering the proposal . She also explained that the document would be open to scrutiny by members and that local Members had been advised of the proposal.
Residents enquired when a decision was likely to be made. A date could not be given but it is planned to submit the proposal at the end of December.
A resident queried whether the process is impartial. JS explained that the report will clearly explain the reasons for the proposal and tenants views will be taken into consideration.
Residents requested that a copy of the notes from this meeting be circulated.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Residents at the meeting requested to see the report to EDirector. JS advised that she needed to clarify whether it would be an open report before she could agree to this request.
Several residents wanted it recorded that they do not object to the principle of the warden scheme but object to the concierge service at Daubeney Tower being withdrawn to fund it.
Fire Service strike Residents queried whether the council had made arrangements to cover emergencies especially for residents stuck in lifts during the fire service strike. JS informed the meeting that the council is mindful of lift trappings and a team of council staff have been trained and will be on call to tackle this problem.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET 19 FEBRUARY 2003 APPENDIX 2 ITEM NO.
Hawke Tower Residents Consultation Meeting 27th November 2002
Proposal to Introduce a Neighbourhood Warden Scheme on Deptford Housing Estates
Present 17 Hawke Tower Residents
Sgt. Alan Sweetman Deptford Police
Jillie Smithies Area Manager, Deptford Area Helen Dobbs Operations Manager, Deptford Area Philippa Cartwright Graduate Trainee, Deptford Area
Purpose of Meeting Helen Dobbs (HD), Operations Manager, gave details of the proposal to introduce a warden scheme on Deptford Housing Estates.
HD explained that the meeting was being held to consult with Hawke Tower residents specifically about the proposal to withdraw the concierge at Hawke Tower and replace it with wardens. HD elaborated on some of the weaknesses of the concierge scheme highlighted in her letter and sent to all Hawke residents. The concierge service is not providing value for money and is not working effectively. She also has concerns about the quality of the service provided by agency staff employed at week-ends.
The role and responsibilities of existing wardens’ was outlined
HD acknowledge that should the proposals go ahead, Hawke Tower will lose their luxury concierge service. However the proposed warden scheme will benefit the wider community and be more cost effective .
HD explained that the purpose of the meeting was to listen to the views of residents and to address some of the concerns raised.
Residents Concerns and Views
Consultation/Decision making Residents are concerned that this is the first time they have been consulted. It will directly affect their lives and their security would be compromised. They feel that the decision has already been made and that the consultation process is a token gesture from the council.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc HD explained that the decision had not been made and that it would be made at an Executive level. She also stated that their views would be included as an appendix to the report. The report would be open to scrutiny by Members.
Security The residents present were 100% against losing their concierge service which they felt would compromise their safety. However, they are generally in favour of a warden scheme complimenting the security they already have in Hawke Tower.
Many of the residents signed up for a tenancy at Hawke Tower because of the added security. If the concierge service is withdrawn, then many tenants said they would apply for transfer.
Tenants said that during the weekend, when there is an agency providing the concierge service, there is a lot of trouble on the ground floor of the block. The residents claim that the wardens will not be able to patrol these hot-spots all the time therefore leaving them feeling more vulnerable and fearful.
A number of complaints were raised about the weekend agency staff. It was claimed that they made security problems worse not better.
HD advised that she takes up all complaints that are brought to her attention with the agency, but recognises that despite raising the concerns, standards continue to be poor.
HD advised that the circumstances around the fire were being investigated by the Police. She advised that the procedures for staff in the event of a fire were in place and have been reinforced since the fire.
Cost HD explained that if residents were charged for their concierge service, it would costs £18 per resident per week in addition to their current weekly rent. Tenants said that the figure was too high but they would consider paying extra for the service.
Tenants were concerned that they had not seen any exact figures of costing for the warden scheme. They would like to see how much the training / salaries etc. of the warden scheme compared to the concierge service.
HD advised that the salaryies budget for the wardens would be the same as the current budget for the Deptford concierge service, but that the warden service would be more cost effective as it would benefit the wider community in Deptford. HD advised that there would be some initial training costs involved when setting up the scheme.
Crime Implications Sgt. Alan Sweetman stated that there have only been 7 reported crimes in Hawke Tower over the past year. He also said that Daubeney Tower which has a concierge service and Eddystone Tower which doesn’t (two tower blocks on the Pepys Estate) have similar crime figures.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Residents however feel that anti-social behaviour and crime goes unreported e.g. day to day threats, crack pipes on the stair wells, youths smoking drugs in the block. If the concierge is taken away, then crime and anti-social behaviour will increase.
JS responded by saying that the warden scheme would tackle anti-social behaviour directly. The concierge service cannot patrol the tower blocks but the wardens can. HD also suggested that the wardens would also carry out preventative strategies to deal with anti social behaviour by getting to know young people, working with Lewisham Youth Service and other projects In addition also acting as witnesses to crime, and visit vulnerable tenants.
Tenants/Residents Suggestions Residents would prefer the money to go into improving the concierge service at the weekend improving CCTV. Many residents felt that the CCTV equipment already in place could be used more effectively.
Residents said that the concierge service is a NEED at Hawke Tower, not a luxury. They know what is essential as they live there and they know what goes on.
Wardens’ Roles and Responsibilities Residents were concerned over the type of people that would be wardens and the training they would receive. Many of the tenants have been living in Hawke Tower for many years and know everyone that lives on the estate. They claim that the wardens will be ‘strangers’ and may be targets for violence.
HD explained that any new wardens would undertake extensive training that the current wardens had undertaken. The scheme in Honor Oak has already been a success and lessons can be learnt from that particular scheme. Concierge staff would also be given the opportunity to apply for the warden posts. Local people would also be encouraged to apply.
The comparison with Honor Oak Estate warden scheme was not viable to them. Some residents claimed that Milton Court estate was similar to a ‘war zone’ especially at night and nothing like the ‘suburbs’ of Honor Oak.
Suggestions were made by HD for the residents to talk to existing wardens so they can understand how the scheme works
One resident summarised the feelings of people living in Hawke Tower, which he described as a block close to the community centre and shops, is the central building, ‘looking down’ as its name illustrates, upon the estate. People who do not live in Hawke Tower try to gain access to it all the time and it is essential to have the ‘meet and greet’ service on the ground floor.
HD advised that should a warden scheme go ahead then a steering group made up of all stakeholders including residents, would consider any special requirements of tower blocks and the role of the wardens generally In Deptford. She also stated that Catford wardens have experience of tower blocks on the Lewisham Park estate.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Deptford Wardens
Staffing Cost
PO1 x 1 33,337 Head Warden
Sc5 x 1 24,841 Deputy Head Warden
Sc4 x 6 134,658 Wardens
Sc4 x 1 22,443 warden (poss. day time CCTV duties) 215,279
Running Costs
Uniforms 4,000 £440 per warden Training 5,000 £500 per warden Equipment 8,000 £900 per warden 17,000
Total costs 232,279
Budget Available 226,900 Wages
Balance 5.379
6,300 Specialist Tech Equipment
Balance 921
Notes 1. Costs of scheme could just be contained within existing wages budget if 9 wardens are employed. 2. Staff costs above are at TOP OF THE SCALE and would provide some contribution to set up costs in year 1 3. Redundancy costs: To be supplied by personnel. 4. Any redundancy costs will have to be contained within the HRA
5. The wardens will be contracted to work anti social Hours and bank holidays
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title SHELTERED HOUSING CHARGING POLICY
Key Decision YES Item No. 7
Ward
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR SOCIAL CARE & HEALTH/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR REGENERATION/HEAD OF HOUSING/HEAD OF LAW Class Part 1 Date: 19 JANUARY 2003
1. Purpose and Executive Summary
1.1 This reports outlines a proposal to charge tenants living in Council sheltered housing for elderly people £9.52 per week in addition to the weekly rent for the services provided by the Sheltered Housing Team in the Social Care & Health Directorate. All tenants will be asked to sign a Deed of Variation to enable this new charge to be implemented. The services of the Sheltered Housing Team will be withdrawn to tenants who do not sign the Deed of Variation.
1.2 Those sheltered housing tenants currently in receipt of Housing Benefit will be eligible for Transitional Housing Benefit (which will become Supporting People Grant in April 2003) on the new charge. All other tenants will be assessed under the Fairer Charging framework to establish whether assistance can be given towards this additional cost. Those tenants that are not eligible for either Housing Benefit or assistance under the Fairer Charging framework will either have to pay the £9.52 charge or have the services of the Sheltered Housing Team withdrawn.
1.3 For the Mayor to consider the outcome of consultation with sheltered housing tenants concerning the introduction of the new charge.
2. Policy Context
2.1 The report to Mayor & Cabinet ‘Revenue Budget Savings Proposals 2003-4’ agreed on the 13th November 2002 included proposals to reduce expenditure within the Social Care & Health Directorate by transferring costs of £100,000 on to the Supporting People programme, due to be implemented in April 2003. However, in order to achieve this saving it is necessary to introduce a charge for all tenants of the Council sheltered housing service.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 3. Recommendations
The Mayor and Cabinet is asked to agree to:
a) The introduction of a £9.52 per week charge to all Council tenants in sheltered accommodation for the services of the Sheltered Housing Team with effect from 31st March 2003.
b) That any future increases to the sheltered housing charge be considered annually as part of the overall Council rent setting process.
c) That the Head of Housing has authority to consult with all sheltered housing tenants individually to vary their Tenancy Agreement by a Deed of Variation and following such consultation to vary the Tenancy Agreement where the tenant agrees to sign the Deed of Variation with effect from the 31st March 2003.
d) That amendment of the Tenancy Agreement be delegated to the Head of Housing, on advice from the Head of Law, so that it is a condition of tenancy that all new tenants of sheltered accommodation with effect from the 31st March 2003 pay a £9.52 per week charge for the services of the Sheltered Housing Team in addition to the weekly rent payable.
4. Sheltered Housing in Lewisham
4.1 Sheltered Housing is designed to enable older tenants the opportunity to live in a safe and secure environment. Traditionally, such schemes were managed by a resident warden who lived on the premises and was effectively “on call” on a permanent basis. However, in November 1988, a decision was taken in Lewisham to withdraw the resident warden service from all Council sheltered blocks and to replace it with the Linkline service which offered 24 hours cover at all sheltered and non intensive schemes.
4.2 In 1994, a Sheltered Housing service was established to provide support to intensive blocks (previously managed by resident wardens) on a patch basis. Social Services funded this service from redirection money from the residential budget.
4.3 The Sheltered Housing Team currently offers a support service to approximately 517 Council tenants over the age of 60 who live within the 20 sheltered blocks owned by the Council. Appendix 1 presents a list of all Council sheltered blocks in the borough. The tenants receiving this service are not currently charged for it. The average weekly rent for Council sheltered housing is £54.32.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 4.4 The Sheltered Housing Team assesses all applicants for sheltered housing for suitability for this type of accommodation. This is not, however, an assessment under Section 47 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990.
4.5 The Council is currently reviewing its strategy for sheltered housing accommodation. There has been a decline in demand over recent years for such accommodation. This has been due in part to the increased opportunities for people to remain supported at home with a care package, demographic changes, the declining desirability of some Council schemes and the increased supply of high quality modern schemes in the voluntary, housing association and private sectors.
4.6 Consequently, officers within the Housing Service and Social Care and Health have commenced a joint review to ensure that over the long term the best use of available resources is made. This might include the decommissioning of some low demand schemes and the consolidation of resources into a smaller number of high quality schemes and the development of ‘floating support’ by the Sheltered Housing Team to better target resources to meet the individual support needs of those in greatest need.
5. Supporting People and Sheltered Housing
5.1 The Supporting People programme goes ‘live’ in April 2003. Under this new regime, assistance towards the costs of charges for the cost of the Sheltered Housing Team to those on low incomes will be paid from Supporting People Grant rather than Housing Benefit. The Supporting People framework will passport people who are currently in receipt of full or partial Housing Benefit to a free service.
5.2 Those tenants not entitled to Housing Benefit will be able to request a financial assessment under the Fairer Charging methodology, administered by the Social Care & Health Directorate. This financial assessment could result in tenants paying no support charge, a partial charge or full charge depending on the total costs of the services they receive and their income.
5.3 In terms of Council sheltered housing schemes, if a charge for the Sheltered Housing Team is introduced then the income to the Council can be maximised by transferring the costs of providing support to tenants (currently borne by Social Care and Health) to Supporting People Grant from April 2003. In order to introduce such a charge, each individual tenant will have to sign a Deed of Variation to enable the Tenancy Agreement to be varied. Where individual tenants refuse to sign the Deed of Variation, then it will not be possible to introduce such a charge.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 6. Impact on Sheltered Housing Tenants
6.1 Broadly, there are four groups of sheltered housing tenants and the effect on each group of the proposed charge is outlined below.
Group A - those who are in receipt of Housing Benefit and sign the Deed of Variation.
Group B - those who are in receipt of Housing Benefit and do not sign the Deed of Variation.
There are approximately 387 (figures as at April 2002) tenants in Groups A and B who are in receipt of Housing Benefit. For those tenants that sign the Deed of Variation (Group A), any charge introduced will be met from Transitional Housing Benefit (or Supported People Grant from April 2003) and the individual tenants will not have to pay. In the case of those tenants that refuse to sign the Deed of Variation (Group B), it will not be possible to levy a charge and the services of the Sheltered Housing Team will be withdrawn, providing those services are not part of a care plan following as assessment under Section 47 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990.
Group C - those who are not in receipt of Housing Benefit and sign the Deed of Variation.
Group D - those who are not in receipt of Housing Benefit and do not sign the Deed of Variation.
There are approximately 113 (figures as at April 2002) tenants in Groups C and D – that is, who are not in receipt of Housing Benefit. For those tenants that sign the Deed of Variation (Group C), an assessment under the Fairer Charging arrangements will be made and this will result in either no charge, a partial charge or a full charge depending on the total costs of the services they receive and their income. An assessment under the Fairer Charging process can only be carried out if the amendment to the tenancy has taken place. In the case of those tenants that refuse to sign the Deed of Variation (Group D), it will not be possible to levy a charge and the services of the Sheltered Housing Team will be withdrawn, providing those services are not part of a care plan following as assessment under Section 47 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990.
6.2 It is proposed that all new sheltered housing tenants from 3rd March 2003 will sign Tenancy Agreements, which will require them to pay for these services.
6.3 It is also proposed that in future any changes to the sheltered housing service charge be considered as part of the overall rent setting process. This will ensure that any proposals to increase the charge are consulted on
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc widely as part of the rent setting process in the same way as the increases in the Linkline service charge.
6.3 Where an existing sheltered tenants decides not to sign the Deed of Variation, they will no longer receive the following services:
a visit to each individual tenant in their home every week and as when needed two home visits per week to all housebound tenants help to maintain independence general support, advice and liaison with other agencies
Such tenants will, however, continue to receive all those services provided by the Sheltered Housing team that do not relate to the individual support services but do relate to the provision of the accommodation such as health and safety management, communal facilities etc. Those tenants that chose not to sign the Deed of Variation will also have full access to the services provided by their Housing Officer.
7. Options for Charging
7.1 There are broadly four options available:
Option 1 - a charge of £9.52 per tenant per week. This covers the full cost of the Sheltered Housing service provided by Social Care and Health. This includes the 5 Sheltered Housing officers who provide general counselling and support services to all tenants in the schemes, a proportion of the domestic assistants costs, who assist with social activities in the schemes, a proportion of the management support costs, and associated supplies and services. This option offers a true unit cost associated with providing support to 500 sheltered housing tenants based on 2002/3 budgets.
Option 2 – a charge of £6.18 per tenant per week. This is a subsidised rate and includes eligible salary costs of Sheltered Housing officers and domestic assistants, as above, and associated costs of providing this support. It does not include management and administrative costs, which would continue to be borne by Social Care and Health unless savings were made.
Option 3 – not to charge. This would maintain the status quo but would mean that advantage is not taken of the opportunity to transfer costs to Supporting People Grant. Social Care & Health would not be able to achieve their savings targets in this area without reducing the overall cost of the Sheltered Housing Team by £100,000.
Option 4 – to introduce a transitional charging policy. Such an approach would introduce charges to sheltered tenants on a phased basis so that the impact on those tenants that have to pay the charge is minimised – this might involve an initial charge increasing over time, say 5 years, to a charge where all costs are covered. However, this would that the c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc budget savings identified from this policy would not be achieved until a considerable time in the future. Members may also wish to consider that a transitional policy would lead to a reduced amount of Supporting People Grant being available to the authority.
7.2 Officers recommend Option 1 to Mayor & Cabinet as:
this is the true unit cost; it introduces charges for Council tenants at a similar level to those who benefit from similar services in other sectors, and it maximises the possible transfer of costs to Supporting People Grant.
8. Consultation
8.1 Formal consultation on the proposal to charge for the services of the Sheltered Housing Team commenced on the 17th January. A letter was hand delivered to each individual sheltered housing tenant and a feedback slip provided for comments to be made by the 14th February in order to provide a 28 day consultation period. As it was necessary to dispatch the report before the end of the consultation process a full summary of all feedback received will be reported in an addendum to this report to Mayor and Cabinet.
8.2 In addition to this formal consultation with each tenant/s, consultation meetings have also taken place with residents in each of the 20 individual sheltered housing schemes to explain the proposed charge. These meetings will allow officers to explain the assistance that is available through Housing Benefit and the Fairer Charging framework. Officers have also met with representatives of the Pensioners Forum and the Older Women’s Network.
8.3 If the proposals are agreed by Mayor and Cabinet, the Head of Housing will write again to sheltered housing tenants and enclose a copy of the Deed of Variation for their signature. Tenants can seek advice from their Sheltered Housing support officer or an independent agency, such as the Citizen’s Advice Bureau.
9. Fairer Charging Assessments
9.1 As outlined above, where a tenant agreed to the amendment of their Tenancy Agreement and was not on Housing Benefit, they would be assessed under the Fairer Charging regime. The Fairer Charging regime derives a weekly charge from an assessment of the value of the services received, and the ability to pay. This means that some tenants will not pay for the services even though they are not receiving Housing Benefit because their weekly disposable income breaches the de-minimis limits once the potential charge has been taken into account.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 9.2 The Fairer Charging regime provides a process for deciding on the amount of the charge. In essence, the following stages are applied:
1. the package of services to be ‘provided’ to the service user is identified; 2. the actual costs to the authority of providing the package of services are identified; 3. the Council’s approved standard charges to each of the elements within the package are applied to determine the total weekly cost of the provision; 4. a financial assessment of the service user’s ability to pay is undertaken by meeting with the user and identifying and calculating what ‘income’ is assessable. This will involve welfare rights advice on benefits not being claimed or maximised so that the user is maximising their income. 5. The user’s applicable assets are also taken into account. 6. The allowable deductions to income as per Department of Health Guidance are calculated. 7. The costs to be deducted to arrive at the disposable income are determined. 8. The level of minimum residual income is calculated. 9. The charge is calculated taking the above into account.
9.3 Due to the number of variables involved in the assessment process, it is not possible to determine the charge to individual tenants before they are assessed.
10. Comments of the Head of Housing
10.1 The introduction of a charge for the sheltered housing service does bring arrangements into line with similar schemes outside of the Council’s ownership. However, if agreed, such a policy does represent a significant change from the existing situation. Mayor and Cabinet may choose to charge or not to charge – the implications of not charging is that previous savings targets within Social Care & Health will not be achieved unless the overall operating costs of the Sheltered Housing Team are reduced accordingly. If a decision to make a charge is made, Mayor and Cabinet may decide to charge on the basis of the full or partial cost of the service and it may also decide to phase in such a charge over a transitional period to minimise the impact. However, any proposal to phase the charge in over a period of time will not maximise the Supporting People Grant available to the authority.
10.2 Mayor and Cabinet need to consider that such a charge will reduce the desirability of the Council’s sheltered housing schemes, a number of which already experience problems of low demand. It should also be recognised that the indicated income levels generated by such charges assume that all tenants will sign the Deed of Variation. In practice, however, some tenants may not wish to sign the Deed of Variation and in such cases a charge will not be levied and the income generated will be lower. Where a tenant signs the Deed of Variation but fails to pay the new charge, this will represent a breach of tenancy in the same way as non-payment of rent and normal recovery action will be pursued. c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 11. Financial Implications
11.1 The proposed sheltered housing charge of £9.52 per week is comparable to other similar schemes in the voluntary, housing association and private sector. The Social Care & Health Directorate has a target saving of £100,000 from transferring the costs of providing support to these tenants to Supporting People Grant. This is a reasonable estimate and, based on the numbers of tenants currently receiving Housing Benefit, the actual full year effect could be higher. The full income from Supporting People Grant of option 1 would be approximately £240,000 per annum. However, there are significant risks attached to the achievement of the full income potential. There will be administrative costs associated with the collection of these charges and allowances will have to be made for void losses. There are timing issues around when the 'savings' will transfer to the Council and at this stage, it is suggested that £100,000 represents a reasonable assessment of the savings in 2003-4. There is also an above average bad debt risk from those clients that will have to make a contribution to their care following a Fairer Charging assessment.
11.2 Option 2 represents a subsidised charge of £6.18 per week. As above, this is a reasonable charge when compared to other providers. The caveats for Option 1 apply in terms of achieving the full level of income. For this option, the full income is calculated as £160,000 (excluding allowances for administration, bad debt and void losses). However, it assumes an ongoing level of subsidy for the service by Social Care and Health of the management and administrative costs. Members will need to consider this in the light of the considerable existing pressures on the SC&H budget and the current years projected overspend.
11.3 In terms of Option 3, if no charge is made then the costs of the Sheltered Housing team will have to be reduced by £100,000. This can only be done by reducing the number of staff in the service and making some of the team redundant. Option 4 will also mean that the opportunity to maximise Supporting People Grant will be severely restrained.
11.4 There are some risks associated with transferring the costs of support for Sheltered Housing tenants to the Supporting People Grant. The discrepancies in the timetable for submitting Deeds of Variation and the implementation of Supporting People Grant, may result in delay in payment and part-year effect only being achieved.
11.5 Officers in Regeneration and Social Care & Health are working on how these new charges should be implemented. This is a complex area involving the calculation of charges under Fairer Charging, the potential recovery of costs via Transitional Housing Benefit and Supporting People Grant and the new arrangements for the limitation of Housing Revenue Account service charges. The key financial
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc concerns are the management of the risks associated with tenants not signing the proposed Deed of Variation, the practical charging arrangements for service recipients, the impact of these charges on the overall budget and the accounting arrangements between the two directorates.
12. Legal Implications
12.1 The Council is a Local Housing Authority. It has power to grant tenancies to occupiers of its properties, and to set the terms of those tenancies. The existing tenancy agreements do not provide for the sheltered housing services to be provided as part of the tenancy obligations. Under the Housing Act 1985, a local housing authority may provide welfare services in connection with the provision of housing accommodation by them and make reasonable charges for such welfare services.
12.2 Where the services provided are part of a sheltered housing tenant’s care plan under the provisions of Section 47 of the NHS & Community Care Act 1990, they must continue regardless of whether they sign the Deed of Variation or do not pay the service charge. The only means of lawfully withdrawing services in such instances is where the recipient of the service has a reassessment evidencing a change in need, that demonstrates they no longer require the service.
12.3 There are three ways in which a tenancy agreement can be altered:
a) by individual agreement with each tenant, leading to a Deed of Variation of their tenancy agreement; b) where the tenancy agreement provides for an agreed procedure for increase in charges; c) by a statutory consultation procedure under the Housing Act 1985.
This report proposes that the first of those options is chosen.
12.6 The way in which this policy is implemented will need to be sensitive to the possible Human Rights Act consequences and to the natural justice and other requirements on the Council to consult on the options.
13. Crime and Disorder Implications
None.
14. Personnel Implications
If the Mayor decides on an option that does not achieved the £100,000 savings reported to the Mayor & Cabinet on the 13th November, then this
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc saving can only be achieved by a reduction in the costs of the Sheltered Housing team. Such savings could only be achieved by making redundant a number of staff within the Sheltered Housing team.
15. Equalities Implications
15.1 A large number of sheltered housing tenants may be vulnerable and be on low incomes. It is, therefore, imperative that all endeavours are made to ensure maximum Housing Benefit take up and that the Fairer Charging framework is used wherever possible to reduce costs to those not eligible for Housing Benefit.
15.2 In implementing this report, the Council needs to be aware of how its obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 will be affected. These duties are:
How does the decision challenge unlawful racial discrimination How does the decision promote equal opportunities How does the decision promote good relations between persons of differing racial groups?
16. Conclusion
This report proposes charging for Sheltered Housing services to vulnerable Council tenants living in sheltered housing on the basis set out above.
If you have any queries on this report, please do not hesitate to contact Ashley Hook, Head of Housing, on 0208 314 7167 or Adi Cooper, Head of Adult Services, on 0208 314 8141.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET 19 FEBRUARY 2003 APPENDIX 1 ITEM NO. 7
SHELTERED HOUSING 20 Schemes 517 Flats
Weekly Managin Features Rent g Commodore 40x1b 40x £56.71 Deptford 2 lounges Court 2x2b 2x £68.21 Laundry 80 Albyn Rd (42) Guest room Lift 146 Crofton Park 1xbs 1x £56.18 Pinnacle Lounge Rd 11x1b 11x range PSG Laundry (1x2b, No.14) (12) £56.84 to Guest room (+1x1b used £58.11 Lift by SCH, No7) Fairfields 1xbs 1x £46.16 Circle 33 Lounge Honley Rd 32x1b 32x range Laundry (1x2b, No.30) (33) £54.54 to Guest room £59.82 Lift Guardian Court 19x1b 19x range Circle 33 Lounge Manor Lane 56.97 to Laundry £57.71 Lift Hollowcombe 21xbs 21x £50.95 Pinnacle Lounge 41 Taylors Lane 5x1b 5x £61.35 PSG Laundry (26) Guest room Lift John Penn 1xbs 1x £44.14 Deptford 2 lounges House 16x1b 16x range Laundry 112 Amersham (17) £50.71 to Guest room Vale £54.39 (1x2b, No.1) 190/192 Kirkdale 17x1b 17x range Pinnacle 2 lounges (1x2b, No.1) £55.82 to PSG Laundry £59.63 Guest room Lift Lanain Court 16xbs 16x £42.69 Circle 33 Lounge Newstead Rd Laundry (1x2b, No.22) Lift 64 Lawrie Pk Rd 1xbs 1x £50.50 Pinnacle 2 lounges (3x2b, Nos.6/13/ 23x1b 23x PSG Laundry 20) (24) range Guest room (1xbs not in use, £59.95 to Lift No.9) £65.24 c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Lewis Silkin 34x1b 34x £51.36 North 3 lounges House West laundry 10 Lovelinch Lewisham lift Close Rollins St on Winslade Est (1x1b not in use, No.1) Merrydown 25xbs 26x £51.94 Pinnacle 3 lounges 29 Dacres Rd 6x1b 6x £60.27 PSG Laundry (1xbs not in use, (31) Guest room No.33) Lift Roseview 1xbs 1x £33.87 North Lounge 122 Marsala Rd 15x1b 15x range West Laundry (16) £46.31 to Lewisham Guest room (+1xbs used £49.37 Lift by SCH) 5 Siddons Rd 19x1b 19x range Pinnacle 2 lounges £56.83 to PSG 2 laundries £57.84 Guest room Talbot Court 1xbs 1x £43.49 Pinnacle 2 lounges 4 Rockbourne 17x1b 17x range PSG Laundry Rd (18) £53.63 to Guest room (1x2b, No.17) £65.61 Lift Village Court 26x1b 26x range Circle 33 Lounge Hurren Close £63.81 to Laundry Baizdon Rd £65.05 Guest room (1xhouse, No.1) Lift
The Vineries 1x bs 1x £42.57 South Lounge 9 Riverview Park 32x1b 32x1b Lewisham Laundry (1x3b, No.34) (33) range Guest room £54.43 to Lift £55.17 Shower Waverley Court 24xbs 24x £48.44 Pinnacle 3 lounges 35 Venner Rd 18x1b 18x £57.67 PSG Laundry (1x2b, No.44, (42) Guest room 1x3b, No.43) Lift
Welland Court 23x1b 23x South Lounge Oakham Close range Lewisham Laundry Catford Hill £54.87 to Guest room £58.47 Lift Shower room
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc The White House 48x1b 48x range North Lounge 114-198 (even) £53.10 to West Laundry Kender St £54.03 Lewisham Assisted on Kender Est bathroom Hairdressing room Woodville Close 20x1b 20x range Circle 33 2 lounges Cambridge £56.22 to Laundry Drive £62.53 Guest room
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc REPORT Mayor & Cabinet 19th February 2003 Title of Report: Item No. Summary of Performance Information (Previously known as the Summary Best Value Performance Plan)
Key decision Date decision to be made: No
Contributors: Agenda Chief Executive and Executive Directors Part I
Purpose and Recommendation
The purpose of this report is to seek comments on the latest draft of the ‘Summary of Performance Information’ and to seek delegated authority for the Chief executive (in discussion with the Mayor) to make any necessary amendments prior to publication. Background
In previous years, the authority was required to publish a summary document to coincide with publication of the full Best Value Performance Plan on 31st March. The Government have now put back the date for the publication of the full BVPP to 30thJune, however a ‘Summary of Performance Information’ must still be published and distributed to all homes in the Borough by 31st March. Government Guidance
Government officials have recently stated that formal guidance on the content of the Summary will be published on 14th February. Printing and distribution deadlines require consideration of the document now, prior to receipt of the guidance, especially in the context of Government having missed previous publications dates.
Both ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) and Audit Commission officials have however indicated that the document should:
• Contain the full results of the CPA exercise • Provide a balanced assessment of the council’s performance over the previous year • Be available free of charge and distributed to all homes by 31st March
Subject to the publication of formal guidance, it appears that the Council has some discretion as to the content of the document.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Lewisham’s Summary of Performance Information.
A draft of the document is attached at appendix A. It is proposed to publish the document over approximately 8 pages and include the following sections.
• Introduction from the Mayor of Lewisham (To be tabled) • Lewisham and the CPA • An assessment of our own performance • Progress to meeting the 10 pledges outlined in the 2002/03 BVPP • Financial information. (Final figures to be included following agreement at Council)
In order to achieve value for money, it is planned to distribute the document as part of ‘Lewisham Life’.
One full page has been allocated to explaining the CPA process and to report the results for Lewisham. Further detailed information on the council’s response to the CPA will be reported in the full BVPP.
The Council’s Audit Manager has been invited to comment on an early draft of the document and some minor changes have been in response.
Legal & Financial Implications
The Council is a Best Value authority as defined by the Local Government Act 1999. A best value authority must make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The publication of this summary will assist the Council in its delivery of these obligations.
Statutory Instruments set out requirements about the content of Best Value Performance plans. Government guidance in Circular 10/99 recommended the provision of summary information to local households by 31 March in each year. From 2003, the Best Value Performance Plan itself was required to be produced by June, rather than (as previously) March. This meant that the requirement to produce a fair and accurate summary of the full BVPP Plan by March was unnecessary, since that would be a date in advance of publication of the full BVPP Plan. The requirement in Guidance for production of the summary was confirmed by Guidance (SI 2002/305), although details are now awaited as to the actual content of the document. The delegation of authority to the Chief Executive sought in this report is intended to allow the Council to produce a summary in line with this latest Guidance.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc The full cost of design, print and distribution will be in the region of £20,000. A cost saving of approximately £2,000 will be achieved by publishing the document as part of Lewisham Life. Equalities Implications
The document will report progress in meeting the Councils target of reaching level 3 of the equalities standard by 31st March 2003.
11th February 2003 m&c report-summary of performance info-19 feb
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Appendix (a) Working Towards Excellence
[GRAPHICS]
A Summary of Lewisham Council’s Performance 2002/03
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc [Page 2] Introduction Steve Bullock, Mayor of Lewisham [photo of Mayor]
To follow
To be tabled at the meeting of Mayor & Cabinet
For the full story… The Best Value Performance Plan 2003/04 will contain more detailed information about our performance and our plans for the future. The plan will be available in libraries around the c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc borough and on the Council 's website at www.lewisham.gov.uk from 30 June 2003. If you would like your own free copy of the CD-Rom version, please complete the freepost reply slip on page 00.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc [Page3]
Lewisham – a good council The Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA)
What is CPA? In December 2003, a team of independent inspectors announced the results of the first CPA exercise. This provides local people with an independent assessment of how well the Council is run and the quality of the services it provides. Each council was given one overall judgement – excellent, good, fair, weak or poor. Lewisham was pleased to be scored as a "good" council but will not be satisfied until it is recognised as an excellent one.
How does CPA work? The CPA process lasted over nine months and had three parts:
• A self-assessment exercise– in which the Council outlined it’s own strengths and weakness • A major inspection visit – this continued for two weeks and resulted in a judgement on the Council’s ability to improve into the future • Service inspections – involving individual inspections of the Council’s waste and sports & leisure services
The outcomes of these exercises were combined with other performance information already known about the Council from previous work. These results were used to arrive at single score for the Council.
What is CPA for? The main purpose of CPA is to help councils improve services. So, at the end of the exercise, each council has set out its priorities for improvement and how this will be achieved. These priorities will be published in full in the Best Value Performance Plan 2003/04, available free from 30 June.
A second outcome of the CPA is that "good" and "excellent" councils will be given more freedom by central government to trade services and borrow money. They will also receive less government inspection. How are the scores decided? The CPA ratings are made up of overall scores of the performance of core services, from 1(lowest) to 4 (highest).
Lewisham core services and scores are as follows:
Service CPA Score (Out of 4) c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Education 3 Social services – children 2 Social services – adults 3 Environment 2 Housing 2 Libraries and Leisure 3 Benefits 4 Use of resources 3 Overall service performance 3
As outlined above, following a two-week inspection, a separate judgement is made about a council's ability to improve in the future. For Lewisham, this assessment took place last June and we received a score of 3 out of 4.
How did Lewisham do compared to other councils? Lewisham's "good" score compares well with many other councils. The table below shows that Lewisham is in the top 40% of councils across London.
CPA score Number of Councils in Percentage London Excellent 8 24% Good 5 15% Fair 8 24% Weak 8 24% Poor 4 12% Percentages do not add up to 100% due to the rounding of figures.
More detailed information can be found at www.councilperformance.gov.uk
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc HOW IS THE COUNCIL PERFORMING OVERALL?
The Council’s vision is to work with local partners to make Lewisham the best place in London to live, work and learn. It has been a challenging year, yet despite this, performance has improved for many of the services we provide.
What we did well
We believe a great deal has been done to make Lewisham a better place to live. As part of our investment programme, major refurbishment work has taken place in our leisure centres and the Broadway Theatre has been transformed. A number of services have improved or maintained their good performance. For example:
Secondary schools saw significant improvements in their performance, with Key Stage 3 tests and GCSE results up considerably on 2001. Improvements have been far in excess of national trends. Raising educational standards is a key priority for the council and so we are pleased that our performance is improving and that OFSTED inspectors report that Lewisham schools are getting even better.
We have reduced the average time taken to complete non-emergency repairs to Council homes by over two days.
The average time to remove graffiti from council property has been reduced to one day.
Over recent months, 100% of children on the child protection register have had their circumstances reviewed on time.
Following the success of our face-to-face service Access Point, we reduced the waiting time for visitors and opened a second Access Point in Deptford. We helped more people through the housing and council tax benefit process and dealt with applications faster than ever before, meeting or exceeding the targets we set ourselves.
Improvements for the Future
There are services where we know we need to do better, like refuse collection that suffered severe disruption last year because of industrial action and vehicle problems. We share your concerns and frustration and are determined to put things right.
We intend to work very hard over the next year to improve performance, focussing on areas where residents have expressed concern. We have developed new standards for key environmental services setting out the level of service you can expect and every household will receive a copy. c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc The Joint Review of Social Services, undertaken by independent inspectors, will result in a detailed report on our strengths and areas for improvement. This report will also include a judgement about the extent to which we serve people well and the prospects for future improvement.
We want to remain the best housing benefit provider in London and plan to introduce on-line application forms. We also want to improve access and opportunities for people with disabilities.
More detailed information on our progress over last year and our targets for the next year and beyond will be published in the Best Value Performance Plan.
Best Value Review Programme
Over the past year, the Council has undertaken a number of major reviews to ensure that the services we provide are what local people want and need. The reviews also focus on achieving value for money and ensuring the quality of services improve all the time
In 2002/03 we reviewed:
• Making Lewisham a cleaner, greener place.
• Improving the awards and benefits service
• Creating a better informed Lewisham
• Making Lewisham a safer place to live, work and learn.
The full review programme for 2003/04 will be reported in the Best Value Performance Plan.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc OUR TEN KEY TARGETS FOR 2002/03
In last year's Performance Plan we set targets in 10 key areas that reflected the concerns of the residents. Set out below is our progress in meeting these targets up to the time the document went to press. A full report on our performance for last year will be published in June in the Best Value Performance Plan 2003/04.
Our Target Progress Report
Reducing crime We have worked with the police and others to reduce overall crime levels by Continue to work with police and other 0.7% in the period from April 2002 to partners to help reduce overall crime December 2002. Lewisham continues levels in Lewisham to be safest place in inner London. .
Cleaning streets The Tidy Britain Group has yet to announce the winner of the cleanest Lewisham will have the cleanest streets in streets in London awards. We believe London as independently verified by the however, that we are maintaining our Tidy Britain Group. position as one of the authorities with the cleanest streets in London.
Better GCSE results Nearly 39% of 16 year old pupils achieved 5 or more A*-C GCSEs. This Increase the percentage of 16 year-old exceeded the target and the pupils achieving five or more A* to C improvement was over twice the GCSEs to a least 37%. national rate.
Achieving the national standards in 70% of 11 year old pupils achieved the English and Maths national standard in English and 67% in maths. This fell short of the target Increase the percentage of 11 year-old however considerable progress has pupils achieving the national standard in been made. Around one third of all English to at least 75% and Maths to at schools saw an improvement in every least 69%. subject again this year, and 5 schools have improved by over 20%.
Building and improving homes Construction of 590 new homes has started. This is 110 more than the target Improve Council housing in Lewisham by we set. We are on course for refurbishing more than 480 homes on the refurbishing 440 homes, just missing our Silwood, Kender, Honor Oak and target of 480. This has benefited the Sundermead estates and start Silwood, Kender, Honor Oak, construction of around 480 new homes Sundermead and Pepys estates.
Providing social care plans We continue to ensure that a considerable c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc majority of service users receive copies of Where vulnerable adults receive services their care plans, which show how their from the council we will ensure that in at assessed needs will be met by identified least 95% of cases, they have statements services. At present we achieve this in showing how their needs will be met. 93% of cases and fully expect to meet the target of 95% by the end of the year.
Protecting children Significant efforts, including additional business support resources, have been Ensure that children who are on the child put in to make sure that all the relevant protection register have their agencies attend child protection case circumstances reviewed on time in at least conferences. Performance has 96% of cases. improved over the year and in recent months we have achieved a 100% success rate.
Supporting creative business Working with organisations that support creative businesses we have Attract 20 creative businesses into the exceeded our target of 20 and borough. already attracted 45 creative businesses into the borough this year
Answering telephone enquiries Increased demand for our telephone call centre meant we answered 83% of Answer over 90% of calls to our Call calls within 15 seconds. Centre within 15 seconds
Promoting equality We are continually improving the way we manage and promote equality Continue to improve the way we manage and are working hard to achieve the and promote equality. We will achieve level 3 target we set ourselves. We will level 3 on the new equality standard for confirm progress in the Best Value local government by March 2003 and level Performance Plan. 5 (the highest level) by March 2005
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Financial summary for 2003/04
(data is for 2002/03 will be updated when 2003/04 figures are available)
100 words
council tax
revenue support business grant rates
Income (the money we have coming in) Revenue support grant £171.6 million Business rates £72.9 million Council tax £65.7 million Total £310.2 million
resouces & chief exec's dept
regeneration
education & social care & culture health
expenditure (what the money is spent on) Education & culture £173.0 million Social care & health £78.6 million Regeneration £35.8 million Resources & chief exec's dept £22.8 million Total £310.2 million
[Figures for the HRA are to be included]
This document is available in other formats on request. We can provide translations, Braille, large print, audio tape or computer disk. Please contact Raj Singh (tel 020 8314 8631) or email him [email protected] c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title AERIAL INSTALLATIONS BOROUGHWIDE
Key Decision YES Item No. A
Ward
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES & DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR REGENERATION Class Part 1 Date: 19 FEBRUARY 2003
1. Purpose of Report
To update the Mayor, Cabinet and Officers on the current position since reporting to Executive Committee on 25 July 2001 on the installation of mobile phone equipment and applications for upgrades in the borough by mobile phone operators.
2. Background
Please refer to attached report (appendix 1) titled The Future of Aerial Installations in the Borough which was presented to the Executive Committee on 25 July 2001.
3. Current Position
3.1 There have been a number of new applications and requests for upgrades from the mobile phone operators since the presentation of the previous report dated. These are all in respect of housing land. There has not been any new applications to place equipment on school premises managed by the Council. Two of these agreements have been completed by Legal Services, who are also instructed on a further 8 cases.
3.2 Although it is recognised that there are still public concerns regarding the emissions produced by telecommunications equipment there is no new evidence published of which officers are aware to suggest there are any adverse risks to health.
3.3 Generally there has been no strong representation by residents during the consultation process to any of the new applications and proposals for upgrades. The Housing Department appointed a Mobile Phone Officer in July 2002 and he has been monitoring the progress of each application closely and residents are being kept informed of all developments. However, there are two matters that should be brought to the attention of the Mayor. The details are as follows :
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc • An application has been received from Orange to install equipment on the roof space at 37-106 Lethbridge Close. This has been through both the planning process and resident consultation process with some minor representation from local residents and is now close to completion. However a resident recently applied to Court for an injunction based on health grounds. It has been reported by Orange that the action failed as there are no known risks to health and the applicant did not have a sufficient interest in the land to make such an application. Following this a resident’s consultation meeting with the recently inaugurated Tenants and Residents Association for Heathside and Lethbridge Close has taken place. Information has been submitted via their committee to residents along with a package-containing site drawings, structural and site level information. Residents have made no further detrimental representations and Legal Services have been instructed to complete the lease.
• Recently T Mobile installed a telecommunications monopole (a lamp post type construction) on land close to Shamrock House Vigilant Close Hillcrest Estate SE26 which they considered had been placed on highway land. This was carried out without notice to the Council. Such installations are a permitted right under theTelecommunications Act 1984, Schedule 2 (The "Telecommunications Code") although there is a requirement to serve notice on the Council as a planning as well as a highway authority. It appears that the installation has been placed on housing land which has been a great cause for concern to the local residents who had no knowledge of the proposal.
A meeting took place on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 with the housing panel, the operator and housing's mobile phone officer. At the meeting the residents indicated that they would be prepared to consider having equipment moved onto the roof of the building. T-Mobile are currently investigating this and carrying out a Land Registry search to establish ownership. A subsequent meeting with the residents of Hillcrest took place on 5 February 2003 to discuss all the issues relating to this site. Health and safety information was provided at this meeting. However, some of the residents have indicated that they would prefer to have the installation removed altogether and not relocated on the roof of the block. Further discussions are taking place to resolve the situation.
4. Head of Housing
4.1 The position with regard to the siting of aerials on Council owned residential properties can be summarised as follows:
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc • installation of such aerials will only take place where there has been full and proper consultation with residents living in the block;
• where residents are not opposed to the installation of such aerials, the full income is made available to spend on local priorities (e.g. additional repairs or improvements) identified by residents and tenants groups, according to the formula agreed by Lewisham Tenants Council in 1995;
• where residents are strongly opposed to such installations, permission for such installations may not be granted by the Council as owner of the building after careful consideration has been given to the proposal.
4.2 Site monitoring (Radio Frequency Levels) has been performed borough wide and at individual sites. Borough wide measurements are typically less than 1/1000th of the recommended safety levels.
Measurements have been taken at individual sites for example Milverton House, Greystead Road Forest Hill (School nearby), Kender Street New Cross (park and school nearby), Brandon House Beckenham Hill. Levels are shown again to be typically 1/1000th of the recommended NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board) and ICNIRP safety guidelines.
Head of Planning
5.1 Please refer to 14.5 of the attached report dated which states that:
"It remains the Government's view that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining health safeguards".
The Council must operate within the guidelines set out in government guidance and is not therefore able to consider applications pending the results of further study. It will, however, ensure that the relevant safety assessments have been submitted by operators in accordance with government guidance.
5.2 Following the draft PPG8 referred to in paragraph 14.7 of the attached report dated 25 July 2001; the revised Planning Policy Guidance was published in August 2001. The revised PPG states that the Government 's policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems, whilst keeping the environment impact to a minimum, and that the government also has responsibility for protecting public health.
5.3 Paragraph 29 of the Guidance states that health and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.
5.4 In relation to health, paragraph 30 states that it is the Government's firm view that the planning process is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central government responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP (The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection Board) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects, and concerns about them.
5.5 In paragraph 31, the Government's acceptance of the precautionary approach recommended by the Stewart Group's report 'mobile phones and health' is limited to the specific recommendations in the Group's report and the Government's response to them. The report does not provide any basis for precautionary actions beyond those already proposed. In the Government's view, local planning authorities should not implement their own precautionary policies e.g by way of imposing a ban or moratorium on new telecommunications development or insisting on minimum distances between new telecommunications development and existing development.
5.6 Some applications for telecommunications installations continue to attract significant opposition from local residents, mainly in relation to health concerns. In some cases antennae can be disguised to make them visually innocuous. A recent example is an antenna disguised as a flagpole at the Territorial Army premises in Blackheath.
6 Legal Implications
6.1 The Head of Planning in Paragraph 5 correctly sets out current policy in PPG8. Members will note that this emphasises the Governments view that the planning process is not the place for determining health safeguards.
6.2 If the Council was to refuse planning permission for a particular telecommunications development the applicant would have the right to appeal against this decision to the Secretary of State. Department of the Environment Circular 8/93 sets out policy guidance on the awards of costs in planning appeals. The Council would have to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal. It is likely, should the Council refuse planning permission on the basis of health concerns that in the light of current Government Policy and technical research, not only would the Council lose the appeal but it would also be at risk of an award being made against it. c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 7. Human Rights Implications
There are no further comments to make to paragraph 15 of the report dated 25 July 2001.
8. Head of Health & Safety
The Head of Health & Safety reiterates the statement made in paragraph 12 of the report dated 25/7/01 that there is still no evidence to suggest there is any risk to health and therefore there are no grounds to change current Council policy at the present time. If the situation should change then the Council would consider changing it's policy.
9. Financial Implications
9.1 Rental Income from the current 26 aerial sites situated on housing stock in the borough amounts to £178k per annum. Deals between telecommunications companies and the Council are typically structured to require payment from the company of a fee for advice and assistance from an expert in Building Services (as reimbursement for employing the specialist) and an annual rental for use of the site.
9.2 The agreement between the Council and tenants enables the income that is paid to the Housing Revenue Account to be used for repairs and improvements with schemes chosen by residents forming part of the Planned Maintenance and Repairs expenditure. Housing Management Team actively review sums available for repairs and reports this to the Housing Panels to ensure that amounts allocated to neighbourhoods are spent. If the current mast agreements were to be revoked the Council may be liable to pay compensation for termination of the contracts.
9.3 The report outlines that there are currently two further agreements that have been completed and eight cases where legal services have been instructed. There are also four applications where legal services have not yet been instructed. It is expected that annual rental income will exceed £100k for these sites after completion.
10. Conclusion
10.1 The operators are still applying to the Council to place equipment on its land.
10.2 The operators are co-operating fully when requested to provide information on any issues including health and safety matters, and some site sharing requests have been received.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 10.3 The Council is continuing with its policy of granting leases to operators who co-operate fully with the Councils requirements.
10.4 At the time of drafting this report the Government announced that there would be investigations into the health effects of mobile phone masts, base stations etc. Officers are not aware of any announcement of a new investigation but feel if this is the case it would be one study in a series of assessments. Any new evidence that becomes available suggesting that there may be adverse effects on health will be reported to Members accordingly.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short Title of Date File Location Contact Document Officer
Aerial 1992 to 2nd floor Lesley Trim Agreements current Laurence House
If there are any queries on this matter, please contact Property & Development, Lesley Trim ext 48127.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc APPENDIX Committee EXECUTIVE Item No
Report Title THE FUTURE OF AERIAL INSTALLATIONS BOROUGHWIDE
Ward Boroughwide
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES (HEAD OF PROPERTY & ADMINISTRATION/HEAD OF SAFETY/HEAD OF PLANNING/HEAD OF LAW/INSURANCE & RISK MANAGER/HEAD OF FINANCE)/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR REGENERATION(HEAD OF HOUSING/HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION) Class Part 1 Date 25 JULY 2001
1. Purpose of Report
To inform the Committee of the current situation relating to mobile phone base stations, transmitters and the industry in order to enable Members to consider the Council's position regarding the future siting of mobile phone base stations on Council premises, and subsequent upgrades on existing equipment as required.
2. Policy Context
The Council is accountable to its staff, residents and the public for its actions and takes matters that may affect the health and safety of its staff, residents and the public seriously.
3. Recommendations
3.1 To establish a register of all base stations located within the borough.
3.2 To establish, wherever possible, the precautionary principles of the Stewart Report as outlined in paragraph 7 below.
3.3 To agree, after having fully considered the information and data currently available concerning the effects of emissions from base stations, that leases for the siting of mobile phone base stations and upgrades on existing equipment should continue to be granted to operators, subject to the operators abiding by the 10 protocols as listed on the attached FEI (Federation of the Electronics Industries) initiative contained in Appendix 2 to this Report and any requirements of officers relating to the circumstances of any particular location or to the provision of further information.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 3.4 That annual reviews to be undertaken on the position regarding the siting of mobile phone installations, but if any significant changes become apparent within this time limit the situation to be reviewed accordingly.
4. Background
Note: Due to the technical nature of some of the wording contained within this report, a glossary of terms is contained within appendix 1 at the end of the report.
4.1 There has been a rapid growth in telecommunications development over the last few years, which has reflected increasing public and commercial demand. Operators have favored Council residential blocks in the past because of their height, which is suitable for the siting of their equipment.
4.2 In order for a radio communications system to work, there must be aerials to transmit and receive the radio signals. TV transmissions for example are high-powered (100,000 watts) erected on large towers up 260 metres tall and cover large areas thus requiring a minimal number to cover the country. The transmissions are one way only i.e. from the transmitter to the TV set only.
4.3 Mobile phone networks require two-way radio communications between the handset and the nearest base station. Because of the very low power used a handset has to be fairly close to a base station in order to pick-up a signal. In order for a mobile phone operator to cover a large geographical area such as Britain, a network of many base stations must be constructed. Each mast will cover a specific area known as a cell and each cell must overlap the adjacent cells in order to provide uninterrupted coverage.
4.4 Each base station can only carry a limited amount of traffic (data, Voice). Consequently, as more and more people in any given area use the network the numbers of base stations have to increase to meet the demand. As the number of base stations increase in a given geographical area the size of the cells decreases and lower power transmission is required, as the handsets are closer to the base station.
4.5 In order to avoid obstructions to the signal, mobile phone masts are usually located on roofs of buildings or steel masts.
4.6 The emissions power levels from the masts fall off rapidly with increasing distance, usually falling into acceptable levels within 10m from the face of the mast.
4.7 It is recognized that there is a need to increase and enhance local coverage as a result of the 3rd Generation (3G) Licenses for mobile phones that were sold to the 5 main operators (Orange, Mercury 1-2-1, c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Vodafone, BT Cellnet and Hutchinson) by the Government last year at a cost of £22.5 billion. This will enhance and extend the use of most forms of communications technologies, including fax, e-mail and Internet access. One of the key obligations for the License holders is that all-reasonable demand for coverage and capacity is met. There will be therefore, a consequential requirement that the number of base stations, masts; antennae and associated equipment will need to increase significantly over the next few years.
4.8 The Council is well aware of public concerns regarding the emissions produced by telecommunications equipment. A petition was received from residents living close to Merryfield House in Grove Park Road SE9 in May 2000 requesting that the Cellnet equipment be removed because of the aesthetics and health and safety issues. An independent study was commissioned by the Council and carried out by the Radio Communications Agency at Merryfield House which demonstrated that the levels of emissions from the installation were many times lower than the National Radiological Protection Board and the International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) investigation levels. These findings were reported to the petitioners.
4.9 Further tests have been carried out more recently on other Council owned sites including school premises and the levels of emissions were also found to be well below the levels reported above. As a result of this it has been agreed that the operators of the equipment already installed and operational will be asked to provide the Council with regular reports of emissions in order that the situation can be monitored. All the operators are happy to supply whatever information is required to satisfy the Council and local residents.
5. Current Position
5.1 Currently there are 27 completed agreements with the Council in respect of aerial equipment 22, of which are located on housing blocks, 4 on schools and 1 mast installation on open ground.
5.2 There are a number of new applications which have been submitted to the Council and are being held in abeyance until a course of action has been decided.
5.3 Two operators have already identified alternative sites on private land within the borough if the Council affects a total ban.
5.4 If it is agreed to continue granting leases, operators will be required to provide the Council with additional information regarding health and safety issues so this can be passed on to the residents during the consultation process. Once a new lease is completed operators would be required to provide information on emissions on request. c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 5.5 There has been a substantial amount of research and scientific investigation already carried out internationally and which is continuing into possible health and safety risks. However there is no evidence to date to suggest that exposures to RF (Radio Frequency) radiation below NRPB ( National Radiological Protection Board) and ICNIRP (The International Commission on Non -Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines cause adverse health effects to the general population.
5.6 The FEI (Federation of the Electronics Industry) who represent the five main mobile phone operators has issued a statement which pledges amongst other things commitment to addressing public concerns about mobile phone masts. This statement which includes10 pledges is attached to this report, and reassurances have been given that the operators will adhere to these pledges whether the installations are sited on Council or privately owned land. The FEI recently gave a presentation to Council officers who deal with the operators outlining these initiatives and addressed concerns. The FEI has indicated they would be very happy to give a similar presentation to Members and other officers.
5.7 If Council properties become unavailable, operators will install transmitters at other locations within the same area. Thus exposure of the public, including occupants of the Council properties and staff to RF emissions is not likely to be effectively reduced.
5.8 Members should also keep in mind that the use of a mobile phone can expose tissues adjacent to the antenna to levels of RF radiation more than a thousand times higher than people would normally encounter from base stations . We understand from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum that all mobile phones presently marketed in the UK comply with both NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines for RF radiation. The Stewart Report states that on current evidence, it seems unlikely that the exposures experienced by users would have important adverse effects on health. However, it is recognised that the current evidence base is not yet so secure that the possibility of harmful effects from the use of mobile phones can be totally discounted.
6. Policy of other local authorities
6.1 Some authorities including Kent, Warwickshire, Barnet, and Islington and most recently Dagenham and Barking Councils have adopted a policy of not dealing with new applications. They are, however, still dealing with upgrades on existing installations. Councils, unless planning permission is required, have no control over the installation of mobile phone equipment located on land that it does not own, but can control installations on its own buildings. Other authorities such as Southwark and Greenwich Councils are still dealing with c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc new applications.
6.2 Camden Council has taken a recent decision not to agree in normal circumstances any new applications on its land pending a full review later this year following publication of the national phone mast database, any details regarding changes in planning procedures (especially extending public consultation), public health advice and any other relevant matters.
6.3 The authorities who are not dealing with applications have therefore lost control of future installations on land and buildings not owned by them, unless planning permission or prior approval is required.
7. The Stewart Report
7.1 In April 1999 the Government commissioned Sir William Stewart to establish an independent expert group to examine the possible effects of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters on health in the light of public concerns.
7.2 Following widespread consultation with interested parties, the Expert Group was set up under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart FRS, FRSE and reported on 11th May 2000. Membership of the expert group represented a wide spectrum of expertise with leading figures from physics, radio engineering, biology, medicine, and epidemiology, in addition to lay members. The remit of the Group was
“To consider present concerns about the possible health effects from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters, to conduct rigorous assessment of existing research and to give advice based on the present state of knowledge. To make recommendations on further work that should be carried out to improve the basis for sound advice.”
(The report can be viewed at www.iegmp.org.uk/IEGMPtxt).
7.3 In his foreword to the Report, Sir William Stewart states that "the balance of evidence does not suggest that mobile phone technologies put the health of the general population of the UK at risk. There is some preliminary evidence that outputs from mobile phone technologies may cause in some cases, subtle biological effects although, importantly, these do not necessarily mean that health is affected."
7.4 The Report concluded " It is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse affects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 7.5 It also states that the possibility of harm from exposures insufficient to cause important heating of tissues cannot yet be ruled out with confidence and that the anxieties that some people feel when this uncertainty is ignored can in themselves affect their well-being.
7.6 The Stewart Report recommends the adoption of a precautionary approach which is summarised below.
• Adopt the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure.
• All new base station applications should be subject to normal planning process, including masts under 15 metres.
• At national Government level, set up a new template of protocols with industry and consumers which can be used to inform the planning process, and should be followed before permission is given to the siting of base stations. The protocol should cover the following issues :
a) Operators should notify the local authority of proposed installations, including, macrocells, microcells, and picocells.
b) The local authority should keep an up to date list of such notifications, which should be available for public consultation.
c) Operators should provide a statement for all its sites indicating it's location, the height of the antenna, frequency and modulation characteristics and power output.
d) Any change to an existing base station which increases its size, the overall power radiated should be subject to the normal planning process as if it were a new development.
• Independent random ongoing audit of all base stations to ensure they fall within exposure guidelines and that they comply with their agreed specifications.
• Prioritise auditing of base stations around schools and other sensitive sites.
• With Macrocells and Microcells sited within school grounds, the beam of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of the school ground or buildings without prior agreement from the school and parents given. Similar considerations should apply to macrocell base stations sited near to school grounds.
• Planning authorities should have the power to ensure that RF fields are kept as low as practicable.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc • Clearly defined physical exclusion zones should be established around base stations indicating that the guideline levels may be exceeded. A physical barrier should define the exclusion zone with readily identifiable sign to British Standards.
• All micro/picocells should have warning signs to indicate that they should not be opened while in use.
• The following from the Stewart Report refers to the area immediately surrounding an antenna.
Exclusion Zones:
“Although exposure to RF radiation from base stations will generally be well below exposure guidelines, the need remains to prevent access by workers or the public to places where the relevant guidelines might be exceeded. Therefore we endorse the practice of defining clear exclusion zones around base stations”
As all of the installations on Council property are located on roof tops, they are in positions not normally accessible to the general public. They are also designed so that exposure guidelines are not exceeded.
Generally the design of the antenna systems allows the signal to be radiated from the antenna at a given angle. The nature of the emissions results in very low or no signal directly beneath the mast.
8. Financial Implications
8.1 Current rental income from aerial installations is in the region of £200,000 per annum but this does have the potential to increase substantially over the next few years with new agreements. Each lease agreement if surrendered, could potentially result in the award of compensation to the operators. This when coupled with the lack of a precedent for dealing with surrenders of this type, make it unrealistic to quantify the potential cost implications to the Council at this time.
9 Legal Implications
9.1 The various aerial sites are let under slightly differing forms of leases. All of the leases however contain provisions requiring the operators to maintain public liability insurance and to indemnify the Council against any claims arising out of the operation of the telecommunications equipment.
9.2 Most of the leases contain break clauses allowing the Council to determine the leases after a certain period of time, as specified in each lease. The Council might be liable to pay compensation under the c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc Telecommunications Act 1984 for the costs in connection with the removal of the equipment. It should also be noted that under the Telecommunications Act 1984 the operators have the right to keep the equipment even after the expiry of contractual arrangements. If the Council needs to develop a site, it would have to make a court application relating to the removal of the equipment under the Telecommunications Act 1984 and show that removal is necessary for the redevelopment.
9.3 The Telecommunications Act 1984 also provides operators with compulsory acquisition powers. An operator may serve upon an owner a notice requesting terms be negotiated to keep telecommunications over the building or land. If an agreement is not negotiated successfully within 28 days of the notice, the operator may apply to a court and if this application is successful, the owner must accept the installation of the equipment.
9.4 The Council owes a duty of care to the occupiers of land and buildings owned or managed by the Council and may also owe a duty of care to members of the public in the vicinity of base stations located on Council property. That duty requires the Council to take reasonable measures to protect residents of and visitors to its premises from injury and harm.
9.5 In looking at whether the Council failed to take reasonable care by allowing base stations on its properties, a Court would look at the Council's conduct in the light of the state of scientific or other expert knowledge which should have been available to it at the time of the alleged breach of the duty of care. As current Government medical advice does not indicate that emissions from the base stations pose a risk to the health of those living near them, it seems most unlikely that the Council could be judged to have acted negligently in allowing base stations to be located on Council property.
9.6 However, should the Government's medical advice change in the future, the Council should take steps to protect occupiers of land and buildings owned or managed by the Council from harm.
9.7 Under the Telecommunications Act 1984, an operator has a statutory right to install telecommunication apparatus under, in, on or along a street, without requiring the agreement of the Council as highway authority. Operators also has a statutory right to carry out Inspections, maintenance, adjustments, repairs or alterations to apparatus installed on streets and any incidental works under the Telecommunications Act 1984. The siting of apparatus on highways is, however, still subject to planning controls. While it appears that the extent to which operators have exercised this right in the borough has been limited they have indicated to planning officers that proposals siting apparatus on highways are likely
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc to increase in the future, particularly where they are unable to site their equipment on buildings.
10. Head of Housing
10.1 The Lewisham Tenants Council considered the issue of the siting of cellular telephone aerials on Council owned residential blocks on the 2nd September 1996. Rather than simply absorbing such income into the Housing Revenue Account, the Lewisham Tenants Council wanted the income generated by such installations to be used to ensure that direct benefits were generated for tenants in Lewisham. It was agreed at this time that all future income generated from such aerials would be distributed to estates on the following basis :
• In the first year of income being received, all of the income yielded by the installation will be spent on the estate where the aerial is sited;
• In all subsequent years, the income will be split across the borough.
Local tenants groups decide in conjunction with the local housing office how each allocation is to be spent
10.2 The Head of Housing would support the establishment of a register of all base stations located within the borough and central monitoring of all sites to ensure consistency of procedures and practice. It is also essential that all future leases ensure that the Council's interests are protected and avoid any claims from operators in the event of a temporary loss of service (e.g to accommodate roof repairs) or permanent loss of service in the event of a decision to require removal or a block being redeveloped. Procedures would need to be set up between the relevant Directorates and an appropriate budget provided, but this will require further discussions between the relevant officers on how to achieve this aim once the Council's course of action has been agreed.
10.3 The position with regard to the siting of aerials on Council owned residential properties can be summarised as follows :
• Installation of such aerials will only take place where there has been full and proper consultation with residents living in the block;
• Where residents are not opposed to the installation of such aerials, the full income is made available to spend on local priorities (e.g. additional repairs or improvements) identified by residents and tenants groups, according to the formula outlined in 10.1 above;
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc • Where residents are strongly opposed to such installations, permission for such installations may not be granted by the Council as owner of the building after careful consideration has been given to the proposal.
Consultation Process
Under the consultation process letters are sent with an attached drawing of the site to all the residents of the relevant block and tenants’ association where known. A two week period is given for replies, and a further week is allowed for any possible late response. Any comments that are received are dealt with on a one-to-one basis, or in an open meeting with the residents if they so wish. Following this consultation, all of the residents are informed of the outcome in writing.
11. Head of Communications
The Head of communications has nothing to add to the comments made by the Head of Housing regarding the consultation process.
12 Head of Health & Safety
Following the conclusion of the Stewart Report it was found that the balance of evidence does not suggest that the emissions from mobile phone base stations put the health of the general UK population at risk. Health & Safety considerations do not, therefore, provide grounds for any change in Council policy at the present time.
13. Head of Environmental Protection
The Head of Environmental Protection agrees with the comments made by the Head of Health & Safety and has nothing further to add.
14. Observations of the Head of Planning
14.1 Currently the majority of telecommunication masts and antennae do not require planning permission, as there are specific exemptions for such equipment under the General Permitted Development Order. Certain development, such as the installation of masts of up to 15 metres, is however subject to a “prior approval” procedure, under which the Council approves details of the siting and appearance of the installation.
14.2 In response to the report by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (the Stewart Report see Para. 7.10), the Government has recently published a consultation paper on telecommunications (draft Planning Policy Guidance - PPG8), proposing changes to the legislation and guidance governing telecommunications development - including radio masts and towers, and antennas of all kinds. c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 14.3 Following the consultation on this document, a government News Release dated 16 March 2001 from the former Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions states that the Government is to :
• Strengthen public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission
• Increase the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications to 56 days. This is currently 42 days for ground based masts and 28 days for those on buildings
• Underline that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college
• Increase fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation
• Maintain in full an authority's ability to reject applications on amenity grounds.
14.4 Under these new arrangements for prior approval applications, local planning authorities will be expected to make their decisions within 56 days. Authorities will still be able to turn down mast applications where they do not consider amenity aspects have been adequately addressed. If they have not made a decision within 56 days approval will be deemed to have been granted.
14.5 The press release also goes on to state : "It is the Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. It remains the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining healthsafeguards….In the Government's view, if a proposed development meets the ICNIRP guidelines it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing applications to consider health aspects further. This view will be reiterated in our revised planning policy guidance".
14.6 The draft planning policy guidance and some recent planning appeal decisions indicate that while local planning authorities do not need to consider the health effects of telecommunications installations, public concern about possible health effects from those living close to a proposed site can be a valid planning objection which needs to be considered along with other relevant planning considerations.
14.7 The draft PPG8 encourages mast and site sharing, where that represents the best environmental solution, to minimise proliferation of masts, and will emphasise the view that telecommunications development must be
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc taken forward through partnership between the operator, the local planning authority and the local community.
The following statement is made : 'We welcome the commitments which the operators have made to develop, with other stakeholders, clear standards and procedures to deliver significantly improved consultation with local communities. For example, operators will initiate the process as early as possible by discussing optimum design and siting solutions even before applications for masts are submitted.' In order to ensure that these commitments are implemented they propose to develop a new Code of Practice developed jointly with the operators and representatives of local government.'
15 Human Rights Implications
15.1 There are three human rights which might arise out of the future siting of mobile phone base stations on Council property. These rights, set out in the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention") are :
(i) Article 8 - the right to respect for private and family life
(ii) Article 3 - the right against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
(iii) Article 1 Protocol 1 - right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions
In the light of current scientific information, there is very little likelihood that emissions from base stations located on Council property could be regarded as an infringement of Articles 8 and 3. It is also unlikely, based on European case law, that people's anxieties over the potential health effects of emissions and the stress that this may cause would not be sufficient to establish an infringement of their human rights.
Article 1 Protocol 1 might arise if a decision of the Council to grant a lease to a base station operator has the effect of reducing the value of a nearby property. However, it is likely that this decision would be considered a proportionate and therefore lawful interference with this right.
16. Options
In relation to properties owned by the Council there are the following main options which could be adopted:
16.1 To agree, after having fully considered the information and data currently available concerning the effects of emissions from mobile phone base c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc stations, that leases for the siting of base stations and upgrades on existing equipment should continue to be granted to operators, subject to the operators abiding by the 10 protocols as listed on the attached FEI (Federation of the Electronics Industries) initiative contained in Appendix 2 to this Report and any requirements of officers relating to the circumstances of any particular location or to the provision of further information;
or
16.2 To defer dealing with new applications for the siting of mobile phone base stations on land owned by the Council for a six month period in order to see if any new evidence becomes available regarding health and safety issues, and pending the proposed changes to planning procedures and the publication of the national phone mast database;
or
16.3 To place a partial ban on the future siting of mobile phone base stations in sensitive areas;
or
16.4 To place a total ban on new applications from operators.
17. Conclusion
17.1 If it is decided that the Council will not allow any further installations then the operators will use the nearest neighbouring private land within the borough and the Council would lose control as landlord of the siting and type of equipment installed. Residents’ concerns are unlikely to be eliminated by the use of private sites but the Council would be far less likely to incur any liability.
17.2 As advised in the Stewart report the balance of evidence does not suggest that mobile phone technologies put the health of the general population of the UK at risk.
17.3 Officers are of the view therefore that the precautionary approach advocated in the Stewart Report is best provided for by adopting option 15.1 above ensuring as far as possible the maximum control and influence over the installation of operators masts in the Borough.
17.4 Operators should be encouraged to seek opportunities to look at their existing installations where there are opportunities to modify and rationalise them where there are concerns over visual amenity etc to the satisfaction of the Council and its residents.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc 17.5 If it is agreed to continue granting leases, operators will be required to provide the Council with additional information regarding health and safety issues so this can be passed on to the residents during the consultation process. Once a new lease is completed operators would be required to provide information on emissions on request. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short Title of Date File Location Contact Exempt Document Officer Information
Aerial 1992 to 2nd floor Lesley Trim Paragraphs 3 Agreements current Laurence & 9 of House Schedule 12A of Part 1 of The Local Government Act 1972
If you would like further information on this report please contact, Lesley Trim Property & Administration, on extension 48127.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 25 JULY 2001 APPENDIX 1 ITEM NO.
Macrocells
Macrocells provide the main structure for the base station network. The base stations for macrocells have power outputs of tens of watts and communicate with the phones up to about 35 kilometres. There are at present 24,000 macrocells covering the country. These sites are the largest type of transmitters used and typically are sited on buildings in urban areas and on towers in rural areas. When sited on buildings, they usually comprise of a mast to support aerials and micro wave dishes and a large equipment cabin housing the hardware and software to operate the system. The emissions from these sites are uniformly many times lower than the ICNIRP guidelines for exposure.
Microcells
Microcells are used to infill and improve the main network, especially where the volume of calls are high. They are sited in places such as airports, railway stations, and shopping centres. In terms of size, both the antenna and equipment are very small, with the former being similar in appearance to a burglar alarm bell box. These are normally located externally on a building at first or second floor level. The microcell base stations emit less power than the macrocell and have a range of a few hundred metres. It is highly unlikely that exposure guidelines would be exceeded provided the external casing is not removed.
Picocells
Picocell base stations have a lower power output than those of microcells typically just a few watts. They are generally sited inside buildings and are similar in design to the microcell.
National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)
The Government currently looks to the (NRPB) for guidance on the issue of mobile phone emissions. The NRPB is an independent statutory body established under the Radiological Protection Act 19970 to give advice, things, protection against electromagnetic fields. Based on its findings it produces guidelines on protection of health and safety with regard to electromagnetic fields.
The guidelines are made up of two parts, the first being based on established science. The second part is a safety factor. In this way the guidelines come with a built in precautionary element.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
The International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is an independent scientific organisation responsible for providing guidance and advice on the health hazards of non-ionisation radiation exposure.
The Commission brings together experts in epidemiology, medicine, biology, physics and engineering. The independent experts in these fields provide sound advice on the health hazards of non-ionising radiation exposure based on thorough professional evaluations of the published scientific literature.
c:\documents and settings\tmacdonn\desktop\new folder\myr_cab_ag_19feb03.doc