Bishop Ramsey School, Ruislip Item 9

Date: THURSDAY 8TH FEBRUARY 2007

Cabinet Time: 7 PM

Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 6, CIVIC CENTRE HIGH STREET, UXBRIDGE

To Members of the Cabinet: Visiting the Civic Centre:

Ray Puddifoot (Chairman) Leader of the Council Members of the Public and Press are welcome to attend this David Simmonds (Vice-Chairman) meeting. Deputy Leader / Education & Children’s Services

Jonathan Bianco Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and Finance & Business Services U7 all stop at the Civic Centre.

Keith Burrows Uxbridge underground station, Planning & Transportation with the Piccadilly and

Philip Corthorne Metropolitan lines, is a short Social Services, Health & Housing walk away. Please enter from the Council’s main reception Henry Higgins where you will be directed to Culture, Sport & Leisure the Committee Room. Sandra Jenkins Environment Please switch off your mobile

Douglas Mills phone when entering the room Improvement, Partnerships & Community Safety and note that the Council

Scott Seaman-Digby operates a no-smoking policy in Co-ordination & Central Services its offices.

Publication Date: 31st January 2007 This agenda is available in Mark Braddock David Brough Head of Cabinet Office Head of Democratic Services large print

Cabinet Office T.01895 250472 F.01895 277373 [email protected] London Borough of Hillingdon, 3E/05, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW www.hillingdon.gov.uk Agenda & Business

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

3. To receive the decisions of the meeting held on 18th January 2007 (pages 1 to 10 (copy attached).

4. To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in Public and that the items marked Part 2 will be considered in private

5. Consideration of Cabinet reports (listed below)

Cabinet Reports – Part 1 – Members, Public and the Press

Items are marked in the order that they will be considered. A reference number is shown to indicate that this item has previously appeared on the Council’s Forward Plan. The Forward Plan is a publicly available document updated each month which outlines, as far as possible, the Cabinet’s work programme over the next four months. Page Ref No. No. Policy and Strategy Items

1 Council’s General Fund Revenue Budget and Capital Programme 810 2007/08 to 2010/11 REPORT TO FOLLOW 2 Annual Consultation on Schools Funding – Consultation 858 Outcomes and Arrangements for Funding in 2007/08 REPORT TO FOLLOW 3 Barker Review of Land Use Planning : Final report - 11 891 Recommendations 4 Government Consultation Paper – Changes to Planning 37 885 Obligations – A Planning-Gain Supplement Consultation 5 Hillingdon Homes Delivery Plan 2007/08 68 847 6 The London Housing Unit Committee 125 - 7 Mayor’s Draft Borough Level Waste Apportionment Consultation 129 860 Response 8 Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 : Housing 142 902 9 Bishop Ramsey School, Ruislip 150

Monitoring Items

10 Budget – Month 9 2006/07 Revenue and Capital Monitoring 161 SI

Cabinet Reports - Part 2 – Private, Members Only

The reports listed below in Part 2 are not made public because they contain confidential or exempt information as defined by law in the Local Government (Access to Information Act 1985). This is because:

Items 11 to 16 contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) (paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Act).

Page Ref No. No. 11 Tender for the Purchase of vehicles 207 799 12 Recruitment Advertising 211 871 13 Acceptance of Tenders for Various Highways Maintenance and 215 876 Construction Contracts 14 Grant of Leases of Land at Charville Primary School, Hayes 229 888 15 Proposed Local Road Safety Feasibility Study for the Cherry Lane 238 - / Stockley Road / Shepiston Lane Roundabout 16 Uxbridge Golf Course, The Drive, Ickenham REPORT TO - - FOLOW

6. Any Items transferred from Part 1

7. Any Other Business in Part 2

Cabinet Decisions

18 January 2007

The left hand column indicates the decision number, which relates to the report number on the main agenda. The middle column details the actual decision made, the reason for that decision and also any alternatives considered or rejected. The right hand column indicates the name of the officer(s) responsible for implementing/following up the decision in each case.

Officer contact Cabinet Members Present – Councillors: Cabinet Office 01895 250472 • Ray Puddifoot (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Chairman) • Councillor David Simmonds (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services) • Jonathan Bianco (Cabinet Member for Finance and Business Services) • Keith Burrows (Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation) • Philip Corthorne (Cabinet Member for Social Services, Health and Housing) • Henry Higgins (Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure) • Sandra Jenkins (Cabinet Member for Environment) • Douglas Mills (Cabinet Member for Improvement, Partnerships and Community Safety) • Scott Seaman-Digby (Cabinet Member for Co-ordination and Central Services)

Other Councillors present:

George Cooper, Shirley Harper-O’Neill, Mo Khursheed, Mary O’Connor, David Yarrow.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Cabinet Office 01895 250472 There were no apologies for absence received.

DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Cabinet Office 01895 250472 The reports on items 1-7 were considered in public.

Items 8 -11 and the Appendix to Item 3 were considered to contain exempt information as defined in the paragraphs to the Schedule to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. These reports were considered in the private section of the meeting.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.01.07 Page 1 CABINET DECISIONS

The decisions of Cabinet held on 12th December 2006 were agreed.

1 EXTERNAL SERVICES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: DAVID COOMBS, SECOND REPORT TO CABINET SCRUTINY ADVISOR Councillor Mary O’Connor presented the report to the Cabinet as Chairman of the External Services Scrutiny Committee.

DECISION

1. That Cabinet notes the information provided outlining the work undertaken by the External Services Scrutiny Committee.

2. That Cabinet adopts the following recommendations of the External Services Scrutiny Committee:

a. That Cabinet acknowledges the vital role scrutiny can play in achieving the Council’s objectives and that the function must continue to be adequately resourced for this contribution to be effective.

b. That Cabinet ensures that there is an open dialogue between the Council and PCT over future estates strategies for each organisation. In particular, we ask Cabinet to ensure that the Council fully participates in discussions over the future of health services in north Hillingdon and how these can be integrated with social care where appropriate.

c. That Cabinet notes the potential significant changes to the management of the PCT and asks officers to keep it fully informed of the implications so that it can comment to the PCT as appropriate.

d. That Cabinet notes the latest position regarding the redevelopment of Hillingdon Hospital and using its community leadership role does everything possible to ensure Hillingdon residents have a modern high quality hospital.

e. That following successful outcomes of promoting joint working between disability and carers voluntary sector groups Cabinet considers whether this initiative can be expanded across the sector.

REASONS FOR DECISION

To note the scope of the Committee’s community leadership work, and to ensure Cabinet is fully aware of the latest position of the NHS in Hillingdon and takes action as appropriate. LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.01.07 Page 2

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Cabinet could have requested further information on any of the issues raised in the report.

2 HILLINGDON’S CHILDREN’S CENTRE PROGRAMME ROGER TURNER, ASSISTANT DECISION DIRECTOR LIFELONG That Cabinet delegates authority to the Cabinet Members for LEARNING Education & Children’s Services and Finance and Business Services to :

1. Agree the development of the following 4 additional Children’s Centres and the capital costs associated with two of the proposed centres:

• The Sure Start Townfield Local Programme based at Barra Hall (£53k) • The McMillan Early Excellence Centre (nil capital cost) • Harlington Community School Daycare Nursery (nil capital cost) • Uxbridge College Hayes Campus (£106k)

2. Agree the plans to allocate revenue grant as set out in the paper.

REASONS FOR DECISION

To facilitate the implementation of the Every Child Matters: Change for Children agenda, the new legal duty to be imposed by the Childcare Act and fulfilment of the objectives stated in the council plan and the Children and Young People’s Plan.

Delegating authority to the Cabinet Members to make a final decision will enable a greater level of detail to be considered on each of the proposed centres.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Not to comply with the duties stated in the Childcare Act and not to draw down the capital and revenue Central Government grants.

3 HAYES STATION – IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCESS NIGEL CRAMB, COMMUNITY RESOURCES Councillor Mo Khursheed spoke as Ward Councillor in support of the MANAGER proposals.

DECISION

1 That the Cabinet endorses and welcomes the proposals LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.01.07 Page 3 to improve access and facilities at Hayes station.

2 That the Cabinet agrees to the proposal for the Council to enter into a legal agreement with other partners to deliver the project.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Council has held funds secured under section 106 agreements for some considerable time. The funds have been committed to improving public transport facilities and specifically at Hayes station. Due to the significant costs involved, the funding has up till now been insufficient to deliver a feasible scheme. However the opportunity now presents to commit section 106 and attract additional funds, which will enable a scheme improving disabled access and associated improvements to the station. It is unlikely that an opportunity to attract funding and the support of a range of partners will present itself again therefore agreement to the proposals is strongly recommended.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

To not pursue the project. This will result in Hayes station continuing to be inaccessible in terms of people with disabilities. The station might not be upgraded until the Crossrail scheme is introduced, which is not scheduled before 2015. Specifically this would mean that assess to Heathrow via the newly commissioned rail service will not be possible to people with disabilities.

The Appendix to this item was considered in the private part of the meeting as it contained information relating to ‘the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)’ (exempt information under paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985)’.

4 THE LONDON LOW EMISSION ZONE (LEZ) SCHEME HELEN LANE, TRANSPORT ORDER CONSULTATION STRATEGY OFFICER AND The Chairman of the Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy VAL BEALE, SCIENTIFIC Overview Committee, Councillor Shirley Harper-O’Neill, reported the OFFICER views of the Committee to the Cabinet.

Cabinet requested officers to include the Policy Overview Committee’s comments in the response to be sent to Transport for London.

DECISION

1. That Cabinet endorses the response to the London Low Emission Scheme Order consultation, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, and delegates authority to the Corporate Director Planning and Community Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation for any further minor amendments as suggested at the LEZ Members’ Seminar LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.01.07 Page 4 being held on the 23 January 2007.

2. That officers are instructed to bring a further report to Cabinet on the specific requirements needed to ensure Hillingdon is compliant with the scheme.

3. That the Cabinet endorses the consultation response made by London Councils on TfL’s consultation on changes to the Mayor’s Air Quality and Transport Strategies (June 2006) attached as Appendix 3 to the report and agree for Hillingdon’s response on the LEZ Scheme Order to be sent on the 24th January 2007 to London Councils to enable Hillingdon’s views to be included in a London-wide response.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The scheme has major implications for Hillingdon

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Provide no response to the consultation, to provide an alternative response or to not endorse issues raised in London Councils response to the consultation on changes to the Mayor’s Air Quality and Transport Strategies (June 2006)

5 GIFT FUNDING FOR PLANNNING FUNCTIONS JALES TIPPELL , PROJECTS AND IMPLEMENTATI DECISION ON TEAM MANAGER That the Cabinet accepts the offer of a gift from VSM (Vinci/St Modwen Properties plc) to the Council to meet the Council’s reasonable and justifiable costs associated with the discharge of its planning functions for development related to RAF West Ruislip in accordance with the provisions of Section 139 of the Local Government Act 1972.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Major development proposals, including those at the pre-application stages, often impose large costs on the Council as they are generally complex, involve extensive consultations, require specialist knowledge and multi agency working.

In terms of determining a planning application, some major developments are so extensive that the planning fee is inadequate in relation to the work inputs required. In such cases it is considered appropriate that the Council should accept an offer of a gift to meet its reasonable costs of carrying out its planning functions. Whilst the acceptance of a gift cannot in any way influence the determination of the application itself, it can provide an adequate staffing resource to enable the application to be afforded a higher level of priority such that it may progress faster.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.01.07 Page 5

At the pre-application stage, the Council has introduced a charging system for the provision of officer advice on major planning applications as defined by BV109 (a). The charging system is not about generating profit but aims to spread the costs of services across a wider market, thus creating a civic benefit. As such charging is viewed as helping local authorities meet their costs and so provide a better service to prospective applicants. However the charging system that has been introduced is more appropriate for less complex schemes where there is likely to be the need for only one or two meetings with the prospective applicant and a detailed written officer response to be provided.

With regard to the proposals at the RAF West Ruislip site, it is considered that the acceptance of a gift in lieu of the charging system would be more appropriate, given the ongoing nature of the pre- application advice that is required.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

To refuse the gift from VSM or to request changes to the proposed gift from VSM.

6 WEST LONDON WASTE DEVELOPMENT PLAN JANET RANGELEY DOCUMENT: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING / EDEN HANNAM, The Chairman of the Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy POLICY AND ENVIRONMENT Overview Committee, Councillor Shirley Harper-O’Neill, reported the AL PLANNING views of the Committee to the Cabinet.

DECISION

That the Cabinet :

1. Approves the Memorandum of Understanding as part of preparing the West London Waste Development Plan Document.

2. Agrees to the London Borough of Hillingdon acting as the lead borough for the preparation of the West London Waste Development Plan Document.

3. Instructs officers to bring a further report on the tenders submitted for preparing the Development Plan Document to a future meeting of Cabinet.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Space and facilities for processing waste have increased in scarcity over recent time. To address this, the revision to the London Plan has proposed a number of options to reverse this trend. To meet this, as well as other planning commitments and to combat climate change, there is a need for strategic planning on this issue. Given that the LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.01.07 Page 6 same pressures are facing our neighbouring boroughs, it is efficient in both land use terms and local authority resources to plan for this on a west London sub regional basis. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding is the first step in developing such a sub regional document. And will provide the necessary operational framework for boroughs to work in partnership to deliver a Waste Development Plan Document (DPD) for West London. Such a document will also assist in delivering the Mayor’s London Plan in respect of waste.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Not to prepare a Waste Planning Document, to prepare a Waste Development Plan Document for Hillingdon only or allow another Borough to act as lead authority.

7 BUDGET – MONTH 8 2006/7 REVENUE MONITORING PAUL WHAYMAND, HEAD OF DECISION ACCOUNTING

1. Cabinet notes the forecast budget position as at Month 8 and the progress to date on the implementation of the recovery plan.

2. Cabinet agrees to transfer £25k from contingency to fund the cost of the public affairs and lobbying campaign in respect of the Department for Education and Skills under-funding of unaccompanied asylum seekers in the London Borough of Hillingdon.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The reason for the revenue monitoring recommendation is to ensure the Council achieves its budgetary objectives. The report informs Cabinet of the latest forecast revenue position for the current year 2006/7.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

None.

8 RESTORATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT TRUDI-LEE DAUGHTERS, MANOR FARM, RUISLIP PROJECT OFFICER DECISION

That Cabinet:

1. Approves the appointment of Thomas Vale Construction to provide construction works for Stage 2 of the Manor Farm Restoration and Development Project at the price quoted in the submitted tender. LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.01.07 Page 7

2. Allocates additional funding of £47,148 to the project from general contingency.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Thomas Vale’s tender scored well in terms of price and quality. They were able to demonstrate at interview the capacity of the company to undertake the project. Thomas Vale has experience and understanding of works involving the renovation of listed buildings and it is considered that they have the ability to work effectively with the community. The project needs to start in February 2007 and complete as scheduled and Thomas Vale would be able to work within these parameters.

Officers have undertaken two separate rounds of tendering for the main works. The first round of tenders were well over budget, and some reductions in specification were identified to reduce the costs, but without compromising the approved purposes of the Heritage Lottery Fund Grant Award. Although officers sent out revised tender documents the tenders were still returned over budget. In order to ensure that the scheme goes ahead and that expensive delays in starting are not incurred, Cabinet approved the additional capital funding.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

To re-tender this contract or ask officers to apply for additional funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund.

This item was considered in the private part of the meeting as it contained information relating to ‘the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)’ (exempt information under paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985)’.

9 MANOR FARM, RUISLIP – APPOINTMENT OF TRUDI-LEE DAUGHTERS, CONTRACTOR FOR INTERPRETATION WORKS PROJECT OFFICER DECISION

That Cabinet approves the appointment of Beacon Display to provide the Manufacture / Production / Commissioning of the Interpretation Works, for Stage 2 of the Manor Farm Restoration and Development Project at the price quoted in the submitted tender.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Beacon Display’s past works on similar projects, their in-depth knowledge of historical sites, and their “can do” attitude along with their price and tender scores clearly demonstrates their complete LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.01.07 Page 8 understanding of the project and ability to undertake all works including AV software development and reconstruction as outlined in the supporting information.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

To re-tender this contract.

10 APPOINTMENT OF SUPPLIER FOR THE PROVISION DAVID HOLDSTOCK, OF TRANSLATION, INTERPRETATION AND HEAD OF ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION SERVICES CORPORATE COMMUNICATIO NS DECISION

1 That Cabinet notes the outcome of the review of the council’s alternative communication services.

2 That Cabinet approves the proposal for the council’s alternative communication services to be provided by one supplier and for officers to report back to members in 12 months with cost and service provision analysis.

3 That Cabinet approves the recommendation to appoint EITI Ltd for the provision of the council’s translation and interpretation services, which includes the provision of alternative communication support services such as signing and Braille.

4 That Cabinet approves an update to the council’s existing Equalities and Diversity Policy as set out in this report.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The translation and interpretation project team has undertaken a rigorous tender process to ensure that the recommended supplier offers the council the best value, both in terms of value for money and quality of service.

The project team has updated the existing wording in the council’s Equalities and Diversity policy to clarify the role of the new translation and interpretation service. Any amendments to this policy require approval from Cabinet.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

To choose an alternative supplier from the top three short-listed suppliers or to decline to award the contract to any of the short-listed LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.01.07 Page 9 suppliers and continue with the current arrangements for the provision of such services.

11 LOCAL LAND CHARGES SERVICE: OPERATIONAL MARCIA MOTLER, LAND ADJUSTMENTS CHARGES / GEOFFREY DECISION ELLIOTT, HEAD OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENT That Cabinet

1) Notes forthcoming changes under consideration by Government in respect of Local Authorities’ Local Land Charges Services

2) Instructs officers to bring a further report to Cabinet on the final budget implications of the changes once Government guidance has been formally issued.

REASONS FOR DECISION

To be aware of potentially significant changes to one of the services the Council provides and the financial ramifications to the Council of these changes.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

None.

The meeting closed at 7.40 p.m.

NONE OF THESE DECISIONS WAS CALLED IN FOR SCRUTINY; THE DECISIONS CAME INTO FORCE AT 5PM ON 26TH JANUARY 2007.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 18.01.07 Page 10 BARKER REVIEW OF LAND USE PLANNING: ITEM 3 FINAL REPORT - RECOMMENDATIONS

Cabinet Member Councillor Keith Burrows

Cabinet Portfolio Planning & Transportation

Officer Contact Jales Tippell, Projects and Implementation Team

Papers with report Appendix 1 attached

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report This report advises Members of the ‘Final Report - Recommendations’ of the Barker Review of Land Use Planning. It includes officer comments on the implications for the Council and an interim response to the Government.

Contribution to our Any changes to the planning system, arising from the plans and strategies Barker Review, which the Government intends to take forward will affect Hillingdon’s Local Development Framework and the delivery of the Community Strategy and other corporate strategies.

Financial Cost There are no financial implications in responding to the Government on the Final Report of the Barker Review.

Relevant Policy Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy Overview Committee Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet:

1. Notes the contents of this report regarding the ‘Final Report - Recommendations’ of the Barker Review of Land Use Planning.

2. Endorses the response to the Government on the ‘Final Report - Recommendations’ of the Barker Review of Land Use Planning, as set out in Appendix 1, for submission to the Government.

3. Notes that the officer views as set out in Appendix 1 have been referred to the Lyons Inquiry to meet the deadline for responses, and that its formal response on the Final Report of the Barker Review will also be submitted.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 11 INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

It is considered that the ‘Final Report - Recommendations’ of the Barker Review of Land Use Planning will have significant implications on the land use planning system and the influence that local councils and communities will have on future developments within their areas. These concerns warrant the council’s response being considered and endorsed by Cabinet.

Alternative options considered

The Cabinet may influence the Government’s proposals by: 1. agreeing the response to the Government in full or in part or 2. making any amendments to the response that are considered appropriate.

Alternatively Cabinet may make no response to the Government’s proposals.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

The Committee is meeting on 5th February and any comments will be reported direct to Cabinet.

Supporting Information

Background

1. The Government announced in December 2005 that Kate Barker would lead an independent review of the land use planning system in England. Her interim report was published in July 2006, based on the following terms of reference:

“To consider how, in the context of globalisation and building on the reforms already put in place in England, planning policy and procedures can better deliver economic growth and prosperity alongside other sustainable development goals. In particular to assess:

• ways of further improving the efficiency and speed of the land use planning system;

• ways of increasing the flexibility, transparency and predictability that enterprise requires;

• the relationship between planning and productivity, and how the outcomes of the planning system can better deliver its sustainable economic objectives; and

• the relationship between economic and other sustainable development goals in the delivery of sustainable communities.”

2. Kate Barker’s Final Report was published on 5th December 2006. The Government has stated that it welcomes this Report and that it agrees with Kate Barker’s overall analysis. It intends to set out its proposals in response to her recommendations in a White

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 12 Paper in the Spring of 2007. In the meantime, the Government is interested to hear responses to the Report, the deadline for which is 5th March 2007.

3. The recommendations within the Final Report of the Barker Review are outlined below, accompanied by officer comments. Appendix 1 sets out a draft proposed response to be submitted to the Government. This response will be amended, to take account of any comments Cabinet may wish to make prior to submission.

The key themes

4. Kate Barker’s Interim Report set out the importance of the planning system as a vital support to productivity and economic growth. Her Final Report aims to create planning policy and processes that give appropriate weight to economic benefits, are more responsive to changing circumstances (including environmental pressures) and deliver decisions in a more transparent and timely manner. The key themes of the Final Report are therefore:

• enhancing the responsiveness of the system to economic factors;

• improving the efficiency of the system to reduce the costs associated with delivering desired outcomes; and

• ensuring that there is an appropriate use of land.

5. These themes are considered under seven specific headings:

1. a more responsive planning system

2. more efficient use of land

4. delivering major projects

4. streamlining the planning system

5. improving the performance of local authorities

6. enhancing the appeals process, and

7. improving wider incentives to support a more responsive system.

Key recommendations

6. The Barker Review contains 32 recommendations, from which 15 key recommendations are derived. These are as follows:

a) Promoting a positive planning culture within the plan-led system so that when the plan is indeterminate, applications should be approved unless there is good reason to believe that the environmental, social and economic costs will exceed the respective benefits;

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 13 b) Updating national policy on planning for economic development (PPS4), to ensure that the benefits of development are fully taken into account in plan-making and decision-taking, with a more explicit role for market and price signals;

c) Supporting the ‘town-centre first’ policy, but removing the requirement to demonstrate the need for development;

d) In the context of the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government to consider enhancing fiscal incentives to ensure an efficient use of urban land, in particular reforming business rate relief for empty property, exploring the options for a charge on vacant and derelict previously developed land, and, separately consulting on reforms to Land Remediation Relief;

e) Ensuring that new development beyond towns and cities occurs in the most sustainable way, by encouraging planning bodies to review their green belt boundaries and take a more positive approach to applications that will enhance the quality of their green belts;

f) Introducing a new system for dealing with major infrastructure projects, based around national Statements of Strategic Objectives and an independent Planning Commission to determine applications;

g) Ensuring that Secretary of State decisions focus on important, strategic issues, with a reduction by around 50 per cent in the volume of Secretary of State call-ins;

h) Streamlining policy and processes through reducing policy guidance, unifying consent regimes and reforming plan-making at the local level so that future development plan documents can be delivered in 18-24 months rather than three or more years;

i) A more risk-based and proportionate approach to regulation, with a reduction in formfilling, including the introduction of new proportionality thresholds, to reduce the transaction costs for business and to increase the speed of decision-making;

j) Removing the need for minor commercial developments that have little wider impact to require planning permission (including commercial microgeneration);

k) Ensuring sufficient resources for planning, linked to improved performance, including consulting on raising the £50,000 fee cap and allowing firms to pay for additional resources;

l) Enhancing efficiencies in processing applications via greater use of partnership working with the private sector, joint-working with other local authorities to achieve efficiencies of scale and scope, and an expanded role of the central support function ATLAS;

m) Improving skills, including through raising the status of the Chief Planner, training for members and officers, and wider use of business process reviews.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 14 n) Speeding up the appeals system, through the introduction of a Planning Mediation Service, better resourcing, and allowing Inspectors to determine the appeal route. From 2008-09 appeals should be completed in 6 months; and

o) In the context of the findings of the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, to consider how fiscal incentives can be better aligned so that local authorities are in a position to share the benefits of local economic growth;

7. The background to each of the above 15 recommendations is set out below, under the 7 themes of the Barker Review, with appropriate officer comments.

1. A more responsive planning system a) Promoting a positive planning culture within the plan-led system

The Barker Review proposals 8. Until 1991, the planning system operated with a presumption in favour of development, ‘unless the proposed development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.’ This framework was superseded by Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), which removed the presumption and strengthened the status of the development plan in decision-making so that the provisions of the plan became the primary point of reference, ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise.’

9. The Barker Review states that, while it might be thought that a system based on a presumption in favour of development would support economic growth better than one based on plans, the plan-led approach is to be supported as it provides an effective balance between certainty and flexibility. However if decisions are based primarily on development plans, it becomes critical to ensure those plans contain policies that help promote economic growth. There is, however, a real issue about whether within the plan- led system, there can be greater certainty in those instances when the plan is not up-to- date or determinate.

10. Whilst therefore concluding that the pre-1991 generalised presumption in favour of development would not be appropriate, the Barker Review considers that a more helpful approach would be to make clear that development should be allowed unless there is good reason to believe that the environmental, social and economic costs of the development outweigh the benefits. The Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• Promoting a positive planning culture within the plan-led system so that when the plan is indeterminate, applications should be approved unless there is good reason to believe that the environmental, social and economic costs will exceed the respective benefits.

Officer Comment 11. This recommendation represents a shift towards a presumption in favour of development, which has been welcomed by the development industry. However the RTPI has commented that “It will bring back planning by appeal and not just in areas of out of date plans. It will also result in some very dubious developments being allowed.”

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 15

12. Officers consider that the requirement to include policies within development plans that help economic growth is likely to undermine environmental and social interests. Whilst very careful drafting of policies may avoid economic growth undermining environmental and social interests, this remains a strong possibility. Officers are also concerned that the wider implications of sustainability have not been addressed. It is also considered that, given the environmental and social costs/benefits are often more difficult to quantify than the economic costs/benefits, and the lengthy process in place for preparing development plans, it is likely that many authorities may have to approve applications which may otherwise have been refused. This may lead to unsatisfactory developments being approved. b) Updating national policy on planning for economic development

The Barker Review proposals 13. The Barker Review acknowledges that firms need a responsive planning system so that they can expand their businesses and serve the needs of their customers. In particular, it states that the new Planning Policy Statement on Economic Development (PPS4) should seek to adopt a positive approach to changes of use where there is no likelihood of demonstrable harm and also stresses the importance of taking account of market signals, such as information regarding vacancies, take up of newly built space, current construction rates, prime office rents, land values for different types of development and trends in property choices. The Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• Updating national policy on planning for economic development (PPS4), to ensure that the benefits of development are fully taken into account in plan-making and decision-taking, with a more explicit role for market and price signals.

Officer Comment 14. The implications of the recommendation are that there will be a new Planning Policy Statement on Economic Development (PPS4) that gives greater emphasis to economic growth and stresses the importance of taking market and price signals into account. Officers are concerned that, by taking account of market signals , including land values for different types of development and trends in property choices, proposals will be favoured on their commercially viability at the expense of those proposals that provide environmental and social benefits but are less viable. c) Removing the requirement to demonstrate the need for development for town centre uses

The Barker Review proposals 15. The Barker Review states that planning should be based on the consideration of “spillover” (which is understood to mean the impacts of the proposed development) rather than trying to predict market demand. It considers that planners should not be attempting to determine if there is sufficient ‘need’ for a given application – rather the applicant, who is bearing the risk, should be responsible for assessing that likely demand is sufficient to make the development viable. This has implications for the ‘town-centre first’ policy.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 16 16. Whilst the Barker Review states that protecting the vitality and viability of town centres is an important policy priority, and that the sequential test and the impact tests of Planning Policy Statement 6 should be retained, it proposes that the requirement for applicants to demonstrate need should be removed, and that this can be done without harm to the overall policy. It therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• Supporting the ‘town-centre first’ policy, but removing the requirement to demonstrate the need for development.

Officer Comment 17. The Barker Review claims that the ‘town-centre first’ policy would not be undermined by the removal of the needs test, because the sequential and impact tests in PPS6 will remain. Officers consider the retail needs test to be an integral part of town centre policy because it enables Councils to refuse development in communities that already have adequate facilities. The removal of the needs test is likely to lead to more out of town stores, which may adversely affect the vitality and viability of town centres and will conflict with the case for reducing car usage and carbon emissions.

2. More efficient use of land d) Enhancing fiscal incentives to ensure an efficient use of urban land

The Barker Review proposals 18. Given the number of pressures on land supply in coming decades, the Barker Review acknowledges that there is a need for more efficient use of urban land. It states that the Government should make better use of fiscal interventions to encourage an efficient use of urban land. In particular, it should reform business rate relief for empty property and consider introducing a charge on vacant and derelict previously developed land. It should also consult on reforms to Land Remediation Relief to help developers bring forward hard-to- remediate sites. The Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• In the context of the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government to consider enhancing fiscal incentives to ensure an efficient use of urban land, in particular reforming business rate relief for empty property, exploring the options for a charge on vacant and derelict previously developed land, and, separately consulting on reforms to Land Remediation Relief.

Officer Comment 19. The fiscal incentives that are proposed by the Barker Review, in particular for reforming business rate relief for empty property and imposing a charge on vacant and derelict previously developed land, are welcomed by officers. These measures should reduce industrial and commercial property vacancies; could also speed up development on brownfield land and may provide an extra income stream for council’s. e) Enhancing the quality of green belts

The Barker Review proposals 20. If more land is likely to be required for development, the question arises of where it would be most environmentally sustainable to develop. The Barker Review acknowledges

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 17 that certain areas are in need of particular protection, such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Parks and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Furthermore there are issues around developing in areas that may be at longer-term risk from flooding.

21. Conversely, the land that can be developed with the least likely environmental or wider social impact is low-value agricultural land with little landscape quality and limited public access. This will also often be near towns and cities. Much of this land currently falls within green belt classification. Whilst the Barker Review acknowledges that green belt is an important planning policy tool to support regeneration in some areas or to preserve the character of historic towns, it notes that it now covers almost 13 per cent of England, and considers that regional and local planning bodies should review their green belt boundaries to ensure they remain relevant and appropriate, and so ensure that planned development takes place in the most sustainable location.

22. The Barker Review notes that green belt land is of varying quality and states that local planning authorities should therefore adopt a more positive approach to applications that include measures to enhance the surrounding area, for example through the creation of open access woodland. The Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• Ensuring that new development beyond towns and cities occurs in the most sustainable way, by encouraging planning bodies to review their green belt boundaries and take a more positive approach to applications that will enhance the quality of their green belts.

Officer Comment 23. The implications of the recommendation are that regional and local planning authorities will be required to review their green belt boundaries and policies. Green belt policies have widespread public support and are important in preserving the character and/or identity of towns and villages or supporting regeneration in some areas. Officers acknowledge the need to review their green belt boundaries as part of the development planning process to ensure they remain relevant and appropriate, and taking into account the need to release adequate land for new development in a sustainable way, which is what the council is doing as part of the LDF process. However any changes to green belt boundaries should be fully justified and offer a clear environmental gain. Officers would be concerned if the GLA were to make changes to the green belt boundaries within Hillingdon, irrespective of the views of local people.

24. Hillingdon Council already takes a proactive approach to applications that enhance the quality of green belt areas, as evidenced by the areas of Waterside, Stockley District Park and Minet Country Park.

3. Delivering major projects f) New policy direction and an independent Planning Commission

The Barker Review proposals 25. The Barker Review states that major reform should be urgently considered for major infrastructure projects, given the very lengthy delays at present and the high costs associated with them, including the creation of considerable uncertainty for affected local

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 18 communities and for business decisions, and delays to the benefits expected to flow from these projects. The Barker Review echoes the proposals of the Eddington Transport Study. It states that the main priority is for a clearer policy framework within which planning applications and consents for major infrastructure can come forward. It recommends that the Government should draw up Statements of Strategic Objectives for major infrastructure, including transport, energy, strategic waste and water projects. These Statements, where possible, should integrate environmental, economic and social interests so that policy advances sustainable development. They would need to be drawn up following full public consultation with all interested parties, including affected local communities where the Statements have a spatial element. Importantly, these Statements would have to be reviewed regularly to ensure they remained up to date. Regional planning bodies would then factor the policies contained within the Statements into Regional Spatial Strategies.

26. The Barker Review recommends that, alongside clearer national policy, an independent Planning Commission should be established, which would consist of a panel of experts drawn from a range of professional fields, and be charged with assessing applications against this strategic framework alongside other considerations such as local and environmental impact. The Barker Review states that by setting out a clear framework upfront for decision-making through Statements of Strategic Objectives, democratic accountability is established from the outset. The time taken to reach decisions could then be reduced to some extent by cutting out the Ministerial decision-making phase, in addition to stricter timetabling of decisions, ending joint and linked decisions, changes to the inquiry process, and bringing together into a single process the range of consents often required. The Barker Review states that the Planning Commission would operate within a legal framework established by Parliament to ensure appropriate accountability. The Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• Introducing a new system for dealing with major infrastructure projects, based around national Statements of Strategic Objectives and an independent Planning Commission to determine applications.

Officer Comment 27. The implications of the recommendation are that the Government should draw up Statements of Strategic Objectives for major infrastructure projects and an independent Planning Commission should be established, with no local council or ministerial accountability, to assess applications against this strategic framework alongside other considerations such as local and environmental impact.

28. Officers support the recognition that the current system needs improvement to reduce unnecessary delays and minimise costs for all involved. However any changes to the system should safeguard and increase public consultation and involvement. In light of the considerable time taken at the Heathrow Terminal 5 Planning Inquiry in debating the need for the project and strategic policy issues, the Council particularly welcomes the acceptance of the Government that it should provide up to date national policy statements against which major infrastructure projects can be considered in the planning system to help reduce inquiry time spent debating the policy.

29. There is however concern that the Statements of Strategic Objectives may not provide sufficient guidance for major infrastructure projects, particularly if they are

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 19 sufficiently forward looking and comprehensive. There is also concern that the public may feel unable to contribute to the preparation of the Statements because they do not have relevance to them at local level. Furthermore there is concern that the Statements of Strategic Objectives will be focussed on the economic case for the project at the expense of social and environmental implications.

30. Whilst officers support the principle of an independent Planning Commission to assess applications for major infrastructure projects, the proposal must sit within a clear policy and democratic framework. There are concerns that the proposal may stifle the proper scrutiny of proposals that could have serious impacts and may result in developments being approved regardless of the concerns of local communities. g) Reducing Secretary of State call-ins by around 50 per cent in volume

The Barker Review proposals 31. The Barker Review states that there is a case for keeping the Ministerial role in decisions made by local planning authorities to a minimum. It considers that further progress should be made to reduce the volume of cases called-in and appeals recovered by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Barker Review recommends that the Government should review the directions that lead to call-in, withdrawing those that are not needed and providing a higher threshold before Government Offices need to be informed. The aim should be to reduce significantly the number of applications referred by local authorities and then the number of those called-in by the Secretary of State. The Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• Ensuring that Secretary of State decisions focus on important, strategic issues, with a reduction by around 50 per cent in the volume of Secretary of State call-ins.

Officer Comment 32. Officers do not have strong views on the proposal to reduce significantly the number of applications referred by local authorities and then the number of those called-in by the Secretary of State. The nature of decisions made of as a result of the Secretary of State’s involvement can sometimes favour local authorities and sometimes may not. There may however, be some cases where there is a significant increase in the time taken in the decision-making process as a result of the Secretary of State’s involvement.

4. Streamlining the planning system h) Streamlining policy and processes

The Barker Review proposals 33. The Barker Review makes a number of recommendations for the streamlining of the planning system in order to remove unnecessary levels of complexity. In particular it recognises that improvement is needed in terms of the planning policy framework and plan-making process. With regard to the planning framework, it is considered that the priority should be to consolidate the General Development Procedure Order and that the Government should commit to a substantial streamlining of national policy, including considering the potential to expand PPS1 in place of updating some of the current range of

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 20 PPGs, and that it should commit to publishing any necessary guidance either alongside or within four months of publishing new policy.

34. With regard to plan-making, the Barker Review states that the objective should be to secure a process whereby plan documents can be delivered in less than two years. Specific recommendations include ensuring current sustainability appraisal requirements are proportionate, and, in the next phase of development plan documents, removal of the formal requirement for an issues and options phase of development plan documents. With regard to the latter, local authorities would still have to demonstrate in their preferred options phase the original options they considered and the reasons for their preferred options, but without a formal six-month process that often adds little value but can add significantly to resource pressures. The Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• Streamlining policy and processes through reducing policy guidance, unifying consent regimes and reforming plan-making at the local level so that future development plan documents can be delivered in 18-24 months rather than three or more years.

Officer Comment 35. Given the complexity of the national planning policy framework, officers welcome the proposal that the Government should consolidate the General Development Procedure Order and commit to a substantial streamlining of national policy, with the relevant guidance issued in a more timely fashion.

36. The Barker Review recommendation, to streamline the policies and processes of the plan making system that was set up by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, appears to be a clear message to the Government that its reforms to make the plan led system more responsive and efficient have already proved less than satisfactory. Officers welcome the requirement to make sustainability appraisals more ‘proportionate’ and the proposal to remove the issues and options stage in development plan documents. However these measures will only significantly reduce the length of time taken to prepare documents if Government takes a less rigid approach to procedures for scrutiny of the plans for soundness i) Reducing information requirements for planning applications

The Barker Review proposals 37. The Barker Review recognises that streamlining of the planning system will require improvements in terms of the planning application process. It states that the clear priority is to reduce the amount of information required to support applications. Local planning authorities should operate on a more risk-based and proportionate system, to cut applicant costs and free up planning departments resources. This should be achieved by introducing proportionality thresholds, establishing strict criteria that would have to be met before new “burdens” (which is taken to mean information requirements) were imposed and working to raise the threshold and limit the information associated with Environmental Statements. Other aspects of the application system could also be made less onerous. In particular, the Barker Review states that the Government should set out how it proposes to conduct the next stage towards the unification of consent regimes, following the proposed

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 21 merger of listed building and scheduled monument consents. The Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• A more risk-based and proportionate approach to regulation, with a reduction in formfilling, including the introduction of new proportionality thresholds, to reduce the transaction costs for business and to increase the speed of decision-making.

Officer Comment 38. Over the years there has been a considerable increase in the amount of information required to support applications, which has put a burden on applicants, planning authorities and others involved in the planning system, not least residents and others trying to understand proposals. Officers therefore recognise the merits of the proposal to reduce the amount of information required to support applications.

However, officers doubt whether it will be possible to bring forward satisfactory criteria that will fit all the types of applications that it will encompass. Before commenting more fully, officers would need to see the criteria. However whilst reducing the overall requirements for information, there will be a need to ensure that sufficient information is submitted with any planning application to enable the impacts of the proposal to be satisfactorily assessed. In terms of the quality of decision-making, it is better to err on the side of full information rather than incomplete information. The submission of fully detailed drawings and supporting information is particularly important when considering applications relating to the historic environment, and enables a speedier decision making process.

5. Improving the performance of local authority authorities

39. The Barker Review recognises that in a number of respects, performance of local authority authorities has improved, but considers that a number of further reforms are needed, as outlined below. j) Focusing on the cases that matter most

The Barker Review proposals 40. The Barker Review states that planning resources should be able to focus more on the larger scale applications, rather than the small-scale permissions, which have little impact on the wider public interest. To achieve this, the principle of the Householder Development Consent Review (that permitted developments rights for householders should be extended based on an ‘impact’ principle) should be rolled-out to minor applications. This should include extending permitted development in microgeneration of power to commercial settings, supporting the planning system’s role in combating climate change. In addition, a system based on the New Zealand model of side-agreements should be introduced, where if potential applicants can come to an agreement with all affected third-parties there should be no requirement for full planning permission. This is most likely to be applicable only for small-scale developments, both commercial and household. The Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• Removing the need for minor commercial developments that have little wider impact to require planning permission (including commercial microgeneration).

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 22 Officer Comment 41. The implications of the recommendation are that the Government should outline how it plans to extend permitted developments rights to minor commercial and householder applications based on an ‘impact’ principle. However the raising of the permitted development thresholds and reliance upon neighbour agreement disregards the adverse impact of piecemeal erosion which poor, bulky and inappropriate design can have on the character and appearance of an area, and the resultant loss to the interests of the wider community and the heritage of the Borough. At the very least, conservation areas, and other heritage designations should be omitted from such legislation. k) Ensuring sufficient resources for planning

The Barker Review proposals 42. The Barker Review acknowledges that local planning authorities and other bodies involved in planning, such as the Environment Agency and Highways Agency, need to resource their planning function appropriately. The Barker Review states that Government should therefore review current arrangements, in particular regarding the £50,000 cap on fees for planning applications and the potential (if propriety can be assured) for applicants to pay for additional consultants to help process their application. The Barker Review also states that public-sector funding for planning must be maintained, and that in particular, there continues to be a role for some form of Planning Delivery Grant (PDG) to resource the system effectively so that the quality of the planning system is maintained and enhanced. The Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• Ensuring sufficient resources for planning, linked to improved performance, including consulting on raising the £50,000 fee cap and allowing firms to pay for additional resources.

Officer Comment 43. Hillingdon receives a disproportionately high number of very large and complex major applications, and the costs of dealing with these sometimes exceeds the £50,000 cap. The cap may therefore represent a cost to local authorities dealing with large and complex developments and a subsidy to the largest developments. Officers therefore welcome a review of the £50,000 fee cap. The increase in fees should be accompanied by the removal of the PDG, which serves to widen the gap between the under-performing authorities and the higher-performing authorities which are in receipt of the PDG. The proposed changes to the way that PDG is distributed, i.e. most probably based on housing completions, will not assist in performance enhancement.

44. Hillingdon already has some experience of levering in additional resources from applicants to assist the planning application process and officers therefore welcome the Barker Review proposal to allow firms to pay for additional resources, provided that impartiality of the planning system is maintained. l) Enhancing efficiencies in processing applications

The Barker Review proposals 45. The Barker Review states that local planning authorities should enhance the quality of service provided by their planning department through more effective interaction with external organisations, via:

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 23 • the introduction of more ‘shared services’ by local authority planning departments (or contracting to more efficient LPAs) to enable economies of scale and scope; • increased use of outsourcing and tendering for development control services, so that private sector expertise is more effectively leveraged; and • exploring the potential for greater use of accredited consultants to carry out technical assessments for selected tasks.

46. The Barker Review also states that a robust system of performance management should be put in place to address continued poor performance, in line with proposals in the Local Government White Paper. DCLG should encourage and, where necessary, direct local authorities that continue to underperform to tender their planning function, along the lines of the successful Urban Vision model or to contract with other more successful authorities to provide or share services.

47. The Barker Review further adds that the role of ATLAS (an independent Advisory Team for Large Applications, provided by English Partnerships) should be expanded to remove bottlenecks in the delivery of commercial development as well as housing, and to extend its current range beyond its focus on southern regions.

48. In light of the above, the Barker Review includes the following key recommendation:

• Enhancing efficiencies in processing applications via greater use of partnership working with the private sector, joint-working with other local authorities to achieve efficiencies of scale and scope, and an expanded role of the central support function ATLAS.

Officer Comment 49. Hillingdon’s Planning and Community Services Group regularly reviews the way in which it procures its planning services and it has become innovative in dealing with the pressures of increasing workloads imposed by the planning system, successfully levering in private sector expertise where appropriate. For ‘other 109c’ applications, these are outsourced to two separate contractors. Officers have also explored the scope for working with ATLAS but as yet this has not been appropriate. At a practical level, joint-working with other local authorities is not feasible in practice due to the shortage of skills. The overall level of resources needed by local planning authorities should be reviewed to enable further improvements to services to be made. Furthermore, due regard should be given to the benefits of local knowledge and established working relationships with local groups which are provided by local planning authorities, which may be undermined by excessive privatisation and joint-working. m) Improving skills and culture

The Barker Review proposals 50. The Barker Review states that further progress is needed in supporting the skills- base of planners in addition to current initiatives. It proposes that the status and professionalism of Chief Planners should be raised to put a confident and properly resourced planning department at the heart of each local authority with the right links to key related functions. There should also be continued funding for the Planning Advisory Service to promote continuous improvement, training for members and officers and wider

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 24 use of business process reviews, so that planning technicians can be used for simpler tasks, freeing up professional planners for strategic issues. The Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• Improving skills, including through raising the status of the Chief Planner, training for members and officers, and wider use of business process reviews.

Officer Comment 51. Hillingdon’s Planning and Community Services Group is innovative in supporting the skills-base of planners and continues to introduce a range of different measures with regard to recruitment, retention and training. It has also undertaken business process reviews and made appropriate changes to its way of working, particularly in the field of e- planning. Whilst officers support the Baker Review proposals to improve the skills-base of planners, the proposals do not represent anything new and could be unilaterally implemented by local authorities, subject to resource implications.

6. Enhancing the appeals process n) Speeding up the appeals system

The Barker Review proposals 52. The Barker Review acknowledges that the majority of appellants are satisfied with the way their appeal is handled, although there are real problems concerning the speed of decision-making. It states that stricter targets are needed to speed up decision-making. It considers that in principle there is no reason why appeals should take any longer than the 8 and 13-week time limits imposed on local authorities and from 2008-09 it should be possible for all to be processed in six months. It adds that the following reforms are needed to help achieve this:

• a Planning Mediation Service should be introduced.

• the Planning Inspectorate should be able to determine the most appropriate appeal route so that resources can be channelled where they are most effective. The mechanism for doing so should be based on clear criteria, and holding oral hearings on just part of a case should be made possible. There should also be a reduction in casecreep at appeal, through placing limits on the issues and material to be considered to those that were originally put before the local authority, although the Inspector would retain the power to ask for additional information; and

• consideration should be given to providing an additional £2 million of public funding to the Planning Inspectorate for appeals to increase Inspector resources. Cost- recovery for foregone expenses on withdrawn appeals should be introduced. Existing powers to award costs for unreasonable behaviour leading to unnecessary expense should be extended.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 25 53. In light of the above, the Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• Speeding up the appeals system, through the introduction of a Planning Mediation Service, better resourcing, and allowing Inspectors to determine the appeal route. From 2008-09 appeals should be completed in 6 months.

Officer Comment 54. Officers agree with the Barker Review that in principle there is no reason why appeals should take any longer than the 8 and 13-week time limits imposed on local authorities and welcome the proposal that from 2008-09 appeals should be processed in six months. There are no strong views on whether Inspectors should determine the appeal route, although it should be acknowledged that there are cases where local residents have very definite views as to the method of determining an appeal.

55. Whilst officers support the principle of introducing a planning mediation service, it is unclear whether this would generally speed up the decision making process because the parties may not reach a mutually agreeable solution, in which case the outcome of the mediation process would not be binding.

7. Improving wider incentives to support this more responsive system. o) Further fiscal incentives

The Barker Review proposals 56. The Barker Review states that it is vital that the incentives facing decision-makers are aligned with the benefits of development. It acknowledges that support for development can be weakened in instances where the costs of development are local, short-term and highly visible, while the benefits may be regional, long-term and less apparent. This is exacerbated by the present system of local government finance, which does not offer balanced incentives to planning authorities. As a recent report from the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government noted: ‘The current system offers relatively little in the way of direct financial benefits for authorities to enhance local well-being and prosperity... we should consider reforms to the funding system which would enable local authorities to share in the benefits of economic growth.’

57. The interim report of the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, published in December 2005, identified a range of options for improving local authority incentives, enabling them to capture and retain some of the value created locally from business growth. These include: • retained and variable business rates; • reform of the revenue support grant; and • local service charges and new local taxes.

58. A further option is to enable the leveraging of future revenues, by encouraging the use of councils’ new prudential borrowing powers. This could further support growth by allowing a loan to be written against the value of future tax revenues and so creating immediate access to significant funds of money. The Barker Review states that in the

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 26 context of the final findings of the Lyons Inquiry, the Government should therefore consider further fiscal options for how authorities can share in the benefits of local economic growth.

59. The Barker Review also includes further options for incentivising communities. In particular, developers could use community good-will payments – on a strictly voluntary basis – to pay households a fixed sum to help gain their acceptance for a project they would otherwise object to. These projects would still, of course, require planning permission. The case for operating a land bid scheme, where the local authority offers farmers and landowners the option of selling their land on a closed bid basis to the authority who could then buy some of it, rezone it for development, and then sell, could also be explored.

60. In light of the above, the Barker Review therefore includes the following key recommendation:

• In the context of the findings of the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, to consider how fiscal incentives can be better aligned so that local authorities are in a position to share the benefits of local economic growth.

Officer Comment 61. Officers agree with the Barker Review that the current structure of local taxation (council tax and business rates) means that planning authorities see little benefit in financial terms from new development. The few government reforms intended to improve the situation, such as Local Authority Business Growth Initiative and Business Improvement Districts, are limited and bureaucratic. The Barker Review’s recommendation for leveraging future revenues, by encouraging the use of councils’ new prudential borrowing powers, may unlock significant sums of money up-front.

62. The Barker Review suggests that developers could make good-will payments, on a strictly voluntary basis, to win support from those directly affected by a development, that might not be swayed by facilities funded through a s106 agreement. This proposal has proved contentious because it appears tantamount to bribery. The RTPI has stated that “The planning system exists to establish what development should take place in the interests of the wider public, not to allow deals behind closed doors to give developers a quick and dirty permit”. The Planning Officers Society has asked “What would you be paying people for – to compensate them or not to object? When does compensation become buying people off?” Officers are concerned that the transparency and fairness of the planning system would be put at risk if good-will payments were introduced, and that any ‘mitigation’ payments arising from the impacts of a development should be dealt with through the imposition of planning conditions or a s106 agreement.

Conclusions of the Barker Review

The Barker Review proposals 63. The Barker Review proposals aim to build on the Government’s recent reforms, with the particular objective of ensuring that the planning system is better able to support economic growth and prosperity alongside delivering wider sustainable development goals in the context of climate change. Although some of the Barker Review recommendations require legislative change, it is considered that a number could be implemented over the course of the next 18 months, so that the benefits they will bring are felt at the earliest

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 27 opportunity. To ensure that the necessary progress is made, the Barker Review states that the Government should publish a report by the end of 2009 setting out the action that has been taken against proposed recommendations, drawing on the views of key stakeholders and users of the planning system, including business applicants.

Officer Comment 64. Whilst officers support the principle of various measures to speed up the planning system, officers are concerned that the Barker Review proposals aim to promote economic prosperity at the expense of environmental and social interests and that the wider interpretations of sustainability have not been addressed. There is also concern that some of the recommendations may result in developments being approved regardless of the concerns of local communities.

65. Officers support the Barker Review proposal for the Government to publish a report by the end of 2009 setting out the action that has been taken against proposed recommendations. Officers also welcome the intention of the Government to respond to the Barker Review in the publication of a White Paper in the spring of 2007.

The Lyons Inquiry

66. The Chancellor announced that he and Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, have asked Sir Michael Lyons to consider the implications for local government of the Eddington report on transport, the Barker report on planning and the Leitch review on skills in the final report from his Inquiry into the role, function and funding of local government, and to make appropriate recommendations to government. Sir Michael published a discussion document seeking views on the implications for local government of the three reports on 11 December 2006, the deadline for responses being 19 January 2007. Given the tight timescales for responses, officers have referred this Cabinet report to the Lyons Inquiry and recommend that the decision taken by the Cabinet should also be referred.

Financial Implications

67. As this report is recommending a response to a consultation, there are no financial implications for the council at this stage. Until such time as recommendations have been formally adopted and the detail clarified, it is not possible to evaluate future financial implications (if any) for the council.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation? It is considered that the ‘Final Report - Recommendations’ of the Barker Review of Land Use Planning will have significant implications on the land use planning system and the influence that local councils and communities will have on future developments within their areas.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

None.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 28

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

Corporate Finance has reviewed this report and the financial implications within it. The view of Corporate Finance is that this report and its financial implications properly reflect both the direct resource implications on the service concerned and any wider implications on Council resources as a whole.

Legal

There are no comments to add.

Corporate Property

There are no direct property implications arising from this report.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Barker Review of Land Use Planning: Final Report - Recommendations (Kate Barker December 2006)

Lyons Inquiry into Local Government - Promoting economic prosperity: considering the implications of Eddington, Barker and Leitch, Questions for stakeholders (11 December 2006)

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 29 APPENDIX 1

SUBMISSION ON BELHALF OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON: ‘FINAL REPORT - RECOMMENDATIONS’ OF THE BARKER REVIEW OF LAND USE PLANNING

Comments on the key recommendations of the Final report of the Barker Review of Land Use Planning

1. A more responsive planning system a) Promoting a positive planning culture within the plan-led system

It is considered that the requirement to include policies within development plans that help economic growth is likely to undermine environmental and social interests. Whilst very careful drafting of policies may avoid economic growth undermining environmental and social interests, this remains a strong possibility. There is also concern that the wider implications of sustainability have not been addressed. It is also considered that, given the environmental and social costs/benefits are often more difficult to quantify than the economic costs/benefits, and the lengthy process in place for preparing development plans, it is likely that many authorities may have to approve applications which may otherwise have been refused. This may lead to unsatisfactory developments being approved. b) Updating national policy on planning for economic development

The implications of the recommendation are that there will be a new Planning Policy Statement on Economic Development (PPS4) that gives greater emphasis to economic growth and stresses the importance of taking market and price signals into account. There is concern that, by taking account of market signals, including land values for different types of development and trends in property choices, proposals will be favoured on their commercially viability at the expense of those proposals that provide environmental and social benefits but are less viable. c) Removing the requirement to demonstrate the need for development for town centre uses

• Supporting the ‘town-centre first’ policy, but removing the requirement to demonstrate the need for development.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 30 The Barker Review claims that the ‘town-centre first’ policy would not be undermined by the removal of the needs test, because the sequential and impact tests in PPS6 will remain. It is considered that the retail needs test to be an integral part of town centre policy because it enables Councils to refuse development in communities that already have adequate facilities. The removal of the needs test is likely to lead to more out of town stores, which may adversely affect the vitality and viability of town centres and will conflict with the case for reducing car usage and carbon emissions.

2. More efficient use of land d) Enhancing fiscal incentives to ensure an efficient use of urban land

The fiscal incentives that are proposed by the Barker Review, in particular for reforming business rate relief for empty property and imposing a charge on vacant and derelict previously developed land, are welcomed. These measures should reduce industrial and commercial property vacancies; could also speed up development on brownfield land and may provide an extra income stream for council’s. e) Enhancing the quality of green belts

The implications of the recommendation are that regional and local planning authorities will be required to review their green belt boundaries and policies. Green belt policies have widespread public support and are important in preserving the character and/or identity of towns and villages or supporting regeneration in some areas. The Council acknowledges the need to review its green belt boundaries as part of the development planning process to ensure they remain relevant and appropriate, and taking into account the need to release adequate land for new development in a sustainable way, which is what the Council is doing as part of the LDF process. However any changes to green belt boundaries should be fully justified and offer a clear environmental gain. There would be concern if the GLA were to make changes to the green belt boundaries within Hillingdon, irrespective of the views of local people.

Hillingdon Council already takes a proactive approach to applications that enhance the quality of green belt areas, as evidenced by the areas of Waterside, Stockley District Park and Minet Country Park.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 31 3. Delivering major projects f) New policy direction and an independent Planning Commission

• Introducing a new system for dealing with major infrastructure projects, based around national Statements of Strategic Objectives and an independent Planning Commission to determine applications.

The implications of the recommendation are that the Government should draw up Statements of Strategic Objectives for major infrastructure projects and an independent Planning Commission should be established, with no local council or ministerial accountability, to assess applications against this strategic framework alongside other considerations such as local and environmental impact.

The Council supports the recognition that the current system needs improvement to reduce unnecessary delays and minimise costs for all involved. However any changes to the system should safeguard and increase public consultation and involvement. In light of the considerable time taken at the Heathrow Terminal 5 Planning Inquiry in debating the need for the project and strategic policy issues, the Council particularly welcomes the acceptance of the Government that it should provide up to date national policy statements against which major infrastructure projects can be considered in the planning system to help reduce inquiry time spent debating the policy.

There is however concern that the Statements of Strategic Objectives may not provide sufficient guidance for major infrastructure projects, particularly if they are sufficiently forward looking and comprehensive. There is also concern that the public may feel unable to contribute to the preparation of the Statements because they do not have relevance to them at local level. Furthermore there is concern that the Statements of Strategic Objectives will be focussed on the economic case for the project at the expense of social and environmental implications.

Whilst the Council supports the principle of an independent Planning Commission to assess applications for major infrastructure projects, the proposal must sit within a clear policy and democratic framework. There are concerns that the proposal may stifle the proper scrutiny of proposals that could have serious impacts and may result in developments being approved regardless of the concerns of local communities. g) Reducing Secretary of State call-ins by around 50 per cent in volume

• Ensuring that Secretary of State decisions focus on important, strategic issues, with a reduction by around 50 per cent in the volume of Secretary of State call-ins.

The Council does not have strong views on the proposal to reduce significantly the number of applications referred by local authorities and then the number of those called-in by the Secretary of State. The nature of decisions made of as a result of the Secretary of State’s involvement can sometimes favour local authorities and sometimes may not. There may however, be some cases where there is a significant increase in the time taken in the decision-making process as a result of the Secretary of State’s involvement.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 32 4. Streamlining the planning system h) Streamlining policy and processes

Given the complexity of the national planning policy framework, the Council welcomes the proposal that the Government should consolidate the General Development Procedure Order and commit to a substantial streamlining of national policy, with the relevant guidance issued in a more timely fashion.

The Barker Review recommendation, to streamline the policies and processes of the plan making system that was set up by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, appears to be a clear message to the Government that its reforms to make the plan led system more responsive and efficient have already proved less than satisfactory. The Council welcomes the requirement to make sustainability appraisals more ‘proportionate’ and the proposal to remove the issues and options stage in development plan documents. However these measures will only significantly reduce the length of time taken to prepare documents if Government takes a less rigid approach to procedures for scrutiny of the plans for soundness i) Reducing information requirements for planning applications

Over the years there has been a considerable increase in the amount of information required to support applications, which has put a burden on applicants, planning authorities and others involved in the planning system, not least residents and others trying to understand proposals. The Council therefore recognises the merits of the proposal to reduce the amount of information required to support applications.

However, there is doubt as to whether it will be possible to bring forward satisfactory criteria that will fit all the types of applications that it will encompass. Before commenting more fully, the Council would need to see the criteria. However whilst reducing the overall requirements for information, there will be a need to ensure that sufficient information is submitted with any planning application to enable the impacts of the proposal to be satisfactorily assessed. In terms of the quality of decision-making, it is better to err on the side of full information rather than incomplete information. The submission of fully detailed drawings and supporting information is particularly important when considering applications relating to the historic environment, and enables a speedier decision making process.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 33 5. Improving the performance of local authority authorities j) Focusing on the cases that matter most

• Removing the need for minor commercial developments that have little wider impact to require planning permission (including commercial microgeneration).

The implications of the recommendation are that the Government should outline how it plans to extend permitted developments rights to minor commercial and householder applications based on an ‘impact’ principle. However the raising of the permitted development thresholds and reliance upon neighbour agreement disregards the adverse impact of piecemeal erosion which poor, bulky and inappropriate design can have on the character and appearance of an area, and the resultant loss to the interests of the wider community and the heritage of the Borough. At the very least, conservation areas, and other heritage designations should be omitted from such legislation. k) Ensuring sufficient resources for planning

• Ensuring sufficient resources for planning, linked to improved performance, including consulting on raising the £50,000 fee cap and allowing firms to pay for additional resources.

Hillingdon receives a disproportionately high number of very large and complex major applications, and the costs of dealing with these sometimes exceeds the £50,000 cap. The cap may therefore represent a cost to local authorities dealing with large and complex developments and a subsidy to the largest developments. The Council therefore welcomes a review of the £50,000 fee cap. The increase in fees should be accompanied by the removal of the PDG, which serves to widen the gap between the under-performing authorities and the higher-performing authorities which are in receipt of the PDG. The proposed changes to the way that PDG is distributed, i.e. most probably based on housing completions, will not assist in performance enhancement.

Hillingdon already has some experience of levering in additional resources from applicants to assist the planning application process and officers therefore welcome the Barker Review proposal to allow firms to pay for additional resources, provided that impartiality of the planning system is maintained. l) Enhancing efficiencies in processing applications

Hillingdon’s Planning and Community Services Group regularly reviews the way in which it procures its planning services and it has become innovative in dealing with the pressures of increasing workloads imposed by the planning system, successfully levering in private sector expertise where appropriate. For ‘other 109c’ applications, these are outsourced to two separate contractors. Officers have also explored the scope for working with ATLAS but as yet this has not been appropriate. At a practical level, joint-working with other local

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 34 authorities is not feasible in practice due to the shortage of skills. The overall level of resources needed by local planning authorities should be reviewed to enable further improvements to services to be made. Furthermore, due regard should be given to the benefits of local knowledge and established working relationships with local groups which are provided by local planning authorities, which may be undermined by excessive privatisation and joint-working. m) Improving skills and culture

• Improving skills, including through raising the status of the Chief Planner, training for members and officers, and wider use of business process reviews.

Hillingdon’s Planning and Community Services Group is innovative in supporting the skills- base of planners and continues to introduce a range of different measures with regard to recruitment, retention and training. It has also undertaken business process reviews and made appropriate changes to its way of working, particularly in the field of e-planning. Whilst the Council supports the Baker Review proposals to improve the skills-base of planners, the proposals do not represent anything new and could be unilaterally implemented by local authorities, subject to resource implications.

6. Enhancing the appeals process n) Speeding up the appeals system

The Council agrees with the Barker Review that in principle there is no reason why appeals should take any longer than the 8 and 13-week time limits imposed on local authorities and welcome the proposal that from 2008-09 appeals should be processed in six months. There are no strong views on whether Inspectors should determine the appeal route, although it should be acknowledged that there are cases where local residents have very definite views as to the method of determining an appeal.

Whilst the principle of introducing a planning mediation service is supported, it is unclear whether this would generally speed up the decision making process because the parties may not reach a mutually agreeable solution, in which case the outcome of the mediation process would not be binding.

7. Improving wider incentives to support this more responsive system. o) Further fiscal incentives

The Council agrees with the Barker Review that the current structure of local taxation (council tax and business rates) means that planning authorities see little benefit in

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 35 financial terms from new development. The few government reforms intended to improve the situation, such as Local Authority Business Growth Initiative and Business Improvement Districts, are limited and bureaucratic. The Barker Review’s recommendation for leveraging future revenues, by encouraging the use of councils’ new prudential borrowing powers, may unlock significant sums of money up-front.

The Barker Review suggests that developers could make good-will payments, on a strictly voluntary basis, to win support from those directly affected by a development, that might not be swayed by facilities funded through a s106 agreement. This proposal has proved contentious because it appears tantamount to bribery. The RTPI has stated that “The planning system exists to establish what development should take place in the interests of the wider public, not to allow deals behind closed doors to give developers a quick and dirty permit”. The Planning Officers Society has asked “What would you be paying people for – to compensate them or not to object? When does compensation become buying people off?” The Council is concerned that the transparency and fairness of the planning system would be put at risk if good-will payments were introduced, and that any ‘mitigation’ payments arising from the impacts of a development should be dealt with through the imposition of planning conditions or a s106 agreement.

Conclusions of the Barker Review

Whilst the principle of various measures to speed up the planning system are supported, there is concern that the Barker Review proposals aim to promote economic prosperity at the expense of environmental and social interests and that the wider interpretations of sustainability have not been addressed. There is also concern that some of the recommendations may result in developments being approved regardless of the concerns of local communities.

The Council supports the Barker Review proposal for the Government to publish a report by the end of 2009 setting out the action that has been taken against proposed recommendations. Officers also welcome the intention of the Government to respond to the Barker Review in the publication of a White Paper in the spring of 2007.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 36 GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION PAPER – CHANGES ITEM 4 TO PLANNING OBLIGATIONS - A PLANNING-GAIN SUPPLEMENT CONSULTATION

Cabinet Member Councillor Keith Burrows

Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation

Officer Contact Jales Tippell/Tim Catley, Projects and Implementation Team

Papers with report Appendices 1-3 attached

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report This report advises Members of the Government’s detailed proposals associated with the introduction of a Planning-Gain Supplement (PGS) and the reforms to the planning obligations system that would accompany the implementation of the PGS. It includes an interim response to the consultation papers for endorsement by Cabinet. The Government’s consultation builds on its previous proposals that were reported to Cabinet in February 2006.

Contribution to our Planning obligations are a delivery mechanism for the plans and strategies Local Development Framework, which is in turn a key delivery document for the Community Strategy and other strategic documents. Changes to the planning obligations system will have implications for the Council’s plans and strategies.

Financial Cost There are no direct financial implications arising from the response to the consultation. This report contains the potential financial implications of how the proposed scheme will work in the future. There will be a need to assess the full implications of this as more detailed proposals come forward and further reports will be submitted at the appropriate time.

Relevant Policy Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy Overview Overview Committee Committee

Ward(s) affected All

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 37 RECOMMENDATIONS

That Cabinet:

1. Notes the contents of this report regarding the Government’s more detailed proposals for the introduction of a Planning-Gain Supplement (PGS) and the reforms to the planning obligations system that would accompany the implementation of the PGS.

2. Endorses the comments on the consultation papers ‘Changes to Planning Obligations - a Planning-gain Supplement consultation’, ‘Paying PGS - a Planning Gain Supplement technical consultation paper’ and ‘Valuing planning gain - a Planning-gain Supplement consultation paper’ as set out in Appendices 1-3 for submission to the Government.

INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

It is considered that the Government’s proposals associated with the introduction of a Planning-Gain Supplement (PGS) will have significant implications on the way that the impacts of developments are addressed through the planning system and the influence that local councils and communities will have on infrastructure requirements and other mitigation measures within their areas. These concerns warrant the council’s response being considered and endorsed by Cabinet.

Alternative options considered

The Cabinet may influence the Government’s proposals by: 1. agreeing the response to the Government in full or in part or 2. making any amendments to the response that are considered appropriate.

Alternatively Cabinet may make no response to the Government’s proposals.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

The Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy Overview Committee is meeting on 5th February. Any comments will be reported direct to Cabinet.

Supporting Information

Background

1. The PGS proposal was originally recommended in 2004 by Kate Barker in her Review of Housing Supply. The Review proposed PGS as a means of releasing the land value created by the planning process to help finance the infrastructure needed to support new housing and growth. Following the Barker Review, the Government published its proposals for consultation in December 2005, as set out in ‘Planning-Gain Supplement: A Consultation’. Those proposals were reported to Cabinet in February 2006.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 38 2. Taking account of the issues raised during the consultation and further policy development, the Government released, on 6 December 2006, the following package of three consultation papers to describe how the PGS would operate:

1. Changes to Planning Obligations - a Planning-gain Supplement consultation (Department of Communities and Local Government) 2. Paying PGS – a Planning-gain Supplement technical consultation paper (HM Revenue and Customs) 3. Valuing planning gain – a Planning-gain Supplement technical consultation paper (HM Revenue and Customs)

3. These consultation papers are to be read alongside the 2006 Pre-Budget Report, which announced the policy direction for the PGS and matters for future investigation. The proposals and the issues raised within the consultation papers on the PGS are outlined below. Appendices 1-3 set out the officer responses to be submitted to relevant departments. These responses will be amended, to take account of comments from Cabinet decisions arising from this meeting, prior to submission.

4. In light of the changes to the planning obligations system, an officer/Member seminar has been arranged for the 14th of March at which Christopher Marsh of Christopher Marsh & Co Ltd (Sustainable Property Consultants) will be presenting on the current planning obligations system and the implications of the Government’s proposals.

2006 Pre Budget Report

5. The Pre-Budget Report announcement stated that the Government will move forward with the implementation of the PGS if, after further consultation, it continues to be deemed workable and effective. In particular, it highlighted that:

• PGS would not be introduced before 2009; • As a transitional arrangement, development with at least outline planning permission already would not be subject to the levy; • PGS would be levied at a modest rate across the UK; • There would be no lower rate of levy for brownfield development; • PGS would apply to residential and non-residential land; • Home improvements would be exempt and possibly also small scale commercial developments; • At least 70% of PGS revenues would be recycled to the local authority area from which revenues derived; • All PGS revenues generated in the devolved administrations would be recycled back there;

6. HM Treasury has indicated that the role of the Government would be purely to administer the collection of PGS, with Local Government responsible for the allocation of revenues that it receives. Representatives of the Government at the London Councils s106 Practitioners Network meeting on the 13th of December indicated that the way in which Local Government can allocate PGS revenues should be a matter for consideration in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 2007 into supporting housing growth due

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 39 to be undertaken in the spring. The remaining PGS funds would be returned to the regions to help finance strategic infrastructure projects.

Changes to Planning Obligations - a Planning-gain Supplement consultation

7. Building on previous proposals, this consultation document seeks views on more detailed aspects of the scope of the new system of planning obligations in England i.e. the range of items that should in future be contributed by developers through planning obligations. The document is concerned exclusively with how planning obligations would operate if a Planning-gain Supplement (PGS) is introduced.

8. The Government’s proposals under this consultation are set out under five headings as follows:

i) the development site environment approach – discussion, including interaction with European legislation

ii) treatment of in-kind contributions of land for public and community facilities on large sites

iii) developer contributions to affordable housing

iv) transport contributions, and the future of agreements under s278 of the Highways Act 1980

v) implications of the new scope for the relationship between planning obligations and planning conditions i) The “development site environment” approach – discussion

9. It remains the Government’s intention to define the future scope of planning obligations in legislation, using a set of criteria-based tests, such as those included in the 2005 consultation. These tests would be based on the principles that define an appropriate relationship between the developer’s contribution and the development. If the requirement related directly to the viability of the physical environment of the development site or the need for a proportion of housing to be affordable, it would continue to be the subject of a planning obligation. If on the other hand, the requirement related to the site’s social or community infrastructure, it would no longer be included within the scope of obligations. The Government would seek to ensure that the drafting of the criteria was sufficiently clear to reduce the time needed for negotiations, and would consult stakeholders in doing so, whilst recognising the challenges inherent in defining a clear scope. It states, therefore, that whilst there remains a number of detailed issues to be resolved in finalising the approach, the next steps in developing this approach and ultimately setting it on a statutory basis will be for the Government to consult stakeholders on how the provisions will be included in legislation.

10. The document states that the proposed system of scaled back planning obligations and PGS will enable provision of any measures required after consideration of environmental assessments required under European legislation, such as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. It states that the majority of EIA

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 40 concerns could still be addressed through the scope of planning obligations under the proposed development site environment approach, or by a planning condition. Measures that fall outside the scope of the new scaled-back system of planning obligations would be the responsibility of a public body to fulfill and consequently the decision maker would need to take account of commitments to provide the infrastructure set out in public bodies plans. It states that these plans are likely to include the new arrangements for ‘infrastructure delivery planning’ referred to in the 2006 Pre-Budget Report that are being considered by the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 2007 if implemented.

Officer Comment 11. Issue raised by the Government for consultation: • Do you agree that a criteria-based approach to defining the scope of planning obligations is the best way forward? If not, what approach would you recommend?

12. It is considered that the criteria based approach alone will not provide sufficient certainty to infrastructure planners as to the funding gaps that may need to be filled by PGS revenues or other subsidies, as this approach propagates a site by site variation. Without clear proposals from the Government setting out which measures and infrastructure are eligible for funding through PGS and other public sector funds, local authorities cannot be sure that the impacts of developments that are addressed through planning obligations in the current system will continue to be addressed through the proposed PGS and scaled back planning obligations system. This may lead to a stagnation of development if proposals are refused because there is no certainty about impacts being adequately addressed. It is considered that the Government should define which measures need to be addressed through PGS or other Government funding streams and which measures will be addressed through planning obligations.

13. Bearing in mind the above concerns, it is considered that this matter should be re- consulted alongside the publication of clear proposals of the system for infrastructure delivery planning at the local and regional level under the PGS and including any proposals arising out of the CSR review 2007 into Supporting Housing Growth. There is a need for detailed guidance to provide clarity between measures covered by the scaled back s106 agreements and PGS, in order to ensure consistency, transparency and speedier negotiations. The Government should also clarify what infrastructure it will fund from general taxation and what the PGS will pay for.

Officer Comment 14. Issue raised by the Government for consultation: • Do you agree that the scaling back of planning obligations will not undermine the operation of EIAs for the reasons set out above?

15. It is not clear whether or not the proposed system will undermine the operation of EIAs because at present there is no certainty in terms of the details in public sector plans to be provided through PGS revenues and other public sector funding. Therefore it is suggested that this question be re-consulted alongside clear proposals of the system and of the scope for providing infrastructure through the CSR review.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 41 ii) Treatment of in-kind contributions of land for public and community facilities on large sites

16. According to the criteria for scaled back planning obligations set out in the proposals, contributions towards community and social facilities associated with a new development would in future not be included within the scope of planning obligations. However, bearing in mind the role of planning obligations to secure land for community and social uses within large developments, including transfer of land for public or community ownership, such as land for open spaces, a community centre, health or educational facility, the consultation states that a separate decision is needed on the treatment of the land on which the facilities are located.

17. The paper states that the advantages of excluding land from the new system of scaled back planning obligations would be an initial speeding up of the planning process. However this benefit may be outweighed by the need for parallel negotiations between the developer and the relevant public sector body to acquire the land.

18. The advantages of including land within the scope of planning obligations would be to ensure that facilities were integrated within developments. However there is the added complexity that a public sector facility located on a large development site may be larger than is required by that site alone, such that the developer would be making a contribution of land larger than that required for the development. This could lead to potential unfairness as other nearby developers would not make any such contributions of land.

Officer Comment 19. Issue raised by the Government for consultation: • Do you think that land for public or community facilities on large sites should be included in the scope of planning obligations in future, or excluded? How should “large” sites be defined?

20. Land should be included within the scope of scaled back planning obligations because the development process is generally a more efficient mechanism for securing land, as it provides developers and decision makers with levers to help deliver infrastructure. In terms of sites upon which land is to be provided for community and social uses, it is considered that infrastructure plans published within the LDF and regional planning strategies should allocate sites upon which land is to be delivered through planning obligations. Thereby developers would have certainty as to the requirement of land and its effect on residual land values when considering development proposals and site acquisition.

21. It is considered that the size of the sites will have to vary to address local need in accordance with studies published alongside the infrastructure plans and standard requirements for specific types of infrastructure provision set by the Government and or regional governmental bodies. Due to the integral link with public sector infrastructure planning, it is considered that this issue should be addressed in the CSR review and re- consulted alongside its proposals. In this way consultees may be able to get a clearer view of how the issue of land provision sits within the proposals for infrastructure planning in general.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 42 iii) Developer contributions to affordable housing

22. Responses to the 2005 consultation paper raised concerns that the retention of affordable housing within planning obligations would continue to undermine the objectives of speedy negotiations and predictability for developers. The Government is keen to address these concerns by providing a clear legal and policy basis for affordable housing contributions. A further criticism of the current arrangements for affordable housing contributions is the lack of predictability as to the value of the contribution likely to be sought. The Government is proposing the introduction of a common starting point in negotiations for the value of developer contributions to affordable housing to be implemented through Local Development Frameworks. It is suggested that a contribution by the developer in the form of, or equivalent to the value of, the land necessary to support the required number of affordable housing units on the development site would represent a reasonable starting point for negotiations.

Officer Comment 23. Issues raised by the Government for consultation: • Do you agree with the proposals to establish a clear statutory and policy basis for affordable housing contributions? • Do you agree with the proposals to establish a common quantum for such contributions? • Can you envisage any unintended consequences of the above approach? • What common quantum would you recommend? What would be the impact of this option on a) development viability and b) affordable housing delivery?

24. Given Circular 5/05 and Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) (PPS3), it is unclear whether or not further policy is required to clarify the links between housing need, planning policies and the developer contribution being made. There is concern that a statutory basis for affordable housing contributions may be too restrictive to enable site specific variations to be dealt with through negotiation, which may act to stifle development.

25. There is insufficient evidence available to determine whether or not the setting of a common starting point would be helpful. The consultation paper states that the Government will be carrying out a short study into what values of contribution are currently being made by developers and what the implications of a common starting point for negotiations would be for a range of case study schemes. It also mentions that there will be implications for the Housing Corporation Social Housing Grant and that changes will therefore be likely to the Housing Corporation’s criteria for grant-funding sites to support the new arrangements. Until further work has been undertaken to properly assess the implications of a common starting point for the value of affordable housing contributions, it is not considered possible to agree to the principal of this approach.

26. If the principal for setting a common starting point is agreed before all the consequences have been properly understood, there may be unintended consequences such as adverse impacts on development viability, thus preventing development from coming forward or leading to local housing needs not being addressed.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 43 iv) Transport contributions, and the future of agreements under s278 of the Highways Act 1980

27. The consultation paper pays special consideration to transport matters due to the potential complications in applying the “development site environment approach” to transport related measures. It considers the use of developer contributions in two sections:

i) for road transport infrastructure ii) for other forms of transport infrastructure

28. With regard to road transport, The paper proposes that demand management measures and measures to implement Travel Plans directly related to the environment of the development site should remain within the scope of planning obligations. This is to ensure the effective delivery of the measures needed on matters that have a direct impact on the functionality of the development. It is suggested that to take such measures out of the realm of planning obligations could be counterproductive as it would weaken incentives on developers to manage demand for transport.

29. On the other hand, the Government does however, highlight that there are potential advantages with the use of PGS for providing improvements to the transport infrastructure, to ensure that they are dealt with on a strategic and equitable basis. It should enable better planning and prioritisation of infrastructure to address cumulative impacts of successive developments and constitute a fairer way of getting developers to contribute to the costs they impose on the transport network and eliminate the problem of free-riding by earlier developers.

30. For other forms of transport infrastructure such as walking and cycling, bus, train, tram and water-borne, the Government proposes that only direct measures in terms of infrastructure needed to secure safe and effective access to the transport network would be retained within the scope of planning obligations. This is due to the highly cumulative nature of demand for them e.g. bus and rail services.

31. The Government is also proposing the combination of s278 and s106 under one instrument to reduce complexity in negotiations, and allow more synergy between road and non-road transport contributions.

Officer Comment 32. Issues raised by the Government for consultation: • Do you agree that measures to implement Travel Plans and demand management measures directly related to the environment of the development site should remain within the scope of planning obligations? • Which of the above options for developer contributions to transport infrastructure should the Government pursue in order best to balance the objectives of; managing demand for road transport; the need to ensure network improvements are provided in a timely manner; the need for transport impacts to be dealt with on a cumulative and strategic basis alongside other forms of infrastructure; and the need to create a scope for planning obligations which is sensible and consistent and does not lead to delay? Are there any other options?

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 44 • Do you agree with the proposal to define the new scope for planning obligations for non-road infrastructure as described above i.e. those contributions required to allow “accessibility to access points”, but to exclude more strategic contributions or those which are better dealt with on a cumulative basis? • Do you agree that in future all planning obligation contributions, including towards highways works, should if possible, be made under a single agreement, to which highways authorities would also be parties where relevant? Do you see any downsides to this approach?

33. It is agreed that implementation of Travel Plans and demand management should be retained within the scope of planning obligations. Whilst the principle of using PGS for other transport infrastructure is supported, there should be greater clarity in how the Government would propose to deal with increase in capacity arising because of development through PGS and other revenues.

34. The proposals for a single instrument to cover both s106 and s278 are not supported. S106 agreements commonly occur at outline application stage. S278 agreements, due to the detailed surveys and inspections that are normally carried out, commonly occur at full or reserved matters stage. It is likely that combining s278 with s106 may lead to either the preparation of inadequate transport agreements or to developments not coming forward for outline permission due to the details required by authorities to enable them to grant permission subject to a legal agreement. v) Implications of the new scope for the relationship between planning obligations and planning conditions

35. The current policy presumption is that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to use a planning condition. Following the 2005 consultation some respondents stated that many matters proposed under the new scope could be addressed by planning conditions and some stakeholders have suggested that the Government could use legislation to require local authorities to use conditions wherever possible, in order to ensure the developer has right of appeal.

36. The Government proposes that, whilst the policy presumption that obligations are only used where conditions cannot be used should be reinforced, it should not be enshrined in legislation, as it could reduce flexibility for both parties.

Officer Comment 37. Issues raised by the Government for consultation: • Do you agree with the proposal to reinforce the current policy presumption that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to use a planning condition, but not to provide for this in legislation?

38. It is agreed that local authorities and developers need to be able to retain the flexibility that a legal agreement can provide. They can allow for complex negotiated matters to be overcome and detailed arrangements. Legislation prescribing the matters to be covered by planning obligations and conditions may not facilitate such flexibility. Indeed the matters that are proposed to be included within the reduced scope of planning obligations are likely to be the more unique and site specific items related to the development site environment and will consequently require a more dynamic approach to

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 45 securing their delivery, as opposed to the standard charges that are required for the provision of infrastructure such as schools and health facilities. Whilst planning obligations should only be used where appropriate, there should be some flexibility in terms of their use in order to ensure that the necessary planning issues are addressed. Furthermore, the Government should look at increasing the target times for processing applications that require a planning obligation, to ensure that conditions are not used in inappropriate circumstances to purely meet these targets.

Paying PGS: a Planning – gain Supplement technical consultation

39. The 2005 Consultation contained proposals regarding the general principles for the payment of the PGS including:

• PGS should not be required until development commences • The developer would be required to declare their intention to commence development on any site that carried a potential PGS liability through the Development Start Notice procedure. That person would be the chargeable person for the purposes of the PGS liability for the relevant development site. • Development could not lawfully proceed without a validated Development Start Notice. The developer does not have to pay the PGS liability before commencing development work. • The chargeable person would be required to make a PGS return to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) within a specified period of time. • both the Development Start Notice and the PGS liability could be registered as a local land charge so that prospective land buyers would be aware of existing liabilities. • Development Stop Notice would be employed where non-compliance was sustained beyond a specified date following a combination of interest charges, penalties and other compliance measures. A court injunction would be applied for if the stop notice were not complied with. • For development issued with a development stop notice where the development had been commenced without submitting a Development Start Notice to recommence lawfully, a Development Start Notice would have to be submitted alongside a PGS return and payment, including interest applied from the date development initially commenced and any penalties due.

40. This paper provides further explanation of: i) an overview of the PGS process; ii) the planning permission: calculating the PGS due; iii) the PGS Start Notice and Return; iv) paying the PGS charge; v) the PGS compliance regime and HMRC interventions; i) An overview of the PGS process

41. This section covers much the same ground as the 2005 consultation. There are a number of new issues that have been addressed: • For reasons of consistency and efficient administration, the HMRC will take on the role as administrative body for the functions in relation to the assessment and payment of the PGS;

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 46 • One form is to be submitted to the HMRC by the developer which will cover the separate legal functions of the PGS Start Notice application and the PGS return, which would contain a self assessment of the PGS liability; • In response to developer concerns over the impact on their cash flow of having to make payment at the start of the development process, the Government proposes to allow 60 days rather than 30 days after the issue of the PGS Start Notice for payment of the PGS liability. HMRC has asked for views on whether it would be preferable from the developers point of view to pay PGS at the same time as filling the PGS return to limit contact with HMRC. • PGS Start Notice applications and PGS returns are to be submitted to HMRC electronically through a dedicated e-channel. • In response to developers concerns regarding certainty of PGS liability, the Government investigated the merits of a pre-commencement agreement setting out the PGS liability as assessed by the HMRC at an earlier stage. The Government considers that, due to a number concerns with respect to fairness, costs and administrative complexities, such arrangements should not be employed.

Officer Comment 42. Issues raised by the Government for consultation: • What difficulties (if any) might there be in making electronic communication the sole channel of communication for the application and return of information for PGS Start Notices and PGS returns? Are there any particular groups who might face problems accessing or using electronic services either personally or via an agent from the outset of the new regime? • This paper suggests allowing 60 days for payment of the PGS liability after the issue of the PGS Start Notice. Would it be preferable to pay the PGS liability at the same time as filing the PGS return, to limit contact with HMRC? • If you consider a pre-commencement agreement service should be offered, how would you design it to take account of the problems of administrative complexity and cost? In particular, how should any charges for the service be set?

43. Whilst electronic communication should be encouraged, it should not be the exclusive method for making applications / returns because some applicants may not have access to electronic services. Any proposals should pay proper consideration to providing the support for those having difficulty using the service, including developers without a strong command of written English.

44. The proposal to allow 60 days for payment of the PGS liability is not supported. The majority of s106 payments are made upon commencement to ensure that infrastructure is in place in time for the occupation of the development. Consequently the payment should be made alongside the payment application and return, which should occur prior to commencement so that the PGS revenues can be returned to the local area in time for infrastructure to be provided to support the development. With respect to developers concerns as to cashflows, the Government should further examine what the cash flow issues are. There may be only certain circumstances where delayed payment is necessary and these may be able to be addressed through different mechanisms such as changes to developer loan rules.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 47 45. A pre-commencement service to agree liability should not be offered as it would be unfair and costly in terms of administration. ii) The planning permission: calculating the PGS due;

46. The Government proposes that the PGS payable will be fixed by reference to the date when full planning permission is granted by the planning authority. Where an outline planning permission has been granted, full planning permission for the purposes of PGS valuation is achieved when the final reserved matters application has been approved. For phased developments, the final reserved matters application submitted by the developer, of each individual phase of development requiring a PGS Start Notice, would give rise to a separate PGS liability. Where significant changes to an application are made that has been granted full planning permission or an application is made to vary or remove a condition of a full planning permission, the PGS liability has to be re-calculated on the basis of the date of any subsequent full planning permission.

Officer Comment 47. Issues raised by the Government for consultation: • Do the proposed definitions of full planning permission clarify sufficiently what development will be liable to PGS and when the valuation dates will be? • What further information do you require in order to determine whether a planning permission will be liable to PGS and when the valuation date will be?

48. The proposals appear to provide sufficient clarity as to what development will be liable to PGS and when the valuation dates will be. However the ability to phase payments of PGS on phased developments may encourage developers to phase schemes to defer payment, which could result in insufficient up-front funding for infrastructure projects. iii) The PGS Start Notice and Return

49. The purpose of introducing the PGS Start Notice is two-fold. It will: • Identify the person chargeable to PGS in relation to a particular development. The person chargeable to PGS is the person responsible for paying the PGS liability and fulfilling other obligations such as filing the PGS return; and • Set the point of charge. This will be the date on which HMRC issues the PGS Start Notice. The point of charge is the date from when the obligation to pay PGS commences.

50. As it will be unlawful to implement a planning permission to which PGS applies without having obtained a PGS Start Notice, the Government seeks views as to whether the existing definition in the Town and Country Planning Act needs further clarification.

51. Any person may apply for a PGS Start Notice. Where the development body is a partnership or consortium, one partner or member would act on its behalf. The paper provides further details with respect of the information required to register an application for a PGS Start Notice. HMRC will provide a PGS Start Notice as soon as is reasonably possible and in the cases of electronic applicants, the next working day. HMRC will carry out risk-based checks later as described below.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 48

52. The PGS Return will consist of a self-assessment of the amount of PGS due, together with supporting information including details of the development. The developer will not be required to submit additional documentation (for example, valuation reports) at this stage. The calculation of PGS due is as follows: Uplift = Planning Value (PV) – Current Use Value (CUV) PGS liability = Uplift x PGS rate

53. The PGS Start Notice will remain valid until the planning permission lapses unless, in cases of serious non-compliance (including non-payment), a PGS Stop Notice is served to halt development until the developer resumes compliance with the PGS rules. Planning enforcement measures that stop development will not affect the validity of the PGS Start Notice and any PGS due will remain payable.

54. HMRC will notify the LPA(s) where a development is sited when a PGS Start Notice has been issued, to help them in their development monitoring and planning enforcement roles. It is proposed that the PGS will come within the scope of the HMRC disclosure regime for tax avoidance schemes.

Officer Comment 55. Issues raised by the Government for consultation: • A PGS Start Notice is required before development may commence. Does the definition of commencement of development in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 require further clarification for PGS purposes? • What documentation would developers want HMRC to supply in response to an application for a PGS Start Notice?

56. The definition of commencement of development in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should not be amended although there may be a need for guidance notes with respect to the PGS. Any documentation should be consistent and clear. iv) Paying the PGS charge

57. The Government will be offering a number of ways of payment but is considering making electronic payment mandatory where the PGS return has been filed electronically.

58. In addition to issuing a PGS Stop Notice for continued failure to make full payment, the HMRC could also seek to recover the debt through other measures such as distraint, court proceedings or, where necessary, insolvency proceedings.

59. Where the developer dies or becomes insolvent, the personal representative, liquidator or administrator becomes responsible for payment of any outstanding PGS liability. In certain cases a PGS liability may be transferable from the original developer to a third party. These cases would include: • sale of the development site; and • where a PGS Stop Notice had been issued and the developer was unable to pay the PGS due.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 49 60. The Government is proposing a number of ways in which the status of the PGS liability to be made available for any persons purchasing land. These include: • entries on land charge registers • the Land Register; or • a dedicated register maintained by the HMRC

Officer Comment 61. Issues raised by the Government for consultation: • What difficulties (if any) would it cause developers if HMRC made electronic payment mandatory? Are there any particular groups who might face problems accessing or using electronic payment methods? • When might a PGS liability need to be transferred to another person? • How should information on the status of the PGS charge on a development be made available and what information should be offered? Apart from purchasers of a development who wish to establish that there is no outstanding PGS liability on a development, are there other circumstances in which a person might want to check information held on such a register?

62. Whilst electronic payment should be encouraged, it should not be mandatory as this would be contrary to the principles of equal opportunity. As the principle of PGS is to regain part of the land value created by the planning process to help finance the required infrastructure, it is agreed that PGS liability should be transferred with the sale of land and in the case of insolvency, transferred to a liquidator or administrator.

63. PGS liability should be made available on the Land Register. Local authorities should not be faced with the extra administrative burden of having to sustain the records on the local land charges register, when it would be informed of PGS Start Notices in any case. v) The PGS compliance regime and HMRC interventions

64. This section outlines how HMRC will handle non-compliant behaviour by developers.

65. The HMRC will carry out risk assessment of the information on the PGS return with the aim of apportioning resources towards cases with the highest risk. Detailed background information may be requested and where the VOA has highlighted risks that the returned figures may be incorrect, the developer may be required to enter into formal discussions to agree the valuation or valuations. A small number of returns will also be selected for random checking so that HMRC can identify PGS revenue and update its assessment of existing risks. To prevent delay in the issue of PGS Start Notices, the HMRC will not check the entries on the PGS return before issuing the PGS Start Notice as long as the minimum information requirements have been met. The type of intervention that the HMRC makes with a developer will depend on the reason for the intervention, with the intention to provide a light-touch compliance regime for compliant developers, and allow effective targeting of compliance resources on those who seek to be non-compliant.

66. In order to give developers early certainty of the amount of PGS due, HMRC will have a limited period after the issue of the PGS Start Notice in which to amend a PGS

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 50 return. Provided full disclosure of the facts was made in the return, HMRC would not be able to make an intervention into a return after that time. This time limit will need to balance the need for early certainty for developers against allowing sufficient time for HMRC to carry out thorough and effective checks to identify non-compliance. The time limit applying to other taxes such as income tax and corporation tax is currently 12 months. However the Government recognises that a 12-month window would not give sufficiently early certainty to developers and the time limit for HMRC to make PGS interventions will need to be substantially less than 12 months.

67. In response to concerns over protracted disputes of valuations the HMRC will devise accelerated processes to move cases on to settlement.

Officer Comment 68. Issue raised by the Government for consultation: • The Government recognises that allowing a 12-month period in which to challenge a PGS return would not give sufficiently early certainty to developers and the time limit for PGS will need to be substantially less than 12 months. What do you believe would be a reasonable time limit beyond which HMRC should no longer be able to amend a PGS return or open an intervention, provided full disclosure of the facts has been made by the developer?

69. It is agreed that the Government needs to balance the needs for the proper review of returns over the risks to both the developer and to local infrastructure providers who need the PGS returns to be provided as early as possible and to the correct amount. A period of three months may appear reasonable.

70. There is concern in relation to the risk assessment approach, that the HMRC may be underestimating the potential number of under-valuations that may arise under the self- assessment regime. If the development industry responds to the PGS proposals with under-valuations across the board, which may occur, the HMRC may not be able to cope. The priority towards relatively high risk cases may fail to capture incorrect valuations on lower risk cases or all cases may be deemed high risk putting the VOA under considerable administrative strain. The assessment of the time period for challenge should bear these concerns in mind and the method of assessment itself may need to be reviewed.

Valuing planning gain – a Planning-gain Supplement technical consultation paper

71. The proposals set out in this paper reflect the Government’s desire to keep PGS valuation requirements as simple and straightforward as possible. As far as possible, the aim is to avoid the complexities faced by developers of earlier development gains taxes. The proposals will be subject to further discussion with interested parties and professional bodies and additional valuation guidance will be issued by the VOA in due course. It is envisaged that further valuation guidance and draft legislation will be subject to consultation.

72. This paper provides further explanation of: i) The property to be valued ii) The interest to be valued iii) Planning Value (PV) iv) Current Use Value (CUV)

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 51 v) Replanning vi) Valuation methodology i) The Property to be valued

73. The land to be valued for PGS purposes is the entirety of the site to which the planning permission relates, even if this is not wholly within the developer’s ownership at the valuation date. This includes any rights of way over other land and any other rights that are necessary for the planning permission to be implemented such as the discharge of a restrictive covenant. For valuation purposes ‘land’ includes all buildings and structures on the land at the date of valuation. The value of any buildings and structures on the land at the valuation date will therefore be reflected in both the PV and the CUV.

Officer Comment 74. Issue raised by the Government for consultation: • Is any further clarification of the extent of the land to be valued required? • If so, to what extent? What would you suggest as the answer?

75. The definition of the extent of the land to be valued appears reasonable and clear. ii) The interest to be valued

76. When assessing the PV or CUV, it will be assumed that the interest to be valued is the freehold interest with vacant possession (FHVP) and free from any encumbrances. The Government is considering what transitional arrangements may be needed to help mitigate any difficulties associated with developers not taking PGS and the FHVP interest assumption into account in the price they pay for land when the PGS is first introduced.

77. The assumption of a FHVP interest could potentially be an issue when an occupier is unable to take account of the PGS liability in negotiations with the landowner. This might occur when small-scale development is carried out by a tenant occupying a property under a short lease. However, as the CUV will reflect the right to carry out development under the General Permitted Development Order 1995 (GPDO 1995), any issue will only arise when development exceeds the GPDO 1995 limits.

Officer Comment 78. Issue raised by the Government for consultation: • What difficulties, if any, do you think the FHVP assumption might cause, particularly for tenants with short leases who undertake development: How might these difficulties be mitigated?

79. The FHVP assumption is likely to cause problems in some cases but this is a technical issue that requires expertise from qualified and experienced valuers. iii) Planning Value (PV)

80. PV was defined in the December 2005 consultation document as the ‘market value’ of the land the moment after full planning permission is granted. The PV will reflect all the factors affecting the market value, including the burden of any planning obligations or highways agreements attached to the planning permission, remediation costs for

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 52 contaminated land, or works to / demolition of buildings. Any remediation, demolition or building works carried out prior to the Valuation Date (i.e. date of full planning permission as defined above) may reflect in a higher PV but not always a higher CUV so the PGS liability may differ on a case by case basis but will never be negative.

81. When a development is built in phases following an outline planning permission, earlier phases may not always be completed before the valuation date for a later phase. To avoid any overvaluation of initial phases, the PV should exclude any value in the land that arises from providing access to, or facilitating, later phases of the development. Similarly, to avoid any under-valuation of later phases, it will be assumed that development in the earlier phase (including any access roads) will be completed within a reasonable time having regard to market and economic conditions. This will require a modification to the basic definition of PV.

Officer Comment 82. Issue raised by the Government for consultation: • Is any further clarification of the definition of PV required? • Will the proposals for dealing with phased developments create any difficulties for developers?

83. There are concerns with regard to potential under or over-valuation of later phases where development of earlier phases has not commenced. In practice, due to the importance of obtaining full planning permission expeditiously, details of highways agreements or other engineering / landscaping works are often open to final detailed/cost assessment at or just prior to the implementation stage with legal agreements not specifying these details. Planning obligations to delay the implementation of subsequent phases to enable infrastructure to be in place for later phases will not affect the timing of valuations. This is because the Valuation Date is defined as the date of planning permission rather than implementation. It is suggested that to enable a valuation prior to these works being carried out, it should be made clear through guidance that sufficient details of infrastructure works need to be included within applications for full planning permission. iv) Current Use Value

84. Current Use Value is proposed to be defined as the ‘market value’ of the land the moment before full planning permission is granted subject to the specific assumption that it is, and will continue to be, unlawful to carry out any development in the future other than development permitted under the GPDO 1995 or development in accordance with planning permissions that had not expired before an appointed day.

85. If a site is already allocated in the Local Development Framework as a site suitable for development then it might have significant hope value. Whatever the level of hope value is, it will be excluded from the CUV and thus from the PGS valuation.

86. It is proposed that the CUV would reflect the right to carry out works for the rebuilding, as often as may be required, of any building that was in existence at the valuation date, or in the period of five years before the valuation date.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 53 87. The rebuilding could take advantage of any extension tolerances contained in the GPDO 1995. The Government considers that a limit of 5 years is enough to allow developers to undertake large schemes and demolish unwanted, possibly dangerous, buildings well before the valuation without any adverse effect on the CUV of the land. It also reduces the need to keep historic records to support a CUV valuation.

88. When valuing contaminated land any remediation works required at the valuation date will be reflected in the CUV in accordance with normal valuation practice. For example, if the current use could not continue without certain remediation works being carried out, the CUV would need to be reduced to reflect the cost of these works.

Officer Comment 89. Issue raised by the Government for consultation: • Is any further clarification of the definition of CUV required, including how to treat ‘planning permissions’ granted before an appointed day?

90. The CUV definition assumption should be clarified to include planning permissions that are “still valid” and have not expired before the appointed day. Developers may otherwise include in their CUV hope value expired planning permissions on the basis that they may be granted equivalent planning permission in the future. This could affect the amount of PGS revenue for local infrastructure provision. v) Replanning

91. For the purposes of replanning, the Government considers that retaining the proposed basic assumptions of the PV and the CUV and not creating any further rules would appear to be the most sensible approach. This means that for land subject to replanning, the valuations on works yet to be completed on the previous permission should be reflected in both CUV and PV on the replanning permission. This may cause valuation difficulties in certain situations but these will arise only in a small number of cases.

92. If the CUV of the replanned site exceeds the PV because the replanning is less valuable than the previous permission, the PV will be deemed to be the same as the CUV. There will be no provisions for the repayment of PGS to a developer who chooses to implement a less valuable permission than one on which they have already paid PGS.

Officer Comment 93. Issue raised by the Government for consultation: • If you are not in agreement with the proposals for replanning, how do you think replanning should be treated for valuation purposes?

The proposals for replanning appear to be reasonable. vi) Validation Methodologies

94. The Government does not wish to be prescriptive as to the valuation method or methods that should be adopted in any particular case. The appropriate method of valuation has to be left to the judgment of the valuer having regard to the circumstances of the case. The appropriate method will depend upon the type of property, the type of

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 54 development proposed, the availability of useful comparable evidence and the existence of an arm’s length sale.

95. When a piece of land is sold at arm’s length, at a date around the PGS valuation date and the interest is similar to the interest to be valued for PGS purposes, then the PV of that land will often be the same as or similar to the actual sale price. In these cases valuations should not generally present any significant difficulties. When there is no sale price on which to base the valuation then the most common methods of arriving at the PV will be to adopt either the comparison method or the residual method of valuation:

96. The paper provides criteria against which the HMRC would assess how much weight to attribute to an actual sales price including the relationship to FHVP, date of sale in relation to PGS Valuation Date and sales that are not made at arms length such as Local Authority General Disposal Consent amongst other criteria.

97. The comparison method is commonly used for small-scale developments or those of a straightforward nature. Examples of its use would include small residential developments and sites for industrial development. However, larger schemes such as bulk housing may also be valued on this basis where there is good comparable evidence. Its use is dependent upon whether there is sufficient evidence available to allow the valuer to arrive at a reliable estimate of value.

98. Where a valuation is carried out on the basis of the residual method of valuation, the availability of comparable evidence or an actual sale price should not be ignored. However, the weight to be attributed to such evidence will depend upon how directly comparable it is, and in the case of an actual sale, whether it differs significantly from the PGS assumptions.

99. For specialist buildings on PGS sites which would not normally be sold on the open market, the paper proposes alternative valuation methods to arrive at PGS liability referring to RICS guidance methods including the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) method and alternative use valuations.

Officer Comment 100. Issue raised by the Government for consultation: • Is any further guidance on valuation methods for PGS required?

101. The valuation methods are likely to cause problems in some cases but this is a technical issue that requires expertise from qualified and experienced valuers.

General Officer Comment

102. Officers attended London Councils s106 Practitioners Network meeting on 13 December 2006, at which representatives from the DCLG, HM Treasury, GLA, TfL, and other London boroughs were also present. A number of issues were raised by attendees, including the following: • The proposals are not backed up with any figures from real case studies or pilot schemes to show how it might work in practice,

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 55 • While the Government stated at the meeting that it had carried out modelling work in preparing its proposals, there was concern over the lack of any evidence of this included in the consultation package. • The Pre-Budget Report states that the level of PGS revenues would be “at least 70%”. The DCLG representative at the meeting stated that this would be net of PGS income. The Government should set out the elements/costs and charges taken off to reduce incomes to net revenues, so that the true percentage of PGS value that is be put back into local infrastructure can be made clear. • The proposals show little understanding of the complexity of s.278 highways agreements. • Allocating revenues – subject to CSR review and White Paper. There are significant issues to be sorted out before the PGS is introduced. These include the funding of prior provision of strategic infrastructure especially where funding gaps may arise due to falling revenues (for example from phased development). Local government will require assurances that funding will be available for infrastructure as the level of PGS revenues is uncertain. • Need for clarity with respect to the timing of when the local authority will receive PGS revenues. • The Government’s proposals may benefit local communities if more funds were raised than that currently raised under the s106 system and if the funds were directed back to the local communities affected by the developments in time for measures to be in place upon completion. Unfortunately the consultation document does not assist in this matter as it contains no indication of the rate to be levied and no estimates of how much the PGS will deliver.

Financial Implications

103. There are no direct financial implications arising from the response to the consultation. This report contains the potential financial implications of how the proposed scheme will work in the future. There may be additional staff time and resources to work up accurate and appropriate policies on negotiated planning obligations as part of the Local Development Framework process, which will have to be contained within existing budgets. In addition the eventual enactment of the PGS has implications for staff resources in establishing and maintaining the system for dealing with PGS revenues and local infrastructure planning. There will be a need to assess the full implications of this as more detailed proposals come forward and further reports will be submitted at the appropriate time.

104. It is not clear at this stage how levels of PGS funding allocated to local authorities will compare with existing s106 funding that will be replaced by the PGS proposals.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

The Government’s proposals will significantly reduce the range of items that should in future be contributed by developers through planning obligations. However the

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 56 Government has stated that the majority of PGS is to be recycled to the local area from which revenues were derived. The Government’s proposals may benefit local communities if more funds were raised than that currently raised under the s106 system and if the funds were directed back to the local communities affected by the developments in time for measures to be in place upon completion of developments. Unfortunately the consultation document does not assist in this matter as it contains no indication of the rate to be levied and no estimates of how much the PGS will deliver.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

There are no external consultations required on the contents of this report.

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

The main likely operational implications of the implementation of a Planning Gain Supplement (PGS) are set out in the financial implications above. These are necessarily vague at this stage, and could only be quantified once detailed implementation arrangements for the PGS are published by the Government. The introduction of a PGS would represent a significant change to the Local Government Finance system, and Members should note that since her initial report on housing supply in 2004 Kate Barker has published a further report on the wider funding of land use planning (December 2006). Although it does not cover the detail of the arrangements for PGS, the implications of this further review are now also being considered by Sir Michael Lyons as part of his inquiry into local government which is due to report in spring 2007. It is not known how the introduction of the PGS will affect the overall level of funding for development infrastructure in the borough.

Legal

Legal issues have, where relevant, been considered and incorporated in the body of the report.

Corporate Property

There are no direct property implications at this stage

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Changes to Planning Obligations: a Planning-gain Supplement consultation (Department of Communities and Local Government)

Paying PGS – a Planning-gain Supplement technical consultation paper (HM Revenue and Customs)

Valuing planning gain – a Planning-gain Supplement technical consultation paper (HM Revenue and Customs)

2006 Pre-Budget Report (HM Treasury)

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 57

‘Planning-Gain Supplement: A Consultation’ – HM Treasury, HM Revenue & Customs and ODPM (December 2005)

Circular 5/05: Planning Obligations - ODPM

Review of Housing Supply: Delivering Stability – Securing our future Housing Needs, Final Report – Recommendations, Kate Barker (2004)

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 58 Appendix 1

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON:

THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITIES: CHANGES TO PLANNING OBLIGATIONS - A PLANNING-GAIN SUPPLEMENT CONSULTATION

General comments

1. The following general comments relate to the PGS in general and address cross- cutting issues with the three consultation papers.

• The proposals are not backed up with any figures from real case studies or pilot schemes to show how it might work in practice, • While the Government stated at the meeting that it had carried out modelling work in preparing its proposals, there was concern over the lack of any evidence of this included in the consultation package. • The Pre-Budget Report states that the level of PGS revenues would be “at least 70%”. The DCLG representative at the meeting stated that this would be net of PGS income. The Government should set out the elements/costs and charges taken off to reduce incomes to net revenues, so that the true percentage of PGS value that is be put back into local infrastructure can be made clear. • The proposals show little understanding of the complexity of s.278 highways agreements. • Allocating revenues – subject to CSR review and White Paper. There are significant issues to be sorted out before the PGS is introduced. These include the funding of prior provision of strategic infrastructure especially where funding gaps may arise due to falling revenues (for example from phased development). Local government will require assurances that funding will be available for infrastructure as the level of PGS revenues is uncertain. • Need for clarity with respect to the timing of when the local authority will receive PGS revenues. • The Government’s proposals may benefit local communities if more funds were raised than that currently raised under the s106 system and if the funds were directed back to the local communities affected by the developments in time for measures to be in place upon completion. Unfortunately the consultation document does not assist in this matter as it contains no indication of the rate to be levied and no estimates of how much the PGS will deliver.

Questions raised by the Government for consultation

Do you agree that a criteria-based approach to defining the scope of planning obligations is the best way forward? If not, what approach would you recommend?

2. It is considered that the criteria based approach alone will not provide sufficient certainty to infrastructure planners as to the funding gaps that may need to be filled by PGS revenues or other subsidies, as this approach propagates a site by site variation.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 59 Without clear proposals from the Government setting out which measures and infrastructure are eligible for funding through PGS and other public sector funds, local authorities cannot be sure that the impacts of developments that are addressed through planning obligations in the current system will continue to be addressed through the proposed PGS and scaled back planning obligations system. This may lead to a stagnation of development if proposals are refused because there is no certainty about impacts being adequately addressed. It is considered that the Government should define which measures need to be addressed through PGS or other Government funding streams and which measures will be addressed through planning obligations.

3. Bearing in mind the above concerns, it is considered that this matter should be re- consulted alongside the publication of clear proposals of the system for infrastructure delivery planning at the local and regional level under the PGS and including any proposals arising out of the CSR review 2007 into Supporting Housing Growth. There is a need for detailed guidance to provide clarity between measures covered by the scaled back s106 agreements and PGS, in order to ensure consistency, transparency and speedier negotiations. The Government should also clarify what infrastructure it will fund from general taxation and what the PGS will pay for.

Do you agree that the scaling back of planning obligations will not undermine the operation of EIAs for the reasons set out above?

4. It is not clear whether or not the proposed system will undermine the operation of EIAs because at present there is no certainty in terms of the details in public sector plans to be provided through PGS revenues and other public sector funding. Therefore it is suggested that this question be re-consulted alongside clear proposals of the system and of the scope for providing infrastructure through the CSR review.

Do you think that land for public or community facilities on large sites should be included in the scope of planning obligations in future, or excluded? How should “large” sites be defined?

5. Land should be included within the scope of scaled back planning obligations because the development process is generally a more efficient mechanism for securing land, as it provides developers and decision makers with levers to help deliver infrastructure. In terms of sites upon which land is to be provided for community and social uses, it is considered that infrastructure plans published within the LDF and regional planning strategies should allocate sites upon which land is to be delivered through planning obligations. Thereby developers would have certainty as to the requirement of land and its effect on residual land values when considering development proposals and site acquisition.

6. It is considered that the size of the sites will have to vary to address local need in accordance with studies published alongside the infrastructure plans and standard requirements for specific types of infrastructure provision set by the Government and or regional governmental bodies. Due to the integral link with public sector infrastructure planning, it is considered that this issue should be addressed in the CSR review and re- consulted alongside its proposals. In this way consultees may be able to get a clearer view of how the issue of land provision sits within the proposals for infrastructure planning in general.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 60

Do you agree with the proposals to establish a clear statutory and policy basis for affordable housing contributions?

Do you agree with the proposals to establish a common quantum for such contributions?

Can you envisage any unintended consequences of the above approach?

What common quantum would you recommend? What would be the impact of this option on a) development viability and b) affordable housing delivery?

7. Given Circular 5/05 and Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) (PPS3), it is unclear whether or not further policy is required to clarify the links between housing need, planning policies and the developer contribution being made. There is concern that a statutory basis for affordable housing contributions may be too restrictive to enable site specific variations to be dealt with through negotiation, which may act to stifle development.

8. There is insufficient evidence available to determine whether or not the setting of a common starting point would be helpful. The consultation paper states that the Government will be carrying out a short study into what values of contribution are currently being made by developers and what the implications of a common starting point for negotiations would be for a range of case study schemes. It also mentions that there will be implications for the Housing Corporation Social Housing Grant and that changes will therefore be likely to the Housing Corporation’s criteria for grant-funding sites to support the new arrangements. Until further work has been undertaken to properly assess the implications of a common starting point for the value of affordable housing contributions, it is not considered possible to agree to the principal of this approach.

9. If the principal for setting a common starting point is agreed before all the consequences have been properly understood, there may be unintended consequences such as adverse impacts on development viability, thus preventing development from coming forward or leading to local housing needs not being addressed.

Do you agree that measures to implement Travel Plans and demand management measures directly related to the environment of the development site should remain within the scope of planning obligations?

Which of the above options for developer contributions to transport infrastructure should the Government pursue in order best to balance the objectives of; managing demand for road transport; the need to ensure network improvements are provided in a timely manner; the need for transport impacts to be dealt with on a cumulative and strategic basis alongside other forms of infrastructure; and the need to create a scope for planning obligations which is sensible and consistent and does not lead to delay? Are there any other options?

Do you agree with the proposal to define the new scope for planning obligations for non- road infrastructure as described above i.e. those contributions required to allow “accessibility to access points”, but to exclude more strategic contributions or those which are better dealt with on a cumulative basis?

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 61 Do you agree that in future all planning obligation contributions, including towards highways works, should if possible, be made under a single agreement, to which highways authorities would also be parties where relevant? Do you see any downsides to this approach?

10. It is agreed that implementation of Travel Plans and demand management should be retained within the scope of planning obligations. Whilst the principle of using PGS for other transport infrastructure is supported, there should be greater clarity in how the Government would propose to deal with increase in capacity arising because of development through PGS and other revenues.

11. The proposals for a single instrument to cover both s106 and s278 are not supported. S106 agreements commonly occur at outline application stage. S278 agreements, due to the detailed surveys and inspections that are normally carried out, commonly occur at full or reserved matters stage. It is likely that combining s278 with s106 may lead to either the preparation of inadequate transport agreements or to developments not coming forward for outline permission due to the details required by authorities to enable them to grant permission subject to a legal agreement.

Do you agree with the proposal to reinforce the current policy presumption that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to use a planning condition, but not to provide for this in legislation?

12. It is agreed that local authorities and developers need to be able to retain the flexibility that a legal agreement can provide. They can allow for complex negotiated matters to be overcome and detailed arrangements. Legislation prescribing the matters to be covered by planning obligations and conditions may not facilitate such flexibility. Indeed the matters that are proposed to be included within the reduced scope of planning obligations are likely to be the more unique and site specific items related to the development site environment and will consequently require a more dynamic approach to securing their delivery, as opposed to the standard charges that are required for the provision of infrastructure such as schools and health facilities. Whilst planning obligations should only be used where appropriate, there should be some flexibility in terms of their use in order to ensure that the necessary planning issues are addressed. Furthermore, the Government should look at increasing the target times for processing applications that require a planning obligation, to ensure that conditions are not used in inappropriate circumstances to purely meet these targets.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 62 Appendix 2

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON:

HM REVENUE AND CUSTOMS: PAYING PGS - A PLANNING-GAIN SUPPLEMENT CONSULTATION

General comments

1. The following general comments relate to the PGS in general and address cross- cutting issues with the three consultation papers.

Questions raised by the Government for consultation

What difficulties (if any) might there be in making electronic communication the sole channel of communication for the application and return of information for PGS Start Notices and PGS returns? Are there any particular groups who might face problems accessing or using electronic services either personally or via an agent from the outset of the new regime?

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 63 This paper suggests allowing 60 days for payment of the PGS liability after the issue of the PGS Start Notice. Would it be preferable to pay the PGS liability at the same time as filing the PGS return, to limit contact with HMRC?

If you consider a pre-commencement agreement service should be offered, how would you design it to take account of the problems of administrative complexity and cost? In particular, how should any charges for the service be set?

2. Whilst electronic communication should be encouraged, it should not be the exclusive method for making applications / returns because some applicants may not have access to electronic services. Any proposals should pay proper consideration to providing the support for those having difficulty using the service, including developers without a strong command of written English.

3. The proposal to allow 60 days for payment of the PGS liability is not supported. The majority of s106 payments are made upon commencement to ensure that infrastructure is in place in time for the occupation of the development. Consequently the payment should be made alongside the payment application and return, which should occur prior to commencement so that the PGS revenues can be returned to the local area in time for infrastructure to be provided to support the development. With respect to developers concerns as to cashflows, the Government should further examine what the cash flow issues are. There may be only certain circumstances where delayed payment is necessary and these may be able to be addressed through different mechanisms such as changes to developer loan rules.

4. A pre-commencement service to agree liability should not be offered as it would be unfair and costly in terms of administration.

Do the proposed definitions of full planning permission clarify sufficiently what development will be liable to PGS and when the valuation dates will be?

What further information do you require in order to determine whether a planning permission will be liable to PGS and when the valuation date will be?

5. The proposals appear to provide sufficient clarity as to what development will be liable to PGS and when the valuation dates will be. However the ability to phase payments of PGS on phased developments may encourage developers to phase schemes to defer payment, which could result in insufficient up-front funding for infrastructure projects.

A PGS Start Notice is required before development may commence. Does the definition of commencement of development in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 require further clarification for PGS purposes?

What documentation would developers want HMRC to supply in response to an application for a PGS Start Notice?

6. The definition of commencement of development in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should not be amended although there may be a need for guidance notes with respect to the PGS. Any documentation should be consistent and clear.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 64

What difficulties (if any) would it cause developers if HMRC made electronic payment mandatory? Are there any particular groups who might face problems accessing or using electronic payment methods?

When might a PGS liability need to be transferred to another person?

How should information on the status of the PGS charge on a development be made available and what information should be offered? Apart from purchasers of a development who wish to establish that there is no outstanding PGS liability on a development, are there other circumstances in which a person might want to check information held on such a register?

7. Whilst electronic payment should be encouraged, it should not be mandatory as this would be contrary to the principles of equal opportunity. As the principle of PGS is to regain part of the land value created by the planning process to help finance the required infrastructure, it is agreed that PGS liability should be transferred with the sale of land and in the case of insolvency, transferred to a liquidator or administrator.

8. PGS liability should be made available on the Land Register. Local authorities should not be faced with the extra administrative burden of having to sustain the records on the local land charges register, when it would be informed of PGS Start Notices in any case.

The Government recognises that allowing a 12-month period in which to challenge a PGS return would not give sufficiently early certainty to developers and the time limit for PGS will need to be substantially less than 12 months. What do you believe would be a reasonable time limit beyond which HMRC should no longer be able to amend a PGS return or open an intervention, provided full disclosure of the facts has been made by the developer?

9. It is agreed that the Government needs to balance the needs for the proper review of returns over the risks to both the developer and to local infrastructure providers who need the PGS returns to be provided as early as possible and to the correct amount. A period of three months may appear reasonable.

10. There is concern in relation to the risk assessment approach, that the HMRC may be underestimating the potential number of under-valuations that may arise under the self- assessment regime. If the development industry responds to the PGS proposals with under-valuations across the board, which may occur, the HMRC may not be able to cope. The priority towards relatively high risk cases may fail to capture incorrect valuations on lower risk cases or all cases may be deemed high risk putting the VOA under considerable administrative strain. The assessment of the time period for challenge should bear these concerns in mind and the method of assessment itself may need to be reviewed.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 65 Appendix 3

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON:

HM REVENUE AND CUSTOMS: VALUING PLANNING GAIN - A PLANNING-GAIN SUPPLEMENT CONSULTATION

General comments

1. The following general comments relate to the PGS in general and address cross- cutting issues with the three consultation papers.

Questions raised by the Government for consultation

Is any further clarification of the extent of the land to be valued required?

If so, to what extent? What would you suggest as the answer?

2. The definition of the extent of the land to be valued appears reasonable and clear.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 66 What difficulties, if any, do you think the FHVP assumption might cause, particularly for tenants with short leases who undertake development: How might these difficulties be mitigated?

3. The FHVP assumption is likely to cause problems in some cases but this is a technical issue that requires expertise from qualified and experienced valuers.

Is any further clarification of the definition of PV required?

Will the proposals for dealing with phased developments create any difficulties for developers?

4. There are concerns with regard to potential under or over-valuation of later phases where development of earlier phases has not commenced. In practice, due to the importance of obtaining full planning permission expeditiously, details of highways agreements or other engineering / landscaping works are often open to final detailed/cost assessment at or just prior to the implementation stage with legal agreements not specifying these details. Planning obligations to delay the implementation of subsequent phases to enable infrastructure to be in place for later phases will not affect the timing of valuations. This is because the Valuation Date is defined as the date of planning permission rather than implementation. It is suggested that to enable a valuation prior to these works being carried out, it should be made clear through guidance that sufficient details of infrastructure works need to be included within applications for full planning permission.

Is any further clarification of the definition of CUV required, including how to treat ‘planning permissions’ granted before an appointed day?

5. The CUV definition assumption should be clarified to include planning permissions that are “still valid” and have not expired before the appointed day. Developers may otherwise include in their CUV hope value expired planning permissions on the basis that they may be granted equivalent planning permission in the future. This could affect the amount of PGS revenue for local infrastructure provision.

If you are not in agreement with the proposals for replanning, how do you think replanning should be treated for valuation purposes?

6. The proposals for replanning appear to be reasonable.

Is any further guidance on valuation methods for PGS required?

7. The valuation methods are likely to cause problems in some cases but this is a technical issue that requires expertise from qualified and experienced valuers.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 67

HILLINGDON HOMES DELIVERY PLAN 2007/2008 ITEM 5

Cabinet Member Councillor Philip Corthorne

Cabinet Portfolio Social Services, Health and Housing

Report Author Jeff Maslen, Acting Corporate Director, Adult Social Care, Health & Housing

Papers with report Hillingdon Homes Delivery Plan 2007/2008 attached

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report To agree the Delivery Plan 2007/2008 for Hillingdon Homes. The constitution delegates to the Cabinet member Social Services, Health and Housing responsibility ‘to recommend to the Cabinet the approval of the annual delivery plan of the Hillingdon Homes’.

Contribution to our The Delivery Plan is based around the Council’s objectives as set plans and strategies out in the Council’s Community Strategy “Working together for a better future”. This is set out in detail on paragraphs 1.4 to 1.6 of the Delivery Plan.

Financial Cost The annual fee for 2006/07 is £52.75m including £27.95m capital investment and ALMO subsidy to finance decent homes programme. The fee for 2007/08 will be agreed between the Council and Hillingdon Homes by the end of January 2007

Relevant Policy Social Services, Health and Housing Policy Overview Committee. Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet approves the Hillingdon Homes Delivery Plan for 2007/2008

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 68 INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

The Council’s constitution delegates that the Cabinet Member of Social Services, Health and Housing recommends to Cabinet approval of the annual Delivery Plan for Hillingdon Homes. The proposed Delivery Plan is the result of discussions between Hillingdon Homes and the Social Services, Health and Housing Department to ensure that it reflects the Council’s key objectives and strategies.

Alternative options considered

To not approve the Delivery Plan and instruct officers to re-negotiate any amendments with Hillingdon Homes Limited.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee

The Committee did not ask to comment on the report.

Supporting Information

1. The Delivery Plan for Hillingdon Homes sets out expectations for Hillingdon Homes set by the Council, including : • Outputs for Hillingdon Homes, the key performance requirements of the services and includes the performance standards expected • Hillingdon Homes’ overall strategy and how they will deliver the key strategy goals for the Council and the community in Hillingdon • Financial and staffing resources to enable Hillingdon Homes to deliver the Delivery Plan and perform the services with skill, care and diligence.

2. Hillingdon Homes submitted a draft Delivery Plan to Council officers in May 2006 and their comments have been incorporated and it is now submitted to Cabinet for approval.

3. Progress against the Delivery Plan is reviewed at monthly meetings between the Head of Housing (Acting) for the Council and the Chief Executive Officer of Hillingdon Homes.

Financial Implications

4. The annual fee for 2006/07 is £52.75m including £27.95m capital investment and ALMO subsidy to finance decent homes programme. The fee for 2007/08 will be reviewed and agreed by Full Council as part of the 2007/08 HRA budget setting scheduled for February 2007.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 69 EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

5. Hillingdon Homes works on the Council’s behalf to provide a housing management and repairs service to Council tenants and leaseholders (approximately 10% of Hillingdon households). Hillingdon Homes also works with key partners and residents to support the wider community. The Delivery Plan sets out how Hillingdon Homes will do so in accordance with Council objectives.

Consultation Carried Out

6. Hillingdon Homes Board, tenant and leaseholder representatives.

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

7. The Hillingdon Homes management fee effectively funds the delivery plan. The revenue element of the fee when agreed will be fully funded from the Council's Housing Revenue Account. The capital element will be funded through a combination of ALMO subsidy for decent Homes programme, the MRA and contributions from the Housing Revenue Account.

Legal

8. The requirement for the submission by Hillingdon Homes Ltd.to the Council of an annual Delivery Plan and the procedure to be followed are set out in Clause 6 of the Management Agreement dated 1 May 2003.There are no other legal implications arising from this report.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The Management Agreement between London Borough of Hillingdon and Hillingdon Homes.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 70

November 2006

HILLINGDON HOMES LTD

DELIVERY PLAN 2007-2008

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 71 BUSINESS OBJECTIVES

Working in Partnership

1. This Delivery Plan describes how Hillingdon Homes will work together with Hillingdon Council and other housing partners to deliver a quality landlord service, investment in property and investment in communities for the residents of Hillingdon.

2. It reflects a partnership between Hillingdon Homes and Hillingdon Council to effectively and efficiently deliver continuous improvement in services to tenants and leaseholders.

Mission, values and objectives

Hillingdon Homes was founded in May 2003 with a new vision

Our mission is to:

3. Provide a high quality built environment, excellent housing services and continuous improvements to the quality of life of all Hillingdon residents.

4. As an arms length company we are focussed solely on the management, development and improvement of housing services within the London Borough of Hillingdon. Building on our previous record of good service within the Borough, we have used our new status as an independent company to win new investment for the housing stock.

Our values

Hillingdon Homes will:

• Put our customers first – providing clear standards of service and responding to feedback • Work in partnership to make the best use of all available resources – with the London Borough of Hillingdon, our RSL partners and local agencies. • Innovate wherever possible, taking advantage of developments in technology to provide the best possible service

Our service objectives

We will:

• Improve, maintain our housing stock and local environment through a balanced investment and maintenance programme • Deliver consistently excellent, responsive and improving housing services that contribute to safe and sustainable communities

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 72 • Empower tenants and leaseholders by providing greater opportunities for participation and decision-making. • Value diversity and promote open and equal access to all our services • Deliver organisational excellence through prudent financial and operational management and through valuing and developing our staff

Strategic Framework

5. The strategic framework for Hillingdon Homes delivery plan is shaped by five key Council documents:-

• the Council Plan “Making a Difference” (C Plan) • the Council Community Strategy “Working together for a better future” • the Housing Strategy Statement • the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan (HRA B.P.) • the Housing Service Plan (H.S.S.)

Appendix 1 cross references the Hillingdon Homes performance plan with these strategic documents, ensuring that Hillingdon Homes activities reflect the Council’s objectives.

Operational Priorities

6. Priorities for action are also based on:-

• the Council’s priorities as expressed through the above strategic framework • the views and opinions of tenants and leaseholders and engagement with them through the participation framework, opinion surveys and focus groups • service improvement plans arising from the ALMO inspection report (March 2004) and Audit Commission guidance (Key Lines of Enquiry – KLOEs) and Gershon efficiency report • the Government agenda and priorities for housing

7. These priorities will be delivered through close partnership working with tenants, leaseholders, Council departments, local councillors and other agencies involved in providing services to tenants and leaseholders

The Delivery Plan is reviewed annually by 1 July to ensure that it reflects changes in the strategic and operational frameworks set out above.

Supporting the Councils Community Strategy “Working together for a better future”

A Borough of learning and culture

• Increase the capacity of tenants/leaseholders to participate and be involved in the planning and delivery of services through delivering our tenant training programme, modern apprenticeships schemes, recruitment campaigns in local schools and colleges and work placements for young people.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 73

A safe Borough

8. Creating safe and sustainable communities through:-

• Our specialist Anti-Social Behaviour Team working closely with all partners to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour • Investing in decent estates, targeting the seven worst areas to receive higher standards of services delivered with partners, supported by resident Estate Champions who we will train and support • Investing in estates to make them safe • Working with partners on community based initiatives • Our tenancy support service helps individuals to be safe and independent in the community

A clean and attractive Borough

9. Through our own caretaking workforce, strong working relationships with environmental services, estate champions and tenant and leaseholder representatives we will:-

• Set and deliver high decent estate standards • Remove graffiti promptly • Improve housing environment and related open spaces • Manage and promptly clear fly-tipping

A borough of improving health and social care

• Work closely with Council colleagues to develop ALMO freedoms to develop and manage new affordable housing in the most cost effective way possible • Managing the Council housing to provide a healthy and safe home • Working in partnership with the Primary Care Trust, Social Services and other partners to provide high quality, extra care housing and support services for older people and people with dementia. Building on our elderly housing service and Careline Alarm Call service to help the Council support residents in the borough • Tenancy support provides people with improved health and independence, tailored to their individual needs

A prosperous borough

• Promoting work opportunities in Hillingdon Homes to local residents including college recruitment fairs, modern apprenticeships, work placements for young people • Promoting the use of local sub-contractors by our construction partners to support the local economy

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 74 • Helping Council tenants avoid or cope with debt through debt advice and counselling

A borough where opportunities are open to all

• Actively promoting and celebrating equality and diversity in service access and delivery and employment through our Equalities Action Plan • Strive to treat each customer, stakeholder and partner individually (see our Achieving Excellence programme) • Tenancy support helps people gain independence to participate in their community

A borough where children and young people are healthy safe and supported

• Develop and deliver a youth involvement strategy to compliment the customer involvement strategy • Promote work experience and employment opportunities through local schools and colleges • Make estates decent and safe for children and young people through our “Decent Homes in a Decent Place” programme • Tenancy support helps families

Contract renewal

10. Hillingdon Homes was awarded a five year contract (renewable) from May 2003, expiring May 2008, and will be seeking renewal for a further period of at least five years, based on:-

• Our commitment to partnership with the Council to deliver its strategic community objectives for Hillingdon citizens • The evidence of continued service improvements to Council tenants and leaseholders and increasing customer satisfaction • The exploitation of future ALMO freedoms and flexibilities (as they develop) to uniquely support the Council’s objectives

11. Any proposed change from the current management arrangements would be subject to a test of tenant opinion

PERFORMANCE

Performance Management

12. Hillingdon Homes performance management framework is subject to regular review to ensure that it meets the strategic planning requirements of Hillingdon Homes, including the joint planning requirements with the Council.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 75 This will ensure:-

• a clear focus on performance for all staff to achieve and sustain top quartile performance compared to other London Boroughs, and nationally where possible • involvement of tenants and leaseholders in performance management (combined with the Residents Quality Promise set out in the HRA Business Plan), • compatibility with the council’s strategic objectives,

13. Performance standards and targets are set out in Appendix 2 “Performance Standards Supplement”

14. The performance of Hillingdon Homes influences the overall assessment of the Council’s performance (CPA). This is accommodated in the performance reporting regime. In 2004/2005 Housing scored 3 out of 4 and we will strive to support results of 4 out of 4 in the future.

Performance reporting

15. Performance against these targets seeks to ensure that Hillingdon Homes delivers a top quartile standard of performance and strives for a 3 star service rating.

16. Regular reports on performance are presented to tenants at Community Housing Forums, and are reviewed through a quarterly operational report to the Borough- wide Housing Consultative Forum. This is supplemented with local monitoring of the Residents Quality Promise which gives residents enforcement powers if our service is below the mutually agreed standard.

17. Weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual reports (as appropriate to the performance indicator calculation methodology) are reported to the Council. Board’s Finance And Performance Sub-Committee meets bi-monthly to scrutinise and challenge performance and reports directly to the Board.

18. Monitoring systems and minimum common standards for housing management have been agreed with RSL partners to facilitate local comparisons of performance and sharing best practice amongst social landlords in Hillingdon. This will be sustained by Hillingdon Homes. The focus is on responses to Anti-Social behaviour and principal housing management indicators.

19. Hillingdon Homes performance, and council arrangements for monitoring performance, are scrutinised by the Council’s Overview committee as part of their annual work plan. The last review was reported to Cabinet in March 2006. Recommendations from this report are fed into our improvement plans.

Monthly reports on performance are also submitted to the Council Officer representative and the Council Member. This includes “performance clinics” to

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 76 review high risk performance indicators attended by the Council Member and senior officers from the Council and Hillingdon Homes.

Best Value

20. Responsibility for developing and delivering service improvement plans to achieve and sustain best value in respect of landlord services rests with Hillingdon Homes under the direction of the Board. Regular reports will be made to Hillingdon Homes Performance Sub-Committee, and to the council’s strategic housing authority for inclusion in the council’s efficiency statement and performance reports to the Social Services Housing And Health Overview Committee and other monitoring forums. These comprise the improvement plans in respect of the service blocks identified in the Audit Commissions Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOEs) and associated guidance..

21. The council’s strategic housing authority will be responsible for delivering improvement plans in respect of services identified in the Management Agreement. Hillingdon Homes will contribute as appropriate, notably in respect of Allocations and Supporting People, and any other cross-cutting plans.

22. As appropriate Hillingdon Homes will contribute to any future reviews and service inspections to be led by the Council when required.

23. Tenants and leaseholders will be consulted as stakeholders as part of these reviews as appropriate.

24. Hillingdon Homes works closely with tenants and leaseholders, the Council and other partners, to conduct a thorough gap analysis against the KLOEs to underpin service improvement plans, drawing on best practice and through external challenge.

EFFICIENCY AND VALUE FOR MONEY

25. Hillingdon Homes is responding to the national Efficiency agenda, and will deliver an annual efficiency statement to support the council’s own annual statement.

Hillingdon Homes statement is continuously refined and is supplemented to this Delivery Plan. It is based on:

• the efficiency savings and service improvements identified to contribute to the 7.5% efficiency gains in the HRA by 2009, which we are on target to exceed • baseline costs and service quality baseline for 2004/05 • a forward look to future efficiency plans • a backward look at the effectiveness of past plans in achieving stated outputs appraising value for money expressed as cashable savings, and service improvements. This will include savings achieved in 2003/04 which can count toward 2005 to 2008 targets

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 77 • a mid year progress update

26. Hillingdon Homes efficiency statement also sets out our approach to procurement and detailed actions contributing to efficiency with target out-puts. We have joined a range of consortia and bulk purchasing arrangements as well as supporting a new consortium for procurement of major works – London Area Procurement Network which is based on the principles of collaborative working already developed by us. This enables us to secure the best value for money eg through Procurement for Housing, London Housing Consortium etc.

27. We have participated in the Housemark national cost benchmarking exercise. From this high level analysis we conduct a detailed analysis of management and maintenance costs, against the quality baseline, ensuring that we understand our costs. We also participate in peer group cost benchmarking with neighbouring ALMOs for a local market perspective. By benchmarking we will identify opportunities to ensure we are delivering an effective service, supporting efficiency targets

28. Tenant and leaseholder engagement in this process will be achieved by:

• providing clear statements of costs and service quality to tenants and leaseholders enabling them to challenge the information • consulting tenants and leaseholders through the consultative framework, strengthened by additional resourcing of focus groups, point of service feedback, questionnaires and analysis of customer feedback

29. Hillingdon Homes will challenge any deployment of resources which does not add value to the tenants and leaseholders of Hillingdon

30. The effectiveness of efficiency initiatives will be measured through key quality performance indicators, including tenant satisfaction, and locally developed performance indicators as necessary

31. We will work in close partnership with the council to develop the efficiency agenda, share learning and support best practice and common objectives

FINANCE

Introduction

32. Hillingdon Homes service responsibilities replicate those of the former Council Housing Services Division within Hillingdon’s Housing Directorate. The budgets for these responsibilities are discreet within the Housing Revenue Account, with unique and separate coding structures.

33. Effective systems of financial management are maintained by Hillingdon Homes.

• the council’s financial management system will be used

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 78 • Hillingdon Homes will prepare revenue budgets in the agreed format each year for discussion and agreement with the council in line with the council’s timetable, and medium term financial forecasting • Hillingdon Homes employs its own Finance Team of accountants • Hillingdon Homes budget managers will continue to follow established procedures set out in the Hillingdon Homes budget manual • bi-monthly accounts will be presented to the Hillingdon Homes Management Board, scrutinised by the Finance and Audit Sub Committee. These accounts are discussed monthly with the council representative, in the context of the overall HRA budget monitoring and planning process • Company accounts are maintained, audited by the Company’s external auditor, and submitted annually to Companies House after the Company’s Annual General Meeting

Treasury management process and procedures

34. Hillingdon Homes has responsibility to manage budgets, delegated from the Council to provide services set out in the S.27 delegation consent.

35. Budget preparation will be in line with a timetable and procedures prescribed annually by the Council and will be managed by nominated officers from Hillingdon Homes

36. Routine budget management will be in accordance with guidelines set out in the budget management manual which involves:-

• monthly review meetings between budget holders and accountants to challenge and understand budget trends and detailed spend • reporting variations of expenditure from budgets to the Hillingdon Homes Senior management team and Board • monitoring budget performance against annual targets set out in the annual efficiency statement

37. Annual Hillingdon Homes budgets will be based on service costs and distribution between service budget codes will be determined annually through a zero based budget preparation exercise and in line with Hillingdon Homes efficiency statement to feed into the council’s annual efficiency statement. They may be adjusted by mutual agreement between the Council’s nominated officer and the Chief Executive Officer of Hillingdon Homes to take account of:-

• additional costs outside the control of Hillingdon Homes • additional services being required • rationalisation of service provision and actions to support improved efficiency

38. The annual fee for 2006/07 is £52.75m including £27.95m capital investment and ALMO subsidy to finance decent homes programme. The fee for 2007/08 will be agreed by the end of January 2007. Nominated Council/Hillingdon Homes officers (acting under the strategic direction of Board and in consultation with tenants and

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 79 leaseholders) will liaise annually to prepare the HRA capital programme, and to consider monthly performance reports. The capital programme is the largest in the Council and for the life of the ALMO has been delivered on target.

39. Hillingdon Homes operates a system of current bank accounts and an interest bearing deposit account for any surpluses. Hillingdon Homes uses its own account with HSBC. .

Income from rents, charges and other charges will continue to be paid direct into the Council’s accounts.

Cash flow management

40. Hillingdon Homes will provide bi-monthly cash flow statements, management accounts and quarterly financial statements to the Hillingdon Homes Finance And Performance Sub-Committee. These will also be available to the Council.

Delegated authority/authorised signatories and financial regulation

41. Hillingdon Homes maintains its own scheme of delegations, authorised signatories and associated procedures in respect of contractual commitments undertaken in its own name. Individual budget managers will have delegated authority to spend devolved budgets, subject to the rules set out in these delegations.

42. Hillingdon Homes will keep the scheme of delegations under review to ensure it remains fit for purpose for the business.

43. In respect of contracts awarded by Hillingdon Homes, these will be let following evaluation of quality, value for money, best value and assessment of risk and will be reported monthly to the Board. Such contacts will be structured to protect the Council’s interest and liabilities.

44. In respect of contractual commitments on behalf of the Council, Hillingdon Homes will follow the Council’s scheme of standing orders.

45. There are five signatories for the Hillingdon Homes bank account. Limits are set in accordance with Hillingdon Homes scheme of delegations and financial procedures

46. The Board of Hillingdon Homes has established financial regulations and standing orders for conducting its own business, Board has approved a scheme of delegations and approved signatories. Having originally adopted the council’s standing orders, Hillingdon Homes adopted its own Standing Orders in 2006.

Fees and fee arrangements

47. London Borough of Hillingdon will pay into Hillingdon Homes’ bank account the total annual contract payment in 12 monthly instalments in advance with the final

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 80 instalment in March each year being an adjusting payment to reflect the cost of services provided.

Payment mechanism

48. Payments to suppliers will be made through the Council’s financial management system and ledger for which Hillingdon Homes will be charged a service fee in line with current practice within the Council.

49. Payments for Council provided support services will be made by quarterly transfer (or as otherwise agreed with the service provider) from Hillingdon Homes budgets identified within the HRA ledger system subject to prior authorisation by nominated officers of Hillingdon Homes (ie the Chief Executive Officer or nominated senior managers). Similarly a recharge will be made to the Council for services provided on their behalf by Hillingdon Homes.

50. Salaries will be paid direct to staff from the Council’s payroll system and will be debited to Hillingdon Homes budgets.

Cost of the retained HRA function

51. The calculation of the cost of the retained HRA function, HRA returns, and HRA subsidy claims will remain the responsibility of the Council. Hillingdon Homes will supply the necessary information, in the required format in partnership with the Council.

Annual Accounts

52. Hillingdon Homes will produce Limited Company Annual Accounts and Returns in accordance with relevant company laws and statements of accounting practices. It will also produce accounts in the statutory HRA format to be incorporated in the Council’s statutory HRA accounts.

Tax Registration

53. Hillingdon Homes maintains its own VAT, Corporation Tax and Construction Industry Tax registrations, and appropriate payment mechanisms.

HRA Business Plan

54. Responsibility for the HRA Business Plan will rest with the Council. Hillingdon Homes will liaise closely with the Council’s Head of Housing Finance on financial projections and modelling, and with officers from the Council’s housing strategy team on the supporting text. The Business Plan is “fit for purpose” and will need to be submitted to the Government Office for London again in 2007. Hillingdon Homes will draft the plan and interim updates to the plan for the Council.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 81 Payment for services provided by the council

55. The Council currently operates a system of cross departmental support service charges. Hillingdon Homes has agreed service level agreements with relevant Council departments providing services to support the business. Payment for these services will be made by way of transfer from the Hillingdon Homes’ budgets to other council departmental budgets, subject to certification of invoices by Hillingdon Homes nominated officers.

Hillingdon Homes will seek to secure the best value for money, and quality support for its business objectives. To this end Hillingdon Homes will work closely with council support service providers to optimise efficiency and value. Under the terms of the Management Agreement, if this cannot be achieved a notice period will be agreed with the council for Hillingdon Homes to procure support elsewhere.

56. Risk management

Hillingdon Homes maintains its own risk management system and risk register, reviewed routinely by the Board. It is available for inspection on request.

57. Internal Audit Plan

Our internal audit plan is informed by our business priorities and risk register. The plan is agreed annually and reviewed bi-monthly by the Finance And Performance Sub-Committee who consider internal audit reports and present findings to the Board.

Capital controls

58. Hillingdon Homes will prepare an annual Capital Investment programme and forecast each year following agreement of its capital allocation with the Council. Financial reports will be prepared on a quarterly basis for the Council. Hillingdon Homes Finance And Performance Sub-Committee will receive bi-monthly reports.

CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND PROCUREMENT

Achieving decent homes targets is a core function for Hillingdon Homes.

59. Decent homes targets will be continuously refined as the decent homes programme proceeds. Current targets may therefore change as stock condition data is constantly refined.

60. Best Value Performance indicators and targets for Decent Homes work are set out in the Performance Indicator Supplement BVPI 184a and b.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 82 Capital financing

61. Investment in decent homes will be financed by ALMO additional subsidy and the MRA. The primary focus is on achieving decent homes. Dependent upon future subsidy allocations, any balances outstanding from the MRA, and any available contributions from revenue for capital outlay will be invested in the catch up repairs, improvements, conversions and adaptations agreed with the Council

Contract strategy

62. Hillingdon Homes will exercise freedom to make its own contractual decisions.

The contract strategy will be overseen by a dedicated team of construction related professionals within Hillingdon Homes. We have in place a “standing fee offer” arrangement with three surveying practices in the private sector. This will be used by Hillingdon Homes to boost capacity and to provide skills not available within the service.

Contract packaging

63. Partnership framework agreements based on collaborative working principles have been established with four contractors to deliver packages of kitchens/bathrooms and doors/window renewals, contributing to decent homes targets.

The contract strategy is based on:-

• Estate based high volume packages of improvements, targeted at estates identified from the stock condition survey where decent home standards are not met • Packages will be based on - acquired properties - kitchen and bathroom replacement - window and door replacement

Further framework agreements are in place for:-

• mechanical and electrical works (including gas safety checks) • external decorations programme

Gas servicing frameworks are the first work-stream we will procure through the LAPN in 2006

Elemental works will be packaged in contracts for other general building works eg roofing works, and where required whole house refurbishments. New work streams will be procured through LAPN. Where practical continuation of existing work- streams will be through convergence with LAPN procured frameworks.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 83 The volume of works in our programme may provide new employment and training activities and targets are being agreed for using local labour and employment of trainees. Targets for using local and BME sub-contractors seek to strengthen the local economy

Procurement strategy

64. We have set up collaborative working arrangements for the key work packages, together with other works let on a traditional contract basis. The collaborative working arrangements seek to:

• develop and implement new methods on projects (e.g. continuous improvement and problems solving techniques) advising all parties how to deal with contractual, process, human and cultural issues • define performance measures and the design of data collection methods for performance evaluation, linked to Hillingdon Homes key performance indicators • improve collecting and analysing data throughout covering both performance outcomes and the experiences of the project teams providing an understanding of the benefits

65. We are major users of the LHC bulk quotation arrangements and have procured our replacement windows and kitchens this way for many years. Hillingdon Homes will fully utilise the companies appointed to the relevant arrangements. We have set up supply chain arrangements with a number of these companies to ensure synergy with our investment aims and to cut lead in times.

66. We are founder members of a new London based consortium, LAPN, through which we seek to establish long-term procurement arrangements with other London based ALMOs to secure long term purchasing power and efficiency savings, once our own decent homes programme, currently enhanced by ALMO subsidy, reverts to the smaller annual capital investment programme from 2008 onwards

67. Our approach to procurement complies with Egan and Gershon principals. We have developed our own procurement strategy (available for inspection on request).

Programming

68. The phasing of works started in January 2004. From July 2004 contracts were fully operational with higher levels of activity achieving accelerated numbers of completed works packages.

Contract Management

69. The contracts will be managed by Hillingdon Homes’ team of construction professionals, supplemented as required through “framework” arrangements with

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 84 private sector construction professionals. Delivery of the programme is underpinned by sound project management which has ensured that programme targets (individual projects and spend) have been achieved in our first two years of operation.

Resident involvement on Major Works

70. Involvement of residents is through

Individual resident level:- • consultation on scope of work, specifications and choice of finishes • s.20 consultation of leaseholders • on site resident liaison officers for each contract

Tenant/leaseholder representatives • consultation on priorities and level, through the Capital Programme schemes in the capital programme Steering Group, Community Housing Forums and Housing Consultative Forum

• Monitoring of capital programme delivery • Agreement of quality standards and contract documentation

HRA Business Plan

71. Achievement of decent homes targets and identification and delivery of capital investment targets are core elements of the HRA Business Plan. Hillingdon Homes will be responsible for preparing all text, calculations and statistics in respect of the HRA Business Plan in line with the Council’s requirements. Consultation with residents on the HRA Business Plan will be conducted by Hillingdon Homes on behalf of the Council, for the next submission due in 2007.

RESOURCES

72. Hillingdon Homes will employ such resources as are required to ensure that the Council’s objectives are met. Resources will be managed in line with technical guidance from the Audit Commission to optimise efficiency and value for money, seeking to achieve efficiency savings developed through the efficiency statement.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 85 Organisational Structure

73. The senior management structure of Hillingdon Homes is

Chief Executive Officer – Tim Price Head of Head of Housing Head of Finance Management Maintenance Company Secretary

Ola Ajala Ann Moses Grant Walker Nancy Matuba

74. The organisational structure of Hillingdon Homes seeks to support:-

• modernised working practices for staff • closer service contact with tenants and leaseholders • specialist staff expertise to improve quality of service and performance against indicators • call centre contact points and service access for tenants and leaseholders • reductions in overhead costs

75. Hillingdon Homes will seek to work closely alongside other social landlord service providers in the Borough and to promote opportunities for joint working and joint commissioning of services.

Offices

76. Hillingdon Homes will operate from the following locations.

Ruislip Area Housing Office 130 High Street, Ruislip, Middlesex, HA4 8LP Hayes Area Housing Office 1390 Uxbridge Road, Hillingdon, Middlesex, UB10 0NE Uxbridge Area Housing Office 163 High Street, Yiewsley, UB7 7QN TCM House Newport Road, Hayes, UB4 8JX

In line with council plans, Hillingdon Homes Repairs Service will vacate the Central Depot in 2006.

All offices are accessible to disabled residents and provide translation/interpreter facilities.

Use of IT and other required services

77. Hillingdon Homes will continue to use the Council’s integrated housing management system and financial management systems, for the delivery of the housing service.

78. CIT support will be purchased from the Council’s employed staff and Northgate consultancy. This includes the purchase of support from CIT security and data management and support systems.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 86

These arrangements are managed in formal service level agreements.

79. Hillingdon Homes will comply with the Data Protection Acts and Freedom of Information Act and will keep the Council’s data up to date and accurate.

80. Any future changes or upgrade to IT systems currently in use will be subject to negotiation with the Council and any agreed changes will be subject to mutually acceptable periods of notice.

81. Hillingdon Homes purchases services from the council. These include:-

Computer Information Technology Finance and property Insurance Legal Property Consultancy Payroll and Pensions

82. These services are subject to service level agreements and cost structures agreed and monitored between the Council and Hillingdon Homes.

Any changes by the Council will be subject to agreement with and advanced notice to Hillingdon Homes.

Any changes by Hillingdon Homes eg procurement through another route will be subject to a mutually agreed period of Notice to the Council.

QUALITY STANDARDS

Investors in People

83. Hillingdon Homes is Investors In People (IIP) accredited.

Performance management framework

84. Hillingdon Homes will operate a performance management framework to ensure:-

• compatibility of core Hillingdon Homes objectives with Council core objectives • performance management and measurement against key service objectives • active staff support and engagement in the performance framework

Policy and procedures

85. Hillingdon Homes will operate within the Council’s policy framework and will advise the Council in respect of ongoing development of this framework as it relates to the landlord services following consultation with tenants and leaseholders.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 87

86. Hillingdon Homes will continue to maintain and develop existing procedure manuals to ensure that they represent best practice, comply with equalities regulations, are relevant and effective. All procedures are kept up to date through a routine programme of review. Any changes in procedures which impact on service delivery will be subject to consultation with tenants and leaseholders. All reviews include equalities impact assessments.

Protocols

87. Hillingdon Homes will be an active partner with the Council to develop cross- sector working practices and protocols with other partners. Current examples include.

• protocol with RSLs on anti-social behaviour and harassment • common minimum standards for housing management with RSLs • protocol for responding to the needs of people experiencing mental illness

Equalities action plan

88. Hillingdon Homes has adopted an Equalities Action Plan publicised on our web site and will continue to refine and develop this plan to be fit for Hillingdon Homes business purpose. Progress and outputs will be monitored through the performance management framework and will be reported to the Council.

GOVERNANCE AND MONITORING

89. Hillingdon Homes is a company limited by guarantee and is wholly owned by the Council.

It is governed by a Board comprising:-

• Five members appointed by the Council • Five tenant and leaseholder representatives • Five independent members

90. The aims of Hillingdon Homes and details of its governance arrangements are set out in the Memorandum And Articles of Association. Hillingdon Homes has adopted its own code of governance, available upon request.

Board/Council relationship

91. The relationship between the Council and Hillingdon Homes Board is governed by the Management agreement which sets out:-

• the services Hillingdon Homes is required to perform on behalf of the Council, • the service standards to be met by Hillingdon Homes,

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 88 • action which will be taken if the services are not provided to the Council’s satisfaction, • the programme of repairs and improvements to be delivered, • financial management standards to be met, frequency of reports to the Council, and the fee the Council will pay to Hillingdon Homes.

Monitoring arrangements

92. Hillingdon Homes will as soon as possible provide the Council with any information to enable it to deal with its statutory obligations in connection with the services, present and planned, provided by Hillingdon Homes and its partners as appropriate. This will include information required by:-

• the Council’s Monitoring Officer, • the Council’s Chief Finance Officer, • Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny Committee and full Council, • Local Government Ombudsman, • District Auditor, • Health and Safety Executive, • other relevant bodies.

93. Officer representatives of the Council/ Hillingdon Homes will meet monthly to review performance with specific reference to:-

• performance standards, • delivery of service improvement plans, • performance against the Council’s key objectives as set out in the performance management framework. • strategic planning and opportunities

94. Hillingdon Homes will actively contribute to the HRA Business Plan, the Council’s Community Plan and the Housing Strategy statement, and Efficiency Statement in line with the Council’s timetable and deadline for the preparation of these documents.

95. Hillingdon Homes will operate equal opportunities polices and procedures, contributing to the Council’s equality action plans.

96. Nominated Hillingdon Homes Board members will meet annually with the Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing supported by chief officers from Hillingdon Homes and Council retained housing service to review:-

• the Delivery Plan • the Business Plan

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 89 Supply of information

97. Hillingdon Homes will provide the Council with the following documents upon request:-

• contract documentation in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the Council, • data protection compliance documentation, • formal complaints, • personnel records to assist the Council in investigations into their own affairs, • records of Members enquiries.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 90

APPENDICES

1 Hillingdon Homes Performance Plan

2. Performance Indicator Supplement

3. Hillingdon Homes Efficiency Statement

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 91 HILLINGDON HOMES PERFORMANCE PLAN APPENDIX 1

TIM PRICE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MAY HILLINGDON HOMES LIMITED PERSONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN 2007/2008 2006

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE ACTION LEAD TARGET TARGET RESOURCES AND CROSS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE OFFICER 2006/07 2007/08 REFERENCES 1. Improve and maintain our Make all Council housing stock G Walker See See HSS, C Plan housing stock through a decent by 2010 Performance Performance ALMO subsidy, MRA and RCCO balanced investment and BVPI 184a Supplement Supplement Resources: maintenance programme BVPI 184b ALMO subsidy

Secure continuation of ALMO T Price 2007 CP HSS HRABP subsidy (last tranche) G Walker

Ensure Delivery of repairs service G Walker Separate project plan Best Value Improvement Plan, aligned to KLOEs

Achieve performance targets in G Walker HSS, HRABP, CP, CPlan, Resources: respect of repairs and maintenance HRA Repairs Account as set out in performance supplement

2. Deliver consistently excellent Supporting People responsive and improving • Direct provision of tenancy A Moses 151 clients CPlan, HSS housing service that support service actively contribute to safe and supported at sustainable communities any time Resources: Provision of:- • elderly housing services J Lynn Meet SP Meet SP Supporting People funding contract contract requirements requirements

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 92 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE ACTION LEAD TARGET TARGET RESOURCES AND CROSS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE OFFICER 2006/07 2007/08 REFERENCES

Housing Strategy for Older People

• Identify provision of extra care J Lynn 30 31 CP, C Plan, HSS sheltered units from existing Resources: stock, and associated facilities HRA base budget for carers • Deliver targets set out in the Moses/` See strategy See strategy Older Persons Strategy Lynn

Ensure Community Safety CP, C Plan, HSS strategies are met:-

• Use ASBOs, ABCs A Moses 35 35

• Review ASB Procedures A Moses √ √ annually

• Review success of probationary A Moses April Resources: tenancies HRA base budget

• Invest in security measures to G Walker √ √ Capital programme dwellings/estates

Young People Develop strategy to engage with A Moses - - C Plan, CP young people to improve services. Resources: community safety and facilities on Tenant Participation budget Council estates

Provide Affordable Housing • Transfer 100 empty Council A Moses 100 100 C Plan, HSS HRABP houses to an RSL to increase G Walker Resources: contained in affordable housing supply HRA business plan projections

• Promote House Purchase A Moses 100% 100% “ grants expenditure

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 93 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE ACTION LEAD TARGET TARGET RESOURCES AND CROSS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE OFFICER 2006/07 2007/08 REFERENCES “ • Ensure voids in LBH stock A Moses 1.5% 1.5% below 1.5%

Dot com café Develop community initiatives A Moses Review Review C Plan, HSS through the dot com café and March March Resources: £32K HRA explore potential for new initiatives

Develop debt counselling service A Moses By Sept - CPlan 2006 Resources: base budget approved growth

Deliver Best Value Service CP, C Plan, HSS Improvement Plans for core housing service blocks, aligned to KLOEs

• Equalities and diversity Service Development Manager

• Housing Management A Moses - -

• Stock investment and asset G Walker management

• Customer involvement A Moses

• Resident involvement K Young

• Tenancy estate Services A Moses - -

• Allocations (contribute to council A Moses - - Resources: led project) base budget

• Value for money O Ajala

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 94 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE ACTION LEAD TARGET TARGET RESOURCES AND CROSS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE OFFICER 2006/07 2007/08 REFERENCES • Supported housing J Lynn - -

• Customer care and access Service Development Manager

• Prospects for improvement T Price - -

• Leasehold and Right To Buy D Ollendorf

Achieve top quartile performance See CP, C Plan, HSS, HRABP (national by 2008/09 if already TQ in Performance Resources: London) and continuous Supplement base budget improvement year on year Promote comparison of Hillingdon T Price 3 3 HSS, C Plan Homes and RSLs on performance against common minimum standards of housing management, reporting quarterly to the Council.

Review tenancy agreement A Moses By August 2007 Satisfaction Surveys • Conduct annual STATUS survey Service Sept 06 CP, C Plan of client satisfaction Development Officer

• Develop Focus Group A Moses See SIPs Feedback and analysis on key G Walker Resources: services base budgets

• Conduct surveys through mystery A Moses/ See SIPs shopping consortium G Walker

• Analyse complaints and Service 5 service 5 service comments quarterly to inform Development initiatives per initiatives per service development year year

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 95 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE ACTION LEAD TARGET TARGET RESOURCES AND CROSS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE OFFICER 2006/07 2007/08 REFERENCES • Analyse repairs service E Gunn 3 service 3 service satisfaction returns quarterly initiatives per initiatives per year year

Audit Commission Inspection • Prepare for and deliver CEO and all Oct 2006 Resourced in baseline budget inspection staff

3. Empower tenants and People with Physical and Sensory K Young CP, C Plan leaseholders by providing Disabilities greater opportunities for Review Residents Quality promise By Dec By Dec Resources: participation and decision with the Disabled Tenant and base budget making. Resident Association

Residents Quality Promise K Young By Dec By Dec CP, C Plan Review RQPs Resources: base budget Develop opportunities for younger K Young - - CP, C Plan households/people to engage Resources to be identified

Training development CP, C Plan, HSS opportunities for council housing residents

Deliver annual programme of training K Young 3 3 Resourced in Tenant Participation within the tenant participation Budgets. strategy . Support BME Housing Forum, K Young 3 3 CP, C Plan Disabled TRA and Sheltered Resources: Tenant Participation Housing Forum Budgets

4. Value diversity and promote Implement Equalities Action Plan Service Level 5 CP, C Plan, HSS open and equal access to all Development our services

Refresh Equalities Training for all Service Resourced within existing budgets staff/Board Members every 18 Development supported by Housing Strategy Team months

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 96 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE ACTION LEAD TARGET TARGET RESOURCES AND CROSS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE OFFICER 2006/07 2007/08 REFERENCES 5. Deliver organisational • Encourage multi-skilling in the E Gunn 20 Staff 20 Staff C Plan excellence through prudent repairs service £13K in HRA financial and operational Retain and recruit high performing staff management and through valuing and developing our staff • Recruit 4 modern apprentices E Gunn 4 £50k in budgets

• Provision of computerised repairs G Walker £30k in HRA diagnostic system

• Implement hand-held inspection G Walker £40k in HRA technology

• Implement SX3 contractors G Walker £20K in HRA module

• Check translation of key Service March March CP documents in local community Development languages to be made available Team Resources: through web-site, including plain base budget English and “easy read”

Financial Management

• Ensure spending targets are met A Moses 3 3 Resourced through financial monitoring G Walker systems T Price

• Ensure timely and accurate O Ajala 3 3 financial returns to Inland Revenue and Companies House

• Implement Rent de-pooling of O Ajala 3 3 service charges by 2010 T Price

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 97 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE ACTION LEAD TARGET TARGET RESOURCES AND CROSS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE OFFICER 2006/07 2007/08 REFERENCES • Update HRA Business Plan O Ajala 2007 T Price G Walker

• Re-submit HRA Business Plan O Ajala Sept 2007 T Price G Walker

• Submit building cost model G Walker October October update T Price 2006 2007 O Ajala

Governance

• Implement continuous Board A Nankivell 3 3 C Plan Training Programme Board Training Budgets

• Review Recruitment and retention T Price Programme Personnel policies ends Leadership programme October 2007

• Manage SLAs with Council and T Price March March review outputs annually O Ajala

• Submit revised Delivery Plan June June

• Review ALMO options in T Price Sept 2006 response to consultation O Ajala document

Performance Framework

• Review PPP targets T Price Jan Jan A Moses G Walker O Ajala

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 98 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE ACTION LEAD TARGET TARGET RESOURCES AND CROSS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE OFFICER 2006/07 2007/08 REFERENCES

• Review procedure manuals on A Moses 30% 30% a rolling programme G Walker

• Ensure all staff have regular A Moses 100% 100% PPP review meetings with G Walker managers

Staff Survey Conduct annual staff survey T Price June June Resourced in budget using Council consultancy

i World migration CP

• Develop Leasehold A Moses March 07 - Resources: Management Package D Ollendorf base budget

Efficiency agenda CP, C Plan, HSS

Benchmark M&M costs via O Ajala Annual Annual Resources in base budgets and to be Housemark. Analyse unit costings of A Moses developed further through medium term service and benchmark G Walker forecasts T Price

Submit efficiency statement to T Price Oct Oct Council and keep updated O Ajala

Deliver efficiencies set out in annual T Price 3 3 efficiency statement A Nankivell G Walker A Moses O Ajala

Inform service efficiency through A Moses 3 3 customer feedback (see above) G Walker T Price

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 99 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE ACTION LEAD TARGET TARGET RESOURCES AND CROSS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE OFFICER 2006/07 2007/08 REFERENCES Develop procurement strategy and G Walker Gas contract Convergence consortium partnerships including T Price April 2007 of partnering support of LAPN. O Ajala agreements 2008

Explore new business opportunities T Price June 2007 to increase number of dwellings in O Ajala See management A Moses Business G Walker Plan

Abbreviations: CP Council Plan C Plan Community Plan HSS Housing Strategy Statement HRABP HRA Business Plan

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 100 HILLINGDON HOMES PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX 2

HILLINGDON HOMES – DELIVERY PLAN

BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

2006/07 – 2007/08

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 101 1. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE

Performance Indicator Last Year 2005/6 National Top London Top 2006/07 Target 2007/08 Target 2008/09 Target Performance Quartile Quartile Performance for Performance for 2004/05 2004/05 1. BVPI 63 N/A 4 4 71.5 72 72.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY The average SAP rating of TQ 68 TQ 67 local authority owned dwellings.

2. DECENT HOMES 2a. BVPI 184a 0% 3 4 18% 15% 28% Percentage of local authority homes which were non-decent TQ 21% TQ 30% at 1st April 2002.

2b BVPI 184b 32.6% 1 1 16.7% 100% 0% Change in percentage of local authority homes which were TQ 23% TQ 14.9% non-decent at 1st April 2002.

3a BVPI 211a (new PI 2005/06) NYK N/A N/A 70:30 70:30 70:30 Proportion of planned work spend to responsive works spend.

3b BVPI 211b (new PI 2005/06) 8.8 : 91.2 N/A N/A 10 : 90 10 : 90 10 : 90 Proportion of spend on urgent repairs compared to non urgent repairs.

4 FORMER BVPI 185 N/A 3 2 N/A N/A N/A Percentage of appointments made and kept. TQ 90% TQ 97.1%

5 FORMER BVPI 72 99.1% N/A N/A 98.5% 99% 99% RIGHT TO REPAIR Repairs completed on target.

6 FORMER BVPI 73 11 Days N/A N/A 11 Days 10 Days 9 Days Average time taken to complete non-urgent repairs.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 102 2. GAS SAFETY

Performance Indicator Last Year National Top London Top 2006/07 Target 2007/08 Target 2008/09 Target 2005/06 Quartile Quartile Performance Performance for Performance for 2004/05 2004/05 1 NUMBER OF DWELLINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE A SAFETY CERTIFICATE 1a Number and percentage 98.9% N/A N/A 100% 100% 100% dwellings that have a current safety certificate.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 103 3. HOUSING MANAGEMENT

Performance Indicator Last Year National Top London Top 2006/07 Target 2007/08 Target 2008/09 Target 2005/06 Quartile Quartile Performance Performance for Performance for 2004/05 2004/05 1 RENT COLLECTION 1a BVPI 66a 96.5% 2 4 96.7% 96.9% 97.1% Proportion of rent collected for HRA dwellings, including 96.68% (HH) TQ 98.3% TQ 97.3% 96.8% (HH) arrears brought forward from the previous year.

1b BVPI 66b (new PI 2005/06) 7.6% N/A N/A 6.75%(LBH) Less Than 10% Percentage of tenants owing more than seven weeks gross 7.2% (HH) 6.5% (HH) rent.

1c BVPI 66c (new PI 2005/06) 30.6% N/A N/A 28% Less Than 50% Percentage of tenants in arrears who have had a Notice of 30.76% (HH) Seeking Possession (NSP) served on them.

1d BVPI 66d (new PI 2005/06) 0.28% N/A N/A 0.25% Percentage of tenants evicted for rent arrears during the year. 0.27% (HH)

2 TENANT SATISFACTION WITH THE OVERALL SERVICE 2a BVPI 74a 76% 3 4 78% 80% 82% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with the overall service TQ 83% TQ 72% provided by their landlord

2b BVPI 74b 75% 4 4 77% 78% 82% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with the overall service TQ 80% TQ 67% provided by their landlord. Results from black and minority ethnic tenants.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 104 Performance Indicator Last Year National Top London Top 2006/07 Target 2007/08 Target 2008/09 Target 2005/06 Quartile Quartile Performance Performance for Performance for 2004/05 2004/05

2c BVPI 74c 76% 3 4 78% 79% 80% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with the overall service TQ 84% TQ 74% provided by their landlord. Results from non black and minority ethnic tenants

3 TENANT SATISFACTION WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTICIPATION 3a BVPI 75a 66% 3 4 68% 69% 70% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with opportunities for TQ 69% TQ 60% participation in management and decision making in relation to housing services provided by their landlord

3b BVPI 75b 59% 4 4 63% 65% 66% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with opportunities for TQ 73% TQ 60% participation in management and decision making in relation to housing services provided by their landlord. Results from black and minority ethnic tenants.

3c BVPI 75c 65% 2 4 67% 68% 69% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with opportunities for TQ 70% TQ 62% participation in management and decision making in relation to housing services provided by their landlord. Results from non

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 105 Performance Indicator Last Year National Top London Top 2006/07 Target 2007/08 Target 2008/09 Target 2005/06 Quartile Quartile Performance Performance for Performance for 2004/05 2004/05 black and minority ethnic tenants

4 EMPTY PROPERTIES 4a BVPI 212 39.87 Days N/A N/A 38 30 28 Days Average turnaround of empty properties

5. EQUALITIES 5a Does the authority follow the Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes CRE’s code of practice for rented housing.

5b Do all major partners have Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes equal opportunities policies consistent with those of the Council.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 106 Appendix 3

HILLINGDON HOMES LTD ANNUAL EFFICIENCY STATEMENT – OCTOBER 2006

1. OVERVIEW

Our mission is to:- Provide a high quality built environment, excellent housing services and continuous improvements to the quality of life of all Hillingdon residents.

Our values Hillingdon Homes Ltd will • Put our customers first – providing clear standards of service and responding to feedback; • Work in partnership to make the best use of all available resources, with LBH, other social landlords and local agencies; • Innovate wherever possible taking advantage of developments in technology to provide the best possible service

Our service objectives We intend to:- • Improve and maintain the council housing stock and local environment through a balanced investment and maintenance programme • Deliver consistently excellent, responsive and improving housing services that contribute to safe and sustainable communities • Empower tenants and leaseholders by providing greater opportunities for participation and decision making • Value diversity and promote open and equal access to all our services • Deliver organisational excellence through prudent financial and operational management and through valuing and developing our staff

Relationship to the Council Hillingdon Homes is owned and funded directly by Hillingdon Council through the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

Our Delivery Plan and performance framework is closely aligned to the Council’s objectives and processes. All plans are cross referenced to Council documents ensuring fit. We work alongside the Council to formulate service plans and financial strategies to shape medium term financial plans and the Council’s efficiency statement.

Approach to efficiency and self assessment Hillingdon Homes is using the “Audit Commission’s Value for Money: Securing Efficiency and Effectiveness Key Lines of Enquiry” and the “Use of Resources” judgement guidance as a framework to review and assess services and to develop improvement plans.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 107

Value for money is now top of the list and will focus on • How well does the organisation maximise impact from its resources? • How effective are partnerships in achieving value for money? • Has procurement been used to achieve value for money?

In respect of stock investment KLOEs will test:- • Good practice in procurement • Use of procurement to achieve significant savings • Competitiveness of internal provision

Other KLOEs will look for • Demonstration of significant savings/improvements through partnership • Low overall and unit costs • Top quartile performance

HRA Business Plan Key assumptions over the next ten years in the HRA Business Plan which underpin our approach to efficiency are:-

• Management and maintenance costs are kept at around £24.1m. Service enhancements in one area must be supported by efficiency savings in another • Major repairs allowances (MRA) will increase marginally at 1.5% per annum after stock changes • HRA rent will increase slightly from £46.5m 2004/2005 to £46.8m 2013/2014 • The focus is on securing funds to deliver the national target for decent homes before 2010 drawing from ALMO subsidy, the MRA, and Revenue contribution to capital outlay, whilst maintaining a rounded capital strategy to meet other investment needs in the stock

Benchmarking and unit costs Hillingdon Homes benchmarks service quality, cost and user satisfaction through:-

• Housemark • STATUS survey of tenant satisfaction • Analysis of Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns • Consortia eg Procurement for Housing, LAPN

Service performance and tenant satisfaction benchmark well with other London Boroughs/ALMOs

There is no audited benchmark on comparative costs although historic information from HIP returns has shown our costs of management and maintenance to be competitive

To understand this better and to conduct a more robust challenge of costs we are:- • Participating in the Housemark cost benchmarking exercise • Analysing our own unit costs at a low level of financial analysis to be confident of our true costs

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 108 • Participating in local benchmarking with London ALMOs

Indications from benchmarking through Housemark with our ALMO peer group, using our 2005/06 results suggested:-

• Our costs are below average, while our performance is above average in respect of our total core management and maintenance costs, rent arrears, tenancy and estate management, responsive and voids repairs and major repairs • Rent collection is average costs with above average performance, suggesting we need to explore potential for cost reduction without loss of quality • In respect of lettings and empty property management our cost are below average, whilst our performance has improved, it is still below the London average. We need to continue on our current performance focus, re appraise our investment in the service and ensure we continue to improve

We will continue to participate in the annual Housemark benchmark to analyse comparative data both with our ALMO peers and the national picture to inform the ongoing development of this efficiency statement.

Based on the latest Housemark benchmarking result for 2005/06 our core housing management and maintenance costs, including management of major and cyclical repairs per dwelling per annum are:-

£407 2003/04 £531 2004/05 £523 2005/06

Our benchmarking includes comparative data on pay (63.3%) and non-pay service charge overheads (36.7%). Comparing our 2005/06 final results to our peer ALMO group shows that our average core housing management pay costs of £331 per property is a top quartile performance for London. Our total support costs at £192 per property is top quartile performance for London. This means we are low cost high performance ALMO for London. We will be analysing these figures more closely to understand the true make-up of our costs, to inform the development of our efficiency strategy.

Results from this years Housemark exercise for 2005/06 is being used to inform the mid year review of this statement in October 2006 and will form the basis of the backward look for 2006/07 in April 2007.

The chart below gives our summary performance within the Housemark London peer group. The only area in which we have to improve on in London is the void turnaround performance and this year we are already making steady progress in improving this performance. Our latest performance on voids turnaround will move us to average performance for London, our aim is to get to above average performance.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 109

Key

Quality/cost matrix The table below shows the measures of quality of our service expressed in key performance indicators together with the costs of providing services. The link between quality and cost underpins this efficiency statement and is the basis for measuring efficiencies.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 110

HILLINGDON HOMES QUALITY – COST MATRIX

NOTE: National and Top Quartile positions. It should be noted that 4 is top quartile and 1 is bottom quartile. (The Top Quartile figure shown in bold text is the minimum percentage/amount that needs to be reached to fall into the Top Quartile performance). In the absence of the latest Audit Commission BVPI table for 2005/06, we have used the latest Housemark Benchmark report to provide this quality cost matrix. Once the Audit Commission information is available this quality cost matrix will be updated as necessary.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 111 1. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE Performance Indicator Year 2004/05 2005/06 (HseMark) (HseMark) 2006/07 2007/08 Performance National Top London Top Quartile Quartile Performance Performance Actual for 2005/06 for 2005/06 Target Target 1 BVPI 63 70.6 73 4 4 73.5 74 ENERGY EFFICIENCY The average SAP rating of local authority owned TQ 68 TQ 71 dwellings. 2 DECENT HOMES 2a. BVPI 184a 30.4 22.30% 4 3 18% 15% Percentage of local authority homes which were non-decent at 1st April 2002. TQ 25.3% TQ 14.5% 2b BVPI 184b 8.20% 32.30% 1 1 16.70% 100% Change in percentage of local authority homes 04/05 info 04/05 info which were non-decent at 1st April 2002. TQ 22.6% TQ 14.9% Cost (Unit Cost) Spend: Decent Homes £20,757,564 £19,090,932 £15,741,000 £11,300,000 (£1875) All Capital Spend £27,353,376 £29,094,000 £28,130,000 £24,500,000 (£2471) 3b BVPI 211b (new PI 2005/06) 8.8 : 91.2 9.20% N/A N/A 10% 10% Proportion of spend on urgent repairs compared to non urgent repairs. 4 FORMER BVPI 185 81.50% 91.60% 3 1 93% tbc 95% tbc Percentage of appointments made and kept. TQ 98.% TQ 99.% (HseMrk P3) 5 FORMER BVPI 72 99.10% 98.20% 4 4 98.50% 99% RIGHT TO REPAIR Repairs completed on target. TQ 97.3% TQ 98.0%

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 112 Performance Indicator Year 2004/05 2005/06 (HseMark) (HseMark) 2006/07 2007/08 Performance National Top London Top Quartile Quartile Performance Performance

Actual for 2005/06 for 2005/06 Target Target 6 FORMER BVPI 73 13 Days 11 Days N/A N/A 10 Days 10 Days Average time taken to complete non-urgent repairs. Repair Cost (Unit Cost) 1 4 Responsive Repair Cost Per Property £324 £341 £280 £345 £380 £380 £95* £99* £70* £115* £115* £115* 4 1 Major and Cyclical Repair Costs Per Property £2,777 £2,994 £3,003 £3,982 £3,462 £3,010 £82* £153* 69 101 £100 £100

2 GAS SAFETY 1 NUMBER OF DWELLINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE A SAFETY CERTIFICATE 1a Number and percentage dwellings that have a 97.90% 98.90% N/A N/A 100% 100% current safety certificate. Cost Per Property £103.62p 116 118 120

3 HOUSING MANAGEMENT 1 RENT COLLECTION 1a BVPI 66a 96.37% 96.51% 1 3 96.70% 96.90% Proportion of rent collected for HRA dwellings, TQ 98.5% TQ 97.08% including arrears brought forward from the previous year. 1b BVPI 66b (new PI 2005/06) N/A 7.63% N/A N/A 7% 7% Percentage of tenants owing more than seven weeks gross rent.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 113 Performance Indicator Year 2004/05 2005/06 (HseMark) (HseMark) 2006/07 2007/08 Performance National Top London Top Quartile Quartile Performance Performance

Actual for 2005/06 for 2005/06 Target Target 1c BVPI 66c (new PI 2005/06) N/A 31% N/A N/A 28% 28% Percentage of tenants in arrears who have had a Notice of Seeking Possession (NSP) served on them. 1d BVPI 66d (new PI 2005/06) N/A 0.28% N/A N/A 0.25% 0.25% Percentage of tenants evicted for rent arrears during the year. 1e FORMER BVPI 66b 3.85% 3.36% N/A N/A 3.30% 3.20% Arrears shown as a percentage of the gross annual debit. Arrears Recovery Cost Per Property £76 £66 3 4 £68 £70 (Staff and overhead cost) TQ £58 TQ £75 Rent Collection Cost Per Property £48 £46 1 2 £42 £43 (Staff and overhead cost) TQ £20 TQ £28 Arrears and Rent Collection £124 £102 2 4 £110 £113 (Staff and overhead cost) TQ £78 TQ £103

2 TENANT SATISFACTION WITH THE OVERALL SERVICE 2a BVPI 74a 76% TBC 3 4 78% 79% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with 04/05 info 04/05 info the overall service provided by their landlord TQ 83% TQ 72% 2b BVPI 74b 75% TBC 4 4 77% 78% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with 04/05 info 04/05 info the overall service provided by their landlord. Results from black and minority ethnic tenants. TQ 80% TQ 67%

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 114 Performance Indicator Year 2004/05 2005/06 (HseMark) (HseMark) 2006/07 2007/08 Performance National Top London Top Quartile Quartile Performance Performance

Actual for 2005/06 for 2005/06 Target Target 2c BVPI 74c 76% TBC 3 4 78% 79% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with 04/05 info 04/05 info the overall service provided by their landlord. Results from non black and minority ethnic tenants TQ 84% TQ 74% Total Core Cost Per Property £531 £523 1 4 £600 £600 TQ £425 TQ £545 3 TENANT SATISFACTION WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTICIPATION 3a BVPI 75a 66% TBC 3 4 68% 69% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with 04/05 info 04/05 info opportunities for participation in management and decision making in relation to housing services provided by their landlord TQ 69% TQ 60% 3b BVPI 75b 59% TBC 4 4 63% 65% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with 04/05 info 04/05 info opportunities for participation in management and decision making in relation to housing services provided by their landlord. Results from black and minority ethnic tenants.

TQ 73% TQ 60% 3c BVPI 75c 65% TBC 2 4 67% 68% Satisfaction of tenants of council housing with 04/05 info 04/05 info opportunities for participation in management and decision making in relation to housing services provided by their landlord. Results from non black and minority ethnic tenants

TQ 70% TQ 62%

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 115 Performance Indicator Year 2004/05 2005/06 (HseMark) (HseMark) 2006/07 2007/08 Performance National Top London Top Quartile Quartile Performance Performance

Actual for 2005/06 for 2005/06 Target Target Tenancy and Estate Costs Per Property £161 £161 1 3 £165 £165

TQ £88 TQ £156

4 EMPTY PROPERTIES 4a BVPI 212 41.77 Days 40.28 Days 2 1 30 Days 26 Days Average turnaround of empty properties TQ 28 TQ 26.43 Void Cost Per Property 34 32 3 4 32 32 TQ 30 TQ 32 Letting Cost Per Property 19 16 4 2 16 16 TQ 16 TQ 13

4 GENERAL MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL 14.7 Days 10.4 Days 3 3 9 Days 8 Days Working days lost due to sickness absence TQ 10 TQ 8.43 INVOICE PAYMENTS 91.67% 95.93% 3 4 98% 99% The percentage on invoices paid within 30 days TQ 95.97% TQ 95%

of receipt.

* Pay and overhead costs only

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 116 Stakeholder involvement All our resources should be focussed on adding value for tenants and leaseholders. To ensure this we are investing in more robust customer feedback through:- • Point of service feedback questionnaires • More publicity about costs of service • More focus groups • Mystery shopping

This will inform future service plans and gauge the impact of efficiency measures on customer satisfaction

Procurement Our procurement strategy is developed around:-

• Works procurement through traditional (lowest price contracts) and long term partnering contracts based on collaborative working with contractors • Collective procurement of works through LAPN an ALMO procurement consortium (for collaborative working) and through the London Housing Consortium (for traditional contracts) • Moving reimbursement of our repairs team to partnering principles (open book actual costs, ring-fenced overheads continuous improvement etc) • Quality and cost challenge of service level agreements (SLAs) with Council provided support services • Tendering general services eg office cleaning, household removals, and storage, pest control etc • Commodities (low value, high volume) to be purchased through existing consortia which we test against new consortia eg Procurement for Housing • Reducing number of suppliers, combined with e-procurement initiatives to reduce transaction costs • Working closely with the Council procurement team to learn from each other

Valuing staff Efficient and effective deployment of staff will be significant to our success. Our human resource strategy will be developed to increase efficiency gains, concentrating on absence management, productivity, stress management and valuing staff. In 2005-2006 days lost to sickness reduced by 23%. Staff satisfaction with HH Ltd as an employer was 79.1% (measured September 2006).

New technology Creative use of IT will be made to streamline processes supporting service delivery with a focus on e-enablement of all services.

Continuous improvement We have piloted C-CIT a continuous improvement tool which helped us identify £4m efficiency gains in our decent homes work-streams to be delivered by September 2007.

Following this success we intend to adopt the tool across a range of service areas to underpin a programme of continuous improvement.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 117

2. FORWARD LOOK 2006/2007 Efficiency Gains Against the baseline actual spend for 2004/2005, for 2005/06 and 2006/07 we have identified potential efficiency savings of £29.4m, of which £20.8m has been delivered to 2005/06. All our cashable savings are reinvested in service improvements. These figures will be re-worked in line with technical guidance notes issued by the DCLG to reflect efficiency gains in line with the definition.

SUMMARY OF EFFICIENCY GAINS FROM 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES IMPLIMENTED FROM 2004/05 TO OCTOBER 2006 £000s £000s £000s £000s General Management Efficiency Gains -936 -936 -936 -927 Repairs -442 -694 -724 -784 Capital -18,485 -27,727 -32,349 -36,970

Efficiency Gains listed above -19,863 -29,357 -34,009-38,681 Impact of inflations and quality adjustments (difference between technical calculations and specific lists) E-4 -903 0 0 0

Total Efficiency Gains -20,766 -29,357 -34,009 -38,681

SUMMARY OF EFFICIENCY GAINS FROM EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES IMPLIMENTED 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 FROM 2004/05 TO OCTOBER 2006 £000s £000s £000s £000s E-1 REDUCED INPUT FOR SAME OUTPUT -10,098 -15,072 -17,559 -20,046 E-2 REDUCED PRICE FOR SAME OUTPUT -1,086 -1,321 -1,351 -1,402 E-3 INCREASED OUTPUT FOR SAME PRICE -6,535 -9,803 -11,437 -13,071

E-4 INCREASED OUTPUT RESULTING FROM NEW INVESTMENTS / RESOURCES -3,046 -3,144 -3,645 -4,145

Total HH Ltd Efficiency Template -20,766 -29,340 -33,992-38,664

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 118

Our efficiency gains are from the following activities:-

LIST OF EFFICIENCY GAINS IMPLEMENTED FROM APRIL 2004 TO OCTOBER 2006 Effi cien General Management Efficiency cy Typ Gains e Efficiency Note 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

£000s £000s £000s £000s

Reduced cost of IT and improved Review of Housing Services IT contracts E-2 services -450 -450 -450 -450

Reduced publication costs Discounts received on publication productions and increased as a result of Plain English membership. E-2 quality -7 -7 -7 -7

Reduced cost, Rationalisation of tender specifications for same quality and Grounds Maintenance. E-2 quantity -9 -9 -9 0

Changes to car allowances, Review of transport costs E-2 reducing costs. -30 -30 -30 -30 Savings resulting from early investment in Reduction in fixtures and fittings for Sheltered Schemes E-2 operating costs -30 -30 -30 -30 Reduced Savings on review of insurance contracts E-2 insurance costs -60 -60 -60 -60 Savings on review of Mediation service and Reduction in unit extension of usage to non HRA residents E-2 cost per tenant -45 -45 -45 -45 Savings resulting from switching from direct provision of Police Community Support Officers Reduction in PCSO to the use of community police to direct cost of support ASB strategy E-2 ASB -30 -30 -30 -30

Savings in Caretaking services by changing to Reduction in direct leasing of vans from renting from LBH. E-2 operating costs -19 -19 -19 -19

Reduction in general Savings from LBH reorganisation of Housing management and Social Services Departments. E-2 costs -256 -256 -256 -256

Total General Management -936 -936 -936 -927

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 119 Repairs 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

£000s £000s £000s £000s Transfer of out of hours repairs calls to Reduced Careline E-2 operating cost 0-17 -17-17

Reduced input, whilst maintaining Use of own staff to deliver asbestos survey E-1 same service -150 -150 -150 -150 Changes to staff performance incentive Reduced scheme E-2 operating cost 00 -20-20 Reduced Use of procurment cards to pay contractors E-2 operating cost 0 -5 -10 -10 Use housing consortia to procure housing Reduced building supplies E-2 operating cost 0-15 -20-25 Reduced repairs Impact of decent homes on repairs E-2 costs -150 -365 -365 -420

Increased Increase efficiency in Hillingdon Homes efficiency and Building services E-4 quality -142 -142 -142 -142

Total Repairs -442 -694 -724 -784

Capital 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

£000s £000s £000s £000s Partnering Contracts Savings - Targets Cost vs REDUCED UNIT Historical Cost E-1 PRICE -1,991 -2,987 -3,484 -3,982 Partnering Contracts Savings - Actual Cost vs REDUCED UNIT Targets Cost E-1 PRICE -2,557 -3,836 -4,475 -5,114 Partnering Contracts Savings - Actual Cost vs REDUCED UNIT Current Cost (savings on inflation) E-1 PRICE -3,969 -5,954 -6,946 -7,938 Partnering Contracts Savings - Specification Changes (material and process changes with REDUCED UNIT improved or equalised quality) pre C-CIT E-1 PRICE -465 -698 -814 -930 REDUCED UNIT Other Work to stock costs (surveying costs) E-1 PRICE -966 -1,449 -1,691 -1,932 Increased quality and processes C-CIT from April 2006 (£2m pre April 2006 are general improved processes as a result of basic collaborative contract arrangements, this will INCREASED more than double as a result of introduction of QUALITY AND C-CIT) E-4 EFFICIENCY -2,001 -3,002 -3,503 -4,003

INCREASED QUALITY AND Increased client satisfaction E-3 SATISFACTION -3,336 -5,004 -5,838 -6,672

INCREASED QUALITY AND Improved major works management E-3 EFFICIENCY -1,334 -2,001 -2,335 -2,669

INCREASED QUALITY AND General Improvement in major work delivered E-3 EFFICIENCY -1,865 -2,798 -3,264 -3,731 Total Capital -18,485 -27,727 -32,349 -36,970

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 120

Appendix A sets out the detailed actions to support these savings and service improvements and cross references the efficiency targets to the council’s strategic objectives.

The detailed calculation of efficiencies delivered up to 2005/06 based on DCLG technical guidelines are available on request. The template we use will be updated and refined as technical guidelines are updated.

Efficiencies arising from improved procurement of the capital investment programme have been delivered within the collaborative working agreements with decent homes programme contractors. Productivity and cost targets form part of those contracts. These were not included in the 2005 forward look, as the contracts were new in 2004, but they have been included in the backward look.

Maintaining service standards The efficiency targets set out in this efficiency statement are built into our performance framework alongside service quality targets. Both are monitored together to ensure that service standards are maintained, or improved.

Notably extra investment in key service areas has resulted in:- • Improvement in void turn-round times • Reduction in rent arrears of £200,000 in 2005/2006 • Improved all round performance on repairs • Improved tenant statisfaction

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 121

3. BACKWARD LOOK Our 2005/2006 backward look provides a progress report on delivery of 2005/2006 targets, and a review of efficiency gains delivered in 2004/05 against 2003/04 base budgets. A summary of efficiency gains delivered to date is given in the table below:-

Revenue Capital Total £ £ £ Actual ÒOOs ÒOOs ÒOOs 2004/05 486 5,729 6,215

2005/06 1,795 12,756 14,551

2,281 18,485 20,766

Detailed calculations supporting the table above are available on request. 90% of our efficiency gains is being delivered via partnering contract arrangements. Our calculation of gains delivered within revenue activities is £2.28m against a target of £1.54m reported last year. No target was declared for Capital as we were unsure of the magnitude of the efficiency impact of the new partnering arrangements.

4. MID YEAR UPDATE We have reviewed our efficiency activities and all our efficiency activities are on course to deliver the planned efficiency in our reported forward look. A key contributor to our efficiency gain this year is the introduction of C-CIT improvement toolkit to process driven operations in the organisation. This toolkit ensures continuous improvement in major capital works and building repairs.

Efficiency Gains listed above -19,863 -29,357 -34,009 -38,681 Impact of inflations and quality adjustments (difference between technical calculations and specific lists) E-4 -903 0 0 0

Total Efficiency Gains -20,766 -29,357 -34,009 -38,681

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 123 SUMMARY OF EFFICIENCY GAINS FROM EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES IMPLIMENTED FROM 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2004/05 TO OCTOBER 2006 £000s £000s £000s £000s E-1 REDUCED INPUT FOR SAME OUTPUT -10,098 -15,072 -17,559 -20,046 E-2 REDUCED PRICE FOR SAME OUTPUT -1,086 -1,321 -1,351 -1,402 E-3 INCREASED OUTPUT FOR SAME PRICE -6,535 -9,803 -11,437 -13,071

E-4 INCREASED OUTPUT RESULTING FROM NEW INVESTMENTS / RESOURCES -3,046 -3,144 -3,645 -4,145

Total HH Ltd Efficiency Template -20,766 -29,340 -33,992 -38,664

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 124 THE LONDON HOUSING UNIT COMMITTEE ITEM 6

Cabinet Members Councillor Ray Puddifoot / Councillor Philip Corthorne

Cabinet Portfolio Leader of the Council / Social Services, Health & Housing

Officer Contact Mark Braddock – Head of Cabinet Office

Papers with report None

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report To outline proposals by London Councils in respect of dissolving the London Housing Unit Committee and to recommend, in line with some other London Boroughs, to withdraw Hillingdon’s membership to this body from 31 March 2008.

Contribution to our N/A plans and strategies

Financial Cost There will be a saving to the organisation of approx. £48K in the 2008/9 financial year from not paying the subscription fees.

Relevant Policy Social Services, Health & Housing Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected N/A

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Cabinet agrees that the London Borough of Hillingdon terminates its membership of the London Housing Unit Committee with effect from 31 March 2008 and gives delegated authority to the Chief Executive to notify London Councils accordingly.

2. That Cabinet agrees that the Leader of the Council (in the capacity as the Council’s representative on the London Housing Unit Committee) can take any other necessary steps in respect of this Council’s membership of the London Housing Unit Committee before the above date of 31 March 2008.

INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

To withdraw Hillingdon’s membership of the London Housing Unit Committee (LHUC) following proposals by the Executive of London Councils to dissolve the organisation from April 2008.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Cabinet Report 8 February 2007 Page 125 Alternative options considered

The Council is faced with limited alternatives, other than those highlighted in the report.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

None.

Supporting Information

The London Housing Unit (LHU) provides assistance to councils discharging their housing functions, undertaking relevant publicity and also research, analysis and technical assistance. The work of the Unit is steered by the London Housing Unit Committee, a more focussed executive sub-committee and a number of other officer / member forums. The Leader of the Council is our representative on the LHUC and the Cabinet Member for Social Services, Health & Housing is our representative on its executive sub-committee. 24 out of the 33 London Boroughs are currently members of the LHUC and subscribe to the LHU.

The London Councils Executive agreed to mainstream the London Housing Unit at its meeting on 29 September 2006. Following discussions with boroughs, the Executive agreed that LHUC should meet to set a budget for one year, take steps to ensure that the LHUC is to be wound up in a year’s time and then the cost of the LHU be consolidated into London Councils’ budget from April 2008. A cross-party review would also be undertaken in early 2007 of the housing service.

The process for dissolving the LHUC is determined by the ALG Agreement, which is the legally binding document signed by all London councils in December 2001 setting out the obligations of the ALG (now London Councils), its sectoral joint committees and the obligations of London Local Authorities. Normally termination of membership requires written notice of at least 12 months, ending on 31 March.

Three options have been put forward for dissolving the LHUC:

1. Following the review of the housing service by July 2007, LHUC member boroughs unanimously resolve at an LHUC meeting in July to terminate the provisions of the 2001 Agreement relating to the LHUC, along with a decision by the LHUC, endorsed by the Leader’s Committee to vary the notice period (normally one year), thereby causing the LHUC to cease to exist with effect from April 2008. The Leader of the Council would need delegated authority to do this on behalf of the Council.

2. Again following the review, each LHUC member borough elects to revoke their delegation to it and provide written notice. By implication, if every borough withdraws their delegation the LHUC ceases to exist. Agreement to vary the one-year notice period would again be required.

3. Before the review, each borough member elects to revoke their delegation and membership from the LHUC and provide written notice by 31 March 2007. This provides for the one-year notice period and therefore for the LHUC to cease to exist by 31 March 2008. However, if not all members provide written notice of their wish to withdraw their delegation by 31 March 2007 the LHUC will continue to be constituted by the number of members that remain, but with a reduced budget, depending on the number of subscribers until co-ordinated action is taken to dissolve LHUC as set out in options 1 &

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Cabinet Report 8 February 2007 Page 126 2 above. This option is being recommended by the Leader of the Council and is currently being pursued by a number of other boroughs on an individual basis.

Financial Implications

We pay approximately £40K in subscription charges to the LHU annually, of which 65% is from the Housing Revenue Account and 35% from the General Fund budget. There is also an additional £8K core subscription (for non-LHUC work). These monies would be returned to the relevant 2008/9 budgets if the LHUC were to be dissolved from April 2008. The cost of the aforementioned housing review will be met from existing LHUC / London Councils budgets.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

There is unlikely to be any direct effect of these recommendations on any particular group at this present time as they are only enabling in nature. Once any decision is taken on the future of the LHUC, it would be for London Councils and their respective elected representatives to ensure that adequate pan-London housing services are provided so as to not detriment the ability of London boroughs to deliver quality housing services to their residents.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

No public consultation has been carried out locally in respect of this matter. However the process of dissolving the LHUC is consultative in nature, involving all London boroughs.

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

Corporate Finance has reviewed this report and are content with the financial implications.

Legal

If Cabinet were to agree option 3, the Council would cease to be a member of the LHUC by 31 March 2008. By providing the Leader of the Council (in his capacity as our LHUC representative) with the ability to take any other necessary steps on this Council’s behalf in respect of the LHUC before this date, gives the Council the necessary flexibility to pursue the other two options outlined in this report, if so required.

The Borough Solicitor has reviewed the options and advises that the recommendations to be taken are in accordance with the Council Constitution and also the 2001 Agreement with the ALG (now London Councils).

Housing Services

Housing Services advise that the current LHU service needs heavy scrutiny and more clarity about the costs and the benefits available to member boroughs. It can also be argued that there is some unfairness that some boroughs contribute and others do not.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Cabinet Report 8 February 2007 Page 127 If the LHU ceases to exist, the large number of forums and networks and its research capacity could impact upon Hillingdon. The Council currently makes use of the LHU for research on direct lettings, equity release and Low Cost Home Ownership. If the service is withdrawn in its entirety, the council would lose such research capacity and officers would need to either commission services elsewhere, employ people directly to do the research or undertake a joint approach, for example, with some other west London boroughs.

However, at the current time, it is still unclear to what extent such research activities would be affected as it has not yet been determined what, if any, LHU functions would be taken over by or mainstreamed into London Councils. This is a future decision that needs to be taken by London Councils and its appropriate elected representatives.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

- Council Constitution and ALG 2001 Agreement. - Report from London Council’s Executive on legal options for dissolving the LHUC - www.londonhousing.gov.uk

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

Cabinet Report 8 February 2007 Page 128

MAYOR’S DRAFT BOROUGH LEVEL WASTE ITEM 7 APPORTIONMENT CONSULTATION RESPONSE

Cabinet Member Councillor Keith Burrows

Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation

Report Author Janet Rangeley/Eden Hannam, Policy and Environmental Planning Team

Papers with report Appendix 1: Draft Minor Alteration to the London Plan: Borough Level Waste Apportionment, attached Appendix 2: Proposed Response to the Mayor’s Consultation, attached

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report To seek Cabinet approval of the response to the Consultation on the Draft Minor Alterations to the London Plan: Borough Level Waste Apportionment.

Contribution to our Will influence the Local Development Framework (LDF), the Waste plans and strategies Strategy, the Community Strategy and the Local Area Agreement 2007/2008.

Financial Cost There is no direct financial cost to responding and making representations. There could however be cost implications should the Mayor decide to revise the currently proposed apportionment figures again as a result of the consultation. Cabinet will be advised of any further financial implications of the waste apportionment once they become known

Relevant Policy Residents' & Environmental Services Policy Overview Committee Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All wards affected.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Cabinet approves the proposed response to the Mayor’s Draft Alterations to the London Plan: Borough Level Waste Apportionment as contained in Appendix 2 to this report and delegates authority to the Corporate Director Planning and Community Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation to make any further minor amendments in respect of the West London co-ordinated response.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 129

Reasons for recommendation

The Mayor is proposing that the majority of London’s municipal waste is processed within the boundaries of London. Obviously different boroughs have differing ability to process this waste depending on their location, proximity to sources, available land for waste processing, transport links and such like. The Greater London Authority engaged a consultant to develop a formula for the apportionment of municipal waste depending on the potential of each borough to be able to process waste. This formula results in a tonnage of municipal waste for each borough. For Hillingdon there is a need for a capacity increase, but this increase is not out of phase with the growth of the Borough. Officers are of the view that the proposed apportionment figures for Hillingdon are acceptable and should be supported. The West London boroughs have still to finalise their response, but it is highly likely to be supportive of the apportionment figures collectively for the West London sub region. The aim for the proposed changes to the Mayor’s plan is so that ‘…existing capacity and the reuse of existing transfer stations, should be identified and safeguarded by boroughs in local development documents…’ and it is therefore appropriate that the borough responds.

Alternative options considered

Not to respond to the proposed borough level apportionment consultation: this would mean the borough having little or no influence over the finalised apportionment process and the consequences for waste planning in Hillingdon and also West London. As the revised proposed figures are lower than originally proposed, with East London boroughs now being required to process much more of their waste within their boundaries, officers are of the view that Hillingdon should look to strengthen and reinforce the current apportionment formulae. Failure to do so could see changes in the draft apportionment formulae being proposed by Boroughs who consider that they have been unfairly assessed. The officers’ proposed response to the Mayor seeks greater rigour in the methodology, which will make both the borough Local Development Framework and the West London Waste Development Plan Document ultimately more robust in terms of implementation.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

The Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy Overview Committee is meeting on 5th February. Any comments will be reported direct to Cabinet.

Supporting Information

Background

1 The Mayor is keen that London is able to be largely self sufficient in processing its own waste. This applies at both the London wide level and also at a borough level, with the main aim being that over 85% of waste is processed locally.

2 In early 2006 the Government Office for London, the GLA, London Councils (previously the Association of London Government) and the Association of London Borough Planning Officers agreed to commission an exercise to apportion tonnages of municipal and commercial/industrial waste at London borough level, as required by Planning Policy Statement (PPS)10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 130

3 The outcome of this commission resulted in a draft Minor Alteration to the London Plan. This was placed on this website on 22 November 2006, but was almost immediately withdrawn because errors were identified in the table of waste apportioned by London boroughs. The Mayor published the document with a revised apportionment table on 6 December 2007 for a new twelve-week period of public consultation. It this revised document attached as Appendix 1 on which the Mayor is seeking views by the 2nd March 2007.

Waste Apportionment proposals

4. Earlier this year the government Office for London, the Greater London Authority, London Councils (the Association of London Government, as was) and the Association of London Borough Planning Officers agreed to commission an exercise to apportion the tonnages of municipal and commercial/industrial waste at London Borough level, as required by PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. This was announced in a joint statement put out in the London Plan draft Early Alterations EiP in June, and subsequently endorsed in the EiP Panel Report. Jacobs Babtie completed a draft borough level apportionment in early September for the GLA and, as a prospective draft Further Alterations to the London Plan was subjected to a sustainability appraisal.

5. The sustainability appraisal found that one of the key inputs into the apportionment model – vacant and potentially available industrial land from a 2003 GLA industrial land availability study – was not sufficiently up-to-date to provide a reliable basis for the apportionment, particularly in light of large-scale schemes which had come forward since that date, such as the Olympic development in the Lower Lea Valley. The appraisal noted, however, that further work was underway at the GLA on industrial land release benchmarks, and that this would bring together current intelligence on industrial land in London on a more consistent and up-to-date basis. The appraisal therefore recommended that the apportionment model should be reiterated using new data provided at borough level. The Mayor has accepted this advice, and gave a commitment in paragraph 4.10f of the draft Further Alterations to the London Plan that a table showing the borough level waste apportionment would be published as a minor alteration.

6. The waste apportionment model has been re-run using as an input 2006 industrial land data deprived from detailed map-based assessments of the industrial land baseline for boroughs in London’s North East and South East sub regions, and desk-top assessments of the industrial land baselines for boroughs in the North, West, and South West sub-regions taking into account local employment land reviews where these were available and up-to-date.

7. In the London Plan (Published 2004), Policy 4A.1 sets out a challenging target of 85% waste self-sufficiency for London by 2020. The Early Alterations to the London Plan (EiP June, Panel Report September, alterations proposed to be published December 2006) provide self-sufficiency targets for 2010, 2015 and 2020 for the amount of municipal and commercial/industrial waste to be managed in London. The Early Alterations also provide policy on the numbers, types and broad locations for new and enhanced recycling and waste treatment capacity which will need to be provided within London as the capital moves to higher recycling rates and export to landfill decreases in-line with increased self-sufficiency.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 131

8. New Waste Policy 2 in the Early alterations (borough level apportionment of municipal and commercial waste to be managed) requires boroughs in their development plan documents to identify sufficient land to provide capacity to manage the apportioned tonnages of municipal and commercial/industrial waste as set out in Appendix 1. It is important to note that the amounts of waste apportioned in the table in Appendix 1 reflect the self-sufficiency targets for London. Existing licensed capacity has been included in the apportionment. For information purposes, the table in Appendix 1 now contains a separate column showing existing licensed capacity at borough level. This information is taken from ‘Recycling and Recovery facilities: Site Investigation in London’ produced by Land Use Consultants and SLR Consulting for the Greater London Authority, July 2005.

9. New Waste Policy 1 in the Early Alterations safeguards existing capacity, and New Waste Policies 2 to 4 enumerate the number, types and broad locations for new and enhanced facilities. The Early Alterations estimate the London-wide, an additional 215 ha of land, over and above existing capacity and the re-use of existing transfer stations, should be identified and safeguarded by boroughs in local development documents to manage the amount of municipal and commercial/industrial waste apportioned to boroughs.

Implications for Hillingdon:

10. Waste is a particularly relevant issue for the Borough of Hillingdon. Within our boundaries lies one of the two transfer stations within west London at Victoria Road Ruislip and operated by West London Waste Authority. There is also a large composting facility (recently expanded) at New Year’s Green Lane in the north of the borough.

11. The apportionment process proposes tonnages of waste for each of the London Boroughs as detailed in Appendix 1 to this report. The revised proposed apportionment for Hillingdon and the other West London Boroughs is now lower than that originally proposed, with East London boroughs now being apportioned a much larger amount. As such, the borough should support the outcomes of the Mayor’s waste apportionment process, but also seek to strengthen it. It is therefore suggested that the existing methodology and tabletop exercise is validated with actual land use/site assessments, to make sure that the apportionment figure is deliverable.

12. Members should be aware that this change in approach is likely to bring considerable concerns from the east London boroughs. It is therefore essential that Hillingdon accepts the apportionment for the borough in this consultation and ensures that the Greater London Authority (GLA) methodology is rigorous and the apportionment figures robust. The figures are to be used as part of the West London Waste Development Plan Document (DPD) a process for which Hillingdon has recently agreed to be the lead authority. As part of the DPD preparation Hillingdon will be working with other west London boroughs to identify appropriate sites for waste at the sub-region level.

13. The West London boroughs are still in the process of finalising their comments on the draft minor alteration to the London Plan on borough level waste apportionment and following a meeting on 7th February 2007, a sub regional response can be confirmed. Officers are recommending that any sub regional response comments to be included in the final response to the Mayor, are delegated to the Corporate Director for Planning and

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 132 Community Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation.

14. The apportionment model is based on a wider London Model. To allow practical planning at this level, Hillingdon has approved a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) to work with the five other boroughs of the West London Waste Authority. The aim of the MOU is to provide a mechanism for partnership working with the other west London waste authority boroughs in preparing a West London Waste DPD. In a report to cabinet on 18th January 2007, members agreed to act as the lead borough for the sub regional group preparing this DPD. This document will eventually identify and seek possible waste processing sties in the West London Waste Authority catchments to meet any waste requirements for the future. Hillingdon’s planning and waste management officers will be working together on this document to ensure it reflects fully the borough’s interests.

Financial Implications

15. Providing comment on the Draft Minor Alterations to the London Plan: Borough Level Waste Apportionment carries no cost. However, failure to respond to the consultation could lead to further changes to the proposed allocation could be less favourable for the borough.

16. Whilst the recommendation is to support the alterations to the London Plan, it should be noted that there are longer-term implications of allocating the specified waste capacities to the borough. As it is our intention to work together with the other 5 boroughs that comprise the West London Waste Authority (WLWA), it is necessary to look at the totals of the forecasts for all 6 boroughs:

Licensed Waste Capacities in thousands of tonnes per annum 2010 2015 2020 Current Borough MSW C/I Total MSW C/I Total MSW C/I Total Hillingdon 86 213 299 141 256 397 163 303 466 109 Brent 82 203 285 134 243 377 155 288 443 118 Ealing 104 256 360 170 308 478 197 365 562 5 Harrow 52 128 180 85 154 239 98 182 280 - Hounslow 85 209 294 138 250 388 160 296 456 50 Richmond 51 127 178 84 152 236 97 180 277 9 Totals 460 1,136 1,596 752 1,363 2,115 870 1,614 2,484 291

The boroughs’ LDFs will need to identify potential sites to meet the total capacity requirements – municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial/industrial waste (C/I) – in each of the target years.

17. The 6 west London boroughs will need to ensure that sufficient capacity is actually created to deal with the MSW element only of the above, total capacities. As can be seen, whilst Hillingdon currently has sufficient capacity to deal with its estimated MSW in 2010, the WLWA boroughs have a shortfall in overall MSW capacity of 169,000 tonnes against the 2010 estimate, a shortfall of 461,000 against 2015 and a shortfall of 559,000 tonnes against 2020.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 133 18. The financial implications of these increases in capacity cannot be determined at this stage as they will be influenced by a number of factors, including WLWA’s contractual arrangements for disposal of waste, interest from the private sector, any savings that may be achieved through dealing with waste locally, etc.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

The issue of how a borough manages its waste continues to be a matter of considerable interest for residents and businesses in the borough. How we deal with our waste both in the borough and in west London will have implications for transport, air quality and the overall quality of the environment. Ultimately it will make a major contribution to addressing climate change in the borough.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

This is a response to a consultation. We have discussed this issue with other west London Boroughs and West London Waste Authority officers. Other parties are free to comment directly to the Greater London Authority and the Mayor.

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

A corporate finance officer has reviewed this report and the financial implications within it, and is satisfied that the financial implications properly reflect the direct resource implications on the waste planning function and the wider implications on the future waste processing requirements of the Council and its west London neighbours, albeit that these wider implications can not reasonably be quantified at this stage.

Legal

Legal have no comments on this issue

Relevant Service Groups: Environment and Consumer Protection: The Waste Development Manager has been consulted on this issue and has no comments.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Mayor of London: Borough level waste apportionment: Revised draft minor alteration to the London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London) December 2006.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 134

Borough level waste apportionment REVISED draft minor alteration to the London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London)

December 2006

Greater London Authority December 2006

Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458

ISBN 10: 1 85261 958 9 ISBN 13: 978 1 85261 958 9

This publication is printed on recycled paper

Further copies of this document may be downloaded from the Greater London Authority Website at www.london.gov.uk, or by calling 0207983 4100.

How to give your views

This REVISED draft minor alteration to the London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London) is published on 6 December 2006 for consultation and your comments are invited. It replaces an earlier version published on 22 November and withdrawn on 6 December 2006 due to an error in Table 4A.4.

All comments must be received by 5.00pm Friday 2 March 2007. They should be sent to:

Ken Livingstone Mayor of London (Waste Apportionment Alteration to the London Plan Consultation) Greater London Authority FREEPOST 15799 London SE1 2BR

Or by email to [email protected] , with “Waste Apportionment Alteration” as the title.

Please note, if you send in a response by email it is not necessary for you to also send in a hard copy.

Any representations made in relation to the proposed alterations to the London Plan will be made available for public inspection.

Borough level waste apportionment Draft minor alteration to the London Plan

Background Earlier this year the Government Office for London, the Greater London Authority, London Councils (the Association of London Government, as was) and the Association of London Borough Planning Officers agreed to commission an exercise to apportion tonnages of municipal and commercial/industrial waste at London borough level, as required by PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. This was announced in a joint statement put to the London Plan draft Early Alterations EiP in June, and subsequently endorsed in the EiP Panel Report. A draft borough level apportionment was completed in early September by Jacobs Babtie for the GLA and, as a prospective draft Further Alteration to the London Plan, was subjected to a sustainability appraisal.

The sustainability appraisal found that one of the key inputs to the apportionment model – vacant and potentially available industrial land from a 2003 GLA industrial land availability study – was not sufficiently up to date to provide a reliable basis for the apportionment, particularly in light of large-scale schemes which had come forward since that date, such as the Olympic development in the Lower Lea Valley. The appraisal noted, however, that further work was underway at the GLA on industrial land release benchmarks, and that this would bring together current intelligence on industrial land in London on a more consistent and up to date basis. The appraisal therefore recommended that the apportionment model should be reiterated using new data provided at borough level. The Mayor has accepted this advice, and gave a commitment in paragraph 4.10f of the draft Further Alterations to the London Plan that a table (Table 4A.4) showing the borough level waste apportionment would be published as a minor alteration.

The waste apportionment model has been re-run using as an input 2006 industrial land data derived from detailed map-based assessments of the industrial land baseline for boroughs in London’s North East and South East sub-regions, and desk-top assessments of the industrial land baseline for boroughs in the North, West and South West sub-regions taking into account local employment land reviews where these were available and up to date. Jacobs Babtie’s final report detailing the waste apportionment methodology will be placed on the GLA’s website in early December. Table 4A.4 was published for public consultation on 22 November 2006 but was withdrawn almost immediately to correct an error.

A revised Table 4A.4 is now published for public consultation as a draft minor alteration to the London Plan for a period of twelve weeks, commencing on Wednesday 6 December 2006 and ending on Friday 2 March 2007. The Planning Inspectorate has re-confirmed that this can be accommodated within the overall timetable for the Further Alterations to the London Plan, and that this matter can still be considered at the forthcoming EiP in the summer of 2007.

We welcome your response – please see the section on how to give your views on the previous page. Should you have any queries, please contact • Richard Linton, Principal Planner, 0207 983 4278 [email protected] or • Wayne Hubbard, Principal Policy Officer Waste, 0207 983 4787 [email protected]

Policy context In the London Plan (published 2004), Policy 4A.1 sets out a challenging target of 85% waste self-sufficiency for London by 2020.

The Early Alterations to the London Plan (EiP June, Panel Report September, alterations proposed to be published December 2006) provide self-sufficiency targets for 2010, 2015 and 2020 for the amount of municipal and commercial/industrial waste to be managed in London (Table 4A.2). The Early Alterations also provide policy on the numbers, types and broad locations for new and enhanced recycling and waste treatment capacity which will need to be provided within London as the capital moves to higher recycling rates, and export to landfill decreases in line with increased self- sufficiency.

New Waste Policy 2 in the Early Alterations (borough level apportionment of municipal and commercial waste to be managed) requires boroughs in their development plan documents to identify sufficient land to provide capacity to manage the apportioned tonnages of municipal and commercial/industrial waste, as set out in Table 4A.4.

It is important to note that the amounts of waste apportioned in Table 4A.4 reflect the self-sufficiency targets in Table 4A.2. Existing licensed capacity has been included in the apportionment. For information purposes, Table 4A.4 now also contains a separate column showing existing licensed capacity at borough level. This information is taken from Recycling and Recovery Facilities: Sites Investigation in London1.

New Waste Policy 1 in the Early Alterations safeguards existing capacity, and New waste Policies 2 to 4 enumerate the number, types and broad locations for new and enhanced facilities.

The Early Alterations estimate that Londonwide, an additional 215 ha of land, over and above existing capacity and the reuse of existing transfers stations, should be identified and safeguarded by boroughs in local development documents to manage the amounts of municipal and commercial/waste apportioned in Table 4A.4.

1 Land Use Consultants & SLR Consulting Ltd, Recycling and Recovery Facilities: Sites Investigation in London, London, Technical Report to the Greater London Authority, July 2005. Available at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/lon_plan_changes/index.jsp

Borough level waste apportionment REVISED draft minor alteration to the London Plan

Table 4A.4 – municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial/industrial waste (C/I) to be managed in London, apportioned to London boroughs (thousand tonnes per annum) 2010 2015 2020 MSW C/I total MSW C/I total MSW C/I total London’s municipal solid waste and commercial industrial waste to be apportioned current existing 2421 5960 8381 3933 7135 11068 4550 8436 12987 licensed municipal solid waste and commercial industrial waste requiring management capacity Barking & Dag 143 351 494 233 422 655 269 500 769 120 Barnet 64 158 222 105 190 294 121 225 346 5 Bexley 129 319 448 211 383 594 244 453 698 7 Brent 82 203 285 134 243 378 155 288 444 118 Bromley 71 174 244 115 208 323 133 247 380 3 Camden 54 134 189 89 161 250 103 191 293 0 City 29 71 100 36 64 100 35 65 100 - Croydon 73 180 253 119 216 336 138 256 394 8 Ealing 104 256 360 170 308 477 197 365 561 5 Enfield 88 216 304 143 260 403 166 307 473 911 Greenwich 104 255 359 169 307 476 196 363 559 51 Hackney 60 147 207 97 177 274 113 209 322 204 Hamm & Ful 71 175 246 116 210 326 134 249 383 2 Haringey 54 134 188 88 160 249 102 190 292 23 Harrow 52 128 180 85 154 239 98 182 281 - Havering 99 243 341 161 291 452 186 345 531 435 Hillingdon 86 213 299 141 256 397 163 303 466 109 Hounslow 85 209 293 138 250 388 160 296 456 50 Islington 59 144 203 95 173 269 111 205 316 0 Kens & Chel 57 141 199 94 170 263 108 201 309 35 Kingston 42 103 144 68 123 191 79 146 224 - Lambeth 64 158 222 104 189 293 121 224 345 11 Lewisham 59 146 206 97 176 273 112 208 320 420 Merton 70 171 241 113 205 319 131 243 374 65 Newham 124 305 429 202 366 568 234 434 668 10 Redbridge 45 110 155 73 133 206 85 157 242 8 Richmond 51 127 178 84 152 236 97 180 277 9 Southwark 71 174 244 115 209 324 133 247 380 4 Sutton 57 141 198 93 169 262 108 200 308 178 Tower Hams 89 218 307 144 262 407 167 310 478 0 Waltham For 58 143 201 95 172 267 110 204 314 229 Wandsworth 87 214 301 142 257 398 164 304 468 - Westminster 40 99 139 65 119 184 76 141 216 -

total existing licensed capacity 3020

Appendix 2

Ken Livingstone Mayor of London Greater London Authority FREEPOST 15799 London SE1 2BR

9th February 2007

Dear Mr Livingstone,

Draft Borough Level Waste Apportionment: Draft Minor Alteration to the London Plan

Thank you for inviting comments on the above draft minor alterations to the London Plan. A report on the draft minor alterations in respect of waste was considered by Hillingdon’s Cabinet on the 8th February 2007. This letter contains the comments approved by Cabinet as the council’s formal response.

Hillingdon welcomes the principal behind waste apportionment and supports the outcome proposed in the waste apportionment model. As the borough is currently participating in the preparation of a joint Waste Development Plan Document for west London along with other west London Boroughs, this proposed figure gives us a great level of certainty in planning for waste.

We have focused our comments at the strategic level, rather than on the detail. Our main concerns are about the robustness of the model. It is acknowledged that the exercise was extensive in its calculations of the proposed borough level waste apportionment. Nevertheless, there are two factors that are of concern to us.

Firstly, that the information was manipulated in a tabletop exercise. We have reservations about applying a theoretical exercise to a ‘real world’ setting and then boroughs and practitioners being held accountable to meet these theoretical targets. There has been little or no ‘ground truthing’ of the information or analysis of how the proposals would work in reality. Instead the model appears to be relying on GIS and desktop studies. Some information appears incomplete or only partially used (for example –rail).To give this exercise value to the planning for waste processes ( through Local Development Frameworks and Waste strategies), it is essential that the inputs undergo some form of

Planning and Community Services T.01895 250622 F.01895 277042 [email protected] www.hillingdon.gov.uk London Borough of Hillingdon, Location, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW

validation. This is necessary to avoid the boroughs being criticised for not having a strong and defensible evidence base for their DPDs and LDFs.

Secondly, the model as proposed seems overly complex. While this provides the possibility for finer detail and planning, it also runs the risk of increasing errors in a model that is entirely theoretical. We would recommend that the model is re-examined and simplified to make it more robust, transparent and defendable.

Finally, Hillingdon is a participating borough in within the West London Waste Planning Boroughs. As a group we are currently producing a West London Joint Waste DPD. Hillingdon supports the West London which are as follows:- to be inserted following the west London meeting on 7th February 2007.

In summary, Hillingdon’s comments have focused on what we see as strategic issues for the proposed Borough Level Waste Allocation rather than specific detail. As a borough we look forward to discussing this issue with you further. If you have any questions regarding our submission, or would like any further detail, please contact Eden Hannam on 01895 277521 or by email at [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Jean Palmer Corporate Director of Planning and Community services. London Borough of Hillingdon.

PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT (PPS3): HOUSING ITEM 8

Cabinet Member Councillor Keith Burrows

Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation

Report Author Janet Rangeley/ Shanaz Zaman, Policy and Environmental Planning Team

Papers with report None

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report This report informs Cabinet of the implications of the new Planning Policy Statement (PPS3) on Housing and seeks approval to take forward this new guidance into the borough’s emerging Local Development Framework and other relevant Council strategies

Contribution to our • The Council’s emerging Local Development Framework plans and strategies • Community Strategy • Housing Strategy

Financial Cost There are financial implications of certain aspects of the guidance but they cannot be be quantified at present. The report identifies those aspects which have specific resource implications and further work will be done to quantify these at the appropriate time.

Relevant Policy Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy Overview Overview Committee Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet notes the implications for Hillingdon of the new guidance in Planning Policy Statement 3 on Housing and instructs officers to take this guidance into account in the preparation of the emerging Local Development Framework and other relevant Council strategies.

INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) on Housing takes account of and includes the recommendations of the Barker Review, which is the subject of another report on this Cabinet agenda. Given its direct relevance to the emerging Local Development Framework (LDF) and other housing issues, officers consider it appropriate to take it into account.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 142

Alternative options considered

Not to advise Cabinet of the implications for Hillingdon of the new guidance and not to take it into account in the emerging LDF : given that the regulations governing the preparation of LDFs require local authorities to be in conformity with national and regional planning guidance, then it is essential that Cabinet are fully aware of the implications of the guidance and its relevance to the LDF.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

The Residents and Environmental Services Policy Overview Committee is meeting on 5th February. Any comments will be reported direct to Cabinet.

Supporting Information

1. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 “Housing”, published in November 2006, has been developed in response to the recommendations of the Barker Review of Housing Supply, (March 2004). It replaces previous policy and guidance, as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3) and Circular 6/98 “Affordable Housing”. The principal aim of the new PPS3 is to underpin the Government’s response to the Barker Review and introduce a step-change in housing delivery, through a new, more responsive approach to land supply at the local level. PPS 3 reflects the Government’s commitment to improving the affordability and supply of housing in all communities. PPS3 will become a material consideration when making planning decisions on planning applications from 1 April 2007, unless circumstances suggest it should be used before then (paragraph 8).

2. There are a number of issues, which will have implications for Hillingdon as detailed below.

A. Strategic Housing Policy Objectives

The Government’s key housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. To achieve this the government is seeking to “improve affordability across the housing market by increasing the supply of housing” (Para. 9). This is a new criterion point in response to the Barker Review of Housing Supply.

As a result of this publication, Local Planning Authorities will need to assess and demonstrate the extent to which plans already fulfil the requirement set out in this statement to identify and maintain a rolling 5-year supply of deliverable land for housing, particularly in connection with making planning decisions (paragraphs 68-74)

Implications for Hillingdon

As part of the Local Development Framework the borough’s housing trajectory has been updated and consequently this element of PPS3 does not raise any implications.

B: Planning for Housing Policy Objectives

Within the context of planning for housing, a number of specific outcomes that the planning system should deliver is the need to provide “sufficient quantity of housing taking into account

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 143 need and demand and seeking to improve choice” [paragraph 10, criteria (i)]. However unlike PPG3 (the previous national planning policy guidance on housing), this paragraph no longer gives priority to re-using previously developed land in urban areas in preference to green field land. Paragraph 11 sets out the principles and concepts designed to achieve housing outcomes:

• Sustainable development: The importance of Sustainability Appraisals (with the emphasis on climate change and flood risk) in ensuring housing policies deliver sustainable development; • Visionary and strategic approach: Local planning Authorities to take a spatial overview in drawing up strategies for their areas and a more joined –up approach to planning, housing and wider strategies including economic and community strategies in accordance with the recent Local Government White Paper; • Market Responsiveness: LPA’s should take into account market information when developing housing policies, in particular housing market areas; • Evidence-based policy approach: Local Development Documents must be informed by a robust, shared evidence base, in particular housing need and demand through Strategic Housing Market Assessments and land availability through Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment; • Outcome and delivery focus: The principles of the “plan, monitor and manage” approach to housing delivery.

Implications for Hillingdon

PPS3 sets out a more generalist approach to the sequential approach to site release and allocation (paragraph 10) than the former PPG3 and therefore does not provide the same safeguards for green field sites in the borough. However the commitment to sustainable development principles (paragraph 11) is welcomed, as it reinforces the need for a spatial approach to planning for housing and emphasises the focus on implementation and a robust evidence base as part of the new planning system.

C: Achieving High Quality Housing

The importance of design in achieving high quality housing and the encouragement of the monitoring of high quality housing and consistently good design standards (paragraphs 12- 19) using the borough’s Annual Monitoring Report.

Implications for Hillingdon

The prominence given to design within PPS3 is welcomed. The Design Companion Guide 2001 remains valid as does the DCLG published ‘Preparing Design Codes – A Practice Manual’ in November 2006 which demonstrates how Design Codes can help deliver good quality places and support the implementation of PPS3 by complementing good practice guidance. This part of PPS3 also gives strong support to Hillingdon’s Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS – adopted May 2006).

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 144 D: Achieving a Mix of Housing

(i) Gypsies and Travellers

In planning for a mix of household types, the government has identified the need to accommodate gypsies and travellers (paragraph 21). There is also a requirement for Local Planning Authorities (paragraph 22), based on the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other local evidence, to set out in Local Development Documents ( these comprise the Local Development Framework):-

• The likely overall proportions of households that require market or affordable housing; e.g., x% market housing and y% affordable housing; • The likely profile of household types requiring market housing e.g., multi-person, including families and children (x%), single persons (y%) and couples (z%); • The size and type of affordable housing required.

(ii) Market Housing

The Government’s key objective to provide high quality market housing to address shortfalls in the supply of market housing and encouraging the managed replacement of housing, where appropriate, is set out in paragraph 25. When planning for the full range of market housing, there is a need to deliver low-cost market housing as part of the housing mix.

Implications for Hillingdon

These policies do not raise any implications for Hillingdon. PPS3 should be read in conjunction with accompanying guidance ‘Delivering Affordable Housing’ (2006), which concentrates on the delivery of additional and higher quality affordable housing through a variety of delivery mechanisms. Hillingdon’s ‘Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (May 2006) in general reflects this approach.

E: Making Effective Use of Existing Housing Stock

Local Planning Authorities should develop positive policies to identify and bring into residential use empty housing and buildings in line with local housing and empty homes strategies and, where appropriate, make use of delivery tools such as compulsory purchase orders (CPO’s) ( paragraph 31).

Implications for Hillingdon This paragraph reinforces the range of delivery tools already available to planning and housing departments, to speed up the delivery of housing units and bring back into use empty properties.

F: Assessing an appropriate level of housing

Paragraphs 32-35 refer to undertaking a strategic evidence-based approach to the level of housing provision to be determined. Of particular significance is the need to undertake a Sustainability Appraisal of the environmental, social and economic implications, including costs, benefits and risks of the development.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 145 Implications for Hillingdon

This has significant implications for council resources, both for training of planning staff to assess sustainability appraisals and costs associated with undertaking such assessments. Further work will need to be undertaken to assess the scale of the resource implications and to establish whether or not they can be minimised in any way.

G: Providing housing in suitable locations

Paragraph 38 reiterates the need for a spatial strategy for the planned location of new housing, identifying broad locations and specific sites, which contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

Implications for Hillingdon

There are none for Hillingdon as it is developing its LDF which is a spatial strategy that includes the planned location of new housing, identifying broad locations and specific sites.

H: Effective use of land

The key planning objective for local authorities is to continue to make effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed and the national annual brown field target of 60 per cent is retained (paragraphs 40 and 41) However, local authorities are required to include a previously-developed land target and trajectory and strategies for bringing land back into use (paragraph 43), with paragraph 44 reiterating PPG3 paragraph 42A “reallocation of land in other uses to housing”.

Implications for Hillingdon

The emphasis on making effective use of land has not changed and Hillingdon continues to achieve 100% of new development on brownfield land ( BVPI 106). However, paragraph 43 would mean additional pressure on council resources in funding appropriate studies such as employment land reviews to defend available industrial and business land to meet Hillingdon’s needs over the plan period.

I: Efficient use of land

Paragraph 47 reiterates the government’s density directive of 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) net as a minimum indicative guide to policy development and paragraph 51 states local authorities should, in partnership with stakeholders, develop residential parking policies for their areas, taking account of expected levels of car ownership, the importance of good design and the need to use land efficiently.

Implications for Hillingdon

Paragraph 51 introduces the possibility of setting local car parking standards if this can be backed by robust evidence. Hillingdon already has an interim parking standard for housing which is more generous than those in PPG3, to reflect local circumstances. PPS3 introduces flexibility which is greatly welcomed and should assist Hillingdon in being able to pursue more local parking standards rather than being required to conform with national ( PPG13 Transport) and regional guidance (the London Plan).

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 146

J: Delivering a flexible supply of land

Paragraph 54 re-emphasises the need for a continuous 5 year supply of deliverable land and identifies what is considered to be deliverable, sites should at the point of adoption of relevant LDD:

• Be Available –the site is available now • Be Suitable- the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities; • Be Achievable- there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within 5 years.

Paragraph 55 goes further and suggests local authorities should also identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and where possible for years 11-15.

Implications for Hillingdon

This requirement does not raise implications for Hillingdon in that we already have a housing trajectory that runs from 1997 up to 2027. However there is still a need for council resources to undertake the work required to keep the information up to date.

K: Managing the release of land

Paragraph 61 sets out the arrangements for managing the release of land, having regard to market conditions.

Implications for Hillingdon

It is imperative that the local authorities produce strong evidence and a very thorough assessment of the implications of land release via the Sustainability Appraisal process. This matter is being addressed as part of the preparation of the borough Local Development Framework.

L: Managing Delivery

Paragraph 62 reflects the principles of the “Plan, Monitor and Manage” approach and requires Local Development Documents to set out a housing implementation strategy that describes the approach to managing delivery of the housing and the previously-developed land targets and trajectories. Local Planning authorities may also consider invoking development control policies in relation to development on particular categories of land e.g., rejecting applications on green field sites until evidence demonstrates that the underperformance against previously-developed land trajectories has been addressed and actual performance is within acceptable target ranges (paragraph 67).

Implications for Hillingdon

Paragraph 67 is welcomed as it goes some way to deterring developers not to ‘cherry pick ‘ green field sites before brownfield sites and gives Hillingdon the scope to monitor land releases for housing in accordance with principles of sustainable development and meeting our local BVPI 106 target. However undertaking additional studies such as a housing implementation strategy has implications for council resources.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 147

M: Definition of previously-developed land

Appendix B to PPS3 changes the definition of previously developed land to: “Previously developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure”

The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes: • Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings • Land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures • Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which although may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed • Land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably considered as part of the natural surroundings).

There is no presumption that land that is previously developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed.

Implications for Hillingdon

Although there is not a significant change in the definition, the last bullitt point of M above does raise serious concerns for the development of back gardens and the loss of opportunities to promote biodiversity.

Financial Implications

Items F, H, J & L have resource implications. However, these cannot be quantified at present. Further work will be done at the appropriate time to quantify these and to establish whether these can be contained within existing budgets. If necessary, a further report will be prepared at that time.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

3. The effect of this guidance will be to introduce a step-change in housing delivery, through a new, more responsive approach to land supply at the local level. This should in theory reduce housing waiting times for borough residents, particularly low- income families.

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

Officers will be able to take account of this guidance in formulating the Local Development Framework and other relevant council strategies and in determining planning applications.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

PPS3 has gone through numerous reiterations, which the Council has responded to including

• The New Density Direction

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 148 • Amendments to PPG3, May 2000 • New paragraph 42A –the allocation of employment and other land to housing.

This guidance brings together the above into one policy statement.

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

Corporate Finance has reviewed the report and can confirm that there are no further financial implications arising directly from the report beyond those identified in the Financial Implication section.

Legal

Legal have reviewed the report and have no comments to make.

Relevant Service GROUPS

Housing Services have previously contributed to the various responses to consultation highlighted in paragraph 3 above.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Planning Policy Statement (PPS3), November 2006, DCLG.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 149 BISHOP RAMSEY SCHOOL, RUISLIP ITEM 9

Cabinet Member Councillor Jonathan Bianco and Councillor David Simmonds

Cabinet Portfolio Finance and Business Services and Education and Children’s Services

Report Author Pat Holmes, Head of Estates & Valuations

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report Bishop Ramsey Church of England School, Ruislip (the “School”) are preparing to carry out a scheme of redevelopment at their upper school site in Warrender Way. The purpose of this project is to bring all of the school’s accommodation onto a single site. The project is being funded through the Government’s Targeted Capital Initiative and the submission of this bid was previously supported by Cabinet. A series of new buildings will be constructed and changes made to the ground layout to accommodate the lower school from Eastcote Road to amalgamate the whole school onto one site, which will necessitate building on part of the land that is used as playing fields and in the ownership of the Council, as well as formalising the move of their main entrance / access to Hume Way. The School has received planning approval for the development scheme from Planning Committee and has applied to the Council to agree terms for various land matters which require Cabinet approval so that they can proceed with the development scheme.

Contribution to our A borough of learning and culture. plans and strategies A safe borough. A borough where children and young people are healthy, safe and supported.

Financial Cost There are no direct financial implications arising from this report.

Relevant Policy Corporate Services and Partnerships Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected Eastcote & East Ruislip

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Cabinet authorises the transfer of freehold land identified as hatched and cross hatched on plan RUI 632 and dated 11.01.2007 to Bishop Ramsey Church of England School.

PART 2 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 150 2. The Council grants a 99 year lease to Bishop Ramsey School of the land shown checked on plan for the purpose of use as a multi use games court on a dual use basis with the Council.

3. The Council grants a right of way with vehicles and pedestrian rights over land at Highgrove Pool car park to Bishop Ramsey School for a period of 99 years.

4. Terms for the transfer and leases are to be agreed under the Head of Corporate Property Services delegated authority and heads of terms are outlined in the report.

INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

The new School development proposals supersede or vary a previous agreement in 1993 when a previous development took place, and the recommendations seek to consolidate the previous developments and provide a framework for the use of land to meet the new development proposals. The School need to have all necessary legal agreements in place to obtain the necessary confirmation of funding.

Cabinet approval is necessary with regard to disposal of a freehold interest in land as well as the grant of 99 year leases. All other terms are to be dealt with under the delegation to the Head of Corporate Property Services.

Alternative options considered

1. To agree to the proposed terms as set out in the report.

2. Not to agree to the terms, which will prevent the School from exercising their development proposals. However, this would not be consistent with Cabinet’s earlier support for the project, would result in their loss of capital funding, and would mean that the School would continue with the difficulties of operating on a split-site basis.

3. To vary the terms proposed by officers and instruct such variations to be agreed.

Supporting Information

1. Bishop Ramsey School have drawn up redevelopment proposals to bring the Lower School site in Eastcote Road on to the Upper School site in Warrender Way. This will necessitate the construction of a number of new buildings, and re-arrangement of existing buildings and the grounds. The Lower School site will then be sold and have received planning consent for residential development. The Council does not have the benefit of any restrictive covenants which affect this site. The new school building project is to be funded from DfES grant and governors’ contributions.

2. The Upper School site is owned by the London Diocesan Board, however the School’s playing fields are still owned, freehold, by the Council and are held by the School for use as playing fields, and this restrictive covenant is registered at the Land Registry. The School are seeking to use part of the playing field for construction of a new building and so need a transfer of the land required and a formal release of covenant for the area of land involved.

PART 2 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 151 It is intended to retain the remainder of the playing field, which will be used by the School, for use as playing fields and the covenant will remain on this land.

3. In 1993 the School carried out a small development which included new buildings and changes to the layout of the grounds. This necessitated utilising part of the playing fields for a new building and a land exchange. The Property Sub Committee, at its meeting on 30th March 1993, resolved that negotiations take place for “land exchange, joint access from Hume Way and other rights with Bishop Ramsey C/E School”. Terms were agreed with the School, and the School implemented the development after obtaining planning consent but failed to complete the necessary legal documentation. The latest application for Council consent as landowner has revealed that some of the outstanding issues can now be looked at again along with new terms and these have been negotiated and agreed. Primarily the main property issues are :-

• Freehold land transfer to the School of part of the playing fields shown hatched and cross hatched on plan RUI 632 and dated 11.01.2007, which in effect releases the covenant, to allow the area of land to be used for new buildings.

• Grant of a lease to the School for 99 years to permit the use of the Council’s former tennis courts in Warrender Park, shown marked checked on plan, as a multi use games court with dual user rights.

• Grant of pedestrian and vehicular rights of way from the end of Hume Way across Highgrove Pool land, shown by green and blue colour respectively on plan RUI 632 and dated 12.01.2007, together with car parking drop-off area, shown coloured yellow on plan, for parents to drop off and pick up pupils.

4. Two plans RUI 632 dated 11th and 12th January 2007 show by various designations the above property matters which are explained in more detail below.

5. Land transfer. In 1993 the Property Sub Committee authorised a land deal with the School and this was an exchange of land, the Council would receive a piece of freehold land along the School’s eastern boundary to be used for open space purposes and the School would acquire the land shown cross hatched on the plan to enable a new building to be erected on this playing field area. This would release the covenant on this piece of land controlling use other than as a playing field. The exchange was never formally and legally completed although the School entered onto the land shown cross-hatched and erected new buildings and the area to be received by the Council was not handed over. The School also took control of the Warrender Park tennis courts, shown checked on plan RUI 632 and dated 11.01.2007, and has used them exclusively as a hard play area since then.

The School propose to build more new buildings on the playing fields together with refurbishment of the hard play area. The remainder of the playing field will continue to be used as a sports playing field.

The original 1993 agreement for a land exchange cannot now be sustained because the Parks and Open Spaces Team would require a dowry or contribution to annual maintenance to take on additional open space which the School are not prepared to provide and so were removed from their overall scheme. The School’s current proposals to develop further onto the playing field, shown hatched on the plan, is taken as an additional transfer of freehold land to the 1993 agreement and the Council has a legal duty to transfer

PART 2 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 152 land to Voluntary Aided schools at nil value. The statutory power for transfer at nil value is contained in the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998, Schedule 3 Part II.

6. The former Warrender Park tennis courts, which were disused in 1993, were taken over by the School. They now propose to bring this area into use as a multi use games court area including three playcourts eg for tennis. In order to obtain funding the School need to have a lease and it is proposed to grant a 99 year lease in this regard to include shared use with the Council. This will rectify the current position whereby the School are using the courts without a legal agreement in place. It had been agreed that the School would have a 99 year lease for these courts and this will now carry forward but would now be on a “dual use” basis for the Council and the public to use outside school hours together with shared maintenance contributions.

7. Access to the School. Previously the main access was from Warrender Way although when the 1993 development took place a new access was opened joining into the Highgrove Swimming Pool car park and out to Hume Way. Although provisionally agreed this was not documented but the School claim that it has since become the main entrance and the latest proposal seeks to put this on a proper footing. A formal right of way now will be granted over Council land at the Pool shown by green colour on plan RUI 632 and dated 12.01.2007 to join up with the adopted highway in Hume Way. The agreement in 1993 had a slightly different route but the road layout has changed, including the disposal of the former Pool overflow car park to which the School had agreed rights for overspill car parking, and pedestrian rights to the public footpath leading to Warrender Way.

In order to provide safety for both the users of the Swimming Pool car park and pupils arriving or leaving school it has been agreed that a new roundabout be created to assist traffic flow together with a “drop-off” area with car spaces marked to allow parents to set down or pick up their children, these spaces are show coloured yellow on plan. To allow access to the School, pupils will cross a pedestrian area and join up with the footpath which links the Pool with Warrender Way to access a new pedestrian gate which the School proposes to open adjacent to the back of the Pool building. These pedestrian rights are shown blue on plan.

There will now be an equal share of the maintenance costs of the access under the 99 year lease agreement. The School, as part of its development costs, will be required to fund all the new access construction, parking bays and marking out of the tarmac for access arrangements.

The school bus service which operated at this school ceased some time ago and Transport for London (TfL) have been examining setting up a new service, route 696, and evaluation has been carried out. TfL have advised that the new roundabout would be acceptable in principle and a bus bay for dropping off created but there are some further discussions required as to the junction of Hume Way with Eastcote Road, which were brought up by the Planning Committee, and are being worked through by Highway Engineers to provide an acceptable solution. Highway works are a matter for planning and possible Section 278 Agreement which the School may be asked to fund to 100%, although TfL may contribute some funding, which will be part of their overall scheme proposals.

8. The following heads of terms have been agreed with the London Diocesan Board who act for the School. Terms are subject to contract and Cabinet approval in principle, final detail

PART 2 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 153 will be under the Head of Corporate Property Services’ and Legal Services delegated authority for documentation.

8.1 The Council transfers the freehold land shown hatched and cross hatched on plan RUI 632 dated 11.01.2007 at nil value and the restrictive covenant on this land be removed to enable the land to be used for school buildings.

8.2 Grant a 99 year lease of the area shown checked on plan for use as a multi use games court with dual use by the Council and the public, subject to :

a) advertisement, if necessary, in the local paper for loss of public open space under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 and receipt of objections which are sustained. b) Nets and post belonging to the School. c) Fencing, gates and surfacing being the responsibility of the School to maintain and repair on an equal share basis. d) The School to provide security gates in the fence for access to the School and from the Park. e) Each party to carry third party insurance. f) The School and the Council to enter into an agreement to promote the use of the courts for sporting activities including out of school hours use.

8.3 Grant a 99 year lease for a right of way with vehicles over the land coloured green on plan RUI 632 dated 12.01.2007 together with rights to use the parking spaces coloured yellow on plan and pedestrian rights over land coloured blue, subject to :

a) The School to bear all costs of construction of a new roundabout, parking bays, highway works and pedestrian areas on Council land, including all consents and costs arising, together with requirements under the planning consent taking into account external funding such a TfL. b) No obstruction by vehicles of areas green and blue. c) Areas to be “private” until and if ever they are adopted as highway maintainable at public expense. d) Any disputes over the use will be settled by the Council whose decision is final and binding on the School. e) The Council reserves the right to amend or reposition the access road at any time upon reasonable notice. f) Use by School staff, parents, pupils and anyone authorised by the School. g) The School to contribute 50% of the maintenance costs as and when they arise of the areas coloured green, blue and yellow, the Council to carry out the works and recharge the School. h) The School to have third party insurance.

8.4 The School to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in the matter.

Financial Implications

Given that the legal advice is that the land be transferred at a nil consideration, there are no financial implications of the recommendations.

PART 2 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 154 EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

The School need to have all necessary legal agreements in place to obtain the necessary confirmation of funding and to proceed with their development proposals. Failure to achieve these agreements will delay their project.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

The matter has been the subject of a consultation exercise between the following departmental teams:

(1) Green Spaces Team

(2) Education and Children’s Services

(3) Environment and Consumer Services

(4) Legal Services

(5) Planning and Community Services

(6) Corporate Property Services

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

Corporate Finance has reviewed this report and there are no direct financial implications arising from this report. There may be some indirect ongoing costs for highways and maintenance costs which will have to be met from existing budgets.

Legal

1. Members should note that under the provisions of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 Local Education Authorities (LEA's) have a duty to maintain Voluntary Aided Schools. Maintenance includes the transfer of land to be used for providing additional school facilities. There is also a provision in the legislation that the Governors of the School are not required to incur capital expenditure when acquiring land for providing additional facilities.

2. In the present case there are three land transactions taking place. The first is the transfer of a piece of land currently used by the School for playing fields. The proposal is to transfer a freehold interest in the land in question to the School. The result of this will be that no restriction will exist in respect of the uses to which the land can be put and thus the school will be free to build on the land subject to the grant of Planning Permission. Given that the Council owns the freehold interest in the land in question it is open to the Council to agree to transfer the land to the School. Due to the legal requirement that the LEA maintain Voluntary Aided Schools and part of that maintenance duty is to avoid capital expenditure on the acquisition of land the Council can transfer the land for a nil

PART 2 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 155 consideration. The land in question forms part of land held by the Council for education purposes and any disposal of all or part of the land can only be for education purposes. It should be noted that the land does not form part of Warrender Park and is not subject to restrictions on use as open space.

3. The second transaction is the grant to the School of a 99 year lease to use existing tennis courts in Warrender Park as a hard play area. As highlighted in the body of the report these tennis courts have been used by the School since 1993. The result of the proposed exercise will be to provide new enhanced facilities. It has been agreed that whilst the School will be granted a lease, there will be a provision in the lease that will allow the Council to use the facility. Care has to be taken in the drafting of this provision as the Council has experienced problems in the past when such dual use arrangements have been entered into such as agreeing the actual times when the facility can be used by the Council. Problems which have arisen in the past included the need for schools to have use in term time and during holidays. There is sometimes an assumption that the school will not use the facility at weekends and then it transpires that activities are organised at weekends which necessitate use. A further issue to consider will be whether there will be a need to contribute to maintenance. Clearly there will be an ongoing need to maintain the facility. It should be clear from any lease as to how any contributions are to be calculated. A final issue which is of great importance when dealing with issues concerning schools is the question of site security. Any joint use of a school facility always requires the issue of site security to be considered and addressed. In the present case the use by the Council should occur at times when the School is not occupied. If an alternative means of access is provided to the facility which is not via the School it will be important to ensure that this cannot be used to gain access to the School when it is in use.

4. The final transaction is to grant the School a right of access on foot and by vehicles across the Highgrove Swimming Pool. Care should be taken in drafting the terms of this to ensure that it is restricted to use purely for the School’s purpose and that it cannot be passed on to other persons for their use. This will prevent anyone else developing an adjoining site and securing access to it via the route granted to the School.

5. Clearly legal documentation will be required to implement these proposals and such documentation will be drafted by staff in the Borough Solicitor's Department.

Corporate Property Services

The Head of Corporate Property Services comments are contained within the body of this report.

Education and Children’s Services

1. Cabinet endorsed the submission of the Targeted Capital Bid for the School in May 2005 and the land arrangements that are proposed are a consequence of the School's success in securing significant additional funds to bring the school onto one campus.

2. Although following the 1993 agreement the Council did not make use of the hard play courts this latest proposal now gives the opportunity to bring into use by the public a local facility and joint use of new additional parking for the benefit of the users of Highgrove Pool. Maintenance costs will be shared equally for the access road and car spaces.

PART 2 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 156 3. In March 2005 Cabinet considered proposals for bids to be submitted under the Government’s Targeted Capital Initiative. One of the schemes proposed was the scheme at Bishop Ramsey. Cabinet agreed the approach to the identification of priority schemes to be included in the bid. The final decision on the building projects to be included in the bid was made by way of Cabinet Member decision. The Cabinet Member decision was to include the Bishop Ramsey project in the submission. The successful outcome of the bid was reported to Cabinet In December 2005.

Environment and Consumer Protection

Green Spaces Team

1. The proposal to reinstate an element of public access to the former public tennis courts in Warrender Park is welcomed and follows the principle of shared use of community sporting facilities laid out in the borough’s Green Spaces Strategy, and the courts should be made available for public use as part of the park facilities outside school hours. The Green Spaces Team will be involved with Corporate Property Services and Legal Services in drawing up to the detailed terms of the proposed lease agreement to ensure it is workable and allows the public use of the public open space facility. It is recommended that a shorter term for the lease than 99 years be applied, or, a break clause to provide for a return to a fully public facility if circumstances at the school change significantly.

As noted in the Planning and Community Services section below, the proposed development is close to the Highgrove Nature Reserve, which is a public open space managed by the Council’s Green Spaces Team with input from local people and officers wish to ensure that the development does not adversely impact on this Reserve. This can be ensured through the measures proposed by Planning and Community Services through the grant of planning permission.

Planning and Community Services

1. In line with the Council’s policy to increase participation levels in sport, the Leisure Service support the benefit of an agreement with the School to utilise the multi use games area for sports activities during school holidays and out of schools hours.

2. A planning application (ref. 19731/APP/2006/2811) was received on 2nd June 2006 for the amalgamation of the upper and lower school sites to create one school campus, redevelopment of the upper school site including demolition and refurbishment of existing buildings, erection of new school buildings, new parking areas, access provision and playground/sports facilities. The application was approved at a Special meeting of the Council’s North Planning Committee on the 18th December 2006. The approval being subject to the applicant entering into agreement with the Council under Section 278 of the Town Country Planning Act to secure off-site highway works (including the construction of a drop off point in Hume Way). An agreement has not yet been signed between the Council and the applicant. It should be noted that before the planning application was considered by the Committee officers had received a plan indicating an appropriate drop-off point in principle; hence the signing of the Section 278 agreement should not raise any issues that require reporting back to Committee. Nonetheless it is recommended that the recommendation to Cabinet should be subject to the grant of planning permission following completion of the Section 278 Agreement.

PART 2 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 157 The report approved by Committee subject to the above mentioned S.278 Agreement included various planning conditions to address issues of acknowledged importance. These included restrictions to the vehicular access of Warrender Way and a condition requiring the implementation of an ecological management plan addressing ecology issues raised by the Green Spaces Team.

3. An outline planning application (ref. 19731/APP/2006/1442) was received on 16th May 2006 for the redevelopment of the lower school site to provide 35 residential units. The application was approved at a Special meeting of the Council’s North Planning Committee on the 18th December 2006 subject to a Section 106 Agreement. The Section 106 Agreement contained various heads of terms. The heads of terms including the provision of 35% affordable housing and that the applicant is to agree that ”the planning permission hereby granted for the redevelopment of the lower school site is not implemented until the redevelopment of the Upper School site has been completed”.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Property Sub Committee 30th March 1993. Cabinet Member decision on Targeted Capital bid submission 3rd June 2005 Report to Cabinet on School Property issues March 2005 Report to Cabinet – Successful Targeted Capital bids – December 2005

PART 2 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 158

BUDGET – MONTH 9 2006/7 REVENUE & CAPITAL ITEM 10 MONITORING

Cabinet Member Councillor Jonathan Bianco

Cabinet Portfolio Finance and Business Services

Report Author Paul Whaymand, Head of Accounting

Papers with report Appendix A attached

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report The report sets out the council’s overall 2006/7 revenue and capital position, as forecast at the end of Month 9 (December). The revenue position is forecast as being £651k less net expenditure than budgeted, a £81k improvement on the month 8 position. Total forecast capital expenditure for the year is estimated to be £85.22m representing 81% of the budget.

Contribution to our Achieving value for money is an important element of the plans and strategies Council Plan for 2006/7

Financial Cost N/a

Relevant Policy Corporate Services & Partnerships Policy Overview Overview Committee Committee

Ward(s) affected N/a

RECOMMENDATIONS

A) Revenue

Cabinet notes the forecast budget position as at Month 9 and the progress to date on the implementation of the recovery plan.

Cabinet agree to transfer the following sums from Contingency: • £80k to pump prime the new HIP work streams outlined in the report • £57k to fund unbudgeted costs in Democratic Services

Cabinet agree the 2 virements within the HRA in excess of £100k set out in paragraph 89 of the report.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 161 B) Capital

Cabinet note the forecast capital budget position as at month 9 for 2006/07 to 2008/09

INFORMATION

Reasons for Recommendations

1 The reason for the revenue monitoring recommendation is to ensure the Council achieves its budgetary objectives. The report informs Cabinet of the latest forecast revenue position for the current year 2006/7.

Alternative options considered

2 There are no other options proposed for consideration.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee

3 There are no comments at this stage

Supporting Information

A) Revenue

4 The report on revenue monitoring as at Month 9 (December) shows that forecast net expenditure for the year 2006/7 is £651k less than the budget, an improvement of £81k on the Month 8 forecast.

5 The forecast includes the current year impact of the savings proposals agreed. These in year savings proposals totalling £11,706k are being used to fund DfES asylum funding shortfall and other savings targets included in the 2006/7 budget and rebuild balances. Any variances from the recovery savings total of £11,706k are shown in the respective Group positions.

6 There is an estimated pressure of £400k arising from the partial non-achievement of the £650k e-auction saving in the recovery saving plan. The low level of staffing in the Procurement Unit this year has meant that the savings achieved are likely to be lower than the ambitious target of £650k included in the recovery plan. The Unit have prioritised the achievement of the £400k procurement target included in the original budget for 2006/7 and on other initiatives that contribute to existing MTFF savings targets or specific recovery savings initiatives such as the £500k on home to school transport. There has been a saving of £144k in relation to graffiti removal. However, this price saving has effectively been reinvested in the service in the current financial year so will not produce a cashable saving. The total cashable additional recovery saving in 2006/7 is likely to be closer to £250k after taking account of funding the growth on graffiti.

7 Education & Children’s Services is forecasting an underspend on normal activities (excluding asylum funding) of £639k, an improvement of £203k on month 8. £189k

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 162 of this improvement is in relation to reduced pressures in Children and Families largely due to a reduction in projected placement costs. Once the slippage on savings reported above is taken into account the Group has a net overspend of £599k, an improvement of £203k on the month 8 forecast.

8 Adult Social Care, Health & Housing are projecting an overspend of £365k on normal activities, an improvement of £390k on the Month 8 forecast. £300k of this improvement is within Housing due to a continued improvement in the Homelessness projections. Once the slippage on recovery savings is taken into account the Group has a net overspend of £765k, a £390k improvement on the month 8 forecast.

9 Environment and Consumer Protection are projecting an underspend of £167k, an £8k improvement on the Month 8 forecast. The net underspend arises from a number of factors primarily underspends on trade waste and waste disposal netted down by pressures on Street Cleaning caused by graffiti removal.

10 Planning and Community Services are projecting an overspend of £258k, an improvement of £121k on the month 8 forecast. The main reason for the overspend is the pressure on golf course income netted down by a surplus on development control income. The improvement on month 8 is due to the factoring in of contingency allocations agreed by Cabinet which reduce the previously forecast pressure on Development Control arising from the work associated with major planning applications.

11 The Central Departments are forecasting an overspend of £348k, an improvement of £11k on the Month 8 position. £305k of this pressure relates to existing pressures in the Education & Children’s Services and ECP/Planning & Community Service finance teams that were transferred to Finance & Resources in October. The improvement on the month 8 forecast arises from an improvement of £65k in the Deputy Chief Executive’s (DCE’s) office forecast netted down by an adverse movement of £54k in Finance & Resources. The DCE’s improvement is increased vacancy savings where posts are being held vacant pending the forthcoming restructure of the office. The Finance & Resources adverse movement is primarily due to the costs of ascertaining the impact of equal pay claims and putting in place effective policies to manage this and the costs of recruiting to permanent staffing in Legal Services to replace agency staffing.

12 There is a forecast surplus of £750k on investment income unchanged from the month 8 forecast. This is due to an anticipated increase in capital receipts and an increase in interest earned caused by a combination of higher interest rates and larger than expected cash balances as a result of significant re-phasing of projects to future years.

13 Council have recently approved the release of £1m of balances to fund costs associated with the organisation review of the Council. £72k of this sum had been spent as at the end of December. This was in relation to the first tranche of restructuring costs in Education & Children’s Services. The bulk of the costs of the restructure look like falling in 2007/8 as they relate to redundancy costs that are in a large part not payable until 2007/8.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 163 14 £931k has been allocated from contingency so far this year and a further £137k in respect of HIP pump priming and Democratic Services budget pressures is recommended to be allocated as part of this report. Further details are provided in paragraphs 147 and 148. Other potential calls on contingency reduce the effective balance to £1,867k. The assumption built into the Month 8 forecast is this remaining balance on the contingency will be used to mitigate other budget pressures, particularly demand led budget pressures in Adult Social Care and Asylum.

15 The savings identified in this report are sufficient to balance the budget and will deliver balances carried forward at the 31 March 2007 of £5,829k, a small improvement of £24k on month 8.

16 Officers are now undertaking further work on potential performance, efficiency and cost reduction reviews that could be pursued in developing the third stage of the organisational review. This programme of work will be implemented during this financial year but it is likely that the bulk of any savings that flow from this work are likely to fall into 2007/8 or later years. If any benefit does accrue in the current year it will be captured and fed into the forecasts in future monitoring reports.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 164 Directorates’ Forecast Expenditure Month 9

17 Table 1 shows budget, forecast and variance at Directorate level now reported and the total position on the Directorates’ budgets.

Table 1

2006/07 Budget 2006/07 Directorate 2006/07 Variances Original changes Current Forecast (+=adverse/ Budget Budget (as at - = favourable) (as at Month (9) Month 9) Variance Variance (As at (As at Month 9) Month 8) £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 45,361 (464) 44,897 Education & 44,258 -639 -436 Children’s Services Education & 1,238 +1,238 +1,238 Children’s Services (recovery plan slippage) 105,980 (130) 105,850 Adult Social Care, 106,215 +365 +755 Health & Housing (normal activities) Adult Social Care, 400 +400 +400 Health & Housing (recovery plan slippage) 43,019 236 43,255 Environment and 43,088 -167 -159 Consumer Protection 3,632 (130) 3,502 Planning & 3,760 +258 +379 Community Services 14,690 (1,652) 13,038 Central Services 13,386 +348 +359 Recovery Savings (3,530) 4,229 699 Plan (1,800) -2,499 -2,899 Developments 4,060 (500) 3,560 Contingency 1,693 -1,867 -2,029 Growth to be 1,589 (1,589) 0 allocated 0 0 0 214,801 0 214,801 Directorates' 212,238 -2,563 -2,392 Expenditure Exceptional items: 0 0 0 Asylum Grant 1,000 +1,000 +1,000 0 0 0 PCT cost shunt 90 +90 0 Total Directorate 214,801 0 214,801 Expenditure 213,328 -1,473 -1,392

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 165 18 The budgetary position for each Directorate is as follows:

Education & Children Services: £599k Overspend (£203k Improvement)

19 The Group is forecasting a £599k overspend for Month 9, which is an improvement of £203k from the Month 8 position.

20 The net improvement is mainly due to the following factors:

• a £36k improvement within the Directorate & Youth services; • a £46k improvement within the Learning and School Effectiveness Services; • an improvement of £189k from the position reported at M8 across Children & Families including areas previously part of Education; • a £13k forecast improvement on the Asylum budget • further increased pressure on legal costs (+£81k) across the new department. £30k of this relates to costs arising from the Judicial Review.

21 There are also a number of other budget issues which are set out below.

• Asylum Grant. The Government’s decision to withdraw funding of £1m in 2006/07 for a particular group of clients is not reflected in this forecast but is reported elsewhere in the report as an exceptional item. • 2006/07 Savings. There has been some slippage against the Asylum Service’s total savings programme due to difficulties in delivering the asylum savings and delays in the recruitment process.

22 The Council’s Judicial Review hearing was heard in the Royal courts of Justice on 17th January 2007 and judgement was reserved. Once received, Officers will evaluate the decision and will report verbally to Cabinet their conclusions.

23 The projected variances are summarised in the following table.

Division of Service Forecast Change variance from month 9 month 8 £’000 £’000 Schools 0 0 Director & Youth Services -188 -36 Policy, Performance & Resources +27 0 Learning & School Effectiveness Service -67 -46 Children & Families Service -610 -189 Asylum Seeker Service +1,062 -13 Corporate and Capital Recharges +375 +81 Total +599 -203

24 The above projected variances are based on the new structure within Education and Children Services from month 9. Movement in variances are compared after adjusting month 8 forecasts.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 166 Schools: £0

25 The Schools Budget is ring fenced and funded from the DSG. Schools payroll and non-payroll expenditure are being monitored quarterly and any potential school deficits at the year-end are subject to discussions with the schools.

26 The centrally retained element of the DSG budget that is managed by the Group is currently forecasting a £184k underspend. This was calculated by netting off a £30k budget pressure within the Early Years with underspends of £129k, £82k and £3k from the Special Needs Team, the Learning Support Services and the Pupil Referral Unit respectively. The rules surrounding the Schools Budget require any underspend to be carried forward to the following financial year and only utilised on areas that legally fall within the Schools Budget.

Director & Youth Services: £188k underspend (£36K improvement)

27 The reported improvement in underspend is within the Youth and Community Team - which is still experiencing difficulties in filling vacant posts. The Service is forecasting a total underspend of £188k.

Policy, Performance & Resources: £27k overspend (no change)

28 These services have now been allocated according to the new structure except for legal services costs, which are now combined with the Children and Families legal costs budget under Corporate and Capital Recharges.

29 There is no movement from the M8 reported position on the remainder of this service.

Learning & School Effectiveness: £67k Underspend (£46k improvement)

30 The Music service is reporting a budget pressure of £18k due to under achievement of budgeted income, as numbers taking the service are less than originally anticipated.

31 The EMASS services is reporting an underspend of £48k for month 9 which is an improvement of £44k due to unfilled vacancies within grant funded areas. The Children Services Grant has been used to fund existing posts normally funded by general fund.

32 Personnel and Premature Retirement Service is reporting an increase in underspend of £20k due to lower than projected claims on the sickness insurance scheme and higher SLA income.

Children and Families: £610k underspend (£189k improvement)

33 There is a £32k improvement within SEN home to school transport. The service is forecasting a total underspend of £72k though this is subject to change in the last quarter given the volatility of SEN budget.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 167 34 There has been a significant favourable movement of £157k in Children’s Social Care costs from the position reported last month due to reduced placement costs (- £130k); an improved staffing forecast (-£20k) and various minor improvement from other areas (-£7k).

35 However the staffing budget remains under pressure to meet the Managed Vacancy Factor target in a front line child care service where staffing levels have to be maintained to manage risk and ensure adequate safeguarding. The pace of replacing temporary staff with permanent staff has been slower than planned. Managers will be working towards improving this position as we recruit permanently to the teams.

36 The ongoing monitoring of non-UASC referrals from Heathrow indicates that 101 children have been looked after to date of which 14 remain looked after as at 31st December. This has resulted in excess of 640 weeks of care being provided to date, resulting in a projected cost for the year of £355k, and this trend is included in the forecast. By comparison for 2005/06 209 children were looked after requiring 984 weeks of care which resulted in a cost for the year of £608k. None of this work currently receives any recognition or funding from Government although the Council continues to lobby for a funding regime to be put in place.

37 This service is managing a total saving package of £895k and at the present time can report that this has been banked with no slippage.

38 The Children’s management team are continuing to review further opportunities to reduce the pressures now reported.

Asylum Service: £1,062k overspend (£13k improvement)

39 There has been no significant change to the position reported last month.

40 The Judicial Review hearing was heard in the Royal Courts of Justice on 17th January 2007 and is discussed above.

41 This service is managing a total saving package of £2,572k and at the present time can report that £1,089k has been banked and £244k is on target to be delivered resulting in slippage of £1,238k. The primary reason for slippage relates to the accommodation strategy which was reported in detail at M5. The second area of slippage relates to the pace of replacing temporary staff with permanent staff which has been slower than planned resulting in slippage of £300k.

Support Services: nil (no change)

42 These services have now been allocated according to the new structure and indicate no movement from the combined M8 reported position.

Corporate and Capital Charges: £375k overspend (£81k adverse)

43 This adverse movement relates to increased legal service costs.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 168 44 Increased legal costs have arisen associated with SEN Tribunals, school attendance issues and other education issues taking the forecast budget pressure in that area from £130k to £170k. This is an ongoing budget pressure that has been flagged up in the MTFF and also when reporting the 2005/06 outturn.

45 Legal costs for Children’s Social Care and Asylum show a £41k adverse movement because of increased activity. The overall pressure for this area is £205k. £30k of this cost relates to the Judicial Review case and further costs will follow. Contingency funding for these costs will be requested once the final cost of the Judicial Review is clear.

46 There is a corporate contingency provision of £120k. However, this sum is provided to cover legal expense pressures across the entire authority.

2006/07 MTFF and In-Year Savings

47 The Education Services are on target to deliver all MTFF and In-Year Savings for 2006/07.

48 The Children’s & Asylum Services are managing a total saving package of £3.467m and at the present time can report that £1.984m has been banked and £0.244m is on target to be delivered resulting in slippage of £1.239m.

Adult Social Care, Health and Housing: £765k overspend (£390k improvement)

49 The projected overspend for Adult Social Care, Health, and Housing has reduced from £1.8m at Month 6 to £765k at Month 9 with further reductions being sought over the remainder of the year. This improvement is however not sustainable into next year as it has been achieved through efficiencies in dealing with Homelessness (£0.7m favourable movement) and in 2007/08 these are affected by Government changes to Benefit Subsidy and a £1m saving in the MTFF.

50 The current year’s base budget contains £1.7m contingency to deal with this pressure and the Council’s draft 2007/08 budget presented in December provides for a further £3.7m of unavoidable pressure to deal with the estimated full year effect. The reasons for this are outside of the Council’s control and relate to significant growth in the demand for social care particularly from older people and people with physical disabilities which are mainly due to demographic changes.

51 The Social Services and Housing net overall projection for Period 9 shows further improvement of £389k following the £311k favourable movement last month. However there are also a number of other budget issues for Adult Social Care, Health, and Housing which are set out below.

• 2006/07 Savings. There has been some slippage against the service’s total savings programme of £5.7m due to delays in adopting the new Fairer Access to Care Criteria.

• Expenditure pressures in Older People’s Services and in People with Physical and Sensory Disabilities have materialised as expected. Increased

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 169 caseload and more intensive care packages account for an estimated overspend of £3,045k and specific contingencies in the sum of £1,125k for OPS, £200k for LD and £405k for PPSD were established to deal with these pressures.

52 Adult Social Care, Health, and Housing have almost all of the high risk demand led budgets in the Council and the month 9 projection shows a number of variations reflecting the latest demand position.

53 The cost shunt by the PCT is threatening this year’s position. As reported last month the Trust has identified to date 33 older people receiving care services currently classified as Health which it believes are really social care. The PCT has arrived at this view by carrying out formal continuous care assessments which confirms that the service users fail to meet the criteria to be classified as health care. Individual service users are currently appealing against this decision. To date 11 have returned to Social Service responsibility, 9 have retained PCT funding following robust challenges by staff as advised by Counsel, and the remaining 13 are awaiting a decision.

54 The financial impact of the transfer of the 11 cases to LBH is £90k in 2006/07 although the total assessed risk for all PCT reviews of this nature for 2006/07 is estimated at £180k. The full year impact of these cases is estimated at £650k for 2007/08. Although we are currently resisting this cost transfer on the grounds of challenging the criteria used and the principle of cost shunt, the Council may have to accept it. The position for Adult Social Care, Health & Housing does not reflect this pressure but instead it is reflected as an exceptional item in the month 9 forecast.

55 The table below sets out the forecast position for month 9.

Forecast Variance Month Change from 09 Month 08 Division of Service £000 £000 Adult Social Care +2,675 -90 Housing -1,910 -300 Adult Social Care Health + Housing position +765 -390

2006/07 MTFF and In-Year Savings

56 The Adult Social Care and Housing department are managing a total saving package of £5.7m and at the present time can report that £4.2m has been banked and £0.9m is on target to be delivered resulting in slippage of £0.4m. The schemes that have slipped are however expected to deliver the full year savings but for the reason set out below the part year savings expected for 2006/07 will not be achieved.

• OPS review of day care services: this review had been delayed but with the completion of the consultation relating to changes to Fairer Access to Care (FAC) this can now proceed (£244k slippage).

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 170 • PPSD eligibility criteria: the consultation relating to FAC was later than assumed in the MTFF leading to a delay in the implementation of the revised eligibility criteria. This has resulted in £138k slippage. • OPS FAC was implemented during 2006 but is not achieving the part year saving expected as a result of the reviews and subsequent alternative arrangements taking longer than originally expected. This has resulted in £250k slippage.

57 Contingencies totalling £1,730k are held centrally to offset expenditure being incurred this year due to increased demand for services in OPS and PPSD. When this contingency is applied to these budgets, the overspend for the whole group would be reduced to nil.

Adult Social Care

58 The Adult Social Care service net overall projection for Period 9 is an overspend of £2,675k which represents a favourable movement of £89k from the month 8 position.

59 The forecast continues to reflect the actions by all Managers to alleviate the forecast pressures by implementing savings and restrictions on non-essential spend implemented in Social Services & Housing from November 2005. These measures were further supported by additional controls on non-essential spend implemented in February 2006.

60 The table below sets out the position at Period 9.

Forecast Variance Month Change from 09 Month 08 Division of Service £000 £000 Older Peoples Services +2,212 +15 Physical & Sensory Disability Services +738 -114 Learning Disability Services -208 -59 Mental Health Services +36 +59 Support Services -149 0 Corporate and Capital Recharges +45 +9 Adult Social Care Total +2,675 -90

Older Peoples Services: £2,212k overspend (£15k adverse)

61 There has been no material change from the previous forecast which reflects the demographic demands placed on the service which are outside of the Department’s control.

62 This service is managing a total saving package of £1,499k and at the present time can report that £787k has been banked and £218k is on target to be delivered resulting in slippage of £494k.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 171 63 This forecast is consistent with the final position for 2005/06 and is as a result of continuing pressures on this service to support people to live at home. The centrally held contingency, if allocated, would reduce this pressure significantly.

Physical Disabilities: £738k overspend (£114k improvement)

64 There has been a £114k favourable movement from last month due to a slowing in the rate of residential and nursing care placements and a similar slowing in referrals for minor adaptations and equipment.

65 Assessment of referrals from Heathrow results in a forecast 420 weeks of social care being provided resulting in a funding pressure of £155k included in the forecast overspend. The Council continues to lobby Government on this issue to secure appropriate levels of funding.

66 This service is managing a total saving package of £324k and at the present time can report that £186k has been banked with previously reported slippage of £138k.

67 This forecast is consistent with the final position for 2005/06 and is as a result of continuing pressures on this service to support people to live at home. The centrally held contingency, if allocated, would reduce this pressure significantly.

Learning Disabilities: £208k underspend (£59k improvement)

68 There has been a £59k favourable movement from last month due to a slowing in the rate of residential and nursing care placements.

69 This service is forecast to deliver a £149k underspend due to slippage in the modernisation programme.

70 This service is managing a total saving package of £878k and at the present time can report that this has been banked.

Mental Health: £36k overspend (£59k adverse)

71 This adverse movement is as a result of 2 clients previously funded by Health which following a review have been assessed as no longer meeting the criteria for continuing care, and the service is also aware of a further 3 which may be subject to appeal. The part year cost of these 5 cases is estimated at £59k and a full year cost of £190k for 2007/08.

72 This service is managing a total saving package of £255k and these are now fully banked.

Support Services: £149k underspend (no change)

73 This service is forecasting an underspend on the staffing and consumables budget and there has been no change to the position reported in Month 8.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 172 74 This service is managing a total saving package of £409k and can confirm that these are now fully banked.

75 These services have now been allocated according to the new structure and indicate no movement from the combined M7 reported position.

Corporate and Capital Charges: £45k overspend (£9k adverse)

76 This relates to increased activity in Legal services which includes a provision for legal advice in connection with the PCT. There is a contingency provision of £120k for this pressure although this sum covers more than one department.

Housing – General Fund

77 The Housing net overall projection for Period 9 is showing an under spend of £1,910k, an improvement of £300k from Month 8. The Table below sets out the position at Period 9.

Forecast Change Variance From Month 9 Month 8 Division of Service £000 £000 Benefits 00 Homelessness -1,870 -300 Caravan Sites 00 Housing Advice 00 Housing Private Sector 00 Housing Development -40 0 Housing Careline 00 Other Housing Services 00 Housing TOTAL -1,910 -300

78 This service is managing a total saving package of £2,126k and at the present time can report that £1,128k has been banked and £998k is on target to be delivered.

Housing and Council Tax Benefit: breakeven

79 The gross budget for benefits this year is some £108m. This includes benefit payments to claimants, subsidy income from government, recovery of overpayments and costs of processing benefit claims. There are a number of risks with this budget that is demand led, and the net cost to the council is very dependent upon the levels of subsidy and effective recovery of overpayments. The latest forecasts indicate that a breakeven situation is likely to be achieved but some variation from this position is still possible.

80 There is a corporate contingency of £195k for 2006/07, to reflect the uncertainty around this demand led budget. It is not possible at present to establish whether there may be a windfall from the subsidy claim for 2005/06 (as there was for 2004/05). The claim is subject to detailed audit and there is a prescriptive mechanism

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 173 for extrapolating any errors found; the results are unlikely to be known until late January 2007.

Homelessness: £1,870k underspend (£300k improvement)

81 A saving of £1,870k is forecast for 2006/07. The improvement is largely due to enhanced performance on voids (which is not sustainable in the longer term), and strong performance in the housing benefits incentive areas; it is increasing confirmation of improved voids performance, and the closer we get to the year end (and hence the less impact uncontrollable factors will have) that has driven the favourable movement from Month 7. The homelessness budget in the medium term (to 2009/10) is set to come under pressure; the rent caps are being reviewed by the DCLG, and achieving the DCLG target of halving the numbers in temporary accommodation by 2010 will mean the council will not be able to spread its costs as widely as it currently does. However, officers are reviewing the speed at which Private Sector Leasing properties are de-commissioned (while not jeopardising achievement of the 2010 target). Moreover the Housing Benefits performance (in terms of accuracy and recovery) has been sustained to the point where savings can be assumed to accrue. As a result, an underspend of £1,870k can be forecast.

82 While it is forecast that the net budget will be £1,870k underspent, there are a number of risks to be managed. These include:

• Risks around continuing with the substantial reduction in homelessness acceptance levels. • Reviewing the procurement programme for temporary accommodation; ensuring that, where appropriate within the overall strategy, suitable properties are procured to match the demand for temporary accommodation • A key factor in monitoring the homelessness budget is forecasting income levels with uncertain movements in the size and mix of the temporary accommodation portfolio. The level of income is dependant upon the mix of properties procured, the associated rent, and minimising the period that the properties are void. • Benefits performance

83 These factors are not directly controllable, and it is for this reason that the homelessness area cannot be predicted with certainty. The homelessness area has a gross budget over £50m, and small percentage movements can be significant. Forecasts will increase in certainty as the year progresses, and actual activity is recorded. Further improvement is possible.

84 Corporately, the council will need to plan for a deterioration in this budget area, and underspends now will need to be matched with overspends later in the medium term cycle.

Housing Development: £40k underspend (no change)

85 Savings are anticipated to accrue as a result of recruitment restrictions.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 174

Housing HRA

86 The situation can be summarised as follows:-

Forecast Change Variance from Month Month 9 8 £000 £000

Surplus B/F 1.4.06 (710) 0

In year deficit 36 36

Surplus C/F 31.03.07 (674) 36

87 The table 4 above shows an adverse movement of £36k from month 8 – main reasons include:-

• Fee to Hillingdon Homes – Hillingdon Homes have prudently projected for additional pension costs of £356k • Additional leaseholder income of £150k

88 The £1m contingency has been fully earmarked. Estimated balances at the end of 2006/07 are £2.733m, all of which is uncommitted. The Council’s financial contingent risk policy for the HRA is to maintain a minimum uncommitted balance of £2m in HRA balances. The implications of the fact that the contingency is now fully committed will be assessed during 2007/08 budget setting.

89 The recommendations in the report include request for the approval of two virements over £100k within the HRA. The first is £525k to fund depot relocation expenses from balances within the HRA. The relocation was originally budgeted to be incurred in 2005/6 but was delayed and this is one of the reasons why the balances brought forward are in excess of that budgeted. The virement from balances to the budget for Hillingdon Homes fee reflects the timing of the costs. The second virement is to move £202k from HRA contingency in respect of central support costs. This virement is required because of costs arising from improvements in the way such costs are apportioned, when compared to the original budget assumptions. Recent monitoring reports have assumed a potential call on the contingency for this amount and the contingency will now be fully utilised.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 175 Planning & Community Services: £258k overspend (£121k improvement)

90 In Month 9, the Group is forecasting an overspend for the year, the main elements of which are explained below:

Division of Service Forecast Variance Change From Month 9 Month 8 £’000 £’000 Development Control Income -290 -95 Development Control Agency Staff +95 +10 Building Control +30 +10 Legal Charges +6 0 Leisure Facilities +555 -21 Leisure Strategies 00 Libraries – Public Services -26 -6 Libraries – Resources & Development -6 +1 Libraries – ICT & Development -9 +19 Arts Service -32 -14 Community Safety -65 -25 TOTAL +258 -121

Development Control Income: £290k underspend (£95k improvement)

91 Currently the income from Development Control is above the profile budget. The regular monitoring of the weekly income from planning fees indicates that this is due to the increasing volume of planning applications, particularly major applications. The additional fee income is mainly used for:

• the additional agency staff required to deal with the volume and complexity of the major applications currently being processed;

• the use of agency staff to deliver improvements for a comprehensive enforcement service to deal with the ever-increasing enforcement inquiries and proceedings in accordance with Members’ requirements. Recruitment difficulties for enforcement officers are similar to the rest of the planning functions;

• addressing costs incurred for all Planning Inquiries and hearings throughout the year, including major inquiries such as the 2 Tesco appeals. The £105k in contingency allocations this year have significantly reduced the pressure to fund such planning inquiries from the existing budget.

92 As such, there would be a risk of budget shortfall to pay for these financial demands, if fee income does not hold up. Given past trends of seasonal variations in planning applications received (a downturn over the months late November to mid March), which could be attributable to the market influences on the planning application system, it is likely that this risk could increase.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 176 Development Control Agency Staff: £85k overspend (£10k adverse)

93 Given the increasing volume and complexity of major applications received, additional agency staff have been recruited to help process the applications to meet performance targets and service delivery requirements.

Building Control: £30k overspend (£10k adverse)

94 The effect of the increase in fees and charges from September 2006 is now being shown in Oracle as the revised income target of an increase in £50k has already been met. In addition, fee income during early November 2006 has overachieved the budget target by approximately £20k. Although these improvements in the income are encouraging, officers continue to closely monitor the situation with the aim of reducing the forecast overspend by the year end.

Legal Charges: £6k overspend (no change)

95 Legal Services charges are currently £6k overspent. Furthermore it is highly likely that there will be an increased pressure on this budget due to demand for legal work particularly on Planning Enforcement.

Leisure Facilities: £555k overspend (£21k improvement)

96 Leisure Facilities are projecting an overspend of £555k. £570k is due to the loss of income from the golf contract as a result of the contractor going into liquidation. This has been mitigated by an overachievement of income at some Pools, which has brought down the overall projected overspend.

97 The achievement of the Northwood Sports Hall in-year recovery saving was dependent on the school taking over the management of the sports centre. As reported earlier, this has not happened yet. However, the school have confirmed that they will take over the management arrangements by the end of January 2007.

Libraries: £41k underspend (£14k adverse)

98 Public Services are showing a projected underspend £26k. This comprises an overspend on salaries of £72k due to the Library Management System training and the need to backfill posts, and £43k under achievement of income. There is an underspend on supplies and services, premises and transport of £141k.

99 Resources and Development are showing a projected underspend of £6k due to unfilled posts over and above the vacancy target.

100 ICT and Development are showing a projected underspend of £9k. £10k due to unfilled vacancies, £25k savings in telecom payments. This is offset by an underachievement of income of £26k.

Arts Service: £32k underspend (£14k improvement)

101 This is projecting an underspend of £32k due primarily to time lags in recruitment.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 177 Community Safety: £65k underspend (£25k improvement)

102 This service is projecting an underspend of £65k, due to £25k of salary costs being met from the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund, with the balance of £40k relating to an underspend in the Police Special service Agreement.

Environment & Consumer Protection: £167k underspend (£8k improvement)

103 In Month 9, the Group is forecasting a £167k underspend for the year, the main elements of which are explained below:

Forecast Variance Change From Division of Service Month 9 Month £’000 8 £’000 Street Cleansing – Graffiti +200 +35 Trade Waste -120 0 Legal Services +96 0 Public Conveniences -105 -32 Waste Disposal -110 -10 Recycling +40 0 COWSLOPS -122 0 Advertising Income +30 0 Licensing Service -62 -22 Homeworking Costs +21 +21 Other Staff Savings -35 0 TOTAL -167 -8

Street Cleansing: £200k overspend (£35k adverse)

104 There has been an increase in instances of graffiti during the financial year, leading to an increasing pressure on this budget. Officers have reviewed the situation to identify options to maintain spend within available resources however an adverse pressure of £200k is anticipated by the end of the financial year.

Trade Waste: £120K underspend (no change)

105 A reduction in activity levels was anticipated due to the increase in fees that are linked to the increase in the Landfill Tax. The activity levels have not reduced as much as expected and an overachievement of £120k is forecast. There is the potential that new legislation will be implemented during the course of this year that may impact on income levels. Officers are closely monitoring this budget.

Legal Services: £96k overspend (no change)

106 Provision was agreed in 2004/05 for additional growth for Legal costs resulting from the Licensing Act and this was included in the Legal service budget. However the legal budget for the Licensing Team was not increased to take account of the additional charges from Legal. Furthermore there is an additional pressure on this budget due to increased demand for legal work particularly in the areas of fly tipping and trading standards enforcement. Work is continuing to ensure costs awarded to

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 178 the Council from successful prosecution cases are credited to the Group in order to offset the legal costs.

Public Conveniences: £105k underspend (£32k improvement)

107 There are procurement discussions underway on the delivery of the remaining Supaloos. There is likely to be a delay in delivery resulting in a saving of £105k.

Waste Disposal: £110k underspend (£10k improvement)

108 Reduced costs/tonnage within the West Waste Authority to be reflected in borough charges.

Recycling: £40k overspend (no change)

109 Increased participation rates in recycling resulting in increased costs of infrastructure and support to scheme for additional bags, bag delivery, etc.

COWSLOPS: £122K underspend (no change)

110 In the October budget report of the West London Waste Authority it has been reported that COWSLOPS (Collected Organic Waste Statutory Levy Offset Payment Scheme) payments will be made to the Borough in 2006/07. These payments are contributions towards the costs incurred by authorities in collecting and delivering waste separately. The income due, based on tonnage levels, is estimated as £46K for the period April to August 2006 and £76k for the period September 2006 to March 2007.

Advertising Income: £30k overspend (no change)

111 The Council-wide working party on advertising income has concluded that it is unlikely that this target will be met in this financial year.

Licensing Service: £62k underspend (£22k improvement)

112 Additional income is being received in respect of the new licensing regulations and the need for all licensed premises to re-apply this year. This increased income will not recur in 2007/08.

Homeworking Costs: £21k overspend (£21k adverse)

113 As part of the HIP Flexible Working Project 41 staff from the Group have been set up to work from home. The forecast overspend results from the annual costs incurred for telephone/computer line rental and Central ICT support.

Other Staff Savings: £35k underspend (no change)

114 Savings are forecast to flow from the continued application of expenditure controls within the Group leading to savings of 35k.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 179 Parking Revenue Account

115 It is likely that the PRA will show an in-year deficit by the end of the financial year due, in the main, to a reduction in income from CCTV enforcement. However, this does not affect the General Fund budget in 2006/7.

Central Services: £348k overspend (£11k improvement)

116 The forecast position for the central departments is a £328k overspend, an £11k improvement on the month 8 position. This overspend comprises a £423k overspend in Finance & Resources and a £75k underspend in the Deputy Chief Executive’s Office.

Deputy Chief Executive’s Office: £75k underspend (£65k improvement)

117 The Deputy Chief Executives’ Office is reporting an underspend of £75k, an improvement of £65k on the month 8 forecast.

Division of Service Forecast Change Month 9 From Month 8 £’000 £’000 Communications Service +25 0 Democratic Services +20 +5 CEO Policy Team -80 -50 Learning & Development -40 0 Savings Proposals 0 -20 Total -75 -65

Communications Service £25k overspend (no change)

118 As reported previously, the £25k budget pressure relates to the costs of redundancy, following the centralisation and restructuring of the Communications function across the Council.

Policy Team £80k underspend (£50k improvement)

119 The £80k underspend reported relates to a number of staff vacancies in the service, where it has been decided to hold these posts vacant pending the restructure of the Deputy Chief Executives Office and a number of HIP initiatives, where the full budget allocation will no longer be required, which has resulted in the improved underspend.

Learning and Development £40k underspend (no change)

120 This service is reporting a £40k underspend, due to a staff vacancy, resulting in an underspend of £20k, with the remaining £20k relating to the better procurement of external trainers and a tight control of non-employees expenditure.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 180 Finance & Resources: £423k overspend (£54k adverse)

121 The Finance & Resources Directorate budgets are projecting an overspend of £423k at month 9, which is an adverse movement of £54k on the month 8 variance, this is primarily due to increased pressures in Legal Services relating to placement fees for recruiting permanent staff through an agency and the Personnel Service, relating to increased staffing costs, investigating the impact of equal pay claims.

122 An analysis of the forecast for month 9 is summarised in the following table:

Division of Service Forecast Change Month 9 From Month 8 £’000 £’000 Accounting Services +239 0 Corporate Property Services +114 +14 Finance and Procurement 0 0 Major Construction Projects Team 0 0 ICT Services 0 0 Legal Services +50 +20 Personnel Service +20 +20 Total +423 +54

Accounting Services: £239k overspend (no change)

123 As previously reported, the forecast overspend of £239k relates primarily to the centralisation of the devolved finance teams which were already forecasting a significant overspend. The Education and Children’s Services Finance team are forecasting an overspend of £270k as a result of the large number of posts currently covered by agency staff, the ECP/ Planning & Community Services finance team is forecasting an overspend of £35k due to the Head of finance post being covered by an interim and Corporate Finance is forecasting an underspend of £20k on staffing.

124 A comprehensive restructure is currently being worked up to ensure that the accounting function is fit for purpose. Once agreed, the new structure will be recruited to, and the interim staff replaced with less expensive permanent staff.

125 Other projected variances within the service are a £47k pressure on the LPFA levy due to an increased contribution required as part of the need to deal with the LPFA Pension Fund deficit as required by their actuary, a £77k surplus on income from the London Housing Consortium for 2005/2006 compared to the accrual made in the 2005/6 accounts and a £16k credit adjustment for the Western District Coroners Service levy.

Corporate Property Services: £114k overspend (£14k adverse)

126 The overspend reported now incorporates the FM service as part of the Council restructuring in October 2006. This service is projecting an overspend of £114k, which is a adverse movement of £14k on month 8.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 181 127 There are gross budget pressures of £169k, relating to three areas across the service as follows:

• Facilities Management is predicting a net budget pressure of £70k; £30k of this is due to the Civic Centre utilities costs, where as part of the MTFF process, £135k was built into the budget to offset the increase in the cost of electricity, gas and insurances. These costs are being analysed monthly to project any variances. Currently this is not showing any major variance, however, the Gas price increase, effective from 1 November 2006, for the Civic Centre will be 90.2%, and the current projection is based on the costs of Gas up to the end of October, applying this increase with effect from November 2006. £20k of the pressure relates to the costs of Insurance of the Civic Centre, with the remaining balance of £20k relating to minor pressures within security, building maintenance and print services.

• The DME team is reporting a £66k pressure, which is due to an under recovery of private service contract income and commissioned income resulting in a pressure of £59k and the cost of redundancy of one post within the team resulting in a one off pressure of £7k. • There is also a budget pressure of £13k on the feasibility studies budget, due to an increase in the number of requests. • There is an MTFF savings target of £20k in the current year in relation to retendering the security contract. This has been deferred and may instead form part of a wider exercise around market testing of Facilities Management during 2007/8.

128 These pressures are netted down by underspends totalling £55k, due to additional income of £25k in the Estates and Valuation Team, £19k surplus from the Warnford Industrial Estate, where the site is fully let, and £11k due to staff vacancies across the service.

Legal Services: £50k overspend (£20k adverse)

129 The service is now reporting a budget pressure of £50k, which is an increase of £20k on last month’s projections. This additional pressure is due to the drive to recruit permanent legal staff through a recruitment agency and relates to the potential placement fee if the candidates are successful. The underlying base pressure of £30k reflects the inability of the service to fully meet the in year saving target that was proposed of £129k, as the service currently has 9 agency staff, which are required to support the increased work load.

Personnel Services: £20k overspend (£20k adverse)

130 The service is now reporting a budget pressure of £20k, which is an increase of £20k on last month’s projections. This pressure is due to the costs of ascertaining the impact of equal value pay and putting in place effective policies to manage this.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 182 Recovery Savings: £2,499k underspend (£400k adverse)

131 The net contribution to balances arises from the difference between the recovery plan agreed (£11,706k), less the existing base budget for BPR savings (£3,530k), less the funding allocated to meet the pressure on asylum (£5,277k). The final agreed savings figure following a detailed analysis of implementation plans was £11,706k. The following table summarises the savings agreed to date split between service savings, windfall savings and MTFF efficiency savings. The Efficiency savings are going towards the £3.53m savings target built into the base budget for this year. The windfall savings will be used to offset the likely potential pressure on not receiving the £1.4m budgeted LABGI funding for this year. The service savings are being used to deal with the asylum pressure and build back balances. The service projections being fed into the Month 9 report are items in addition to the recovery savings plan which is all reported in this section.

Service Windfall MTFF Efficiency Total savings savings savings savings £000 £000 £000 £000 25th May Cabinet 1,610 0 0 1,610 25th May Cabinet 1,818 1,114 865 3,797 25th May Cabinet 1,593 99 58 1,830 25th May Cabinet further schedule 1,008 0 0 1,008 Cabinet 8th June 541 465 967 1,973 20th July Cabinet 1,568 0 0 1,568 Total In year Savings 8,138 1,678 1,890 11,706 Savings in 2005/6 1,862 0 0 1,862 Total savings since Feb 2006 10,000 1,678 1,890 13,568 Budgeted addition to balances 600 600 Allocated to fund pressures in SS (5,277) (5,277) Allocated to offset LABGI pressure (1,400) (1,400) Allocated towards BPR target (3,530) (3,530) Net contribution to balances 5,323 278 (1,640) 3,961

132 The table shows that an exceptional £13,568k savings were identified following February. Of this gross saving, £5,277k has been allocated to Social Services to fund DfES asylum funding pressure (£4,800k), the funding shortfall for Heathrow generated services (£400k) and the shortfall in Social Services grant inflation (£77k). The £6,429k remainder of the £11,706k in year savings figure includes £1,678k in one-off windfall savings. These windfall savings are being used to offset the forecast 2006/7 pressures for income on LABGI (Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme). The £1,890k efficiency savings proposals are going towards the budgeted BPR (Business Process Re- engineering) savings target of £3,530k. The table shows that there is a net contribution to balances flowing from these savings proposals of £3,961k. Any variance from these savings estimates is being fed into Group monitoring forecasts over the months as the implementation of these proposals progresses.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 183 133 The split of in year savings between Groups is outlined in the following table:

Savings £000 Social Services 4,732 Corporate 2,024 Housing 1,620 Education, Youth & Leisure 634 Finance & Property 543 Chief Executive’s Office 568 Contingency saving – SEN Transport 500 Environment & Consumer Protection 269 Planning & Transportation 166 Agreed but not allocated to Groups yet 650 Total in year savings agreed to date 11,706 Allocation to fund pressures in SS (5,277) Net in year Saving 6,429 BPR budgeted savings target (3,530) Net savings in excess of budget 2,899

134 Of the net savings figure of £6,429k, the majority of savings proposals have been vired out to specific budgets to ensure delivery. These adjustments will ensure that all budget managers have absolute certainty as to the savings they are expected to deliver. 135 There is an estimated pressure of £400k arising from the partial non-achievement of the £650k e-auction saving in the recovery saving plan. The low level of staffing in the Procurement Unit this year has meant that the savings achieved are likely to be lower than the ambitious target of £650k included in the recovery plan. The Unit have prioritised the achievement of the £400k procurement target included in the original budget for 2006/7 and on other initiatives that contribute to existing MTFF savings targets or specific recovery savings initiatives. There has been a saving of £144k in relation to graffiti removal. However, this price saving has effectively been reinvested in the service in the current financial year so will not produce a cashable saving. The total cashable additional recovery saving in 2006/7 is likely to be closer to £250k after taking account of funding the growth on graffiti.

Development & Risk Contingency: £1,867k underspend (£162k adverse)

136 £5,360k of potential calls on the Developments & Risk Contingency were identified as part of the budget setting process for 2006/7. This was scaled down to £4,060k when the probability of the likely call on contingency for each item was taken into account. The following table shows the items that were identified in budget setting as being potential calls on contingency and also shows what has already been allocated or committed.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 184

2006/07 Agreed Forecast Budget to be needed 2005/06 allocations: £’000 £’000 £’000 Increasing client numbers – Older People 1,125 SEN Transport costs 470 Uninsured claims 450 (500) Restructuring costs 250 (337) High need care packages – People with physical disabilities 405 Housing Benefits potential volume increases 195 Learning Disabilities placement costs – children in transition 200 Fujitsu contract 125 (125) High need care packages – Mental Health 188 Hillingdon Improvement Programme (HIP) 160 (160) Heathrow impact on community care services 135 Legal Services 120 Local Development Framework legal/consultancy costs 38 West London Tram / Crossrail costs 75 (100) Heathrow third runway costs 50 (40) Provision for contractual subsidy 25 Winter gritting 10 Adult Education – Non accredited provision 25 Flight times planning inquiry costs 10 (5) Heart of Harefield Campaign 5 Other calls on contingency: Corporate identity (June Cabinet) (20) Outplacement Consultant (May Cabinet) (30) Personnel resources to manage redundancy programme (July Cabinet) (30) Festive Decorations (30) External MTFF budget challenge work (45) Tesco/Masterbrewer planning inquiry (100) Unaccompanied asylum seeker lobbying (25) Golf Course forensic Accountants costs (50) HIP projects pump priming (39) Democratic Services budget pressures (57) Total Net Contingency at start of the year 4,060 Less: SEN saving noted as part of the recovery plan (500) Net Budget after SEN saving 3,560 Total agreed allocations or commitments to date (1,068) (625) Balance remaining to mitigate other pressures 1,867

137 A large proportion of the total contingency is in relation to Social Services demand led budgets (Older people - £1,125k, People with physical disabilities - £405k,

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 185 Learning Disabilities - £200k, Mental Health - £188k, Heathrow impact on Community Care Services - £135k). The Social Services budget position for the current year indicates that the pressure on Older Peoples and People with Physical Disabilities are in excess of these sums held in contingency.

138 As part of the recovery plan there was a proposal to save £500k on SEN transport costs through reverse e-auctions of the remaining routes. This effectively means that there will not be a call on contingency from SEN transport and hence would be a budget saving. As with other savings this sum has been vired to a corporate budget.

139 Council in March agreed that £100k could be vired from contingency to fund the cost of Hillingdon’s petitioning of the Crossrail Bill. With regards to the contingency sum held in relation to the Third Runway, £20k has been allocated to NOTRAG and a further £12k has been allocated to fund the costs to date of the Council’s share of a joint local authority legal challenge on the Third Runway.

140 Projections indicate that £500k will be required from contingency in respect of uninsured claims. £125k has been set aside to fund the costs associated with winding down the Fujitsu contract including TUPE costs.

141 Other costs approved so far this year that call on contingency are as follows. £45k for the revenue costs of updating the corporate identity was agreed at June Cabinet and £30k for outplacement consultants was agreed to May Cabinet. In addition £30k for Personnel costs to support the redundancy programme required as part of the recovery plan and £50k for consultancy costs associated with the top tier restructure of the Council were agreed at July Cabinet. However, since June Cabinet officers have achieved efficiencies in the implementation of the re-branding and the cost is now £20k rather than the £45k agreed by Cabinet. The £25k underspend has therefore been paid back into contingency.

142 The Month 3 report included 3 further allocations of contingencies, £5k in relation to a further grant allocation to NOTRAG, £24k for festive town centre decorations and £125k for the first tranche of top tier restructure costs.

143 The month 6 report allocated a further £206k from contingency. £162k of this was to fund the second phase of the organisational review of the Council. £45k was to fund the cost of external Challenge to the Council’s MTFF to ensure that all possible routes for achieving savings are being pursued. £6k was to increase the budget for town centre festive decorations from £24k to £30k for this year. £8k was to fund Hillingdon’s share of a legal challenge to night flights and to also fund further costs of NOTRAG.

144 In month 7 a £100k allocation was made in relation to planning inquiry costs for the Tesco/Masterbrewer site. In addition £119k was agreed to be allocated from HIP Contingency to fund the cost of the extension of phase 2 of the organisational review as part of a separate report agreed by Cabinet in December.

145 The month 8 report included an allocation of £25k in relation to funding the cost of lobbying in respect of unaccompanied asylum seeking children grant funding.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 186 146 £50k expenditure from contingency was approved at Cabinet in December for the cost of forensic accountants needed to undertake work in relation to the golf course contract.

147 Two further allocations are included in the recommendations in this report. The first is £80k in relation to the pump priming of HIP work streams. Some of the projects have significant personnel support requirements, particularly those in relation to Finance, Organisational Development and Management capability and capacity. There is a wide range of personnel supported needed including input to a wide range of improvements to personnel related policies as well as restructures in Finance, Training & Development and Communications. These requirements coincide with work required to support other restructures in DCE’s, Planning & Community Services and Education & Children’s Services. The requirement equates to 3 senior posts for the remainder of the financial year plus an administrative post to be filled by an interim or by secondment and backfilling. £41k can be funded from the balance on the HIP contingency and the remaining £39k from general contingency.

148 The second is £57k in relation to funding various pressures within Democratic Services including extra staffing costs in the Mayor’s office, 2 Freedom of the Borough ceremonies, a Heart of Harefield grant and increased costs of the Mayor’s car.

149 There may be calls on other specific contingencies during the course of the year but at this stage it is not possible to quantify the likely sums. For the purpose of the Month 8 forecast it is assumed that the remaining balance on the contingency of £1,867k will be available to mitigate pressures elsewhere in the budget particularly demand led budgets within Social Services.

Corporate Budgets’ Forecasts

150 Table 2 shows budget, forecast and variance now reported on corporate budgets i.e. inflation provision, external interest earned, capital financing costs and the Development & Risk Contingency.

Table 2 2006/07 Budget 2006/07 Corporate Budgets 2006/07 Variances Original changes Current Forecast (+=adverse) / - = Budget Budget (as at favourable (as at Month 9) Month 9) Variance Variance (as at (as at Month 9) Month 8) £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Unallocated (172) 0 (172) Procurement savings 0 +172 +172 (1,125) 0 (1,125) PSA Reward Grant -1,125 00 10,062 0 10,062 Financing Costs 9,312 -750 -750 Asset Management (50,775) 0 (50,775) A/c (50,775) 00 (42,010) 0 (42,010) Corporate Budgets (42,588) -578 -578

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 187

Corporate Budget Variance:- £578k underspend (no change)

151 The latest projections for financing costs indicate that they will be in line with the budget. On the investment income side there is a projected over achievement of £750k, no change on month 8. This is due to an anticipated increase in capital receipts and an increase in interest earned caused by a combination of higher interest rates and larger than expected cash balances as a result of significant re- phasing of projects to future years.

152 £400k in procurement savings were agreed as part of Council Tax setting. Of this sum, £228k was allocated at the start of the year based on verified savings already agreed and the remaining balance of £172k is in the process of being allocated.

153 The current projections for the likely receipt of PSA reward grant is in line with the budget of £1,125k.

OVERALL FINANCIAL POSITION

154 Table 3 indicates the overall impact of the expenditure forecasts now reported on the approved budget and the resulting balances position. The table shows the outturn for 2005/6 being £835k better than forecast at the start of the year. This was due to the late notification of an entitlement to £835k of LABGI funding for 2005/6 arising from the identification of an error in the Valuation Office’s program for calculating entitlement. The Council had previously been informed that it was not entitled to any funding.

155 The table also reflects the risk that the Council may not receive any LABGI funding for 2006/7. The change in the entitlement for 2005/6 does not improve the likelihood of receiving any funding in 2006/7. The Council will be notified later this month of its LABGI entitlement for 2006/7.

156 The balances carried forward at the year-end are forecast at £5,829k, £1,414k more than that assumed in the 2006/7 budget after including unallocated Development & Risk contingency of £1,842k.

Balances earmarked for restructure costs

157 £1m of balances are earmarked to fund restructure costs. Spend to the end of December was £72k, the main components of which are as follows;

• £33k cost to date of appointing the new Heads of Service posts in Education & Children’s Services and covering the Head of Resources and Performance post. • £5k redundancy costs in Education & Children’s Service • £34k cost of the interim arrangements for the Deputy Chief Executive’s post.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 188 158 If the £1m were to be spent in full in this financial year then balances at the year-end will be £4,901k. However, the bulk of the costs of the restructure look like falling in 2007/8 as they relate to redundancy costs that are not payable until 2007/8.

Table 3

2006/07 Budget 2006/07 Variances Original changes (As at Month 9) (+=adverse)/- = Budget favourable Current Forecast Variance Variance Budget (as at (as at Month 9) Month 8) £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 0 Directorates’ 214,801 Expenditure 214,801 213,328 -1,473 -1,392 (42,010) 0 Corporate (42,010) (42,588) -578 -578 Budgets (1,400) 0 LABGI Funding (1,400) 0 +1,400 +1,400 171,391 0 Total net 171,391 170,740 -651 -570 expenditure 172,031 0 Budget Requirement 172,031 172,031 0 0 (640) 0 Deficit / (Surplus) (640) (1,291) -651 -570 (3,775) 0 Balances b/f (3,775) (4,610) -835 -835 1/4/06 (4,415) 0 Balances c/f (4,415) (5,901) -1,486 -1,405 31/3/07 0 0 Less: spend 0 72 +72 +15 from balances earmarked for (4,415) 0 restructure (4,415) (5,829) -1,414 -1,390

B) CAPITAL

INTRODUCTION

159 This report sets out the overall position of the capital programme for 2006/07 to 2008/09 as forecast at the end of December. The report presents capital expenditure against the budget approved by Council and reflects departmental performance, resource allocation and commentary on the progress of key projects.

160 The report also sets out the funding of the capital programme and the position with regards to asset disposals, VAT partial exemption and S106 funding.

161 The final section reports on the monitoring of key Prudential Indicators to demonstrate that capital financing is being undertaken in an affordable, sustainable and prudent manner.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 189 SUMMARY

162 Total forecast capital expenditure for the year is estimated to be £85.22m representing 81% of the budget. Forecast capital expenditure excluding the special circumstances around Hillingdon House Farm, Hayes Stadium, Breakspear Crematorium and the TfL programme is £76.79m representing 91% of the revised budget.

163 Forecast expenditure on the Hillingdon House Farm project is estimated to be £1.5m (15% of budget) due to the re-scheduling of work into 2007-08. The realignment of project delivery to budgetary profiles is necessary because of delays in realising a capital receipt from the sale of enabling land.

164 At the end of month 9, capital expenditure of £50.95m (excluding three exceptional projects and TfL works) had been incurred, representing 61% of the total budget. Inclusion of HHF, Hayes Stadium and Breakspear Crematorium increases this figure to £53.44m representing 51% of the capital budget

165 As a result of the current three-year programme, the annual financing costs to the General Fund revenue budget are forecast to be £9.3m in 2006/07, rising steadily to £14.97m in 2009/10. Of this approximately £1.0m in 2006/07, rising to £4.4m in 2009/10 is due to increased unsupported borrowing for which the council receives no funding through the RSG settlement.

166 Uncertainty over the level and timing of capital receipts could adversely affect the amount of unsupported borrowing required with adverse consequences on the revenue account arising from increased MRP and lost interest.

167 At 30th September there was a total balance of £7.78m third party contributions that the Council holds, the majority of which is Section 106 funding. Of this, £3.29m is not available for spending, constituting such items as returnable deposits and monies dependent on other bodies, £3.34m has been allocated to schemes, leaving £1.15m still to be allocated. The balance of funds at month 9 stood at £8.33m.

168 Appendix A shows budgets, actual spend to 31st December 2006, and projected outturns on an individual programme basis.

BACKGROUND

169 The three-year capital programme with an original budget of £213.199m was approved by cabinet on 23 February 2006. The original budget for 2006/07 was set at £102.815m and revised to £104.817m after budgets from previous years had been carried over and additional grant funding had been added. The monitoring in this report is against this revised budget.

170 Projected outturns received from departments indicate that significant re-profiling will be required as a result of delays in commencing projects and hence a delay in delivering these projects. In the budget context this has an initial positive impact by reducing financing costs for the next year; however, the risk of eventual overspend

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 190 on these projects is increased due to high inflation rates currently applicable across the construction industry.

171 An outturn report will be produced at the end of the financial year showing final spend against budget. As part of the capital review currently underway, officers will scrutinise any variances and requests for re-profiling of budgets and this will be reported to Cabinet. This may provide opportunities to reallocate resources to new schemes.

CURRENT YEAR 2006/07 CAPITAL PROGRAMME

172 The table below shows the actual spend to date and the projected outturn for 2006/07. The Contingency provision along with Hillingdon House Farm, Hayes Stadium, Breakspear Crematorium and TfL expenditure are reported on an exceptions basis due to the uniquely specific nature of these projects or because expenditure is significantly outside the control of officers.

Actual Actual Estimated Spend Spend Outturn as YTD as % of % of Original Revised (DEC Revised Estimated Revised Group Budget budget 06) Budget outturn budget Variance £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

Education & Children's Services 28,463 30,914 22,164 72% 28,355 92% -2,559 Planning & Community Services 5,559 5,624 1,958 35% 4,145 74% -1,479 Adult Social Care, Health & Housing 4,606 5,085 2,270 45% 3,951 78% -1,134 Environment & Consumer Protection 2,881 4,489 852 19% 3,258 73% -1,231 Finance & Resources 3,327 4,357 1,968 45% 4,006 92% -351 Deputy Chief Executive 1,819 1,310 302 23% 576 44% -734

Total 46,655 51,779 29,514 57% 44,291 86% -7,488

HRA 30,887 32,468 21,431 66% 32,495 100% 27

Total 77,542 84,247 50,945 60.5% 76,786 91% -7,461

Contingency 1,781 1,831 0 0% 1,337 73% -494 HHF 11,500 10,036 981 10% 1,500 15% -8,536 Hayes Stadium 6,000 2,000 465 23% 994 50% -1,006 TFL 3,992 4,592 1050 23% 3,889 85% -703 Breakspear Crem 2,000 2,111 0 0% 711 34% -1,400

Grand Total 102,815 104,817 53,441 51.0% 85,217 81% -19,600

173 The main issues arising in terms of the progress on the capital programme to date are set out below.

174 Forecast outturn for the year of £85.2m representing 81% of the budget (£91.966m representing 89% reported at the end of month 6). The chief cause of this is the re-

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 191 scheduling of major projects within PCS, ECP and DCE caused by tendering delays or planned re-phasing to achieve the best overall financial outcome.

175 Actual spend at the end of month 9 of £53.4m representing 51% of budget (£34.9m representing 34% reported in month 6).

176 Excluding three major projects (Hillingdon House Farm, Hayes Stadium and Breakspear Crematorium) and TfL projects, over which the council has limited control, the forecast outturn is expected to be £76,786m, 91% of the revised budget (£81.439m representing 98% reported in month 6)

177 Three major projects HHF, Hayes Stadium and Breakspear Crematorium have all been re-scheduled to future years in order to re-align expenditure with expected capital receipts in the case of HHF and Hayes stadium and due to tendering delays with the crematorium.

178 The cash spend to date within ECP continues to remain low at 19%. However, this rises to 53% when the factors below are considered

• There is an additional £105k of spend in relation to commitments set up at the end of last year. • A potential surrender of £339k is proposed to help finance new capital bids. • Requests for slippage of £2,256k into 2007/08. • Further potential slippages of £78k are likely to be requested.

MONITORING OF THE 2006/07 CAPITAL PROGRAMME

179 Following the recent review of capital programmes over the three-year period, significant re-phasing is likely to be necessary. Appendix A sets out details of the current programme and shows projected outturns following a series of departmental reviews. £1.03m of resources was identified for release for the latest round of capital bids. A second stage of review is planned once final outturns become known that may provide further resources to reallocate to new schemes.

Education & Children’s Services

180 A spend of £22.164m has been incurred from a budget of £30.914 representing 72% of budget. An outturn of 92% of budget is expected at the end of the year.

181 Ruislip High School is now near to completion and operating with year 7 pupils. It is ahead of schedule with just retention monies to pay and some snagging issues to resolve. Overall, this project is expected to be within budget.

182 Actual spend by schools of £6,762k from a budget of £8,174k (82.7%) within the School Improvement Programme and Formula Capital Devolved to Schools was incurred by 31st December. The expectation is that 100% of budget will be spent within this year.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 192 183 Fountains Mill Youth Centre is nearing completion and within budget (£437k). Other Youth projects (Young Peoples Facilities and New Opportunities Fund) are reporting spending on target for 2006/07.

184 Unallocated S106 funding for schools projects currently has a balance of £1,044k awaiting allocation to suitable specific projects.

Planning & Community Services

185 Excluding HHF and the Hayes Stadium projects actual spend of £1,958k representing 35% of budget has been incurred at month 9. Projected outturn of £4,145k is expected representing 74% of budget.

186 Hillingdon Sports & Leisure Centre: Major re-phasing of this project has resulted in a projected spend of 15% of budget in 2006/07 with the remaining spend to occur over the next two years.

187 Re-tendering for the build contract is planned for February 2007 and will include the option for a 50m swimming pool. This is dependent on a successful bid for £3m from the LDA and Sports England accompanied by an internal capital bid for an additional £2m.

188 Delays with the overall build could affect the planned opening of the Centre with a corresponding impact on the Council’s Revenue Account. Delays in opening the centre increases the losses incurred by the operators due to managing the athletics track in isolation. This is likely to result in extensions of periods remaining on the operators’ contract or penalties, or a combination of both with associated additional costs. Officers have employed an external Leisure Consultant to assist with negotiations between the Council and the Centre’s operator to mitigate costs as far as possible.

189 Extensions of time on the operators’ contract, penalties, or a combination of both are expected with associated additional costs. Officers have employed an external Leisure Consultant to assist with negotiations between the Council and the Centre’s operator to mitigate costs as far as possible.

190 Botwell Green Community Leisure Centre: Expenditure occurred at month 9 is £465k from a budget of £2m in 2006/07 with projected outturn of £994k. The commencement of this project is dependant on the sale of Hayes Stadium. Advertisements have been issued in January with an anticipated tender date for the Botwell project of May 2007.

191 A separate bid for the costs associated with making the Hayes Stadium site suitable for disposal and the relocation of a Boxing club currently on site of approximately £700k has been submitted in the latest capital bids round.

192 Brookfield Adult Education is now near completion with an expected underspend of £215k. This is to be surrendered to help resource new capital bids.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 193 193 Manor Farm:- Delays in the appointment of main contractors has resulted in projected spend of £208k from a budget of £1,143k in 2006/07 with the balance requested to be re-phased to 2007/08.

194 Assisted Funds:- A projected outturn of £322k is currently predicted from a budget of £413k. The £91k underspend is mainly attributable to a lack of suitable schemes being approved.

Adult Social Care, Health & Housing

195 Actual spend at month 9 was £2,270k from a budget of £5,085k (45% of budget) with a projected outturn of £3,951k (78% of budget).

196 Disabled Facilities and Private Sector Renewal Grant works are progressing steadily with the full 2006/07 budget expected to be used in these areas.

• Slippages are reported in the following programmes • Enabling Electronic Social Care Records £290k • Learning Disabilities Modernisation £194k • In House Mental Health Units £228k

Environment & Consumer Protection

197 Actual spend at 31st December was £852k representing 19% of the budget of £2,881k (excluding TfL projects and Breakspear Crematorium) with an anticipated outturn of £3,258 (73%) However, this actual spend figure rises to 53% when the factors below are considered:-

198 In addition there are significant commitments on a number of schemes particularly in Highways that will increase the spend figures over the coming months. The nature and profile of many of these schemes is that significant expenditure takes place in the latter stages of the year.

199 Breakspear Crematorium:- Replacement of cremators and mercury abatement equipment alongside chapel and car park developments is now planned to be undertaken in 2007/08 with the result that only £711k is projected to be spent from this year’s budget of £2,111k. This £3m project is in partnership with Harrow with two thirds of expenditure met by Hillingdon and one third by Harrow.

200 Almost all expenditure on crematoriums falls under exempt VAT classification and officers from both authorities are currently studying the partial exemption implications of such expenditure. It may be necessary to consider leasing cremators to bring some expenditure out of the partial exemption calculation.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 194 201 Parks and Open Spaces:- Expenditure of £57K has been incurred from a budget of £489K. In addition, purchase order commitments of £210K have been made and procurement of the remaining £222k is now well advanced.

Finance & Resources

202 Finance and Resources are projecting spend of £4,006k from a budget of £4,489k (92%) having spent 45% of this at month 9.

203 All projects are projecting 100% spend other that Electrical works for the civic centre where £100k of the £400k provision is expected to be spent this year. This programme has been phased over a two-year period.

Deputy Chief Executive

204 Actual spend of £302k from a budget of £1,310k representing 23% is expected to rise to 44% at the end of the year. In addition £100k has been released to help resource new capital bids thus raising this figure to 48%.

205 Disabled and Older Peoples Priorities:- At the end of month 9 actual spend was £36k from a revised budget of £329k, of which £79k was carried over from last year. Consultation with stakeholders has identified a number of potential projects that are currently under consideration. The expected outturn in this financial year is projected to be £100k

206 The HIP Customer Access and Flexible Working programmes are projecting outturn of £295k against a budget of £629k as a result of agreement to re phase significant parts of the project into 2007/08.

FUNDING

Three Year Capital Programme 2006/07- 2008/09

207 The three-year Capital Programme has a total budget of £245.88m. Of this, approximately £38.6m is funded via unsupported borrowing, £44m via supported borrowing, £51m via capital receipts with the remainder comprising grants, HRA revenue and third party contributions as shown in the table below.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 195 208 The second table uses the latest projected outturn figures and matches funding to these over the three years.

Section 106 Revised Unsupported Capital Supported and other Total Capital Budget Borrowing Receipts Borrowing Grants HRA contributions Programme

2006/7 21,168 20,433 22,817 26,949 9,065 4,385 104,817 2007/8 11,646 18,901 17,569 41,184 5,604 1,159 96,063 2008/9 5,803 11,865 3,667 18,110 5,555 0 45,000

Total 38,617 51,199 44,053 86,243 20,224 5,544 245,880

Section 106 Unsupported Capital Supported and other Total Capital Outturn Borrowing Receipts Borrowing Grants HRA contributions Programme

2006/7 3,760 23,539 22,557 26,269 9,092 2,087 85,217 2007/8 15,103 20,449 17,915 36,517 5,314 1,689 96,987 2008/9 18,821 12,112 3,667 18,710 5,555 0 58,865

Total 37,684 56,100 44,139 81,496 19,961 3,776 241,069

209 The lower borrowing in 2006/07 reflects the slippage of expenditure into future years. Over the 3 year period capital receipts are some £5m higher than forecast, with grants (£4.75m) and Section106 contributions (£1.77m) lower than forecast.

210 The movement of £4.75m in grants shown above is due to £6m Formula Capital and School improvement programme grants being phased into 2009/10, coupled with additional grants of £2m on the School Improvement programme and other smaller grant notifications recently received.

REVENUE IMPACT OF THE CAPITAL PROGRAMME

211 The projected financing costs for the current capital programme are shown in the table below including the proportion that is unsupported by government grant as part of the RSG settlement. This is an important Prudential indicator, indicating the consequent revenue commitments for future years that must be funded from the council’s own resources. These figures exclude the effect of any new capital schemes currently under consideration and which will be considered as part of the main Budget report in February.

Accumulated Revenue Costs Total Financing Costs due to Unsupported Borrowing £’000 £’000 2006-07 980 9,300 2007-08 1,410 11,300 2008-09 2,700 13,300 2009-10 4,420 14,970

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 196 212 This increased cost arises from funding the programme at a higher level than would be possible if only supported borrowing, grants, receipts, Section 106 funding and other contributions were used.

213 These figures are based on the assumption that £56m in capital receipts will be realized. Any shortfall will result in an increase in unsupported borrowing, thus further increasing the revenue cost shown above assuming the existing programme is to be maintained.

214 The Total Financing costs for 2006/07 are £760k less than reported in month 6. This is due to an anticipated increase in capital receipts and an increase in interest earned caused by a combination of higher interest rates and larger than expected cash balances as a result of significant re-phasing of projects to future years. For the same reasons, revenue costs of unsupported borrowing are projected to be £1.41m in 2007/08 (£1.72m less than reported in month 6) , leading to a reduced Capital Finance Requirement figure at the end of the year and consequently reducing the statutory MRP charge.

215 The financing costs illustrated here are highly sensitive to achieving the forecast capital receipts in this financial year. If these receipts were delayed beyond 31st March there would be an immediate impact of £800k in additional MRP for 2007/08.

216 Due to the scaling mechanism in place with respect to the Revenue Support Grant, much of the Supported Borrowing financing costs are clawed back in order to pay for ‘floors’ for other authorities, thus further adding to revenue pressures. Due to the ‘floors’ and high scaling factor of 69%, any increases in Supported Borrowing will not fully translate into actual grant.

DISPOSALS

217 The table below compares the capital budget as agreed on 23rd February with the latest projection of capital receipts.

Capital Receipts Agreed Budget Latest Projection £m £m 2006-07 34.072 23.539 2007-08 8.577 20.449 2008-09 8.038 12.112 Total 50.687 56.100

218 Actual receipts received at the end of December amount to £4.113m with another four disposals expected before March 31st including the sale of enabling land at Hillingdon House Farm in order to achieve the projected sum of £23.5m for the year. Housing sales of £3.854m have occurred resulting in £1.220m of usable capital receipts with the remainder being paid over to the DCLG under current pooling arrangements.

219 The Capital Programme is highly reliant on both the acquisition and timing of disposal proceeds with any shortfalls resulting in increased borrowing or a reduction in the capital programme. Any such proceeds arriving before the end of the financial year

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 197 reduces the Capital Financing Requirement and thus reduces the Minimum Revenue Provision (4% of receipt) that the Revenue account is charged the following year.

VAT PARTIAL EXEMPTION

220 The Council has special status under section 33 of the VAT Act 1994 that enables it to reclaim almost all of its VAT incurred on expenditure including ‘exempt’ supplies that would normally be non-recoverable.

221 However recovery of tax relating to exempt activities is only permissible providing that the amount of input tax on these activities does not exceed 5% of the total VAT recovered by the council. If this limit is exceeded all input tax reclaimed on exempt activities must be repaid to H M Revenues and Customs.

222 The table below indicates the forecast partial exemption percentages that are likely to be reached based on projected outturns for the three-year capital programme 2006- 2009. The 20005-06 figures are actual outturn.

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PARTIAL EXEMPTION % £’000 £’000 £’000 £’000 Exempt Revenue VAT based on past actuals 482.00 500.00 500.00 500.00

Exempt Capital VAT 873.28 660.55 1,591.48 618.99

Total Exempt VAT 1,355.28 1,160.55 2,091.48 1,118.99

Partial exemption % 3.92% 3.28% 5.77% 3.64%

223 On current projections based on the re-profiled capital programme this 5% limit will be breached in 2007/08 and the council would be liable to repay a total of £2.1M in VAT.

224 This situation can be avoided by tax planning measures, such as considering whether the VAT exempt services affected can be operated by the Council or managed externally, whether to apply for an Option to Tax on schemes where non- residential property rental income is involved or leasing crematorium equipment rather than purchasing under the Prudential Borrowing regime.

225 An Option to Tax has already been invoked for the Hillingdon House Farm project to take this project’s costs out of the exemption calculations. In addition the three major projects in the 2007-08 programme where tax planning is considered to be necessary are:-

• Botwell Green Leisure Centre • Manor Farm Complex • Breakspear crematorium

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 198 226 Officers are currently reviewing the funding mechanism for the new cremators and also the option to tax on the Botwell Green project. This would have the effect of taking any associated expenditure out of the exempt calculation, thus ensuring that the 5% limit is not breached.

SECTION 106 FUNDING AND OTHER THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTIONS

227 Of the ‘total balance of funds’ that the Council held at 30 September 2006 (£7.788m), £3.294m relates to funds that the Council is unable to spend and £3.341m is allocated to projects, leaving a residual balance of funds that the Council holds of £1.153m that is currently spendable and not yet allocated to specific projects.

228 Figures were not available at the time of writing for allocated amounts at 31 December 2006, however the total balance of funds stands at £8.328m of which £5.429m are funds associated with Environment and Planning and Transport with the remainder in Education.

229 Corporate capital monitoring includes Education S106 allocations but does not capture all the S106 funding in Environment and Planning. This is due to difficulties in splitting these monies between revenue and capital items. The S106 team will report directly to cabinet with these figures on 15 March 2007.

PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS.

230 This section of the report monitors the Prudential indicators for the London Borough of Hillingdon. The objectives of the Prudential Code are to ensure that local authorities’ capital investment plans are affordable, prudent and sustainable. To demonstrate that the objectives are being fulfilled the Code sets out indicators to support and record local decision-making.

231 In considering its programme for capital investment, the Council is required within the Prudential Code to have regard to:

Affordability, e.g. implications for Council Tax Prudence and sustainability, e.g. implications for external borrowing Value for money, e.g. option appraisal Stewardship of assets, e.g. asset management planning Service objectives, e.g. strategic planning for the authority Practicality, e.g. achievability of the forward plan.

232 The estimated capital expenditure to be incurred in the current, and future years is as follows:

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 £’000 £’000 £’000 £’000 General Fund 55,946 77,627 73,681 37,000 HRA 32,511 24,735 13,050 10,550 Total 88,457 102,362 86,731 47,550

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 199 233 The tables below shows the financing costs as a proportion of the net revenue stream for the General Fund and HRA.

General Fund 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 £’000 £’000 £’000 £’000 234 The Financing Costs 9,300 11,300 13,300 14,970 steady Net Revenue Stream 172,031 178,540 183,980 188,610 rise in Ratio 5.41% 6.33% 7.23% 7.94% this ratio reflects the increasing revenue burden from financing the current capital programme in future years. Nonetheless the increase from 5.41% in 2006/07 to 7.94% in 2009/10 shows the increasing impact on the revenue budget arising from investment in new capital schemes financed through unsupported borrowing.

235 A key measure of affordability is the incremental impact on the Council Tax. The estimated impact of the council’s capital spending plans on its revenue budget (the general fund) is shown by the projected increase in council tax. This indicator does not show the actual changes to council tax that will occur in these years, but expresses the general fund costs that result from the capital programme in terms of this levy on residents. The general fund cost rises significantly in 2007/08 to 2009/10 when the full impact of the programme is recognised in the revenue account. This reflects the significant level of unsupported borrowing required to fund the capital programme over the next three years.

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 For Band D Council Tax £ £4.88 £16.25 £10.27 £13.37 For Band D Council Tax % 0.5% 1.6% 1.0% 1.4%

236 The Capital Financing Requirement represents the value of gross debt required to finance Hillingdon’s capital expenditure and is shown in the table below. For each financial year the figure shown represents the borrowing for historic investment plus the current year’s capital expenditure.

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 £’000 £’000 £’000 £’000 General Fund 137,974 158,431 190,281 207,019 HRA 53,019 64,460 64,039 63,959 Total 190,993 222,891 254,320 270,978

237 Current borrowing by the Council remains within both the Operational Boundary and Authorised limit set by Full Council on 23rd February 2006.

CORPORATE CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Financial Implications

238 The financial implications are contained in the body of the report.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 200 CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

239 This is a Corporate Finance report.

Legal

240 There are no legal implications arising from this report.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

241 Monitoring report submissions from Groups.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 Page 201 Appendix A 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 Original Revised Capital Outturn Variance Budget Budget Expenditure to Group SCHEME Dec 06 £k £k £k £k £k HIP Customer Access & Contact Management 1,052 377 123 200 177 HIP Flexible Working 252 252 82 95 157 Disabled and Older People's Priorities 250 329 36 100 229 Local Strategic Partnership - PSA Expenditure 125 125 0 0 125 Deputy Chief HIP e-Delivery 100 146 14 120 26 Executive Office HIP Performance Mgmt 40 40 15 20 20 Hillingdon Business 0 13 0 13 0 Uxbridge Town Centre 0 28 24 28 0 S106 Hayes Campus Incubators 0 4 Server replacement & Con 0 4 Deputy Chief Executive Office Total 1,819 1,310 302 576 734 Mobile CCTV Vehicle 80 80 0 80 0 Youth Awareness Programme 0 131 51 131 0 Chrysalis 900 1,248 442 1181 67 Assisted Funding Programme 100 413 114 322 91 S106/S278 Schemes 0 286 286 286 0 Brookfield Adult Education Centre 360 437 174 222 215 Victoria Hall and Ruislip Manor Library Development 3,021 1,419 600 1,419 0 EYL Pump Priming 0 18 0 18 0 Planning & Ickenham Library PAT 0 4 0 4 0 Community Introducing IP telephony within Hillingdon Libraries 54 54 0 20 34 Services Oaklands Gate 0 91 57 91 0 Replacement libraries computer system 60 147 91 154 -7 Manor Farm 984 1,143 141 208 935 Botwell Dry Play (S106) 0 0 0 0 0 Highgrove Enhancement 0 2 3 3 -1 Hillingdon Sport & Leisure 11,500 10,036 981 1,500 8,536 Leisure Development - Botwell Green, Hayes 6,000 2,000 465 994 1,006 Minet Country Park (S106) 0 145 0 0 145 Queensmead Sports Centre Pitches 0 6 0 6 0 Planning & Community Total 23,059 17,660 3,405 6,639 11,021

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Page 202 Appendix A

2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 Original Revised Capital Outturn Variance Budget Budget Expenditure to Dec 06 Group SCHEME £k £k £k £k £k HRA -Decent Homes Works 27,253 28,130 19,190 28,130 0 HRA -New Build - 5 Sites 61 36 9 114 -78 HRA -New Build - Lavendar rise 12 9 1 2 7 HRA - Redevelopment - Middlesex Lodge 3,011 3,528 1,687 3,568 -40 HRA -Cash Incentive Scheme 350 365 146 281 84 HRA Other Projects 200 400 398 400 0 Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) 1,726 1,652 1,293 1,652 0 Private Sector Renewal Grant (PSRG) 753 893 497 893 0 Adult Social Care, Health & Colne Park Caravan Site - Refurbishment Works 304 304 123 181 Housing Improving Information Management 134 134 0 134 0 Mental Health 126 255 0 14 241 Learning Disabilities Modernisation Programme: Improving Merriman’s Respite Care Service 570 882 221 563 319 Enabling Electronic Social Care Record (ESCR) 294 453 140 163 290 Extension of mobile working - Carefirst 72 0 0 0 0 Learning Disability Modernisation Programme 194 0 125 -125 Service Redesign of In House Mental Health Units 402 402 9 174 228 Homecare Monitoring Software 31 110 110 110 0 Adult Social Care, Health & Housing Total 35,493 37,553 23,701 36,446 1,107

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Page 203 Appendix A 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 Original Revised Capital Outturn Variance Budget Budget Expenditure to Dec 06 Group SCHEME £k £k £k £k £k Integrated Childrens IT System 84 84 59 84 0 Replacement Children's Home Respite Care (Copperfield) 819 957 862 957 0 Barra hall surestart centre 0 122 21 42 80 Children's Centres 0 0 0 305 -305 Douay Martyrs Assisted Funding 0 102 0 102 0 Expansion Haydon 70 1,180 432 980 200 Expansions - Rosedale College (Hayes Manor) 0 1,399 1,523 1,523 -124 Expansions Frithwood 0 335 273 335 0 Expansions Newnham 0 6 6 6 0 Expansions Post 16 1,244 459 402 499 -40 Expansions Primary 0 6 0 6 0 Education & Expansions Secondary 0 14 0 14 0 Children Extension of Nursery Care / Education 2,831 1,796 0 708 1,088 Services Formula Capital Devolved to Schools 3,828 2,848 3,004 3,860 -1,012 Guru Nanak 0 709 15 16 693 Harefield schools CCTV S106 0 5 0 5 0 Hillingdon School Nursery 0 14 0 14 0 NOF Bishopshalt 0 288 260 288 0 NOF Holy Trinity 0 64 17 64 0 NOF Mellow Lane 0 35 30 35 0 Pinkwell 2 Classrooms 0 216 0 216 0 Ruislip High School 12,002 11,605 10,926 11,707 -102 S106 unallocated Secondary 0 227 0 0 227 S106 unallocated P or S 0 772 0 0 772 S106 unallocated Primary 0 45 0 0 45

Education & Children Services continued over page

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Page 204 Appendix A 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 Original Revised Capital Outturn Variance Budget Budget Expenditure to Group SCHEME Dec 06 £k £k £k £k £k

School Improvement Programme (Modernisation) 5,778 5,326 3,758 4,298 1,028 School Places - Sacred Heart 555 405 0 405 0 School Places Provision 0 19 0 19 0 School travel Plans 0 14 14 14 0 Schools Access Programme 604 55 33 55 0 Education & Specialist Schools 75 62 0 62 0 Children Targeted Capital - Rosedale (Hayes Manor) 0 92 43 92 0 Services Targeted Capital Funding 03/4 expansion post 16 - Abbotsfield 133 44 31 45 -1 Targeted Capital -Oak Farm/Uxbridge High 0 1,000 39 1,000 0 West Drayton Nursery Refurbishment 0 5 0 5 0 Fountains Mill 319 427 417 417 10 Fountains Mill Healthy Hillingdon 0 10 0 10 0 Investment in Young People's Facilities 121 167 0 167 0 Education & Children Services Total 28,463 30,914 22,165 28,355 2,559 HIP People Management Computer System 730 630 483 600 30 ICT Asset Management Strategy 663 680 577 680 0 Desktop Refresh 333 333 121 313 20 Civic Centre Modernisation II 225 212 163 212 0 DDA Programme 503 692 58 692 0 Property Enhancements Programme 803 722 126 722 0 Oracle 3 Year Improvement Plan (Yrs 2 and 3) 50 0 0 0 0 Finance & Kings College Pavilion refurbishment 20 64 42 64 0 Resources Cooling Towers 0 290 290 290 0 Chiller Valve Replacement 0 61 0 61 0 C/C Water Tanks 0 12 0 12 0 DDA Works to Members Car Park 0 12 6 12 0 C/C Electrical Works 0 400 0 100 300 E-Procurement 0 179 85 179 0 Other Schemes 0 71 17 70 1 Contingency 500 500 0 337 163 Identified Risks 1,281 1,331 0 1,000 331 Finance & Resources Total 5,108 6,188 1,968 5,343 845

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Page 205 Appendix A

2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 2006/07 Original Revised Capital Outturn Variance Budget Budget Expenditure to Dec 06 Group SCHEME £k £k £k £k £k BSP funded by Transport for London 3,992 4,592 1,050 3,889 703 Highways Maintenance 758 619 197 609 10 Street Lighting - replacement of defective columns 153 406 113 306 100 Highways Maintenance Additional Programme 250 260 2 260 0 Road Safety Programme 253 377 96 377 0 Traffic Congestion Mitigation 203 273 5 5 268 Streetscene / Street Furniture 110 313 46 291 22 Green Spaces Strategy Implementation 250 489 57 489 0 Environment & Recycling Projects 309 309 0 0 309 Consumer Protection Breakspear Crematorium 2,000 2,111 0 711 1,400 Highways BPR 295 295 0 295 0 Other Environment Schemes 0 90 -36 18 72 Car Park Improvement 0 70 0 0 70 Pump Priming Cleansing Vehicles 0 39 39 39 0 Purchase of Vehicles 0 439 439 439 0 Footways (PRA funded) 0 210 -11 174 36 Other schemes 300 300 -95 -44 344 Environment & Consumer Protection Total 8,873 11,192 1,902 7,858 3,334

Grand Total 102,814 104,817 53,443 85,217 19,600

Cabinet report 8th February 2007 PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Page 206