For enquiries on this agenda please contact Gary Marson 020 8547 5021 [email protected]

This agenda is available on: www.kingston.gov.uk/CommitteeMinutes

3 February 2014

AGENDA

Members are requested to bring to the meeting the pack separately circulated as ‘Destination Kingston Medium Term Service and Financial Plan 2014/15 to 2017/18 and Detailed Budget and Council Tax 2014/15.

A meeting of the PLACE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE will be held at the Guildhall, Kingston upon Thames on TUESDAY 11 FEBRUARY 2014 at 7:30 pm

Members of the Committee

Councillor Patricia Bamford (Co-Chair) Councillor Liz Green (Co-Chair) Councillor Simon James (Co-Chair)

Councillor Sushila Abraham Councillor Dennis Doe Councillor Stephen Brister Councillor Adrian Holder Councillor John Burgess Councillor Richard Hudson Councillor Malcolm Self Councillor Howard Jones Councillor Frank Thompson Councillor Gaj Wallooppillai

EMERGENCY EVACUATION ARRANGEMENTS

On hearing the alarm which is a loud siren please leave the building by the nearest available fire exit and assemble by the triangle at the front of the Guildhall. Anyone requiring assistance to evacuate the building should go to the refuge areas which are situated outside Committee Room 1 and the Mayor’s Parlour where you will be met by a member of the building management team and assisted from the building.

RECORDING OF THE MEETING - This meeting will be recorded and the recording will be available on the web site with the agenda and minutes.

FILMING - residents and journalists/media wishing to film meetings are permitted to do so but are asked to give advance notice of this and respect any concerns expressed by people on being filmed.

CALL IN –The deadline for the call in of any decisions is 5:00pm 5 working days after the publication of the minutes, the date will be shown on the minutes.

2

AGENDA

QUESTIONS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

• a 30 minute question and answer session at the start of the meeting –advance notice of questions is encouraged.

• contributions during the debate on items at the discretion of the Chair

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND ATTENDANCE OF 1.1.1. ALTERNATE MEMBERS

2.2.2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests and any other non- pecuniary interests (personal interests) relevant to items on this agenda.

3.3.3. MINUTES To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 November 2013.

MEDIUM TERM SERVICE & FINANCIAL PLAN 2014/15 TO Appendix A 4.4.4. 2017/18 (DESTINATION KINGSTON 2014-2018)

PLACE SHAPING PRIORITY 2 PROGRAMME HOUSING Appendix B 5.5.5. SERVICE TRANSFORMATION -RE-COMMISSIONING

PLACE-SHAPING PRIORITY 1 PROGRAMME - RE- Appendix C 6.6.6. COMMISSIONING OF PLACE

7.7.7. RECOGNITION OF FAMOUS PEOPLE AND PLACES Appendix D

APPOINTMENT TO OUTSIDE BODY - LONDON YOUTH GAMES 8.8.8. LIMITED

The Committee is asked to approve the appointment of Councillor Simon James as the Council’s representative on London Youth Games Limited in place of Councillor Sharon Hartley. Each London Borough is represented on the Board and the Council’s appointee receives regular information on sports development work in Kingston and on teams participating in the annual London Youth Games.

URGENT ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER STANDING ORDER 32 - CIL Appendix E 9.9.9. CHARGING RATE

10. URGENT ITEMS AUTHORISED BY THE CHAIR

3

11. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC The following matter may be considered in private if the Committee agrees that, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public are excluded from the meeting on the grounds that it is likely that exempt information, as defined in paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, would be disclosed. This paragraph covers information relating to the financial and business affairs of any particular person.

PLACE SHAPING PRIORITY 1 - RE-COMMISSIONING OF PLACE Appendix F 12. EXEMPT ASPECTS

A1 APPENDIX A

PLACE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

11 FEBRUARY 2014

DESTINATION KINGSTON – MEDIUM TERM SERVICE AND FINANCIAL PLAN 2014/15 TO 2017/2018 AND DETAILED BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX 2014/15

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

SUMMARY

The pack ‘Destination Kingston, Medium Term Service and Financial Plan 2014/15 to 2017/18 and Detailed Budget and Council Tax 2014/15’ (which has been circulated separately to all Members of the Council and is available to view on the Council’s website and in public libraries) sets out the Medium Term Service and Financial Plan for 2014/15 to 2017/2018 and the detailed information required to enable the Policy & Resources Committee to make recommendations to Budget Council on 27 February 2014. That meeting will formally approve the plan, together with the revenue budget and council tax for 2014/15.

The pack contains all the information that will be presented to the Council meeting and is structured as follows:

• Section 1 of the pack provides the summary and background information • Section 2 contains the draft text of the destination Kingston 2014/2015 to 2017/18 document to be published in March 2014. • Section 3 is the budget report and details for setting Council tax for 2014/15. • Additional annexes provide further detail and are referred to in the relevant parts of the report.

Action proposed by the Lead Member for Finance and Resources

It is proposed that:

1. the HRA 2014/15 base budget and the proposals for growth is agreed

2. the revised rent policy subject to constraints identified in paragraph 12 of Annex 10 is agreed

3. the proposed rent increases for HRA dwellings of 5.3% given in paragraph 12 of Annex 10 with effect from 1 April 2014 is agreed

4. the increase of 3.2% for Hostel rents, the rents in dwellings owned by the Council other than HRA properties, service charges and to other charges and fees for ancillary property with effect from 1 April 2014 is agreed

5. that no increase be made to Supporting People charges as per paragraph 16 of Annex 10 agreed

6. the indicative HRA revenue budgets for 2015/16 to 2017/18 in enclosure 2 to Annex 10 are approved

7. the approach to the re-commissioning of the services within the Committee’s remit is A2

endorsed, and the detailed budget proposals for Place Services, and the growth and savings associated with these, are approved for recommendation to Policy and Resources committee

Reason for action proposed

To consult the Committee on the proposed destination Kingston medium term plan and the detailed budget and council tax for 2014/15.

BACKGROUND

1. This is the third budget process following the move from the Executive/Scrutiny model of decision making to Strategic Committees and in line with the 2013/14 budget setting process, each of the three Strategic Committees will have the opportunity to discuss the budget proposals. Health and Wellbeing Board will also consider the proposals for the first time this year.

2. Policy and Resources Committee will cover the overall draft budget and make the appropriate recommendations to Council. This Committee is asked to review the proposals relating to its area of responsibility in the context of the overall budget position. The Committee is asked to endorse the budget proposals within its remit to Policy and Resources.

3. The pack contains the budget proposals and supporting papers for all areas of the Council. In relation to the remit of this committee, the key parts of the pack are outlined below.

a. Growth has been provided for a number of services within this Committee’s remit and these are outlined in paragraphs 19 to 22 of Section 3 . This includes growth for Homelessness, Private Lease Service, Waste Disposal, Flood and Water Management Act, Ride London and LA Social Housing Fraud.

b. Budget reductions are outlined in paragraph 23 of Section 3 , with details in Annex 4 . The reductions relevant to this committee’s remit are across a variety of projects within OK2 – Commissioning, OK3 – Shared Services and some outside of the scope of the One Kingston programme.

c. The capital programme is outlined in paragraphs 54 to 60 of Section 3 of the pack with more detail in Annex 9 . This includes information on allocations for the HRA capital programme, Empty Property Scheme, Street Lighting Column Replacement and Environmental Health and Trading Standards Software Investment.

d. Annex 6 to the report provides a summary of the budget allocation for each service area.

e. Annex 15 considers the forecast income and expenditure within the ring- fenced On-Street Parking and Bus Lane Enforcement accounts.

f. Annex 10 gives details of the ring-fenced Housing Revenue Account budget. A3

4. Housing Consultative Committee considered the draft HRA budget at their meeting on 29 January 2014 and endorsed the proposals set out above in relation to the HRA.

Background papers : held by Rachel Howard, Finance Strategy Capability Lead – telephone: 020 8547 5625, e-mail: [email protected] , author of report

None B1 APPENDIX B

PLACE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

11 TH FEBRUARY 2014

PLACE SHAPING PRIORITY 2 PROGRAMME HOUSING SERVICE TRANSFORMATION - RE-COMMISSIONING

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLACE

SUMMARY

This report makes recommendations following the appraisal of various options for delivery of the Housing Services, as part of the Council’s agreed commissioning process. For the purposes of the commissioning process the Housing Service was grouped into Landlord and Non-Landlord services.

This work was carried out as part of the Housing Service Transformation Project, which is one of five priorities within the Place Shaping programme.

The report describes the process through which the appraisal has been carried out and summarises the main findings which support the recommendations.

Indicative next steps and timescales are provided.

Action proposed by the Lead Member for Better Homes

It is recommended that

The committee agrees to the recommended options for delivery of both the Landlord and Non-landlord service groupings of In house provision with full service redesign.

Reason for action proposed

To enable the project objectives to be met and the next phase of the Housing Service Transformation to progress, Phase 2 - Service Transformation.

BACKGROUND

1. The vision for Kingston the place is to be the best possible place to live, work, and visit; to be the destination of choice; and one that offers an easily identifiable experience for every corner of the Borough – it’s a great place to be for free. A vision which is derived from the Councils medium term service and financial plan – Destination Kingston

B2

2. In order for us to deliver this vision we have established a programme (the ‘Place Shaping programme’) covering a range of activity, which primarily focuses upon the Council’s commissioning framework. The Housing Service Transformation project is one of five Priority work streams and includes the re-commissioning of the services that currently constitute the Council’s Housing function. This report recommends a commissioning approach based upon a detailed business case (appended).

3. The Housing Service Transformation Project (HSTP) follows the agreed corporate Commissioning process, underpinned by robust project management. It also integrates the Kingston Test and follows established governance arrangements.

4. The original project mandate and initial business case to establish the project were endorsed in February 2013. This is available as a background paper. The project mandate sets out the drivers for change and areas for service transformation. There is high level member, officer and resident support for a reshaped housing service that is resident focussed, more responsive and better equipped to meet future needs.

5. This aligns with a range of the Council’s overall objectives, particularly the aim to deliver more efficient and effective services, whilst making significant financial savings and achieving high levels of customer satisfaction.

6. The project’s objectives are set out in the project mandate, which are the delivery of housing services that provide: • Increased value for money • Increased satisfaction from tenants, leaseholders, residents & members • Increased engagement with residents and key partners and involvement by partners • Evidence of service led innovation, increased ownership, and greater staff empowerment • A resilient service that is future proofed to meet external demands, such as the challenge of government welfare reforms. 7. An overview of the HSTP is set out in Annex 1, Appendix 1 to this report. This phase of the project, Phase 1- Service Delivery Options has followed the Council’s commissioning process.

BUSINESS CASE

8. The full business case produced, in support of the Commissioning Options Appraisal conducted, is at Annex 1. This report details relevant, findings conclusions and recommendations. It should be noted that, to facilitate a B3

manageable options appraisal process, the Housing Service was grouped into Landlord and Non-Landlord services.

9. The first stage of evaluation considered the long-list of options and assessed the key benefits, costs and risks identified for each of the options. This information was used to short list the most suitable options. It was concluded that the following options would be shortlisted for more detailed evaluation. A summary of the evaluation of the long-list of options is available as a background paper:

Group 1 – Landlord • Option 1 In-house (Service re-design) • Option 2 Outsourcing, noting that soft market testing would improve our knowledge on potential benefits, costs and risks of this option. • Option 3 Community Housing Trust, noting that commercial assessment and a reference site visit would improve our knowledge on potential benefits, costs and risks of this option.

Group 2 – Non-Landlord • Option 1 In-house (Service re-design) • Option 2 Shared Service

10. The scoring to be used for the second stage of the options appraisal was also agreed at this stage. Weightings were agreed for the factors to be assessed in the second stage of the options evaluation.

11. For the Landlord Service grouping, In-house (Service re-design) scored more highly than the Outsourcing and Community Housing Trust options. It was considered more capable of delivering the project’s key objectives than the other options.

12. For the Non-landlord Service grouping, In-house (Service re-design) scored more highly than the Shared Services option. It was considered more capable of delivering the project’s key objectives.

RECOMMENDATIONS

13. The recommended option for the future delivery of Landlord Services is the In- house (Service re-design) option.

14. The recommended option for the future delivery of Non-landlord Services is the In-house (Service re-design) option.

15. The potential benefits to be gained from these recommended options are dependent on successful service transformation, the principal benefits and risk being detailed in the Business Case, provided as Annex 1.

B4

16. The recommendations set out in this report do not preclude the consideration of other service delivery options at a future stage, where there is a strong business case to support them. The Council’s Commissioning framework incorporates a cycle of service review based on the “analyse, plan, do, and review” approach. As part of the Council’s Commissioning framework, service delivery arrangements will be kept under regular review and if new proposals for future service delivery come forward, as part of future review work, they will be developed working closely in liaison with residents and other key Housing stakeholders and brought back to Committee for consideration.

TIMESCALE

17. If the Committee approves the recommended options, a Project Initiation Document will be produced. This document will set out: the appropriate project structure; implementation plan; resourcing requirements; key risks and appropriate mitigation actions. An indicative timetable for the implementation of Phase 2, Service Transformation is:

Stage A : Design (5 months) February to June 2014

This stage will include: • Development of service improvement proposals with staff and service customers (including tenants and leaseholders), in line with the identified areas for improvement outlined in the recommendations section of this report; and

• In parallel, development of proposed organisation wide new structure for the service, building on the rebalancing of the housing management functions carried out as part of Phase 0 of the project.

Stage B : Consult (3 months) July to September 2014

This stage will carry out appropriate consultation with relevant stakeholders on the restructuring and wider service improvement proposals.

Stage C : Implement (6 months) October to December 2014

This stage will include: • Selection and appointment of staff to the new structure; • Implementation of service improvement proposals; • Implementation of required learning and development activity; and • Implementation of appropriate technology improvements identified in stage A.

B5

It should be noted that the above timescales are indicative. In particular some of the service improvement proposals, appropriate technology improvements and learning and development activity are likely to take us into 2015.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

18. The financial appraisal indicates that Option 1 (in-house provision with service redesign) will provide the greatest level of Housing Revenue Account savings for Landlord Services, as it provides similar levels of savings to option 2 but has less associated financial risk. Option 1 (in-house provision with service redesign) will provide the greatest level of General Fund savings from Non-Landlord Services. This is based on the assumptions set out in the financial appraisal working papers and is indicative at this stage.

19. Significant up-front investment would be needed to implement all options, though it is expected that Option 3, Community Housing Trust for Landlord Services may have additional set-up and ongoing staffing costs compared to other options. The investment for all options would need to fund project management costs, professional fees, costs of procurement, any redundancy costs arising through implementation, and consultation or engagement activities.

20. No savings have been included for overheads in the savings exemplified in this report as further work is needed to clarify the commissioning intentions regarding future service provision and detailed discussion with support services regarding the extent to which it would be possible to reduce costs depending on which option is progressed.

21. The next stages of the commissioning process will identify more detailed solutions for the selected strategic options. This will include detailed estimates for the level of one-off investment required to implement the option and an analysis of the likely return on investment and payback period of the proposals.

HR IMPLICATIONS

22. Housing Service staff and the Housing Directorate Consultative Group (DCG) staff and Unison have been regularly briefed on the project and its constituent phases and will continue to do so moving forwards.

23. We have brought forward Phase 3A of the project, Cultural Change, and set up a separate workstream on cultural change and communications, reporting to the Project Team. As part of this workstream, we have surveyed Housing and our partner staff on their views of the service and used this to inform Housing Staff Improvement workshops to which all housing staff have been invited and which took place in December.

24. It should be noted that: B6

• There are no HR TUPE implications arising from adoption of the in-house service delivery options. • There would be TUPE implications arising from adoption of the Landlord Service grouping: Outsourcing; and Community Housing Trust options. • There may also be TUPE implications for the Non-landlord: Shared Service option considered.

25. The One Kingston / One Council Change Management procedures will be adopted as appropriate.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

26. There are no legal implications arising from the in-house (service transformation) options. The Council has the necessary legal powers to pursue these options.

27. Should the outsourcing and/or Community Housing Trust options be subsequently adopted by the Council then Section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 would likely apply. These options would involve transfer of the housing management functions from the Council organisation and would require Secretary of State approval and require formal consultation with residents before this would be given. It should be noted that Council may not receive the necessary support from residents, who failed to support the previous Council’s proposals for stock transfer.

28. A number of other legal considerations also arise, which would need to be addressed, including, in relation to the Community Housing Trust option:

• Structure of the Community Housing Trust (resident led mutual/ social enterprise) and governance arrangements;

• Procurement – the commissioning of services from a newly formed Community Housing Trust is likely to be subject to the public procurement rules, subject to any exclusions (e.g. Part B services) which may apply. To the extent that a regulated procurement process is required consideration would then need to be given to setting up the Trust as a “Teckal” body;

• State Aid – the conferring of any benefits on a newly formed Community Housing Trust (e.g. assets or funding) poses a risk of state aid which would need to be mitigated in the contractual arrangements entered into;

• Tax and VAT – an analysis of the tax and VAT consequences of whatever is proposed will need to evaluated (e.g. if the Trust is set up as a company it will pay corporation tax on profits); and Employees and pensions – any externalisation to a Community Housing Trust will involve a TUPE transfer of the staff. Consideration will need to be given to B7

ongoing pension arrangements, most probably by way of a Pension Fund Admission agreement to enable staff to remain in the Kingston Fund. 29. In relation to the shared service option for the Non-Landlord Service, the Council has the necessary legal powers to create a shared service but, such an arrangement will involve a TUPE transfer of staff (either to or from Kingston depending on whether Kingston is the host authority). This will have pension implications. A Collaboration Agreement will need to be entered into formalising the arrangements for the operation of the shared service.

RISK ASSESSMENT

30. The project’s risk register has been kept updated throughout the project. Mitigation plans have been produced for red risks as they have arisen. The risk register is available as a background paper,

REPRESENTATION AND SUPPORT

31. We have sought additional views from representatives of our tenants and leaseholders on the recommendations of this report through the Housing Consultative Committee on 29 th January, prior to making our recommendations to this Committee.

EQUALITIES 32. Equalities issues have been taken into consideration throughout the project, which has benefitted from the advice of the Council’s equalities advisor. An Equalities Impact Assessment was produced, as part of the impact analysis of resident and user needs. This was discussed and endorsed at the Place Equalities forum. This EQIA (Form B) is provided as Annex 2.

33. Participants at the recent Your Kingston Your Say focus group stated they were not overly concerned with who delivered the service. They appreciated the need to save money and would accept delivery by a third party as long as it was efficient, cost effective and to an acceptable standard.

34. The project has a communications strategy communications plan which has guided communications and stakeholder engagement. This is available as a background paper.

Background papers : held by Dale Squire – 020 8547 5439, e-mail: [email protected] Author of report: Dale Squire, Project Manager, Housing Service Transformation Project

1. Project Mandate and initial business case, dated 26 th February B8

2. Service Needs analysis, dated 11 th October 2013 3. Report on Soft Market Testing, October 2013 (E) 4. Stage 1: Options Appraisal (Summary of evaluation of Long Listed Options), dated 4 th November 2013 5. Stage 2: Evidence tables for evaluation of shortlisted options, dated 11 th October 6. Stage 2: Options Appraisal (Deliverability Assessment for Recommended options), dated 17 th November 2013 7. Financial Appraisal on commissioning options, dated 18 th December (E) 8. Project Risk Register, dated 15 th November 2013 9. Project Communication Strategy and Plan, dated 4 th December 2013.

B9 ANNEX 1

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

Service Area: Place Directorate Programme title: OK 2.6 Commissioning Place - Housing Service Transformation Sponsor: Darren Welsh (Head of Housing) Programme Manager: Dale Squire Status Approved Approved by (with Project Team, 11 th December 2013 date/s): One Kingston Place Board, 18 th December 2013 Commissioning Support Board, 6th January 2014 Strategic Leadership Team 21 st January 2014 Place and Sustainability Committee, 11 th February 2014

CONTEXT A1. The Housing Service Transformation Project (HSTP) sits within the Place-Shaping programme, within One Kingston. It follows both the agreed corporate Commissioning Process underpinned by robust project management. It also integrates the Kingston Test and existing governance arrangements.

The original project mandate and initial business case to establish the project were endorsed by SLT on 26th February 2013. Vision A2. Our vision is to deliver better services, better homes, better places . The Council will listen and work with you in partnership to: • Shape services, ensuring they are fit for purpose and value for money • Deliver affordable and decent homes, that people want to live in • Support clean, green and safe neighbourhoods.

This vision has been refined following engagement with stakeholders, including comments received from staff at the Housing staff briefing sessions in October 2013. It has been used to shape the review of the commissioning options and will be used to define our implementation plans, once the delivery option has been decided. Overall Aim A3. The project mandate sets out the drivers for change and areas for service transformation.

A4. There is high level member, officer and resident support for a reshaped housing service that is resident focussed, more responsive and better equipped to meet future needs.

A5. This aligns with a range of the Council’s overall objectives, particularly the aim to deliver more efficient and effective services, whilst making significant financial savings and achieving high levels of customer satisfaction. Scope A6. The project mandate sets out the services in scope, which include Housing Operations, Community Housing and Strategic Housing group functions, within the B10

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

Housing Service. It was also determined that although not in scope at this point, the outcome of this project may also impact on areas not in scope (e.g. housing service elements of asset management/corporate landlord, finance, customer contact, ICT) if it concludes that greater synergies, efficiencies, or performance improvements can be achieved through the consideration of wider changes and it is recommended that the council should not rule this out if the evidence supports this as a preferred way forward.

STRATEGIC FIT A7. An overview of the HSTP is set out in Appendix 1 to this report.

The project is consistent with the overall objectives of the Council, as set out below:

Housing Strategy A8. The wider strategic context for this work is set within the Kingston Ho using Strategy 2011 to 2015, which may be found at: Kingston Housing Strategy 2011-15, providing a long-term strategic housing framework to plan and deliver improved housing, related benefits and improved quality of life for the people in Kingston: Making a difference together.

A9. The framework for the Housing Strategy is based on the Kingston Plan which provides a vision for the Borough in 2020. It holds our shared ambitions to achieve better outcomes for local people. Housing has a part to play in each of the themes of the Plan.

A10. The Housing Service Transformation project will support the principles set out in Destination Kingston 2012-16 and will, in particular, meet the Council’s commitment “to fully embrace and engage with the work of our partners ..... to deliver the outcomes that matter most to our local communities”.

An effective Commissioning Council A11. The RBK commissioning framework sets out the vision in “... achieving the right outcomes by deciding what service is needed, how it should be delivered, and which public, private or third sector organisation should deliver within effective use of resources”.

A12. How we commission these and other services is crucial. To meet our objectives and to get the right results, the process of deciding what service is needed, how it should be delivered and by whom – be it public, private or voluntary sector – is fundamental.

A13. The project has followed the Council’s commissioning cycle. The Analyse and Plan stages are informed by Phase 1 of the project and the production of this business case. This will conclude with a report to the Place and Sustainability Committee, where the recommended options for service delivery will be presented on 11th February 2014.

A14. The Do stage would be undertaken in 2014 and 2015, defining and implementing the change as part of Phase 2 - Service Transformation.

B11

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

A15. The Review stage will be carried out by Phase 3 of the project, which is about embedding the changes and comprises both: Phase 3A Cultural Change and also Phase 3B Housing Asset Management Plan, building on the outcome of the HRA Business Plan, which was developed as part of phase 1B and is being presented to Place and Sustainability Committee for approval on 28th November 2013.

A16. The recommendations in this report are in line with the Council’s approach to Council-wide commissioning.

OBJECTIVES A17. The project’s objectives are set out in the project mandate and are the delivery of housing services that provide: • Increased value for money • Increased satisfaction from tenants, leaseholders, residents & members • Increased engagement with residents and key partners and involvement by partners • Evidence of service led innovation, increased ownership, and greater staff empowerment • A resilient service that is future proofed to meet external demands, such as the challenge of government welfare reforms.

DEMONSTRATING THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT

Service needs analysis A18. A service needs analysis has been carried out to provide an evidence base and inform the commissioning of Housing services in scope. This is available as a background paper.

A19. The aim was to understand the needs already being met by these services (the As- Is, or baseline), and to inform the options explored moving forward. Particular focus has been on: • Scoping out existing services using a mix of performance and satisfaction data • Our statutory duties and powers as a Local Authority • Setting a baseline of performance and satisfac tion.

A20. There are a number of changes driving the need for the Council to appraise its service delivery options: • The need to ensure that the Housing Service fully supports a strong strategic housing approach aligned with the Kingston community plan to deliver the widest community benefits. • The need to ensure that the service is aligned with the corporate structures and delivery models to ensure the best outcomes and effective use of available resources. B12

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

• The need to promote high levels of performance and continuous improvement and good value for money in the delivery of housing services. • Wider and deeper resident engagement to more closely involve residents in shaping the service. • The need to takes account of the service pressures e.g. Welfare reform and cuts in the Housing General Fund, whilst ensuring appropriate funding is available to meet the future demands for the service. • The need to develop a long term housing asset management plan which takes the Council beyond the current 5 year Better Homes programme. • The financial driver is the need to manage future cost pressures and redirect resources and efficiencies to most effectively manage service risks. Implications for funding A21. The main implications arising from the above change drivers, for both Landlord and Non-Landlord services are cost avoidance (welfare reform) and improved efficiency.

A22. RBK is experiencing significant reduction in government funding over two years, whilst demand and costs for local services are increasing. There is a growing budgetary gap and increasing economic uncertainty, with annual reductions in funding expected to continue to at least 2016/2017. All of this puts increasing pressure on the council to deliver value for money for every penny spent and puts pressure on the Housing General Fund.

A23. The Housing Revenue Account is also under pressure because of the impact that welfare reform may have on income and bad debts. This is at a time when we are investing significant sums of money into the Better homes programme and face increased demands for social housing from a growing and aging population, where private sector housing is increasingly becoming unaffordable.

CURRENT SERVICES AND BUDGETS A24. A breakdown of income and expenditure budgets for 2013/14 broken down by Landlord and Non-Landlord services in scope is as follows:

Landlord Services Supplies Grounds Running & Maintenance Expenses Salaries Services Transport Grand £k £k £k £k £k Total £k Resident Engagement 0 22 156 19 3 200 Estate Management (Incl. Caretakers) 399 430 1,583 42 116 2,570 Leasehold Management 0 0 79 4 1 84 Older Persons Housing 0 95 693 114 17 919 Total 399 547 2,511 179 137 3,773

B13

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

Non-Landlord services Fees & Other charges Salaries £k £k Grant £k £k Total £k Housing Strategy (OK5) 388 259 -357 0 290 Affordable Housing Development 217 28 0 0 245 Housing Register & Resettlement 634 231 -348 0 517 Complaints & Members enquiries 37 0 0 0 37 Private Sector services 367 72 0 -143 296 Homelessness Prevention 413 83 -70 0 426 Homeless Assessments 364 32 0 0 396 Temporary Accommodation 553 5,984 0 -5,383 1,154 Total 2,973 6,688 -775 -5,526 3,361

OPTIONS APPRAISAL A25. We have carried out an options appraisal of service delivery options for the Housing services in scope, using the RBK approach to commissioning services. This process used the results of the needs analysis, officer views and external views (see validation of officer views section below) to consider and evaluate options for future service delivery.

A26. At the project team meeting of 9th July 2013, it was agreed to group the Housing Service into Landlord and Non-Landlord services (see budget section above for details of the services covered by these groupings) to facilitate a manageable options appraisal process. As a principle, the options appraisal for both Landlord and Non-landlord service groups will determine the best strategic options for service delivery for RBK, however this would not rule out sub-options being considered and adopted later on e.g. externalisation of a component service, as part of Phase 2, Service Transformation.

A27. Initially a long-list of commissioning options for service delivery was considered for each of the two service groupings. There were nine in total:

1. In-house (Service Re-design) Continue to deliver the service in house, a service improvement plan will be developed. This option will potentially include an element of business process re-engineering.

2. Outsourcing This can take a number of different forms. Largely this is related to some form of procuring a service from an external third party. In relation to housing, there are four distinct different types of potential service provider. These are: Private sector e.g. Pinnacle; Regional Housing Associations e.g. Paragon; Local Housing Associations e.g. Richmond Housing Association and ALMOs e.g. Sutton Housing Partnership.

3. Decommission This is the planning and managing the elimination or reduction in services, or investment in services, in line with commissioning objectives. May be applicable where there is not a statutory duty to provide services. B14

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

4. Shared Service Sharing Management, Staffing, Systems and Commissioning responsibility with a neighbouring Authority. The Shared Service would be controlled by the participating authorities and have its own identity and governance arrangements.

5. Different Legal Model A: ALMO An Arms Length Management Organisation is a not-for-profit company that would be owned by RBK and provide services on its behalf. Ownership of the housing stock remains with the Local Authority.

6. Different Legal Model B: Co-operative / Social Enterprise A Community Gateway Organisation that defines tenants, leaseholders and community interests as part of its organisation’s constitution. In housing this would take the form of a Community Housing Trust, whose membership comprises tenants and leaseholders. The organisation would be governed by a Board made up of tenants, leaseholders, independents and Councillors, who are responsible for achieving its aims and objectives. The Council would still own the housing stock.

7. Different Legal Model C: Stock Transfer (LSVT) Large Scale Voluntary Transfer involves the Local Authority transferring the ownership of its stock with the agreement of the tenants. The key features of a Large Scale Voluntary Transfer are: • Transferring tenants are offered benefits such as rent guarantees, stock investment programmes and rights as 'assured tenants'. • Transfer price is determined by 'Tenanted Market Value'. • Transfers are funded entirely by the private sector.

8. In sourcing Is a term used where a new service is commissioned, there is no market in existence and the Council may decide to deliver the service itself.

9. Back sourcing Back-sourcing occurs where a service which has been previously outsourced is now brought back in-house.

A28. Each of these options were considered and evaluated against the ‘as is’ i.e. current service delivery arrangements for the Housing Service.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE A29. The options appraisals were informed by a variety of external sources of information.

Desk-top review A30. A desk-top review of available published information on the long-listed service delivery options was carried out.

Soft Market Testing A31. A Soft Market Testing exercise (SMT) was carried out, in order to get a better idea of the market and to inform the Outsourcing option for the Landlord Service evaluation. This summary of the findings is a confidential document as it contains B15

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

commercially confidential information provided on that basis by individual companies.

A32. This process was initiated by the publication of a Prior Information Notice (PIN) on 6th September 2013. Information was received from five organisations who gave views on: • Level of interest in delivering the in-scope services • Opinions on the bundling of the in-scope services • Suitable delivery models and procurement processes • Examples of financial savings, income maximisation and investment achieved through the delivery of similar services for other authorities.

A33. The Soft market testing demonstrated that there is a limited market for outsourcing Landlord services, with only two of the respondees detailing relevant experience in this area.

Independent expert views. A34. We met with the Lead Client manager from Woking Borough Council on 9th September 2013, who shared their experience of outsourcing Housing services some two years ago It was clear that a lot of thought had gone into packaging the services to gain market appeal (Joining up housing management and asset management services delivery within the contract). Whilst they have a positive experience on the quality aspects of the service delivery, it is important to note that it is but still early days and it unclear as yet whether there have been any financial benefit to the authority.

A35. We met with Welwyn & Hatfield Community Housing Trust on 2 nd December to explore their experience of setting up a Community Housing Trust, a form of social enterprise which has been taken up by a few Local Government stock owning housing organisations.

A36. As well as views of officers we spoke to representatives from the Chartered Institute of Housing, HouseMark and the ex Chief Executive officer of the Tenant Participation Advisory Service for their views on the merits of the shortlisted options. This was particularly useful for the Landlord Service: Community Housing Trust and Non-Landlord: Shared Service options where there is limited knowledge available within RBK and officer knowledge of these options to draw upon.

OPTIONS EVALUATION – STAGE 1 A37. The first stage of evaluation considered the long-list of options and assessed the key benefits, costs and risks identified for each of the options, using the RBK commissioning approach. This is evaluation is available as a background paper. It was concluded that we would short list the following options for more detailed evaluation:

Group 1 – Landlord • Option 1 In-house (Service re-design) • Option 2 Outsourcing, noting that market testing would improve our knowledge on potential benefits, costs and risks of this option. B16

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

• Option 3 Community Housing Trust, noting that commercial assessment and reference site visits would improve our knowledge on potential benefits, costs and risks of this option.

Group 2 – Non-Landlord • Option 1 In-house (Service re-design) • Option 2 Shared Service

A38. We also agreed the scoring to be used for the second stage of the options appraisal, shortlisted options evaluation. The Project Team agreed weightings for the factors to be assessed in the second stage of the options evaluation as follows: • Quality outcomes 40% • Service user perspective 15% • Costs / financials 30% • Organisation / Strategic / Commissioner fit 15%.

A39. For information, each of the above factors included detailed assessment of the shortlisted options against a number of sub-factors:

Quality outcomes: The ability to meet the need identified for: capacity, skills, experience, safeguarding, service requirements / standards, recruitment and retention of staff; focus on measurement and monitoring of service performance and outcomes for users; ability to meet statutory obligations, equalities responsibilities and “hard to reach” groups; improve flexibility / responsiveness of the service; integrate with other services/processes; add value; provide appropriate management support e.g. HR / Finance; and the ability to be innovative in achieving better outcomes.

Service User perspective: Satisfying service users; whether there would be any additional costs placed on the service user; what equalities issues may arise; whether service users would perceive this option as acceptable and/or accessible; and how the service users would view the change from the existing arrangements and the perceived costs and benefits.

Cost / Financial: Will the option provide an acceptable level of savings (net of ongoing cost increases) that justifies the one-off investment required; achieved; any one-off RBK; whether the option would attract any inward investment; any impact on level of borrowing required to finance capital expenditure; the associated inherent financial risks; potential impacts on overheads; any financial opportunities; and whether there are any other financial issues such as taxation, accounting treatment, pension contributions or insurance to take into account.

Organisation / Strategic / Commissioner: How well the option would contribute to existing organisation strategies, plans and priorities; how well the option would fit with RBK business / service processes e.g. ICT, referral procedures; Likely impact on management focus and level of RBK control; whether organisational knowledge and/or skills would be gained or lost as a result of the option; the likely impact on recruitment and retention of staff; where business support would be obtained from e.g. customer contact / legal; and what knock-on effects there would be on other parts of the organisation or partner organisations. B17

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

OPTIONS EVALUATION – STAGE 2 A40. As part of the second stage of the evaluation process, evidence tables were populated by using the information gathered in the commissioning work programme. The relative benefits / risks of each of the factors were also assessed and recorded, with relevant examples provided where they were available. The evidence tables for the evaluation of options in Stage 2 are available as a background paper.

A41. This provided the evidence for the evaluation team to score the shortlisted options. It should be noted that some sub factors were deemed more relevant than others and the Project Team apportioned 100 marks across the range of sub-factors (in accordance with the weightings listed above).

A42. A cross functional evaluation group of eight officers, including senior Housing Managers and One Kingston corporate representatives from Strategic Business, Finance and Human Resources, scored the options.

A43. The results of the evaluation of the shortlisted options are summarised in the table below:

Table A: Summary Scores for Stage 2 evaluation of Landlord service grouping

Overall Weighted Scores Option 1 - In House Option 3 - Community Option 2 - Outsource Factor Service Redesign Housing Trust Factor Weighting Total score Total Total Weighted Weighted Weighted (%) (Sub score (Sub score (Sub score score score Factors) Factors) Factors) Quality/ 40 75.5 30.2 68.1 27.2 62.0 24.8 Outcomes Service User 15 77.6 11.6 64.5 9.7 78.4 11.8 perspective

Cost/Financial 30 64.8 19.4 58.6 17.6 34.0 10.2

Organisation/ Strategic/ 15 81.9 12.3 60.4 9.1 66.4 10.0 Commissioner

Final Option Scores 73.5 63.5 56.7

B18

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

Table B: Summary Scores for Stage 2 evaluation of Non-Landlord service grouping

Overall Weighted Scores Option 1-In-House Service Factor Option 2- Shared Service Redesign Factor Weighting Total score Weighted Total score Weighted (%) (Sub Factors) score (Sub Factors) score

Quality/ Outcomes 40 76.8 30.7 68.7 27.5

Service User 15 74.1 11.1 63.6 9.5 perspective

Cost/Financial 30 61.8 18.5 37.2 11.2

Organisation/ Strategic/ 15 75.3 11.3 64.0 9.6 Commissioner

Final Option Scores 71.7 57.8

A44. On the financial evaluation, the OneCouncil Finance Team carried out a separate analysis to consider the figures in detail and produce an analysis of the five options across the two groupings; Landlord and Non-Landlord Services, with regards to costs, benefits and financial risks. This finance analysis is available as a backound paper.

A45. The financial appraisal indicates that both the in-house options (with service redesign) will provide the greatest level of Housing Revenue Account savings for Landlord Services and General Fund savings for Non-Landlord Services, with the least associated financial risks. At this stage, the full year savings are estimated to be: • Landlord Services, estimated saving of £200k to £500k per annum for the Housing Revenue Account.

• Non-landlord Services, estimated saving of £30k to £160k per annum for the Housing General Fund.

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE OPTIONS APPRAISAL A46. The conclusions for both Landlord and Non-Landlord Service groupings follow. It should be noted that deliverability was assessed as a separate factor but not built into the scoring, as it is not a long term consideration. This deliverability assessment of the recommended options is available as a background paper:

Landlord Services A47. In summary, Option 1, In-house (Service re-design) scored more highly than Option 2 Outsourcing and Option 3 Community Housing Trust). It was more capable of delivering the project’s key objectives than Options 2 or 3. B19

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

A48. A summary of the benefits and risks for the recommended option are set below:

Summary of benefits

B1. Whilst service quality varies across services, a quality gain is needed for Estate Services (including the caretaking component), Resident Involvement, Leasehold Management and the Older People’s Housing service – See HouseMark Benchmarking Report on Estate Services, September 2012 and core benchmarking analysis (August 2013) and Report (October 2013). It should be noted that the immediate focus should be on service performance improvement and improved efficiency rather than cost reduction.

B2. Improved outcomes would also be obtained, particularly in relation to potentially improved service satisfaction.

B3. A comparison of RBK Landlord Service costs does however suggest that service improvements and cost efficiencies can be made. See Core benchmarking analysis (August 2013) and Report (October 2013).

B4. The Core benchmarking analysis and supporting STAR survey also identified scope for service quality improvements, in particular: satisfaction with repairs & maintenance, customer query resolution, caretaking service and resident involvement.

B5. Realisation of these efficiencies will be under the control of RBK. They will be factored into the HRA Business Plan, along with other efficiencies expected from the new Repairs and maintenance contract (due to commence April 2014) and offsetting the loss of income and increased bad debt that is expected from Welfare Reform, particularly implementation of the ‘Universal Credit’.

B6. This option would fit well with RBK strategies, as evidence based in-house service delivery is one of the agreed commissioning options.

B7. A commitment to continued in-house service delivery would be perceived as a corporate commitment to the Kingston Housing Service.

Summary of risks

R1. The changes needed to bring about successful service redesign will not happen and / or the changes are implemented sub-optimally:

• There is limited RBK management capacity to support the changes needed for Support service. • Council HR policies and payscales are restrictive / council has to operate within structured corporate framework which does always meet needs of the service. • Use of mobile technologies should be explored to improve operational effectiveness and efficiency e.g. for Estate Management service. B20

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

• A centralised support model and forthcoming budget savings / corporate demands for investment may mean capacity will become even more limited. • An appropriate performance management framework may not be put in place, to underpin the strategic and operational management vision for the Housing Service.

R2. Risk that the envisaged service improvement does not take place and/or required collaboration and dependencies between the Landlord Service and other council services proves difficult to improve. Service re-design should lead to improved integration between the different directorates, which provide important components of the overall housing service.

R3. Better definition of Policies, Procedures and Processes need to be put in place, and should lead to organisation interdependency issues and risks being decreased.

R4. Appropriate investment will not be available to fund external advice, change management, BPR etc. This will be required at a time when the HRA Budget is under pressure from risks such as Welfare Reform. The project team will seek to plan redesign activities at an early stage, prioritising those that are likely to deliver a fast Return on Investment. Investment requirements will be analysed against the HRA forecasts to identify potential sources of investment from within the service to mitigate the need to bid for corporate resource.

R5. Service improvement may not be brought about. Redesign of the existing in- house service may not deliver sufficient efficiencies as required by the HRA. This would adversely impact the level and quality of services that can be provided.

B21

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

Non-Landlord Services A49. In summary, Option 1 In-house (Service re-design) scored more highly than Option 2, Shared Services. It was more capable of delivering the project’s key objectives than Option 2.

A50. A summary of the benefits and risks for the recommended option are set out below:

Summary of benefits

B1. Whilst service quality varies across services, a quality gain is needed. OK5 Project 1 is currently reviewing service performance, primarily through benchmark visits with neighbouring authorities. Their initial view is that significant cost savings and some performance improvement would be possible through service re-design.

B2. Service re-design would lead to improved integration between the different directorates, which provide important components of the overall housing service.

B3. The focus for change should be cost avoidance (impact of welfare reform and expensive Temporary Accommodation).Significant efficiency savings would also be available from this option.

B4. This option should lead to improved customer satisfaction.

B5. CRM and Channel Shift / Self Service technologies would be explored to respond to changing service user demands and reflect best practise.

B6. This option would fit well with RBK strategies, as evidence based in-house service delivery is one of the agreed commissioning options.

B7. Better definition of Policies, Procedures and Processes should all lead to organisation risks being decreased.

Summary of risks

R1. The changes needed to bring about successful service redesign will not happen and / or the changes are implemented sub-optimally: • There is limited RBK management capacity to support the changes needed, particularly given that the Place Shaping programme as a whole is at the same point in the commissioning cycle. A co-ordinated view of the support needed from the corporate functions is being established to ensure resource required are planned and managed accordingly. . • Council HR policies and payscales are restrictive / council has to operate within structured corporate framework which does always meet needs of the service. • A centralised support model and forthcoming budget savings requirements may mean capacity will become even more limited. • An appropriate performance management framework may not be put in place, to underpin the strategic and operational management vision for the Housing Service.

B22

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

R2. Service re-design should lead to improved integration between the different directorates, which provide important components of the overall housing service.

R3. Appropriate investment will not be available to fund external advice, change management, BPR etc. This will be required at a time when there are competing demands for project support and resource across the Council. The General Fund is under pressure from continuing funding reductions and increased demand in the housing service in areas such as affordable housing and temporary accommodation. The project team will seek to plan redesign activities at an early stage, prioritising those that are likely to deliver a fast Return on Investment. Investment requirements will be analysed against the Housing General Fund forecasts to identify potential sources of investment from within the service to mitigate the need to bid for corporate resource.

R4. Service improvement may not be brought about. Redesign of the existing in- house service may not deliver sufficient efficiencies as required by the MTFP. This would adversely impact the level and quality of services that can be provided as the budget envelope reduces. Corporate resources are required to redesign the service and One Council support teams are supporting a number of high priority projects across the council, meaning capacity may be limited for this project. The project team will seek to plan redesign activities at an early stage, prioritising those that are likely to deliver a fast Return on Investment. Investment requirements will be analysed against the Housing General Fund forecasts to identify potential sources of investment from within the service to mitigate the need to bid for corporate resource.

RECOMMENDATIONS A51. The recommended option for the future delivery of Landlord Services is the In- house (Service re-design) option.

A52. The recommended option for the future delivery of Non-landlord Services is the In- house (Service re-design) option.

A53. It should be noted that these recommendations do not exclude proposals being made at a later date for the component services of the two overall service groupings.

A54. These recommendations follow a robust commissioning process carried out by the project team and are evidenced and supported in detail by the background papers referred to.

A55. The potential benefits to e gained from these recommended options are dependent on successful service transformation. The main improvements identified in the options appraisal to be addressed through implementation of the recommended In- house (Service re-design) option are:

Quality outcomes: • The focus for quality improvement for Landlord Service should be: Estate Management (including void management); Estate Services (including the caretaking component), Resident Involvement (taking account of the resident B23

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

Involvement strategy recommendations); Leasehold Management and the Older People’s Housing service (Taking account of OK5 P2, Older and Vulnerable people’s strategy recommendations as appropriate). OK5 P1 (Housing needs, prevention & advice) is recommending improvements for Non-landlord services, which will also arise from OK5 P6, Private Sector Rented Homes sector. Service re-design should also lead to improved integration between the different directorates, which provide important components of the overall housing service.

• Better definition of Policies, Procedures and Processes should lead to organisation risks being decreased.

• CRM and Channel Shift / Self Service technologies should be explored to respond to changing service user demands and reflect best practise.

• Use of mobile technologies should be explored to improve operational effectiveness and efficiency e.g. for Estate Management service.

• An appropriate performance management framework needs to be put in place, to underpin the strategic and operational management vision for the Housing Service.

Service user perspective: • We will need to take account of the Resident involvement recommendations, arising from resident involvement strategy.

• We should also investigate the way in resident queries are best managed, including complaints. This may involve moving housing queries from the Information and Advice Centre to the new repairs and maintenance service provider, through the contract change procedure. A business case will be needed to support this change.

• Implement recommendations arising from OK5 P1, P2 & P6 recommendations.

Cost / Financial: • Identify and agree deliverable savings for Landlord Service and Non Landlord service (through OK5 P1 & P6 recommendations).

• Put in place appropriate cost avoidance and efficiency measures (OK5 P1 recommendations).

• Also focus appropriate service improvement activity on various aspects of the Landlord service, as outlined in section 5.1 above.

• The financial appraisal sets out indicative staff and controllable budgets savings, based on a number of assumptions informed by Stage 1 and 2 of the options appraisal.

Organisation / Strategic / Commissioner fit : • Implement support communications strategy and plan B24

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

• Implement cultural change plan (Phase 3a of HSTP)

• Carry out service wide organisations restructuring.

A56. The above improvement areas will form the main focus for the next phase of the HSTP, Service Transformation. They will also be used to determine the appropriate project structure, implementation plan and resourcing requirements, which will be set out in the Project Initiation Document, along with the key risks and appropriate mitigation actions.

TIMESCALES

A57. The overall timescale has been as follows:

Project commencement April 2013 Soft market testing exercise 6th to 30th September Needs Analysis May - September Options Appraisal July to November Business Case preparation November Commissioning options evaluation October – November One Kingston Place Programme Team December 18 th Commissioning Support Board (CSB) 6 th January 2014 Housing Consultative Committee 29 th January 2014 Place and Sustainability Committee 11th February 2014

GOVERNANCE

A58. The Place Shaping programme’s governance structure is shown below:

Place & Policy &

Sustainability Resources

Committee Committee

SLT CB

CSB

OK Place Programme Team

B25

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

Housing Service Transformation Project (HSTP) Team

Phase 0 Phase Phase 1B Phase 2 Phase 3 1A,C

Phase 0 decisions will be made by the OK Place Programme Team, Phase 1a & c commissioning decisions will be made by the Place and Sustainability Committee. Phase 1b policy adoption will be made by the Place & Sustainability Committee Phase 2 decisions will be made by the OK Place Programme Team Phase 3 governance arrangements will be agreed at a later stage.

A59. This Business Case is being produced following activity being completed as part of Phase 1a & c, reporting through the Project Team to the OK Place programme, whose Sponsor is Roy Thompson the Director of Place.

A60. The membership of the HSTP Team is:

Project Sponsor: Darren Welsh

Project Manager: Dale Squire

A61. Other Project Team Members are:

Victoria Adams (Finance); Justine Dennis and Tom Baker (Commissioning); Fiona Ginty (HR); Jelena Nedeljkovic (PMO); Roy Thompson (Director of Place); Paula Tribe (Strategic Business); Jo Williams (Interim Group Manager Strategic Housing); Evonne Hudson (Interim Group Manager Housing Operations); and Sarah Lawton (Interim Group Manager Community Housing).

RESOURCE A62. Resources already agreed and allocated for 2013/14 are the HSTP Project Manager and other project resources working on the Strategic Housing Programme.

A63. It is envisaged that the Strategic Housing Programme (SHP) and the HSTP will be aligned moving forwards, once: the preferred Service delivery option recommended by the HSTP are approved by the Council, scheduled for February 2014; the SHP projects have concluded and recommendations are made available; and the recommended actions arising from the Housing Strategy refresh are known. It should be noted that all the service transformation related actions will be implemented through the HSTP. B26

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

A64. Resources for the next stage of the project in 2014/15 are being considered as part of detailing the implementation plan. They will be included in the Project Initiation Document (PID) which will be produced for Phase 2, Service Transformation once recommendations on the recommended options have been discussed at P&S Committee on 11th February. The resources required for Phase 2 are likely to include: • Project manager (already approved and in place until April 2014)

• Project Team (as present)

• PMO for BPR resource (estimated at 2 people for 6 months, commencing February 2014)

• HR resource (for business change)

• Communications resource (for business change)

• Finance & commissioning resource (where appropriate).

NEXT STEPS A65. A. Consideration of business case:

• One Kingston Place Board 18th December 2013

• CSB 06th January 2014

• Draft Place and Sustainability Committee report 14th January 2014

• Neighbourhood chairs briefing 29th January 2014

• Housing staff briefings/Engagement on recommendations at Place briefings, 21 st to 30 th January 2014

• Housing Consultative Committee, 29th January 2014

• Place and Sustainability Committee, 11 February 2014

A66. B. Implementation through service transformation in 2014/15.

The considerations for the recommended options and implementation issues are set out in a background paper, Deliverability Assessment. These will be worked up into a set of Design Principles and a high level plan to deliver the next phase of the project, Service Transformation. They will be included in the Project Initiation Document (PID) to go to SLT for endorsement, once Committee approval has been given for the recommended options set out in this report.

DECISION POINT A67. This is a commissioning project. The Project Initiation Document (PID), incorporating the required implementation plan and resources for the next phase of B27

Place Shaping Priority 2 Business Case

the project, will be produced for approval, following the decision on the chosen option by Place and Sustainability Committee on 11 February 2014.

Appendix 1 – Overview of Housing Service Transformation Project

Annex 2 - Equality Impact Assessment

FULL EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM B Function being assessed:

Housing Service Transformation Project (HSTP).

Kingston’s Housing Service is being transformed. The aim is to create better homes and services for customers and a successful future for the housing service and its staff. The Council continues to face increased Housing demand, changes in welfare reform that will have significant financial implications for Kingston residents and the Council. In addition a skills deficit was identified and a need to improve areas such as a better focus on customers, promoting accountability and partnership working, tenancy and leasehold management to proactively deliver and promote services to our residents. The HSTP is tasked with addressing these issues and is taking place over the next two years and is broken down into four phases: B28 Phase 0 senior management review (SMR) has been completed. We have just appointed three Interim Group Managers (Housing Strategy; Housing Operations and Community Housing) and this will enable us to ensure we have the right capacity and functionality to address these challenges. Recruitment has started to fill these posts on a permanent basis by February 2014. The SMR affected relevant housing staff and followed the Council’s HR and consultation processes. There is an existing screening EQIA, completed at the time of the approval of the project’s PID.

Phase 1 includes a service needs assessment and customer insight knowledge, alongside a refresh of the HRA Business plan, which will then inform commissioning options for service delivery. The outcome of Phase 1 will be the selection of a commissioning option following a business case & options appraisal. This phase potentially impacts service users and internally on housing staff and our colleagues in other directorates and is the subject of this EQIA. Mitigation of impact will be principally managed through our communications plan.

Phase 2 will be the Transformation of Housing Services and will include all staff within Housing.

Phase 3 will include culture change so that we can support staff in developing their skills going forward but this will commence shortly and carry through the programme of transformation. Also in this phase, The Housing Asset Plan will be developed which will take us beyond the current Better Homes programme.

Phases 2 and 3 will impact both staff and service users and will be subject to a separate EQIA, to be produced once these Phases are scoped and the outcome of Phase 1 is known.

More detail on the project’s activities and timescales may be found on the intranet. See Housing Service Transformation.

Is this a new function or a review of an existing function?

Phase 1 reviews the existing functions, in line with Kingston Council’s corporate approach to commissioning. The long list of commissioning options that have been considered is as follows:

1. In-house (Service Re-design). This is more relevant to the Housing Service Transformation Project than the Priority 1 (Place Commissioning) Project. We would continue to deliver the service in house. B29 This option involves producing a service improvement plan. It may involve some business process re- engineering (BPR) to ensure the service is working as efficiently and effectively as possible.

2. Outsourcing. This involves procuring the service from a third party. It can take a number of different forms. For housing these are:

• private sector; • regional housing associations; • local Housing associations; • Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) e.g. Sutton Housing Partnership.

We are carrying out Soft Market Testing activity with potential external providers in relation to the Council’s Landlord services to inform this option.

3. Decommission. This is planning and managing the elimination or reduction in services, or investment in services, in line with commissioning objectives. May be applicable where there is not a statutory duty to provide services.

4. Shared Services. Sharing management, staffing, systems and commissioning responsibility with a neighbouring authority. The shared service would be controlled by the participating authorities and have its own identity and governance arrangements.

5. Different Legal Model A: ALMO. An Arms Length Management Organisation is a not-for-profit company that would be owned by RBK and provide services on its behalf.

6. Different Legal Model B: Co-operative / Social Enterprise. In housing this would take the form of a Community Housing Trust, whose membership comprises tenants and leaseholders. The organisation would be governed by a Board made up of tenants, leaseholders, independents and Councillors, who are responsible for achieving its aims and objectives.

7. Different Legal Model C: Stock Transfer (LSVT). Large Scale Voluntary Transfer involves the Local Authority transferring the ownership of its stock with the agreement of the tenants. The key features of a Large Scale Voluntary Transfer are: B30 • Transferring tenants are offered benefits such as rent guarantees, stock investment Projects and rights as 'assured tenants'. • Transfer price is determined by 'Tenanted Market Value'. • Transfers are funded entirely by the private sector.

8. In sourcing. This term is used where a new service is commissioned, there is no market in existence and the Council may decide to deliver the service itself.

9. Back sourcing. Back-sourcing occurs where a service which has been previously outsourced is now brought back in-house.

The Housing functions have been grouped into Landlord and Non-Landlord services for evaluation purposes.

Of the potential options described above:

Three options have been shortlisted for further evaluation for potential future delivery of Landlord Services: • In-house (Service Re-design); • Outsourcing; and • Community Housing Trust.

Two options have been shortlisted for further evaluation for potential future delivery of Non-Landlord Services: • In-house (Service Re-design); and • Shared Services.

What are the aims/purpose of the function?

Landlord services comprise five functions: • Estate Management, • Caretaking (Estate Services),

• Leasehold Management, B31 • Older Persons Housing and • Resident Participation / Engagement.

The Non-Landlord grouping of services comprises the following functions:

• Housing Strategy and delivery of the strategic housing programme (OK 5) • Affordable housing development and home ownership • The Housing client role in respect of: 1) The Information and Advice Centre 2) The Housing Repairs and Maintenance function 3) Income management 4) Better Homes • Housing Register and Resettlement • Complaints and member enquiries • Private Sector Services (HMO and licensing; housing standards) • Homelessness Prevention • Homeless Assessments • Temporary Accommodation.

Some of these functions are statutory and have to be provided, other are non statutory.

Is the function designed to meet specific needs such as the needs of minority ethnic groups, older people, disabled people etc?

Non-Landlord services are universal and are available to all residents of Kingston who are in housing need.

Landlord services are for council tenants and leaseholders only. They provide services to people who have been priority applicants in housing need.

Both functions provide a service that covers individuals and/or their families who fall within the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender/sex, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race/ethnicity, religion and belief and sexual orientation. B32

A higher percentage of social sector housing tenants/residents and future tenants/residents could fall within the above groupings especially: age (both young and old), disability which covers different types of disability, gender (in some cases supporting women who are parents), race, religion or belief and sexual orientation covering a multitude of different people. Another point which does not fall with equality strand but may impact a larger group within the housing sector will be socio economic status of the tenants/residents.

There are eligibility criteria for social housing ultimately but as explained above aspects of housing are also universal e.g. housing advice or homelessness assessments.

What information has been gathered on this function? (Indicate the type of information gathered e.g. statistics, consultation, other monitoring information)? Attach a summary or refer to where the evidence can be found.

The borough profile providing the make-up of the residents of Kingston may be found in the Kingston Data Observatory. The Equality Characteristics are provided in page 11: http://ts.kingston.gov.uk/directorates/chief_executives/strategic_business/Projects/Borough%20Profile/Borough%20Pro file%202011.pub

The current Housing Strategy 2011-15 contains a section on Housing Equalities (page 50) and Equalities Implications (page 53). The Housing Strategy may be found at http://www.kingston.gov.uk/downloads/file/170/kingston_housing_strategy_2011-2015

Demand for social housing is monitored according to the Equality Characteristics and compared with allocations to people in those groups. There are areas within the monitoring categories that provide far better information than others e.g. age, gender, disability and ethnicity compared to religion or beliefs, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.

‘The proportion of lets to BME applicants almost exactly equals their representation on the Housing Register, 32% of applicants on the Register compared with 33% of social lets in 2011/12. However, there are differences with some equality characteristics and the reasons would need to be explored. E.g., 45% of Housing Register applicants are aged 30-44, but 27% of lets were to people in this age group. Conversely, 12% of applicants on the Register are aged 60 or over, but 24% of lets were to this age group. This is a B33 reflection of the Council’s large stock of sheltered housing for older people.’

Does your analysis of the information show different outcomes for different groups (higher or lower uptake/failure to access/receive a poorer or inferior service)? If yes, indicate which groups and which aspects of the policy or function contribute to inequality?

Potential equality impacts have been considered as part of the options evaluation process:

1. Landlord service, where Service users are limited to Council tenants and leaseholders only:

A. In-house service (redesign). There are no envisaged issues for meeting statutory obligations and equalities responsibilities for this option. Key performance measures would continue to be monitored (including complaints from service users relating to service delivery).

B. Outsourcing. There are no envisaged issues for meeting statutory obligations and equalities responsibilities for this option. The services would be specified and SLAs monitored, as part of service delivery. Equalities obligations would be specified in the contract between the council and the service provider. The council would continue to have visibility of complaints from all service users.

C. Communities Housing Trust. There are no envisaged issues for meeting statutory obligations and equalities responsibilities for this option. The CHT would have its own governance structure, whist remaining owned by the Council. It would therefore have similar equality obligations and commitments as the council. The services would be specified and SLAs monitored, as part of service delivery. The council would continue to have visibility of complaints relating to service delivery.

2. Non-Landlord services, where service users are people in housing need:

A. In-house service (re-design). There are no envisaged issues for meeting statutory obligations and equalities responsibilities for this option. Most of the services in scope are universal and relate to housing options and advice. The services B34 would be available universally to all those in housing need. Potential impact on service users would continue to be monitored should this option be adopted.

B. Shared Services. There are no envisaged issues for meeting statutory obligations and equalities responsibilities for this option. Most of the services in scope are universal and relate to housing options and advice. The services would be available to all those in housing need. Potential impact on all service users would be monitored as part of service delivery should this option be adopted.

Are these differences justified (e.g. are there legislative or other constraints)? If they are, explain in what way.

As explained above there is no envisaged impact to tenants /residents from the options appraisal carried out for the provision of statutory services that continues to be provided. Equality implications will continue to be monitored as part of the process.

Where specific housing services are provided based on an equality characteristic such as age, gender or disability, due regard will made to ensure that services provided are appropriate.

What action needs to be taken as a result of this Equality Impact Assessment to address any detrimental impacts or meet previously unidentified need? Include here any reasonable adjustments for access by disabled people. Include dates by which action will be taken. Attach an action plan if necessary.

Equalities obligations would be specified in the contract for service delivery (for non in-house options to ensure compliance to equality legislation). Characteristics data would continue to be monitored (quarterly) to see if implementation of the service delivery options has any impact on the characteristics of the service users.

When will you evaluate the impact of action taken? Give review dates.

The impact of action taken would be from the date of operation of the new service delivery options. This B35 date is yet to be determined.

We will complete a further EQIA for Phases 2 and 3 of the Project, which will impact both staff and service users. This will be produced in the New Year once these Phases are scoped and the outcome of Phase 1 is known.

Assessment completed by: NAME Dale Squire, Housing Service Transformation Project Manager SERVICE Housing DATE 23/9/2013

C1 APPENDIX C

PLACE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

11 FEBRUARY 2014

PLACE SHAPING PROGRAMME COMMISSIONING PRIORITY 1

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLACE

SUMMARY

This report recommends the re-commissioning of a range of environment services in the Place Directorate, following consideration through the Council’s commissioning process.

This is one of five priorities within the Place-Shaping programme in the Place Directorate. The report describes the process through which the project has progressed, and the main findings which have led to the recommendations.

The costs and benefits of the recommended actions are set out and the report also indicates the next steps and timescales.

Action proposed by the Lead Member for Sustainability and Sport

It is recommended that:

1. The Committee agrees the outsourcing of car park management to an external provider, and the joint reprocurement of the on street parking contract with LB Sutton.

2. The Director of Place and the Director of Finance be authorised to put in place arrangements for the respective procumrnet arrangements arising from i), in consultation with the Lead Member for Sustainability and Sport; and

3. The business case for re-commissioning of the remaining services within scope to be presented to this Committee for agreement in the autumn of 2014 at the latest.

Reason for action proposed

To enable the re-commissioning of services in line with the Council’s approach to commissioning.

Background

1. The vision for Kingston is to be the best possible place to live, work, and visit; to be the destination of choice; and one that offers an easily identifiable experience for every corner of the Borough – it’s a great place to be for free. A vision which is derived from the Councils medium term service and financial plan – Destination Kingston.

2. In order for us to deliver this vision we have established a programme (the ‘Place Shaping programme’) covering a range of activity, which primarily focusses upon the Council’s commissioning framework. This programme is one of five Priority work C2

streams and is a re-commissioning project for a range of services that are currently provided within the Environment and Planning & Transport service areas. The report recommends a commissioning approach for a range of services.

3. The services in scope are:

• Regulatory Services (Environmental Health, Trading Standards, Licensing) • Parking Services (on Street and Off Street) • Street Services (Street Scene and Highways Asset) • Traffic Management & Design

4. The programme’s objectives are:

• A (significant) contribution to bridging the budget gap from 2015/16 onwards • The retention of customer satisfaction (including responsiveness) and performance within a reduced budget. • Stronger service resilience

5. The project has followed the Council’s commissioning framework and has completed the following stages:

• Needs Analysis – this stage considered the services’ current performance, including residents’ and users’ satisfaction. • Soft Market Testing – this stage included the issuing of a Prior Information Notification (PIN), to which organisations who were capable of delivering all or some of these services responded. A questionnaire was sent to them, and fourteen organisations were interviewed to gain market intelligence. • Options Appraisal – this stage considered seven models of service delivery (stage 1), and further refined this to two main options (stage 2). The process was rigorous and included a scoring system for the evaluation of options. A number of officers completed the scoring independently of each other. • Stakeholder Engagement – this stage gained views on the options flowing from the options appraisal. Stakeholders included residents, service users, leading Members, staff and significant external stakeholders e.g. Transport for London, Kingston First and a range of local voluntary sector organisations.

6. The commissioning process evaluated the two options that have emerged from this process. It includes an analysis by the Director of Finance of the financial information gathered in the earlier stages of the project, to produce as accurate as possible an assessment of the likely costs and benefits at this stage in the commissioning process.

7. The stakeholder engagement has guided the recommendations, and led to a further refinement of the options.

Proposal

8. The options appraisal evaluated seven models of service delivery, and narrowed down the options arising from this to two overall options. These have been evaluated in the light of the commissioning process.

Option A – This option externalised all services in scope through a single partnership contract. C3

Option B – This option treated each service individually, rather than in one package. Option B1 deals with regulatory services, and would establish a shared service for them, with Sutton. Option B2 dealt with Parking Services, and would externalise the Council’s car park management service. Option B3 dealt with Street Services and Traffic Management & Design, including on-street parking enforcement, and sought to externalise them in one package. Option B4 would establish elements of Traffic Management & Design as a ‘centre of excellence’, and consider a local authority trading company or a mutual. A sub option of the last two was to explore a shared client side for these services.

9. The commissioning process also worked up the implications of continuing with the current model of service delivery, with service redesign. This was found to not meet the programme’s three objectives, as the requisite level of savings would not be achieved, services would need to be reduced and resilience could not be achieved.

10. Option A delivered higher savings than option B. However, it also had higher risks than option B.

11. The views expressed in the stakeholder engagement process have been incorporated into the evaluation process. These views focussed on five issues:

• Potential loss of successful current arrangements, many of which were seen as working well for partner agencies, residents, service users and members, especially where there was direct contact with Council officers. • The fear of externalising these services: the loss of valued relationships and communications (responsiveness), and their replacement with a private sector company, whose focus would be profit-making rather than the satisfaction of residents and the Council client. • Unlike the other services in scope , parking externalisation did not attract such negative views, and there was a degree of support for this proposal. • Some support for shared services, viewing this option as providing some of the benefits of externalisation without the loss of the benefits of the current in-house arrangements and belief that economies of scale could be delivered, and joint procurement of already externalised contracts would reduce procurement costs. • Strong views were expressed about the retention of the Neighbourhood Ranger service ‘in house’. It was felt that this service’s strong links with the Neighbourhood Managers and with members and the public, and its highly localised nature meant that a different approach was needed.

12. These views, expressed by a wide variety of stakeholders, do not change the findings of the options appraisal. They were considered as part of the evaluation of the options against the programme’s objectives.

13. The analysis revealed a strong preference for an immediate move to an externalisation of the Council’s car park management service and to jointly retender the existing on-street parking enforcement contract with the London Borough of Sutton. This meets the programme’s objectives. It will achieve savings and increase service resilience, and are therefore recommended in this report. The more detailed business case behind this recommendation is set out at Annex 1 with further detail contained in the exempt part of the agenda.

C4

14. The analysis (including stakeholder engagement) also revealed that further work is required on some of the options for the remaining services within scope, particularly in respect of those relating to shared services. Not all of the shared service options (Option B) meet the programme’s objectives to the same extent as option A. Savings would be significantly less, and although service resilience would be improved, this would not be to the same extent as with externalisation options.

15. It is therefore recommended that agreement in principle is given to the recommissioning of the remaining services in scope, and that further work is done to provide a full business case to this Committee in Autumn 2014.This will include consideration of shared services and clienting arrangements.

Methodology

16. This proposal recommends prioritising the proposals which have the best prospect of generating early and significant savings – car parking and on-street parking enforcement; and a two stage approach to the remaining services – agreement in principle now to their recommissioning and the subsequent consideration of a full business case in the autumn.

Timescale

17. If the recommissioning of the remaining services is agreed at this stage, a full business case will be brought to the Committee in Autumn 2014. The timescales beyond this point are determined by the procurement routes chosen, but approximately 12 months would be needed to reach conclusions on most procurement routes.

18. The re-tendering of on-street parking enforcement will be achieved by competitive dialogue in time for the break point in the Council’s existing contract in 2016, and will also form part of the full business case. It may be possible to do this by jointly procuring with LB Sutton, or if Sutton have already procured in 2015, joining Sutton’s contract after its first year.

19. Car Park Management will be externalised through the competitive dialogue process, and will also form part of the full business case. The target for full implementation is April 2015.

Financial Implications

20. The Director of Finance has carried out an appraisal of the financial information gathered at the earlier stages of the programme, and produced the most accurate costs and benefits figures possible at this stage in the commissioning process. At this stage, a number of assumptions have had to be made about savings and costs. It is too early in the process to be able to provide a meaningful assessment. This will be modelled at the full business case stage.

21. For comparison purposes an analysis has also been produced showing the financial implications of reducing the current service model to meet statutory requirements only. This option is considered not to be viable because although financial savings may be achieved, many valued services and functions would be ceased.

C5

22. In summary Option A maximises financial benefit in the medium to long term for the Council, although there is a higher level of risk of contractor failure. Financial benefit has been balanced against risk. There are clearly significant financial benefits to be derived through offering a large high value contract out to the market that will attract competitive bids and bring in private investment to RBK services. Option B offers a reduced financial benefit because a smaller bundle of services is less attractive to an external provider and so contractors are less willing to invest in such arrangements. However, Option B is considered to generate a lower risk through other methods such as shared services, but with a potentially longer lead-in time.

23. The proposal to progress with the externalisation of the car parks service immediately is supported by the business case which is appended. This indicates that savings can be maximised by progressing this proposal now. For on-street parking enforcement, it is recommended at this stage to retender the existing contract. The other related services – signs and lines and ICT, both of which have a client within the Council for a service which is contracted out, and notice processing , which is an in-house service – will be considered in more detail in the report to this committee in the Autumn. These would achieve significant savings.

24. In relation to the remainder of the services in scope, it is recommended to consider a full business case in the autumn to ensure that a considered view can be taken of the options after further work has been done. The proposal to relocate the Neighbourhood Rangers is contingent on the outcome of the agreed options on Street Services commissioning.

Legal Implications

25. The South London Legal Partnership has commented that it will be necessary to ensure that both the statutory procurement process and the Council’s Contract Standing Orders are complied with.

Risk Assessment

26. In summary, the risks of option A are higher than Option B. Option A is a relatively new service model, and the providers able to respond to such a contract have relatively limited experience of delivering some services, especially Regulatory, and in some cases, Parking services. Option B on the other hand, follows a commissioning model which RBK are already successfully using – shared services, externalisation of services in smaller packages, and arms-length companies.

Equality Impact Assessment Applications

27. Equalities issues have been taken into consideration throughout the programme, which has benefitted from the advice of the Council’s equalities advisor. Forms A and B of the EQIA were completed at needs analysis stage as part of the analysis of resident and user needs. The programme manager met representatives of voluntary organisations during the stakeholder engagement stage and consulted individual organisations, whose views were taken into account in drawing up the business case.

28. Form B is attached to this report at Annex 2. While stakeholders were encouraged by being consulted at this early stage in the programme, they acknowledged that the C6

most significant point at which their views would impact would be at procurement stage and in particular the drawing up of specifications.

Environmental Implications

29. At this stage in the commissioning process, it is not possible to fully evaluate the options from an environmental point of view. The location of staff and offices will be an issue at procurement stage, as will proposals from the private sector in relation to car parks management. The environmental implications of the options can be assessed in more detail at the next stage in the procurement process when the Council’s environmental policies will be reflected in the specifications for services.

Background papers: held by Tom Jeffrey – 020 8547 3071, e-mail: [email protected] Author of report: Tom Jeffrey Programme Manager, Priority 1 Programme

• Priority 1 Programme Brief • Priority 1 Needs analysis • Priority 1 Soft Market Testing – E • Priority 1 Options Appraisal

C7

Annex 1

Business Case for the externalisation of Car Park Management and the Joint Commissioning of On-Street the Parking Enforcement Contract

During the Soft Market Testing (SMT) it emerged that there was a strong established market in the provision of car park services, with a number of active suppliers. This response came from both those engaged in the supply of such services and from the other local government specialists consulted. In response to this information an assessment of the benefits and risks of engaging with this market was undertaken.

The primary benefit would be in taking advantage of expertise, economies of scale, and national coverage. A specialist car park operator is likely to have in house or ready access to experts in all aspects of car park construction and maintenance and can move quickly to resolve matters that the Council would have to engage a consultant to advise on. Their purchasing power would allow operating costs to be reduced through larger supply contracts from everything from tickets to equipment, and an established national network could extend the reach of both advertising sales and promotion.

The SMT provided some details of existing contracts used by Local Authorities to provide car parks, and although the information received was limited the returns gave an indication of the level of savings that could be achieved. This benchmarking provided a range of indicative % savings, used to estimate a best, mid and worst case scenario against the existing 2013/14 base budgets for car parks. These details are set out in the exempt agenda item.

The car parks are in fair condition throughout, although Cattlemarket will require some £1 million of repairs in the next two years to refurbish the sprinkler system, replace a waterproof membrane between floors, and renew one passenger lift.

All three multi story car parks, however, would benefit from cosmetic improvements to bring them to the same standard as the key shopping centre car parks at Bentalls and John Lewis. The total cost of such works would be some £0.5 million and would see further upgrades to internal signage, decoration, and customer areas.

The key risk to this approach is that the operator, if granted control over tariffs to secure a minimum income guarantee, would set prices at a level that would deter visitors to town centres and disrupt the positive relationship that is being built with Kingston First and the business community. This is unlikely as the interest group operated by Kingston First already includes the main private sector operators in the town and an understanding of the wider issues and alignment of objectives is evident. It will be important, nevertheless, to encapsulate a commitment to further co-operation in any contract.

Once a commissioning option is selected, and we enter into the detailed implementation stage, further financial information will be required to ensure financial benefit is maximized and risks are minimized. This will include details such as the likely annual profile of investment and savings, financial governance and control

C8

arrangements, cost sharing mechanisms and insurance implications. All of these areas can be explored further once a detailed option has been chosen.

Parking Enforcement and Supporting Services

RBK has an existing enforcement Contract with NSL with an annual value of some £1.5 million which expires in March 2016 and an ICT managed service Contract with Civica of around £0.1 million which expires in March 2015. Other parts of the On- street Parking service are the client side, notice processing and the carrying out of signage and lines, with the total cost of the service being some £2.6 million. The contractual arrangements at Sutton are generally similar, with the operation being around half the size of RBK.

The first benefit of joint procurement is in the sharing of costs, where in general terms the cost of any activity can be halved. A subsidiary benefit is that a shared approach will allow a wider pool of knowledge and experience to be harnessed. The second is in economies of scale where purchasing in larger quantities brings lower rates with industry soundings suggesting that the contract cost could be reduced by a further 1%.

For comparative purposes, a saving of 20% can generally be made by outsourcing a service currently provided in-house, and that a specialist supplier can make a saving of 10% when using its buying power to procure an ICT system. In contrast, a much smaller saving is available from a mature contract where the initial saving has already been taken and banked in previous procurement rounds, and a reduced figure of 3% is used here.

On the income side, RBK already provides sound monitoring and direction of enforcement activities, and is a high performing council in terms of both resisting challenges and recovering penalties due so no increase can be planned.

The existing costs and projected savings, followed by the projected additional saving from joint procurement, are set out in the exempt agenda

C9

Full Equalities Impact Assessment Form B ANNEX 2

Function being assessed: Place-shaping Priority 1 Programme, re-commissioning environment services. Services in scope are –

• Highways assets/street scene services, • Parking services , • Traffic and transport services, • Regulatory services.

Is this a new function or a review of an existing function?

Review of existing functions in line with the one Kingston programme

What is the aims/purpose of the function?

In general, these are environment services which are delivered in the public interest. Individually , they are :

• Highways Assets and Street Scene Services – these include roads maintenance, street lighting, the permitting of utilities companies who excavate in the roads, and highway inspections including street rangers. • Parking Services – including the enforcement of on street parking and the management of the Council’s car parks. • Regulatory Services – including trading standards services such as licensing eg for entertainments and alcohol, and environmental health services such as the inspection of restaurants to ensure food safety, and work on pollution including air, water and land. • Traffic and Transport Services – including the design and supervision of highway schemes using funding from Transport for London, road safety and sustainable transport.

Is the function designed to meet specific needs such as the needs of minority ethnic groups, older people, disabled people etc?

The functions carried out through these various services will have different degrees of impact on all our residents, visitors and those who pass through Kingston

The totality of services provided by in these areas will have an impact on people within all the protected characteristics age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation and will need to be looked into as and when the changes if any are implemented.

The impact will most likely to be felt by disabled and older people especially

C10

those with sensory impairment and mobility issues e.g. disabled access to dropped kerbs.

What information has been gathered on this function? (Indicate the type of information gathered e.g. statistics, consultation, and other monitoring information)? Attach a summary or refer to where the evidence can be found.

Needs Analysis Stage

Borough Profile Existing service information on service users and previous consultations with residents and service users. A needs analysis for each service was completed in July 2013. A summary document covering all services in scope is available and is attached below as an appendix.

Options Appraisal Stage

Meeting with voluntary sector groups in Kingston – the importance of the involvement of voluntary organizations at procurement stage was flagged, as was the importance of local suppliers in the supply chain for larger companies, to retain local employment. Surveys of 220 residents and 120 visitors were carried out broken down by demographic group. These showed relatively little difference between groups in their attitudes to the importance of services and service models. However , the importance of these services for the disabled was flagged. Focus Groups were also held to gain qualitative information.

Does your analysis of the information show different outcomes for different groups (higher or lower uptake/failure to access/receive a poorer or inferior service)? If yes, indicate which groups and which aspects of the policy or function contribute to inequality?

There should be no negative impact to the residents, visitors or those who are passing through Kingston. As the options for delivery of services are assessed and evaluated equality consideration will be entrenched in the process to ensure these are taken into account and in the delivery of these services there should be no detrimental impact for protected groups.

Are these differences justified (e.g. are there legislative or other constraints)? If they are, explain in what way.

It is envisaged that there should be no negative impact in the service being delivered.

What action needs to be taken as a result of this Equality Impact Assessment to

C11

address any detrimental impacts or meet previously unidentified need? Include here any reasonable adjustments for access by disabled people. Include dates by which action will be taken. Attach an action plan if necessary. Need for appropriate and relevant consultation and engagement as and when the need arises with affected groups and voluntary sectors organisation at the point at which specifications of services are being drawn up.

Equality challenge is continuously applied throughout the process in a proportionate and meaningful way to ensure fairness and equity for residents, visitors and people passing through Kingston.

When will you evaluate the impact of action taken? Give review dates.

Procurement stage, in 2014.

Assessment completed by: NAME Tom Jeffrey SERVICE Place-shaping Priority 1 Programme DATE 31 July 2013

Please send your completed assessment to your service head. A copy should then be sent to the Equality Adviser.

Appendix

Place-Shaping Priority 1 Programme Needs Analysis: Executive Summary for the Programme: July 2013 (Not attached to Place and Sustainability Committee agenda)

D1 APPENDIX D

PLACE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE 14 FEBRUARY 2014 RECOGNITION OF FAMOUS PEOPLE AND PLACES REPORT BY THE EXECUTIVE HEAD OF CULTURAL SERVICES AND LEAD COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES

SUMMARY

This report sets out proposed guidelines for promoting a sense of place through commemoration and recognition of famous people and places. The scope includes plaques on former residences of famous residents; plaques and information boards relating to buildings and places of importance; the Brill collection of paintings of buildings, and historical publications. The guidance is intended to provide information for residents and organisations who wish to commemorate or recognise famous individuals or places and to provide some context in terms of best practice.

Action proposed by the Lead Member for Schools and Continuing Education and the Leader of the Council

It is recommended that:

Approval is given for the publication of the Guidance on Recognition and Promotion of Famous People and Places in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames.

Reason for Decision To enable the provision of guidance to residents and organisations who wish to commemorate or recognise famous individuals and places.

BACKGROUND

1. Residents of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames live in an area which has a unique identity and history. This is represented and commemorated through the built environment and also through plaques, public art, notice boards, statuary and signage. This document gives examples of good practice and some broad guidelines for any further proposals to recognise or promote famous people and places in the Borough. Throughout the document ‘Kingston’ is used to refer to the whole geographic area of the royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

CURRENT GUIDANCE

2. In November 1999 the Education and Leisure Committee received a report on schemes for recognising famous residents and approved the establishment of a local plaque scheme for this purpose. The scheme is limited to plaques relating to local residents and does not cover statues or other public realm artefacts, information boards, publications and other ways of physically recording and promoting Kingston’s historic past.

3. Subsequent to the 1999 report there have been a number of initiatives aimed at providing recognition for local residents or buildings of importance, most notably relating to Eadweard Muybridge and Kingston’s aviation history. There have also been enquiries or proposals relating to the commemorating the Olympics and D2

individual former residents such as James Simpson (Surbiton filter beds) and Harry Hawker (aviation). In addition the Council is being asked to make provision to commemorate the Surbiton First World War VC Douglas Belcher. The successful Heritage Lottery Funded work at All Saints Church involves the move of the Coronation Stone to the churchyard and consideration needs to be given as to signage and information on the site. The Brill collection of paintings, recording changes in the borough’s built environment, continues to be added to and there is an increasing body of published work, including the recent move into this field of Kingston University Press, to support the development of an historical ‘sense of place’.

4. These initiatives and proposals indicate the range of activity, most of which is ad hoc and responsive. Proposals come from a variety of sources – residents, voluntary organisations, faith groups and business initiatives. There is little guidance on design or priorities therefore when proposals, suggestions or requests are made members and officers lack a clear framework for decision making or to provide advice.

5. The proposed policy guidance is designed to cover key areas and to be used in conjunction with existing planning polices and guidance.

GUIDANCE

6. Attached at Annex 1 are draft guidelines on the recognition and promotion of famous people. They are designed for use by residents and stakeholders and to be published on the council website.

7. The guidelines cover the following themed areas:

a. Recognising famous residents (a draft list is attached as Annex 2) b. Recognising famous places and sites c. Paintings and Publications

CURRENT ISSUES

8. There are currently a number of proposals or schemes for which this guidance would apply.

9. Kingston Aviation Project has carried out a substantial body of work to produce an archive of material relating to Kingston’s rich aviation heritage. This has included the installation of information boards at key places relating to the history of aviation in Kingston and the creation of statues (a bust of Sir Sydney Camm at Kingston Library with a counterpart to follow). There are still a number of places not commemorated (particularly in the Canbury area) and there are potentially plaques and information boards which would be associated with these (e.g. to Harry Hawker at Hook).

10. The success of the Olympic events staged in Kingston led to proposals for commemoration and recognition of the places where the torch and cycle races passed through. These include proposals to recognise the events through statues and plaques.

D3

11. The approach of the Centenary of the First World War has led to proposals from the government to recognise Victoria Cross holders (Douglas Belcher of Surbiton is the only known WW1 VC holder from this area) through a specially designed paving stone and there may be other calls for further recognition.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND TIMESCALES

12. There are no legal implications as the documentation is for guidance only. It is proposed the guidelines will be published immediately following committee approval.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

13. The Council holds no specific funding for such initiatives though in some instances limited support may be possible through the Neighbourhood Grants scheme to a limit of £750. Therefore any proposals will need to be funded by residents or stakeholder organisations through their own fund-raising

NETWORK IMPLICATIONS

14. There are no network implications

RISK ASSESSMENT

15. No risk assessment is required however individual proposals such as statues, where they require permissions may also require risk assessment

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

16. There are no equalities implications.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

17. There are no direct environmental impacts from the introduction of these guidelines.

Background papers : Held by the author of this report, Scott Herbertson, Executive Head of Cultural Services and Lead Commissioner for Children’s Services, 0208-547-5267 [email protected]

• Education and Leisure Services Committee May 1999 • Council Minutes April 1999 • English Heritage: Celebrating People and Place: Guidance on Commemorative Plaques & Plaque Schemes, 2010

D4

Annex 1

Guidance on recognition and promotion of famous people and places in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Residents of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames live in an area which has a unique identity and history. This is represented and commemorated through the built environment and also through plaques, public art, notice boards, statuary and signage. This document gives examples of good practice and some broad guidelines for any further proposals to recognise or promote famous people and places in the Borough. Throughout the document ‘Kingston’ is used to refer to the whole geographic area of the royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Proposals and Funding The guidance is designed to assist residents and local organisations who propose to erect new plaques, information boards, statues or other commemorative recognition of famous people or places in the Borough. The Council holds no specific funding for such initiatives though in some instances limited support may be possible through the Neighbourhood Grants scheme. Therefore any proposals will need to be funded by residents or stakeholder organisations through their own fund-raising. A place in history Kingston has historical significance as a place where national issues were resolved or national decisions made, such as the crowning of the Saxon Kings and the Great Council of Egbert in 838 where the civic role of bishops as Lords was agreed (ensuring their vote in the House of Lords) being two examples. This gives residents a pride in place. There is also a sense of continuity and of the passage of time between the past and the present as represented through the coronation stone, All Saints church and the Market Place. Kingston’s royal, social and industrial history are written in its buildings and supported by the Borough’s collections including the Royal Charters and the internationally important Muybridge collection. Less well represented physically, although recent efforts have begun to tell the story, is the more recent aviation design and engineering heritage. The sites and people involved in designing and building the planes which contributed to Britain’s destiny in World Wars 1, 2 and the first Iraq war – the Sopwith Camel, Hurricane and Harrier are now being brought back into focus through the work of the Aviation Project.

Telling the story of Kingston’s Heritage

In November 1999 the Education and Leisure Committee received a report on schemes for recognising famous residents and approved the establishment of a local plaque scheme for this purpose. The scheme is limited to plaques relating to local residents and does not cover statues or other public realm artefacts, information boards, publications and other ways of physically recording and promoting Kingston’s historic past.

D5

Initiatives and proposals for plaques and other artefacts indicate the range of interest. Proposals have come from a variety of sources – residents, members, voluntary organisations, faith groups and business initiatives. There is little guidance on design or priorities therefore when proposals, suggestions or requests are made members and officers currently lack a clear framework for decision making or to provide advice.

This policy guidance is designed to cover key areas under three themes, to be used in conjunction with planning polices and guidance:

1. Public realm: Recognising famous residents 2. Public realm: Recognising famous places and sites 3. Paintings and Publications

1. PUBLIC REALM: RECOGNISING FAMOUS RESIDENTS

In the UK the most common way of recognising famous residents is through statuary or plaques.

STATUARY

Kingston has few statues – the most prominent being the Queen Anne statue and Shrubsole monument in the Market Place/ Market House. Statues are relatively expensive and generally require private sector funding. In the past public subscription was a common way to fund statues but this method is infrequently used in modern times. They also have a permanence and prominence which need to be considered in selecting their subject. Similar standards to those applied to plaques are appropriate if the statue is on council property.

Plaques are substantially cheaper, informative and useful in locating and recognising famous people in the context of their locality. There are a variety of plaques in the borough which fall into three categories – Blue Plaques (English Heritage Scheme), Green Plaques (Kingston’s local scheme) and ad hoc plaques.

D6

BLUE PLAQUES (English Heritage)

The blue plaque scheme is administered by English Heritage. Originally this operated only in the London area but it is being extended to other cities. Kingston has four blue plaques. The Enid Blyton plaque (as shown) at 207 Hook Road marks a house where she was a live-in nanny and was erected prior to the 1999 report. Three further English Heritage Blue Plaques have been erected since the 1999 report:

• Donald Campbell(1921-1967) and Sir Malcolm Campbell (1885-1948) in 2010 at Canbury School, Kingston Hill;

• Alfred Bestall 1892-1986 Illustrator of Rupert Bear at 58 Cranes Park in 2006 and

• Dame Nellie Melba 1861-1931, Operatic soprano,at Coombe House Devey Lane, in 2000.

The criteria operated by English Heritage are:

• The individual must be regarded as eminent by a majority of members of their own profession or calling. D7

• The person must have made some important positive contribution to human welfare or happiness, or have had such an exceptional and outstanding personality that a passer-by would immediately recognise their name.

• The individual must have been born over one hundred years ago, or have died over twenty years ago.

• Each person can have only one plaque, and it may only be affixed to an extant building directly associated with them.

The rationale English Heritage have for these criteria are that they have been established to ensure that plaques for little known or undeserving people do not proliferate. For example, criteria 3 ii. ensures that a period of time elapses after the death of someone famous or since the completion of the work for which they are being honoured, and thereby ensures that popular sentiment does not dictate the inclusion of a person in the scheme shortly after their death.

The cost to English Heritage of purchasing and erecting a blue plaque is approximately £1,500. The plaque itself costs approximately £750 (variable depending on wording) and the plaques are usually porcelain. Fitting costs will vary depending on the situation of the plaque and materials. English Heritage bear the costs of plaques which are agreed under their scheme.

Annex A (list of famous residents) includes a number who could be considered eligible and suitable for the blue plaque scheme. It is clearly preferable to pursue the bl;ue plaque scheme (which ha sno costs and brings national recognition) where the proposal meets the English Heritage eligibility criteria)

D8

THE KINGSTON (GREEN PLAQUE) SCHEME

Plaques have been erected to famous ex-residents outside the nationally recognised Blue Plaque schemes through a local Kingston Scheme using a dark green colour. The Kingston approach is based on the English Heritage criteria in paragraph 3 above, with the proviso that local impact should be taken into account. For example, the scheme can be used to erect a plaque to someone who was born in the borough or lived in the borough during a creative period, despite them having an English Heritage plaque elsewhere. .

Plaques erected under the new local green plaque scheme to date are:

• Eadweard Muybridge (erected by Cinema 100, launched by Lord David Puttnam CBE) in Liverpool Road.

• Cesar Picton, pioneer black businessman, at Amari House in Kingston High Street (erected by a local committee led by Kingston Racial Equality Council and funded by Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee through the D9

Neighbourhood Grants scheme). The cost of the Cesar Picton plaque was £1,400 including fitting.

• George Meredith (author) at site of former Kingston Lodge.

Applications for funding to support the installation of plaques are handled through the Neighbourhood Grants scheme which allows grants up to £750. This is eligible expenditure under the grants scheme.

Application is through the regular grants process, by a properly constituted voluntary organisation, which has to raise the remainder of the funding for the plaque. Officers from Cultural Services and Lifelong Learning provide advice on applications where appropriate, through the Grants Unit.

Annex A (list of famous residents) includes a number who could be considered eligible and suitable for the Kingston green plaque scheme.

AD HOC PLAQUES

Prior to the establishment of the local Green Plaques scheme, plaques were non- standard – for example the one to Richard Jeffries at the entrance to Surbiton Library D10

While these may have their own intrinsic or aesthetic merit (and in the case of Jeffries clearly the use of wood has a relevance to the subject) it is proposed that in general the green plaques would be the preferred option for the council to support. Exceptions might exist – eg where a design needs to fit with the building to which it is D11

to be affixed or where the plaque or board is designed to suit the person commemorated.

2. PUBLIC REALM: RECOGNISING FAMOUS PLACES AND SITES

INFORMATION BOARDS AND PLAQUES

Information boards and plaques have been installed periodically to promote and celebrate key buildings or sites around the borough. These are designed to be educational and informative. They provide useful reference points to tours and in visitor guides.

These have been produced in response to local demand, or when renovation work is carried out.

In recent years the increasing recognition of the importance of Kingston’s aviation history has led to new plaques being installed at the Richmond Road site of the former British aerospace factory.

D12

Information plaques will vary in importance and in the amount of information to be conveyed, and designs may vary according to the nature of the information to be conveyed and the site where it is to be placed. However where they are on a common theme – eg celebrating Kingston’s aviation history they should be consistent in design, style and materials.

The information content of historical plaques should always be checked with the Local Studies and Archive Service which holds extensive historical and archive material relating to sites and events in the borough.

As with the Green Plaques, proposals from voluntary or community groups to site information plaques may be eligible for the Neighbourhood Grants scheme.

There are many sites where further historical information plaques/ boards could be considered; for example

• Other sites associated with Kingston’s aviation history (eg the extant buildings in Canbury Park Road); D13

• the site of Charles Chaplin’s first stage role in 1903 ( the Royal County Theatre at 15-17 Fife Road , now a Sports shop); • the site of the Seething Wells water works, which played an important role in establishing the causes and potential alleviation of cholera. • Sites related to the First and Second World wars: including the residences of holders of the Victoria cross

3 PAINTINGS AND PUBLICATIONS

THE BRILL COLLECTION

The Brill Collection originally consisted of a series of 74 topographical watercolours and pen and wash paintings which were commissioned between 1955 and 1971 to record through art the changing landscape of the borough. D14

The scheme, which had the support of Kingston Rotary Club, was the idea of Reginald Brill, head of the former Kingston School of Art and many of the paintings were by staff at the school. Commissions ceased in 1971.

The Friends of Kingston Museum successfully re-launched the scheme in 1997 with a new commission by Leo Duff entitled Kingston Bus Station by Night . The new initiative was supported financially by Kingston University, Kingston Council, Kingston Rotary Club and other donors.

Donations for further paintings have subsequently been made and new works included in the collection by commission or competition. The collection now has more than 110 paintings with additions being made on an annual basis. Selection is by the Friends of the Museum and heritage Service and the collection is held by Kingston Council in its Museum collection.

Paintings from the collection are on display in the staircase gallery at Kingston Museum as part of a rolling programme. Periodically the whole Collection goes on display in Kingston Museum's art gallery. The Friends of the Museum have published a catalogue of the collection. Paintings of a Changing Kingston: Kingston Museum's Brill Collection by June Sampson and Henrietta Harris

PUBLICATIONS

There are many historical publications relating to Kingston upon Thames including a range of publications and articles in the Surrey Comet by June Sampson which have brought to popular attention famous people, places and events associated with the borough.

In 2013 Kingston University Press (KUP) supported the publication of Shaan Butters authoritative history of the borough which provides an excellent historical context for artefacts such as plaques or information boards. KUP is developing a publication programme which will provide opportunities for further historical publications.

D15

Annex 2

Famous Kingstonians

Ayliffe, George (1825-1915) George William Ayliffe, hairdresser, photographer and local historian was born in Hampton Wick and attended school in Hampton Wick and Surbiton. Apprenticed to a hairdresser in the Apple Market in Kingston he later had his own shops in the Apple Market, Church St and Thames St. He first took up photography as a hobby and in 1860 gave up hairdressing to become a photographer. He started in Kingston but moved to London for a time where he worked on an evening paper called the Glow Worm and met Charles Dickens. He returned to Brighton Rd, Surbiton in 1870 where he remained until his retirement in 1885. From the age of seven he kept a diary recording events and changes in the area and when he was 80 agreed to give a series of interviews to the Surrey Comet . These were remarkable for their accuracy and were printed in 1914 under the title Old Kingston in aid of the Kingston Victoria Hospital. He died aged 90 at his home Glen Lyn in Richmond Rd, Kingston.

Barnardo, Thomas (1845-1905) Barnardo was born in Dublin and trained at the London Hospital and later in Edinburgh where he became a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. His medical work in the east end of London during the cholera epidemic of 1866 first drew his attention to the great numbers of homeless and destitute children in the big cities and with the encouragement of the 7 th Earl of Shaftesbury he opened the first home in Stepney Causeway in 1870. By the time of his death in 1905 there were 112 “Homes”. Barnardo lived in St Leonard’s Lodge, Portsmouth Rd (now replaced by Ravensview Court) where his wife declared they had spent their happiest years. There was not a Barnardo’s Home in Kingston until 1933 when the organisation took over the Princess Louise Home. The building closed in 1968 and the site is now occupied by Blenheim Gardens. The author Leslie Thomas was sent there and wrote about it in his book This Time Next Week.

Barton, Cyril Joe (1922-1944) Cyril was from New Malden and was a Pilot Officer in 578 Squadron. On 30 March 1944 in an attack on Nuremberg his Halifax bomber was badly damaged by enemy aircraft with three crew member baling out. He carried on to the target released the bombs and then tried to return. His plane ran out of fuel and he crashed trying to avoid the village of Ryhope near Sunderland. He was awarded the VC posthumously.

Bazalgette, Ian Willoughby (1918-1944) He was born in Calgary later moving to England with his family who settled in New Malden. In September 1940 he received a commission in the Royal Artillery and the following year he transferred to the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. On 4 August 1944 his Lancaster came under heavy anti-aircraft fire in France. Despite the plane being on fire he carries on to the target and bombed it before ordered those who could to leave by parachute and bringing the D16

aircraft down safely. Unfortunately it then exploded killing him and two other crew members. He was awarded the VC posthumously.

Bestall, Alfred (1892-1986) He studied art at the Birmingham Central School of Arts and Crafts before transferring his studies to London. He was a driver and mechanic on the Western Front from 1916 and began contributing humorous illustrations to “Blighty” magazine. After being demobbed he worked full-time as an illustrator and in 1922 received the first of over 100 commissions for Punch magazine. He also illustrated a number of children’s books including one by Enid Blyton (lived in Hook). In 1935 he took over from Mary Tourtel as writer and artist of the Rupert Bear strip in the Daily Express. He continued to produce the strip until his retirement in 1965 and contributed to the Annuals until he was 90. He lived in Cranes Park, Surbiton from 1936-1966 and then moved to Wales. He was a member of Surbiton Hill Methodist Church and of Surbiton Rotary Club. He also helped to reform the Tennis Club.

Blyton, Enid (1897-1968) She moved to Southernhay, Hook Road in 1920 as governess to the four sons of the Thompson family and subsequently moved to Chessington. Her first book for children was published in 1922. More than 600 others were to follow.

Burdett-Coutts, Angela (1814-1906) She was the daughter of Sir Francis Burdett and Sophia Coutts who became the wealthiest woman in England when she inherited her grandfather’s fortune of nearly two million pounds in 1837. She spent the majority of her money on scholarships, endowments and a wide range of philanthropic causes. Her link with Kingston was that Coutts Bank took over Thomas Pooley’s estate in Surbiton in 1844. Angela personally donated land for the first church (St Marks) in Surbiton and endowed St Andrews also. In 1881 her celebrity was enhanced when she married her Secretary William Bartlett. She was 67 and he was 27.

Burney, Fanny (1752-1840) Fanny Burney who later became Madame D’Arblay was an English novelist and diarist. She published her first novel anonymously in 1778 but when the authorship became known it gave her immediate fame. She wrote four major novels but the publication of her diaries posthumously gave her a second reputation as a social observer and writer of character sketches. Her father Dr Burney was a good friend of Samuel Crisp the playwright and musician who lived at Chessington Hall. She visited him for the first time in 1766 and they became lifelong friends. He was her “most judicious advisor and stimulating critic”. She married a French exile General Alexandre D’Arblay in 1893 and had a son in 1894 when she was 42. They travelled to France in 1802 and stayed for 10 years being trapped by the Battle of Waterloo on their way back to Britain in Brussels. Her diary is a useful source document for the battle.

D17

Clapton, Eric (1945-) He was born in Ripley but attended Hollyfield School and then Kingston College of Art. He left the college as his interest was more in music than art and by the early 1960’s he was busking around Kingston, Richmond and the West End. He joined his first band early in 1963 before joining the Yardbirds towards the end of that year. He has been described as the most important and influential guitarist of all time.

Clark, Petula (1932-) She was born in Epsom and went to school in Chessington. She was a star of radio and film before reaching her teens. She made some 500 appearances during the 2 nd world War to entertain the troops. Through the 1940’s and 50’s she appeared in a great number of films branching out into singing in the late 1940’s. She had a string of hits in the 50’s before her career faltered in the early 60’s. The recording of “Downtown” in 1964 reversed this trend and she had 15 consecutive Top Forty hits in the USA. Thoroughout the 60’s and 70’s she toured extensively in the US then scaled back her career for her family returning to the stage in the 1980’s as Maria von Trapp. She is the most successful British solo recording artist to date (70million recordings).

Dartmouth, George, Lord (1755-1810) He was High Steward of Kingston in 1797 which was one of many high offices he held,amongst them, Lord Chamberlain from 1804-1812, Lord Steward from 1802-1804, |President of the Board of Control from 1801-1802 and Member for Horsham from 1780.

Eisenhower, Dwight D (1890-1969) American president from 1953-61, he was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during the Second World War and lived at Telegraph Cottage in Coombe while preparing the plan for the D Day landings. He presented the maps he had worked on to the people of Kingston after the war.

Galsworthy, John (1867-1933) The author and Nobel Prize winner was born at Parkfield on Kingston Hill and as a child lived in three other houses in Coombe. The locality is fondly remembered in the Forsyte Saga trilogy. The first house his father built was Coombe Warren later renamed Coombe Court now demolished. The second was Coombe Leigh later Coombe Ridge House and now Holy Cross Prep School. The third was Coombe Croft now Rokeby an independent boys’ school.

Gibbon, Edward (1737-1794) He was born in Putney and attended Kingston Grammar School briefly before going to Westminster then Magdalen College, Oxford. He converted to Catholicism at which point his father removed him and sent him to the care of a Calvinist pastor in Lausanne for five years. Not surprisingly he reconverted and gained much in intellectual experience. He also fell in love for the only time in his life but once again his father intervened and he returned to England. After four years with the Hampshire Militia he embarked on a grand tour which inspired him to write his most famous work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He never married and suffered from a crippling illness in his later years. D18

Gordine, Dora (c1900-1991) She was born in Estonia and moved to Paris in 1920 to study music and art. She exhibited her sculpture through the 1920’s and was very successful. In 1929 she went to Singapore to make six bronze heads for their new Town Hall and numerous other commissions. She married the Hon Richard Hare in 1936 and thereafter made Britain her home. Dorich House was built to her own design (plans can be seen in the Archives) and she lived there until her death in 1992 when the house and contents were given to the University. It is now run as a stunning Museum with many of her sculptures and artworks which she and her husband collected. Richard Hare (1907-1966) was a brilliant scholar who worked as an academic in Russian cultural studies. He published several books and his collection of Russian art can also be found in the house.

Gould,Alderman Frederick, JP (1817-1900) Frederick Gould was born in Bath and came to Kingston in 1839. Soon after his arrival he founded the Kingston Literary and Scientific Institution and was elected its first president. A keen collector of geological and antiquarian objects he later donated them to the Corporation. He recalled that when he first came to the district Surbiton was wholly agricultural or park land. There were only five buildings – a windmill and four inhabited houses – in the whole of Surbiton Hill and after the erection of the railway the first building to be put up were third-class shops which ran down the left-hand side of Claremont Rd (from the railway station). They had a short life however and were pulled down to make way for villa residences. Alderman Gould was Mayor of Kingston in 1853 and again in 1880 and interested himself in many local projects including the inauguration of the Coronation Stone in 1850 and the construction of Queen’s Promenade and Canbury Gardens.

Hammerton, Esther (1711-1746) Her father was sexton of All Saint’s church but was killed in 1730 when the remains of Kingston’s Saxon chapel collapsed on top of him while he was digging graves. Esther was also buried in the rubble but survived to become Kingston’s next sextoness. The accident caused injuries which prevented her from wearing stays and given the nature of her occupation she wore men’s clothing for the rest of her life.

Hansard, Luke (1752-1828) Luke Hansard was printer to the House of Commons and published Journals of the House of Commons (1774-1828) based on information from other printed sources. William Cobbett began an unofficial series of reports on debates which were printed by Luke’s son Thomas Curson Hansard who took over in 1812. The reports were published by the family until 1890. Thomas junior (Luke’s grandson) lived in Ashdown Road. He died in 1891 and is buried in Kingston Cemetery.

Hardy, Thomas (1840-1928) He was born near Dorchester where he trained as an architect before moving to London. His local connection is the short time he spent living in Hook Road just after his marriage in 1874 where “Far from the Madding Crowd” was completed becoming a runaway success on publication. The site of the cottage is where Midhurst Court flats are now. It is likely that his friendship with a D19

local man, Francis Honeywell who also came from Dorset originally was the reason for them moving to the area. He was also a friend of and encouraged by George Meredith.

Hawker, Harry (1889-1921) The Australian aviation pioneer moved to the UK in 1911 and became the chief test pilot for Sopwith Aviation . After the war he co- founded Hawker Engineering with Tommy Sopwith and others. He was killed in a flying accident in 1921 and is buried in St Paul’s churchyard, Hook.

James, P D (1920-) The distinguished crime writer and member of the House of Lords was working as a hospital administrator and living in Richmond Park Road when her first novel “Cover her Face” was published in 1962

Jefferies, Richard (1848-1887) He was born in Swindon and moved to Surbiton in 1877 living in the house which is now 296 Ewell Rd. It was its then proximity to woods and fields which attracted Jefferies and his family. He arrived unknown and left in 1882 the successful author of five books, the best known of which is “Nature near London”. A bird sanctuary was created in his honour in Grove Hill Rd.

Jenkinson, Robert Banks (1770-1828) Lord Liverpool, the second Earl, was Prime Minister of England from 1812-1827 and held the position of High Steward of Kingston from 1816 until his death. Although the position was largely honorary, Lord Liverpool, who lived at Coombe House on Kingston Hill, took a keen interest in local affairs. In 1821 he founded a charity known as Lord Liverpool’s Bounty by which 5 Kingston families who had “conducted themselves in the most orderly and proper manner during the year preceding” received £5 each at Christmas. In 1825 he laid the foundation stone for the new Kingston Bridge. Lord Liverpool was married twice, firstly on 25 March 1795 to Lady Louisa Theodosia, third daughter of Frederick Augustus Hervey, 4 th Earl of Bristol, and secondly in 1822 to Miss Mary Chester, daughter of Charles Chester and niece of the first Lord Bagot. Lord Liverpool died at Coombe House in 1828 and his funeral handled by Hide’s in the Market Place was conducted with much pomp. He was buried in a family vault in Hawkesbury, Gloucestershire. He was survived for 18 years by his second wife who died at Norbiton Hall. A white marble memorial to Louisa Theodosia stands in All Saints church.

Langtry, Lily (1853-1929) Born in Jersey, she was an actress and courtesan who became the mistress of the Prince of Wales (the future Edward V11). They met at the house of friends on Kingston Hill and local rumour had it that her child born in 1881 was born in Kingston and was the Prince’s child. The child was in fact born in Paris and the father is far more likely to have been Prince Louis of Battenberg (an ancestor of Prince Charles).

D20

Lockwood, Margaret (1916-1990) She was born in Karachi but moved to London in 1920. She had an unhappy childhood and dreamed of becoming a star. She made her stage debut at the Holborn Empire at the age of 15. In 1933 she enrolled at RADA after which her film career began to take off. Through the 1940’s she specialised in playing amoral roles including her most famous film “The Wicked Lady”. By the mid 1950’s she was out of favour with film audiences and she turned to theatre. Her investiture with her CBE 1980 that year was her last public appearance after which she lived at her home on Kingston Hill until her death in 1990.

Martyn, John (1948-2009) The songwriter and guitarist was born in New Malden. Over a 40 year career he released 21 albums and was described by the Times as “an electrifying guitarist whose music blurred the boundaries between folk, jazz, rock and blues”

Melba, Dame Nellie (1861-1931) She was born in Melbourne, Australia where her musical talent was recognised early. In 1886 she travelled to Europe with her family and was tutored in Paris thereafter beginning a professional career in Australia and England. She was a Prima Donna at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden through to the 1920’s. During her time in England she frequently stayed in Coombe Cottage, Coombe Hill which she rented from Admiral Beresford, a friend of Edward V11’s. It was one of her favourite places and she named her house in Australia after it. She was admired as a performer but not well liked due to her imperious manner. She has the distinction of having two foods named after her – melba toast and peach melba which gives some indication of her fame at the time. Her funeral procession in 1931 was over a kilometre long.

Meredith, George (1828-1909) Born in Portsmouth he read law and was articled as a solicitor before abandoning the profession for journalism and poetry just after his first marriage in 1849. His collected early writings were published in 1851 to much acclaim. He moved to the Kingston area around 1862 and remarried in 1864. He rented Kingston Lodge from 1865-1868 where he wrote intensively and where his son was born.

Merryweather, Frederick (1827-1900) He was chairman of New Malden Local Board and Urban District Council. He first came to New Malden around 1860 when the population was only 900. There were no lamps, the roads were in poor condition and the place was generally so damp and ill-cared for that he was often asked if the inhabitants of New Malden had webbed feet. He played a large part in the establishment of the New Malden Local Board and later the Urban District Council of which he was Chairman from 1867 to 1875 and again from 1888 until his death. He did much to encourage improvements of all kinds and was instrumental in the establishment of the sewage works in 1888 and the erection of Christ Church and the National Schools. He was a member of the Kingston Board of Guardians, New Malden’s representative on Surrey County Council (from 1889) and a County Councillor (from 1895). As editor of the Surrey Comet c 1877-1888 he wrote chatty D21

articles under the pseudonym “Dry as dust” and published a book Half a Century of Kingston History in 1887.

Millais, John Everett (1829-1896) He was born in Southampton of a prominent Jersey family. They moved to the London area when John was accepted for the Royal Academy at the age of 11. The family lived for a time in the Kingston/Surbiton area where the Pre-Raphaelite brotherhood did many of their paintings including JEM’s Ophelia which was painted on the Hogsmill. His brother William was also a notable artist of his day and the Museum has one of his paintings acquired through the will of a local lady.

Muybridge, Eadweard (1830-1904) He was born and died in Kingston but spent most of his working life in America where he won international fame as a photographer of movement and pioneer of cinematography. He was 20 when the Coronation Stone was inaugurated in 1850 and the spelling of Eadweard on the Stone may have influenced his adoption later on in life of this spelling of his own name. He survived a severe injury in a coach crash in 1860 and was put on trial for the murder of his wife’s lover in 1875 for which he was acquitted. His main claim to fame was in the successful analysis of movement and in the development of the zoopraxiscope which enable sequences to be seen as a moving image. He returned to live in Kingston in 1894 and died in 1904 leaving his collection to the Museum.

Perriam, Wendy (?) She lived for a long time in Surbiton and suburbia is the setting for many of her novels. Her first novel “Absinthe for Elevenses” was published in 1980 to critical acclaim and she has written many since. She works part time as a teacher of Creative Writing.

Picton, Cesar (1755-1836) Famously no picture of him is known to exist although he left a portrait of himself to a friend in his will. He was a native of Senegal who was presented to Sir John Philipps of Norbiton Place in 1761. He was treated almost as an equal by the family and inherited a substantial amount from Lady Philipps on her death in 1788. He used the legacy to set up in business as a coal merchant and by the end of the 18 th century was a well respected and wealthy businessman. The Philipps daughter all also left him substantial legacies and his will indicates a very comfortably off man. He was very large by the time of his death in 1836 which made his burial in All Saints Church a logistical nightmare.

Plomley, Roy (1914-1985) He was born in Fife Road and lived in Kingston until he was 20. His autobiography is very interesting and amusing about his early life. He originally worked as an advertising copywriter but began his broadcasting career on Radio Normandy during the 2 nd World War. In 1942 he devised “Desert Island Discs” which he presented until his death. It is now the longest running series in British radio history. He kept his link with Kingston by commentating on the Amateur Regatta each year until his death.

D22

Sharman, Helen (1963-) She was born in Sheffield but was living in Adelaide Rd Surbiton when she was selected as the first Briton in space, the first non-Soviet, non- American woman in space in 1989. After training she blasted off in Soyus TM-12 on 18 May 1991. She has not returned to space since the mission and currently works at Kingston University.

Sherriff, Robert Cedric (1896-1975) R C Sherriff, the playwright, was educated at Kingston Grammar School and New College, Oxford. He entered the Sun Insurance Office in 1914 and in 1918 became a Captain in the East Surrey Regiment and fought in the First World War. His first play was written for performance in 1921 in aid of a restoration fund for Kingston Grammar School’s Lovekyn Chapel and his most famous, Journey’s End , based on his experiences in the war was performed for the first time at the Savoy Theatre in 1929. His recreational interests included archaeology, farming and rowing and he took a keen interest in Kingston schools’ sporting events to the end of his life. He died at Rosebriars, Esher in 1975.

Sopwith, Sir Tommy (1888-1989) He was born in Kensington and trained at engineering college in Lee-on-Solent. He was fascinated by flying and taught himself, making his first solo flight in 1910 when unfortunately he crashed. In 1912 he set up the Sopwith Aviation Company in Canbury Park Road and produced planes throughout the 1 st World War. Bankrupted after the war he re-entered business a few years later with a new firm named after his chief engineer and test pilot, Harry Hawker (buried at Hook). The firm eventually became British Aerospace and remained in Kingston until 1992 when the grand façade and all the other buildings on Richmond Rd were demolished to be replaced by houses. He was also famous for his involvement in the Americas Cup.

Tangye, Sir Richard (1833-1906) He was born in Cornwall and worked with his brother making tools. One of his brothers developed a new style of hydraulic jack which was used in the building of the Great Eastern Railway. The company moved to Birmingham where it increased dramatically in size. In 1894 Tangye moved to Dorincourt, Kingston Vale where he spent the rest of his life in charge of Tangye Bros Engineers. The house has now been replaced by a block of flats.

Thomas, Leslie (1931-) He was born in Newport. He was orphaned at the age of 12 and brought up in Dr Barnardos in Kingston. The story of his upbringing was the subject of his first autobiographical book “This Time Next Week”. He is a prolific author with several of his series of books (Virgin Soldiers and Dangerous Davies) being made into films or television series.

Williamson, Francis John (1833-1920) He was born in Hampstead and worked for J H Foley an important sculptor of his day. Most of his later life was spent in Esher where he settled with his family. He was one of Queen Victoria’s favourite sculptors and was responsible for the Shrubsole Memorial in the Market Place. D23

Wilson, Jacqueline (1945-) She was born in Bath but spent her childhood in Kingston. She was educated at Coombe Girls School then moved to Dundee to work as a journalist for D C Thomson, writing for Jackie magazine which was named after her. She is now a very successful children’s writer having sold over 10 million books, translated into over 30 languages. She still lives in Kingston today.

E1 APPENDIX E

PLACE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

11 FEBRUARY 2014

URGENT ACTION TAKEN UNDER STANDING ORDER 32

REPORT BY THE HEAD OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

SUMMARY

On 6 th January 2014 action was taken in accordance with Standing Order 32 to increase the rate of the Community Infrastructure Levy charge rate for student housing contained in the draft charging schedule. A Borough wide rate of £50 per square metre had been approved at the November meeting of the Place and Sustainability Committee but new evidence which suggests that higher rents are being achieved on student rental schemes now demonstrate that a rate of £220 per square metre is appropriate. This will be higher than that for the highest rate residential area (North Kingston and Coombe, £220 per square metre) and is considered to sit more comfortably with the continued high volume of student housing applications coming forward.

It was necessary to amend the draft schedule as a matter of urgency because public consultation on the proposals was due to commence on 10 th January.

The Committee is asked to note the action taken.

Background papers : held by Gary Marson, Team Leader, Democratic Support– 020 8547 5021 , e-mail: [email protected]

• Signed Standing Order 32 form dated 6 th January 2014

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\0\4\AI00023403\$lp0jz5og.docx