Schedule of Operational Properties with Some Potential to Add Value Appendix 3

Schedule of Operational Properties with some potential to add value Appendix 3

Lambeth Ref Cttee Address Town Centre Current Use Potential to Add Value ES00086 ES Popes Road Car Park, London SW2 Brixton Car Park Part of Brixton Masterplan SS00026 SS 42 Clarence Avenue, London SW4 Clapham Care Home Sold SS00094 SS 25 Warham Road, Croydon SE25 Norwood Care Home Sold SS 73 Leigham Court Road, London SW16 Streatham Care Home Yes HS Meadow Road Hall, Meadow Road, London SW8 North Lambeth Community Hall Yes HS00082 HS Norwood Hall, Knights Hill, London SE27 Norwood Community Hall A Future Lambeth Scheme SS00034 SS Effra Centre, 65 Effra Road, London SW2 Brixton Day Centre Yes ED00144 ED Kennington Park, 1 Othello Close, London SE11 North Lambeth Day Centre Yes HS The Lunham Centre, Lunham Road, London SE19 Norwood Day Centre Yes Southwood Short Term Respite and Day Care Centre, Chalfont Road, off South SS00079 SS Norwood Hill, London SE25 Norwood Day Centre Sold SS00070 SS Norwood Rehabilitation Centre, 1 Park Hall Road, London SE27 Norwood Day Centre Yes ED00072 ED Marcus Lipton Youth Centre, Minet Road, London SW9 Brixton Education Yes SS00010 SS Brixton Social Education Centre, 2 Somerleyton Road, London SW9 Brixton Education Temporary City Academy ED00086 ED Rectory Grove Support Centre, Rectory Grove, London SW4 Clapham Education Yes ED Beaufoy Centre, Black Prince Road, London SE11 North Lambeth Education Part of PWIS study Joint scheme with private ED00001 ED Abbotswood Sports Pitch, Abbotswood Road, London SW16 Norwood Education school HS00012 HS Lunham Depot, Lunham Road, London SE19 Norwood Industrial Yes HS Land near Foxley Square, London SW9 Brixton Land Part of Myatts Field PFI Old West Norwood Library, Knights Hill, London SE27 Norwood Library Library Review ES00069 ES Minet Library, 52 Knatchbull Road, London SE5 Brixton Library Library Review ES00118 ES Tate Central Library, Brixton Oval, London SW2 Brixton Library Library Review ES00023 ES Clapham Library, 1 Clapham Common Northside, London SW4 Clapham Library Library Review ES00031 ES Durning Library, 167 Kennington Lane, London SE11 North Lambeth Library Library Review ES00076 ES Lower Marsh Library, Lower Marsh, London SE1 North Lambeth Library To be redeveloped/relocated ES00020 ES Carnegie Library, 188 Herne Hill Road, London SE27 Norwood Library Library Review

ES00136 ES West Norwood Library and Nettlefold Hall, Norwood High Street, London SE27 Norwood Library Library Review ES00124 ES Tate Library, South Lambeth Road, London SW8 Stockwell Library Library Review ES Streatham Tate Library, London SW16 Streatham Library Library Review ED00186 ED Vassall Playgroup, 145 Brixton Road, London SW9 Brixton Nursery Yes SS Stockwell Day Centre and Nusery, Stockwell Park Road, London SW9 Brixton Nursery Yes ED00182 ED Garrads Day Nursery, 21 Garrads Road, London SW16 Streatham Nursery Sold

HS Loughborough NMO, Opposite Ashby House, Loughborough Estate, London SW9 Brixton Office Yes HS00003 HS North Brixton NHO, Foxley Square, Myatts Field Estate, London SW9 Brixton Office Part of Myatts Field PFI Schedule of Operational Properties with some potential to add value Appendix 3

Lambeth Ref Cttee Address Town Centre Current Use Potential to Add Value HS00015 HS Stockwell EMB, 145 Thrayle House, Stockwell Park Estate, London SW9 Brixton Office Transferred HS00009 HS Central Brixton NHO, 10 Somerleyton Road, London SW9 Brixton Office Yes HS00004 HS South Brixton NMO, Greenleaf Close, Tulse Hill, London SW2 Brixton Office Part of Brixton Masterplan HS00083 CS 1-9 Acre Lane, London SW2 Brixton Office Part of Brixton Masterplan HS00006 HS Clapham Park NMO, Headlam Road, London SW4 Clapham Office Transferred HS00007 HS North Clapham NHO, 20 Cottage Grove, London SW9 Clapham Office Yes HS00016 HS North Stockwell NHO, 283-291 Wandsworth Road, London SW8 Clapham Office Yes HS00017 SS Mary Seacole House, 81-91 Clapham High Street, London SW4 Clapham Office Future Clapham Scheme CS00049 HS 91 Kennington Lane, London SE11 North Lambeth Office Yes ED00174 ED Brixton Child Guidance Unit, 19 Brixton Water Lane, London SW2 Brixton Office Yes CS00002 CS Acre House, 10-20 Acre Lane, London SW2 Brixton Office Part of Brixton Masterplan ES00030 HS 17 Porden Road, London SW2 Brixton Office Part of Brixton Masterplan HS00078 CR Town Hall, Brixton Hill, London SW2 Brixton Office Part of Brixton Masterplan HS Town Hall Parade, 2-7 Brixton Hill, London SW2 Brixton Office Part of Brixton Masterplan CR Hambrook House, Porden Road, London SW2 Brixton Office Part of Brixton Masterplan HS Clapham Common NMO, Worsopp Drive, London SW4 Clapham Office Yes CS00025 HS Upper Norwood NMO, Lunham Road, London SE19 Norwood Office Yes HS00023 CS Brixton Street Market Facilities, Brixton Station Road, London SW2 Brixton Office and Yard Part of Brixton Masterplan SS00097 HS West Norwood NMO, Cranfield Close, London SE27 Norwood Offices Yes CS00050 SS Wynne Road Centre, 6-10 Wynne Road, London SW9 Brixton Offices Yes ES00036 ES Adventure Playground, Dexter Road/Montego Close, London SE24 Brixton Recreation Yes ES00029 Adventure Playground, Lorn Road/Slade Gardens, London SW9 Brixton Recreation Yes ES00058 ED Adventure Playground, Stewarts Road, London SW8 North Lambeth Recreation Yes HS00029 ED Adventure Playground, Willington Road, London SW9 Brixton Recreation Yes ES00037 ES Clapham Leisure Centre, Clapham Manor Street, London SW4 Clapham Recreation Future Clapham ES00025 ES Larkhall Park Playground, Off Larkhall Lane, London SW4 Clapham Recreation Yes ED00094 ES Streatham Pool, Streatham High Road, London SW16 Streatham Recreation Streatham Hub Scheme ES00117 HS 20 Mount Villas, London SE27 Norwood Residential Sheltered Home Review OS00022 ES Public Convenience, Vauxhall Park, Fentiman Road, London SW8 North Lambeth WC Yes SS00038 ES Public Convenience, Popes Road, London SW9 Brixton WC Part of Brixton Masterplan ES90468 ES Public Convenience, Clapham Polygon, London SW4 Clapham WC Yes

OS00007 ES Public Convenience, Lower Marsh, Rear of 114-118 Lower Marsh, London SE1 North Lambeth WC Yes Schedule of Operational Properties with some potential to add value Appendix 3

Study Ref 53 22 37 48 29 38 2 30 39

40 41 3 4 23 31

93 42 5 43 57 58 77 87 88 94

95 99 100 7 8 44

10 11 Schedule of Operational Properties with some potential to add value Appendix 3

Study Ref 12 13 14 16 24 25 26 27 32 49 61 63 64 65 67 69 90 103 17 70 19 20 28 46 71 82 104 105 35 50 84

85 Appendix 4

CPA Use of Resources - Asset Management How well does the Council plan and manage its finances? Key line of enquiry 2.3 The Council manages its asset base The Council has an up-to-date corporate capital strategy linked to its corporate objectives and medium-term financial strategy. Lambeth Council has a three year capital strategy from 2006/07 to 2008/09. This strategy was approved by the Council's Executive in November 2005 and supports delivery of the Council's financial and service objectives.

The Council's Capital Strategy describes how the deployment of its capital resources contributes to the achievement of its goals. It is one of the Council's key policy documents, and forms a framework for operational strategies within and across service areas. The capital strategy also extend to areas where the Council is able to exert influence over others through the use of its capital resources, and sets in place the following:-

● Generation and option appraisal of capital project proposals ● Prioritisation of capital project proposals ● Monitoring and evaluation of ongoing and completed projects ● Review of the use of properties and of service needs ● Identifying the revenue implications of capital decisions and feeding these into the revenue budget setting process

The capital strategy in Section 5, page 23 clearly lays out how it will deliver against local priorities and plans. The objectives are outlined in detail at Appenidix 3, page 39.

The Council has an up-to-date asset management plan that details existing asset management arrangements and outcomes, and planned action to improve corporate asset use. The Council's asset management plan set out how corporate assets will be managed in order to improve performance and deliver the best outcomes to support the Council's financial performance and service delivery.

The Council's 2007 to 2010 Corporate Property Strategy & Asset Management Plan was approved by Cabinet is June 2007. As this document was previously rated as "good" by the Government Office for London (GOL) the Council no longer needs to submit it for approval to GOL. The strategy has five sections: ● Part 1 - Corporate Land Policy: Consolidates the fundamental property headline principles and policies including the legislative framework through which these can be effectively implemented; ● Part 2 - Governance, Arrangements, Accountability and Responsibilities: Reviews the existing organisationl arrangements, functions, and responsibilities required for the support of asset management in the Council at officer level and proposed several changed; ● Part 3 - Property Procedural Guidelines: Sets out best practice for asset management in a series of operating procedures comprising a set of sequential actions; ● Part 4 - Asset Management Plan: A high level strategic summary; Appendix 4

CPA Use of Resources - Asset Management How well does the Council plan and manage its finances? ● Part 5 - Performance Management: Sets out an approach for the systematic measurement and evaluation of asset performance - see attached Corporate Property Strategy & Asset Management Plan 2007-2010.

The Council maintains an up-to-date asset register. The Council has an up-to-date capital asset register (a short extract)

The Council has a number of discrete property databases, containing a wide range of data on the Council's land and property interests. The capital asset register holds basic financial information on all of the Council's operational and non-operational properties. It is maintained, updated and administered by the Capital Team within the Finance and Resources department and uses information supplied from Corporate Property Services in the Regeneration and Housing Department.

The Internal Audit Function annually reviews the corporate asset register. The last review assessed that it as "adequately controlled".

In addition, Corporate Property Services maintains a computerised Techforge Property Information Management System (PIMS) which holds ownership details of all the Council's freehold and leasehold interests (excluding HRA freehold residential interests) and is supplemented by the Estate Computer System which holds details of the Council's non- operational property portfolio and maintained by external property consultants.

Details of the HRA residential portfolio are held on SX3 by Housing, and listed in the Corporate Property Strategy & Asset Management Plan (Section 4, Page 229)

The Council has a designated corporate property function The Council has a corporate property function based in the Corporate Property Services in the Regeneration and Housing Department. Given the need for flexibility the approach adopted by the service entails a "mixed economy" in which the principle purpose of the core property function is to act as "intelligent client" with most property services brought in from external sources.

Following the Cabinet's approval of the Corporate Property & Asset Management Plan which amongst other recommendations included the adoption of a Corporate Landlord Model, the Division is currently being reviewed with a view to reflecting its new role - see Corporate Property Strategy & Asset Management Plan (Section B, Page 69 - Prooperty Procedural Guidelines, Page 82).

The Council's arrangements for reporting to members are sufficient to ensure that they fulfil their responsibility in relation to the Council's land and buildings portfolio at both a strategic and service level. The Cabinet retains responsibility for both strategic and service level asset management including monitoring of performance. Appendix 4

CPA Use of Resources - Asset Management How well does the Council plan and manage its finances? The Council portfolio holders responsible for the asset management function are Councillor Jim Dickson, Cabinet Member for Finance and Councillor Paul McGlone, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Enterprise. The Head of Asset Strategy briefs these portfolio holders on a regular basis. Further briefings to Ward Members are given as necessary. All non delegated property decisions are dealt with in accordance with the Council's constitution and are reported to Cabinet and published in the Council's forward plan. These arrangements are set out in the Corporate Property Strategy & Asset Management Plan (Page 68: Section D). The budget report to Full Council in February 2007 addressed these issues; The Cabinet approved the Corporate Property Strategy & Asset Management Plan in June 2007.

The Council has an annual programme of planned maintenance based on a rolling programme of property surveys. The Council implements a five year rolling programme of property surveys these inform the planned maintenance programme.

The Council has undertaken condition surveys on all of its buildings. The five year rolling programme re-surveys the property stock and updates the condition data. This data is held in the Techforge Property Information Management System and informs the Council's planned maintenance programme. The summary of departmental revenue and capital spend on reactive and planned maintenance is set out in the Council's budget book each year.

The Council has assessed the level of backlog maintenance The overall backlog of maintenance has been identified using the condition data from the Techforge Property Information Management System . The system assesses the required repairs, prioritises them and costs out the works. This information is published in the Corporate Property Strategy & Asset Management Plan (Section 4, Pages 227 and 228) and as such, was agreed by Members in June 2007.

The Council's capital programme gives priority to potential capital projects based on a formal, objective approval process. The Council operates a project prioritisation methodology as set out in the three year capital strategy from 2006/07 to 2008/09. The Budget Report , taken to Full Council in February 2006 sets out clearly at Appendix 8, page 70, the prioritised approved capital bids. Appendix 9, page 76, gives the details.

A comprehensive capital project selection and appraisal methodology ensures that, as a prerequisite, projects meet the priorities in the Leader's Speech and contribute to the AMP (or meet statutory obligations). The process assesses projects in terms of service improvement and financial benefits, requiring NPV calculations and payback periods. Appendix 4

CPA Use of Resources - Asset Management How well does the Council plan and manage its finances? Each year, the Council holds capital challenge sessions, where Members and senior Officers examine the delivery plans of spending departments in order to ensure that they are as realistic as possible at the start of the year. The results of these meetings are fed back to the leader of the Council. On 3 April 2006, the leader received an update on the capital programmes for Revitalise and Building Schools for the Future, Children & Young Peoples' Service and Environment, Culture and Community Safety.

A member has been allocated portfolio responsibility for the Council's Asset Management The Council portfolio holders responsible for the asset management function are Councillor Jim Dickson, Cabinet Member for Finance and Councillor Paul McGlone, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Enterprise. The report to Full Council in May 2006 which sets out the respective responsibilities of Cabinet Members .

The Head of Asset strategy briefs these portfolio holders on a regular basis. Further briefings to Ward members are given as necessary.

Members are aware of the level of backlog maintenance and have approved a plan to address it as appropriate. The plan to reduce the backlog of maintenance is captured within both the Corporate Property Strategy & Asset Management Plan and three year capital strategy . The capital programme is part of the Budget Report and was approved by Full Council in February 2006.

Delivering the capital programme to time and within budget is a priority for the Cabinet Member for Finance. The Council's capital programme is allocated according to a balanced assessment of priorities, including achieving political and managerial objectives and driving out efficiency savings. Available resources have been allocated to individual schemes of backlog maintenance within the Council's capital programme, this is supported by revenue allocation for reactive maintenance to departments.

Each year, the Council holds capital challenge sessions, where Members and senior officers examine the delivery plans of spending departments in order to ensure that they are as realistic as possible at the start of the year. Bids are generated on the basis of existing condition data and the knowledge and experience of premises managers, occupiers and other stakeholders.

In addition to the programmes specifically targeted at reducing backlog maintenance, there are other initiatives and elements of the capital programme that contribute to the raising of fitness for purpose standards. These include, amongst other examples: ● Future Lambeth - A community led regeneration programme; Appendix 4

CPA Use of Resources - Asset Management How well does the Council plan and manage its finances? ● Building Schools for the Future - A major programme of investment in the renewal or major refurbishment of the secondary schools stock; ● Clapham New Deal for Communities Initiative - Entails large transfer of residential properties; ● Myatts Fields North PFI - A residential scheme entailing a comprehensive redevelopment of a large residential estate; ● Office accommodation programme.

These opportunities are described within the Corporate Property Strategy & Asset Management Plan (Section 6, Page 240).

The Council has developed a set of local performance measures in relation to assets that evaluate asset use in relation to corporate objectives. A range of national, corporate and local indicators relating to property or the property management service are set and monitored and are reported quarterly as part of the Regeneration and Housing Performance Digest or annually to Cabinet under the umbrella of the Corporate Property Strategy & Asset Management Plan (Section B, Page 281).

The Council makes investment and disposal decisions based on thorough option appraisal and whole life costing. Detailed option appraisals are undertaken on land and property investment schemes. The principal concern within these appraisals is to deliver appropriate services with the right outcomes for residents and stakeholders mindful of full life cost implications to the Council's revenue and capital resouces.

Options are costed and take account of revenue and capital costs over the life of the asset as appropriate. The scale and nature of a project influences the level of detail of an appraisal. Depending upon the nature of the scheme under consideration, there may be a more formal option appraisal method adopted. For example, the Myatts North PFI scheme, the Private Finance Initiative for street lighting, the Prince's Ward Investment Strategy all involved whole life costing, reflecting revenue and capital expenditure, running and maintenance costs over the anticipated life of the building.

Whole life costing is used to inform repairs, maintenance and investment decisions taken on the main components of the housing and secondary schools portfolios respectively. Similarly, a simple model makes a financial comparison between the retention or disposal of an asset.

CPA Use of Resources - Asset Management How well does the Council plan and manage its finances? An options appraisal was reported to Cabinet in July 2006 to determine the optimum sites for the relocation of the waste depot from shakespeare road which will enable an Academy (secondary School) to be located there. A model was developed that profiled the capital and revenue costs and income over a period of 25 years. This enabled a realistic picture of when the costs and income would take place, in line with the project plan. It also enabled an appreciation of the impact of ongoing revenue costs and income. Net Present Value analysis was used at the discount rate advised by the Treasury and the Green Book (3.5%) to allow comparison of the different options. Each option was also evaluated qualitatively in terms of impact upon the service, the community and achievability. As a result the decision making process to date which has involved narrowing down options has been based upon a sound comparative analysis of the value for money of each of the options. Leading up to the report to Cabinet, Members were consulted on a number of occasions on the emerging proposals with a view to managing expectations and ensuring that the financial implicatoins of the options were understood.

The Council previously reported that Cabinet had reviewed an options appraisal in July 2006 that took into account the capital and revenue implications of a number of options for the relocations of the waste depot to facilitate the development of an Academy. Subsequently officers reported to September Cabinet on the full qualitative and quantitative implications of the options. The financial modeling and therefore the reports continued to take capital and revenue implications into acount as well as the net present value of the various options. The report also discussed the impact on the Council's budget of a decision to proceed with one of the options.

Following a decision at Cabinet to proceed with Option B, the Council undertook a full review of its capital budgets to consider the value for money implications of stopping or reducing other areas of expenditure to fund that depot relocation. This entailed gathering comparable information about each area of capital spend, and forming a view as to whether the expenditure was essential or desirable. The templates that wer distributed to the departments for this process are attached, together with a summary report that was considered by the Senior Leadership Board. As a result of this process, some major changes were made to the capital programme in order to fund the depot relocation. By virtue of a transparent process, the changes represented value for money as the implications of each was considered in the round.

Performance measures and benchmarking are being used to describe and evaluate how the Council's asset base contributes to the achievement of corporate and service objectives, including improvement priorities The Council conducted a rigorous process of consultation with senior staff, members and other key stakeholders across the Council to integrate business planning, financial planning, value for money and other administration priorities.

The end result of this is a planning cycle with a strong customer and service delivery focus, backed up by the necessary resources. The service and star chamber template , page 2, makes these linkages clear to all oficers. Appendix 4

CPA Use of Resources - Asset Management How well does the Council plan and manage its finances? The comparison of performance is a key element in this challenge process. Performance indicators and baseline data facilitate comparison of the performance of land and property assets, both internally and externally.

Corporate Property Services carries out comprehensive benchmarking of key areas of performance with London authorities through the Association of Chief Estate Surveyors and Property Managers in Local Government (ACES) and CIPFA. Furthermore, the Council has a number of key improvement priorities for asset management which ensures that the Council's asset base contributes to the achievement of corporate and service objectives, including strategic priorities. Corporate Property Services report quarterly on their performance.

From 2007/08, the Council will collate and benchmark asset performance indicators (PPIs) in accordance with COPROP Performance Initiative. These replaced those previously known as the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's (ODPM's) mandatory property performance indicators which were reported to the Council's Executive. The year 2006/07 is a transitional one, in that the new COPROP PPIs are currently being collected, analysed and will be reported to Cabinet in 2007/08. The Corporate Property Strategy and Asset Management Plan (Section A, Page 266) sets out the indicators against which Corporate Property Services evaluate and compare themselves.

The results of performance measurement and benchmarking are communicated to stakeholders where relevant The benchmarking and performance information is reported monthly in the Regeneration and Housing Performance Digest which feeds into the Council's performance monitor. This monitor is reviewed by the Strategic Leadership Board and then distributed to all members of all political parties. It is also published on the Council's Intranet and web site.

The Council has developed an approach for the co-ordination of asset management information and its integration with relevant organisational financial information All of the Council's asset management information and financial information is co-ordinated and reported in the annual budget report . It is updated and in July 2006, the Executive Director of Finance and Resources took the July Finance Review to Cabinet. This report again clearly sets out and reiterates the points made in the February budget report about delivery against service, political and financial objectives.

It has been agreed that the Council's financial management system, Oracle and the Techforge Property Information Management System (PIMS) will be programmed to interface. It is anticipated that reporting will be available in the 2008/09 financial year. This is documented on page 255 of the Corporate Property Strategy and Asset Management Plan . Schedule of Non-Operational Properties 5 years Annual Income Estimates Appendix 7

Actual Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Owner Income Income Income 2009- Income 2010- Income 2011- Income 2012- Reference Owners Name 2007-2008 2008-2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

401 LBC - Education. £46,947.64 68566.8 £68,566.80 £68,566.80 £73,566.80 £73,566.80

402 LBC - Industrial Estate £321,575.98 £654,195.60 £737,867.64 £736,367.52 £738,567.52 £740,067.52

403 LBC - Housing. £3,077,780.45 £2,546,660.58 £2,773,814.34 £2,889,788.30 £2,925,268.42 £2,931,818.38

404 LBC - Resources: Facilities Mgmt. £328,507.15 £302,070.08 £245,770.00 £245,770.00 £247,770.00 £247,770.00

405 LBC - Social Services. £201,522.45 £152,450.92 £167,201.00 £167,201.00 £167,201.00 £167,201.00

407 LBC - Depots. £232,518.29 £262,499.96 £200,000.00 £200,000.00 £200,000.00 £200,000.00

408 LBC - Resources Social. £19,531.72 £46,534.96 £46,534.96 £46,534.96 £46,534.96 £46,534.96

A404 LBC - Parks 404 £129,604.14 £107,711.00 £121,111.00 £121,111.00 £125,111.00 £125,111.00

All Total £4,357,987.82 £4,140,689.90 £4,360,865.74 £4,475,339.58 £4,524,019.70 £4,532,069.66 2005 Rating List - Operational Properties Outstanding Appeals Appendix 8

06/07 2000 2005 % 05/06 Estimated Street Address Description Postcode RV RV Change Liability Liability Comments Abbotswood Road R/O South-West London College, Abbotswood Road Playing Field & Premises SW17 0TQ £5,550.00 £5,550.00 0.00% £2,342.10 £2,403.15 APPEAL SUBMITTED Acre Lane Bst & Gnd Flrs, 16 Acre Lane Shop & Premises SW2 5SG £10,500.00 £13,750.00 30.95% £5,279.50 £5,953.75 APPEAL SUBMITTED Acre Lane Acre House, 10 Acre Lane Offices & Premises SW2 5SG £52,500.00 £86,500.00 64.76% £28,372.91 £34,810.46 APPEAL SUBMITTED Acre Lane 1-9 Acre Lane Offices & Premises SW2 5SD £208,000.00 £252,500.00 21.39% £106,555.00 £109,332.50 APPEAL SUBMITTED Barston Road Chestnut Children Centre, 2-8 Barston Road Day Nursery & Premises SE27 9HE £19,500.00 £38,750.00 98.71% £10,584.86 £13,031.83 APPEAL SUBMITTED Black Prince Road The Lilian Baylis School Annex, Black Prince Road School & Premises SE11 6JJ £29,750.00 £36,000.00 21.00% £7,596.00 £15,588.00 Part Sold? Brixton Hill (R/O 7 Town Hall Parade) 2-7 Town Hall Parade, Brixton Hill Offices & Premises SW2 1RJ £103,000.00 £172,000.00 67.00% £55,681.01 £68,330.24 APPEAL SUBMITTED Brixton Hill Olive Morris House, 18 Brixton Hill Offices & Premises SW2 1RD £325,500.00 £487,500.00 49.77% £175,570.43 £211,087.50 APPEAL SUBMITTED Brixton Hill Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill Town Hall & Premises SW2 1RJ £261,500.00 £425,000.00 62.52% £141,283.13 £173,298.86 APPEAL SUBMITTED Brixton Oval Tate Central Library, Brixton Oval Library & Premises SW2 1JG £45,250.00 £93,500.00 106.63% £24,587.36 £30,295.79 APPEAL SUBMITTED Brixton Road Bst West, Lincoln Hse, 1-3 Brixton Road Store & Premises SW9 6DE £7,000.00 £17,500.00 150.00% 3557.80 £4,046.57 APPEAL SUBMITTED Brixton Station Road Adj, 53 Brixton Station Road Offices & Premises SW9 8PQ £5,950.00 £9,000.00 51.26% £3,000.17 £3,372.04 APPEAL SUBMITTED Clapham Common Northside 1 Clapham Common Northside Library & Premises SW4 0QW £18,150.00 £29,000.00 59.78% £9,802.59 £12,020.51 APPEAL SUBMITTED Vacated. Clapham High Street Mary Seacole House, 91 Clapham High Street Offices & Premises SW4 7UL £324,600.00 £765,000.00 135.67% £177,036.91 £218,781.83 Appeal Merited. Clyston Street 15-17 Clyston Street Workshop & Premises SW8 4TT £10,750.00 £17,250.00 60.46% £5,427.41 £6,106.91 Appeal Merited. Social Services. Coburg Crescent 4 Coburg Crescent Education Centre & Premises SW2 3HS £9,000.00 £15,750.00 75.00% Appeal Merited. Cottage Grove North Clapham Neighbourhood Mngt Office 20, Cottage Grove Offices & Premises SW9 9NQ £11,000.00 £27,250.00 147.73% £6,008.68 £6,818.02 APPEAL SUBMITTED Crowhurst Close Angell Town Estate, Crowhurst Close Offices & Premises SW9 7JX £10,200.00 £19,250.00 88.72% £5,169.91 £5,836.90 APPEAL SUBMITTED Denmark Road 1 Camberwell Trading Estate, Denmark Road Offices & Premises SE5 9LB £15,500.00 £24,500.00 58.06% £4,184.75 £5,216.42 APPEAL SUBMITTED Denmark Road 13 Camberwell Trading Estate, Denmark Road Warehouse & Premises SE5 9LB £16,250.00 £21,750.00 33.85% £8,746.92 £9,417.75 Appeal Merited. Denmark Road 11 Camberwell Trading Estate, Denmark Road Warehouse & Premises SE5 9LB £19,250.00 £23,500.00 22.08% £9,917.00 £10,175.50 Appeal Merited. Effra Parade Effra Nursery School, 35 Effra Parade Day Nursery & Premises SW2 1PR £6,200.00 £12,500.00 101.61% APPEAL SUBMITTED Foxley Square Neighbourhood Housing Office, Foxley Square Offices & Premises SW9 7RX £8,500.00 £15,500.00 82.35% £4,304.46 £4,856.10 APPEAL SUBMITTED Garrads Road 21 Garrads Road Day Nursery & Premises SW16 1JY £9,000.00 £13,500.00 50.00% APPEAL SUBMITTED Headlam Road Clapham Park Neighbourhood Office, Headlam Road Offices & Premises SW4 8LT £7,800.00 £12,000.00 53.85% £3,934.41 £4,423.46 APPEAL SUBMITTED Herne Hill Road Carnegie Library, Herne Hill Road Library & Premises SE24 0AY £42,900.00 £61,500.00 43.36% £23,120.44 £26,629.50 APPEAL SUBMITTED Herne Hill Road 2 Higgs Industrial Estate, Herne Hill Road Offices & Premises SE24 0AU £23,500.00 £38,000.00 61.70% £12,695.22 £16,454.00 APPEAL SUBMITTED Kennington Lane 167 Kennington Lane Library & Premises SE11 4EZ £13,150.00 £26,000.00 97.72% £7,137.07 £8,786.09 APPEAL SUBMITTED Knatchbull Road 54 Knatchbull Road Library & Premises SE5 9QY £45,400.00 £55,000.00 21.14% £23,210.00 £23,815.00 APPEAL SUBMITTED Lolland Street Lilian Baylis Secondary School Lolland Street School & Premises SE11 6QH £78,500.00 £159,250.00 102.87% APPEAL SUBMITTED Lunham Road Upper Norwood Neighbourhood Housing, Cntral Hill Estate, LunhamOffices Road & Premises SE19 1AA £6,750.00 £16,500.00 144.44% £3,447.59 £3,918.02 Appeal Merited. Mostyn Road Brixtons Childrens Centre, Mostyn Road Day Nursery & Premises SW9 6PH £15,150.00 £28,000.00 84.82% £8,208.88 £9,249.98 Appeal Merited. Land Used for Storage & Normandy Road 18 Normandy Road Premises SW9 6JH £3,850.00 £6,700.00 74.02% £1,947.42 £2,104.81 Appeal Merited. Norwood High Street 1-5 Norwood High Street Library & Premises SE27 9NS £146,000.00 £167,000.00 14.38% £70,474.00 £72,311.00 APPEAL SUBMITTED Somerleyton Road 10 Somerleyton Road Offices & Premises SW9 8ND £12,750.00 £23,750.00 86.27% £6,909.76 £8,496.31 APPEAL SUBMITTED South Lambeth Road 180 South Lambeth Road Library & Premises SW8 1QP £11,500.00 £24,000.00 108.69% £6,250.38 £7,703.14 APPEAL SUBMITTED St Rule Street Heathbrook Primary School St Rule Street School & Premises SW8 3EH £36,400.00 £47,500.00 30.49% APPEAL SUBMITTED Stockwell Park Stockwell Park Secondary School School & Premises SW9 9BQ £128,000.00 £168,500.00 31.64% APPEAL SUBMITTED Stockwell Road 205 Stockwell Road Offices & Premises SW9 9SL £41,500.00 £59,500.00 43.37% APPEAL SUBMITTED Streatham High Road 63 Streatham High Road Library & Premises SW16 1PN £20,750.00 £47,000.00 126.51% £11,303.74 £13,956.22 APPEAL SUBMITTED Sussex Walk Loughborough Park Day Nursery, 1 Sussex Walk Day Nursery & Premises SW9 8UD £10,300.00 £18,000.00 74.76% Appeal Merited. Tulse Hill The Landmark', 47 Tulse Hill Health Centre & Premises SW2 2TN £32,000.00 £44,750.00 39.84% £8,619.08 £19,376.75 APPEAL SUBMITTED Union Grove 55 Union Grove Workshop & Premises SW8 2QJ £14,250.00 £23,750.00 66.67% £7,703.12 £9,452.75 APPEAL SUBMITTED Land Used for Storage & To be sold. Vale Street Rommany Depot, Vale Street Premises SE27 9PA £39,000.00 £95,000.00 143.59% £21,292.22 £26,333.83 Appeal Merited. 2005 Rating List - Operational Properties Outstanding Appeals Appendix 8

06/07 2000 2005 % 05/06 Estimated Street Address Description Postcode RV RV Change Liability Liability Comments Vale Street Lambeth Service Team, Romany Depot & Recycling Centre, ValeStorage Street Depot & Premises SE27 9PA £37,000.00 £59,500.00 60.81% £0.00 Appeal Merited. Vauxhall Walk Adj, Hayman Point, Vauxhall Walk Offices & Premises SE11 5NT £11,500.00 £17,750.00 54.35% £5,801.14 £7,117.81 APPEAL SUBMITTED William Bonney Estate Triangle Nursery School, William Bonney Estate Day Nursery & Premises SW4 7JQ £5,000.00 £10,500.00 110.00% Appeal Merited. Woodmansterne Road Woodmansterne Primary School Woodmansterne Road School & Premises SW16 5UQ £44,750.00 £63,000.00 40.78% APPEAL SUBMITTED Worsopp Drive Neighbourhood Management Unit, Worsopp Drive Offices & Premises SW4 9RE £4,850.00 £11,500.00 137.11% £2,474.67 £2,809.94 Appeal Merited. Wynne Road 10 Wynne Road Training Centre & Premises SW9 0BB £24,000.00 £39,250.00 63.54% £12,968.42 £15,908.83 APPEAL SUBMITTED Wyvil Road Wyvil Primary School Wyvil Road School & Premises SW8 Non-Operational Portfolio - Customer Satisfaction Survey 2007/08 Appendix 9

A total of 330 questionnaires were distributed to those tenants and organisations identified as follows:-

65% Tenants in retail parades 9% Tenants in retail parades 12% Tenants in community groups/voluntary sectors 1% Tenants in light industrial premises 13% Tenants in any other category not covered above

A total of 52 completed questionnaires were returned.

The survey was split into two general sections as follows:

1. Your commercial unit 2. Customer services

For each of the subjects raised, we outline the responses below:-

Part I

1.2 Why Tenants Choose these premises

12% Close to Customers 19%

6% Close to Transport

4% Convenience

No Better Alternative 17% 10% Preferred Council

Attractive Terms

No Response 32%

32% of tenants chose their premises because they prefer Council as landlord. 12% of tenants chose their premises because their customers were near. 17% chose because of Lambeth Council's flexible terms. 6% chose their premises due to transport links. Non-Operational Portfolio - Customer Satisfaction Survey 2007/08 Appendix 9

1.3 How Long have you been renting from the Council?

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 0 - 12 Months 1 - 2 Years 2 - 5 Years Over 5 Years No Response

of those lessees that completed the questionnaire have occupied a unit within the 50% Borough for over 5 years. 10% of the respondents have occupied for less than 12 months.

1.4 How Important were the following in determining your choice of accommodation?

30 Important

25 N/A 20 Neither Important or Not 15 Important Not Important 10

5 Slightly Important

0 Very Important d e n ns r se z o o sts lo rms tion a ti Si ati i Co d ca nd an o Security up No Response L L ort Le c Co xible Te h Oc l As e S f ci Fl o ed un e Co Sp

1.5 From the comments raised in connection with "choice of premises" the responses were generally positive. Any criticisms raised represent 5.5% of all responses received. These are more fully explained in the response to the questionnaire attached.

1.6 Would you like to move in the near future?

12% 23%

Yes No No Response

65% Non-Operational Portfolio - Customer Satisfaction Survey 2007/08 Appendix 9

We note that 65% are happy with their current occupation as tenants of the Council.

1.7 Do you require additional/larger premises?

Yes 31% No

69%

This response is self-explanatory. Around 69% of the tenants want to improve or expand their businesses and to take additional or larger premises

Part II

2.1 How easy was it to contact a member of staff at Erinaceous?

18 16

14 12 Managing Surveyers 10 Accounting Staff 8 6

4 2

0 Easy Fairly Difficult Impossible N/A No Easy Response

It is pleasing to note that less than 4% of the tenants reported difficulty in contacting Erinaceous staff. Non-Operational Portfolio - Customer Satisfaction Survey 2007/08 Appendix 9

2.2 How satisfied are you with Erinaceous?

30 Accuracy 25 Effectiveness of Solving 20 Problems Helpfullness of Staff 15

10 Quality of Staff Response

5 Response of Time Dealing with Your Request 0

d d e e s fie fi ied ied n s s f o ti tisf tis ati a a sp s Not Sure S e R Dis ery Sa V No Very Diss

Out of the 52 completed questionnaires received, it is apparent that the majority of lessees are happy with the quality and accuracy of a response from Erinaceous.

Only a small percent indicate that they were dissatisfied or very disappointed with the response from Erinaceousl The substance of these criticisms is outlined on the response to the questionnaire. This is disappointing but must be considered in the context of a Landlord and Tenant relationship where Erinaceous as agents cannot always agreed with tenants requests. Invariably the comments received do not actually relate to Erinaceous performance. Most of the dissatisfied tenants are due to the issue of repairs, and are you aware this is mainly outside the control of Erinanceous.

2.3 From the responses received, the majority of those who responded are happy with Erinaceous' approach to services.

2.4 What do you think of the services provided by Erinaceous?

30 Account Administration 25 Caretaking Services 20 Cleaning Repair & Maintenance 15 Rubbish Collection Process for Lease Renewal 10 Process for Rent Review 5

e r d e l /A o o or n b N o o o ta Good P N p y Go ry P e r e cc V A Ve Non-Operational Portfolio - Customer Satisfaction Survey 2007/08 Appendix 9

e r d e l /A o o or n b N o o o ta Good P N p y Go ry P e r e cc V A Ve

2.5 What suggestions would you make to improve the services offered by Erinaceous?

Constructive suggestions included in those responses received have been considered and implemented where possible. Internal Client Satisfaction Survey 2007/08 Appendix 10

Q1. Which Directorate are you from? Q2. What is your main reason for contacting us?

10% 5% 9% Adult & Community 12% 10% Services 5% Children & Young 0% 29% People Valuation Environment & Culture Disposal 24% Regeneration & Housing Property Enquiry Not used Service Strategy & Corporate Services Other (specified) Other Service 35%

61%

Q3. How do you prefer to contact us? Q4. In which form do you prefer us to respond?

0% 13% 3% 18%

In writing In writing Via email Via email By telephone By telephone 30% 57% 52% In person 27% In person

Q5. How easy was it to contact the right person? Q6.Was the speed of the response

10% 10%

29%

Very easy Good 29% Fairly easy Average Difficult Poor 61%

61%

Q7. How satisfied are you with our level of Q8. How do you rate our understanding and customer care? awareness of your service needs?

5% 5% Very satisfied 10% 5% 29% Fairly satisfied 14% Good Neither satisfied or Average dissatisfied Poor Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied 76% 56%

Q10. How would you rate our services overall? What was good or bad in our

Q9 understanding of your service needs 5% 5% Very satisfied Written Responses - See below 0% 29% Fairly satisfied

Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied 61% Internal Client Satisfaction Survey 2007/08 Appendix 10

Q11. How does this compare with performance of Q12. How would you rate overall value for money of other corporate support services with whom you the service provided? deal with?

0% Very satisfied Very satisfied 5% 10% 0% 24% 24% 24% Fairly satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied or 29% Neither satisfied or dissatisfied dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 37% Very dissatisfied 47%

Q13. How do we compare, value for money, to Q14. Has our performance in "quality of advice" services received from other support changed over the last 12 months? departments?

5% 5% 35% Better Good 48% Same Comparable Worse 47% Poor 60%

Q15. Has our performance in "communication" Q16. Has our performance in "value for money" changed over the last 12 months? changed over the last 12 months?

11% 5% 21%

42% Better Better Same Same Worse Worse 47% 74%

Responses to Q2. What is your main reason for contacting us - Others? 1. Queries from other departments that I used to work in. Property enquiries, lease enquiries 2. To establish feasibility of development proposals and advise on planning issues. 3. Strategic property advice. 4. All of the above given the important relationships between the service and the F&R Department. VERY difficult to understand how the F&R Department is not listed above!!!!!

Responses to Q9. What was good or bad in our understanding of your service needs? 1. You had good understand of Corporate Finance requirements and responded speedily. 2. Service provided promptly. 3. You react in concert and appreciate the moveable feast that reflects the changing whims of senior officers/members. 4. Helps to solve the issue at hand. 5. Staff always available and helpful, access given to files as required. 6. You understand Planning very well; issues can arise where either planning or valuation have not been involved early enough by other services dealing. 7. Degree of flexibility to meet business needs. 8. There is a lack of general awareness of your service to the area offices. Communication about the service needs to be enhanced. 9. We have developed a good working relationship. As a result there is mutual understanding of our respective roles and responsibilities. 10. Main issue is getting things done on time. 11. Good - Staff seem to have thorough knowledge of site history, and the aspirations of other services within the Borough. Low staff turnover. Bad - not too good at maintaining good working relations with strategic authorities and trying to meet their requirements eg TfL for the betterment of our local people. 12. The fact that Finance and Resources is missing from the first question says a lot. Asset management and the Council's accounting arrangement are extremely important. The links need to be made more explicit. Internal Client Satisfaction Survey 2007/08 Appendix 10

13. The team consists of staff who have a very good understanding of the issues that affect our service (Housing Regeneration), and very good knowledge of the borough. 14. VAMS manage the property advisers Erinaceous that supply the section with valuation reports and property plans. The admin service we receive from VAMS is excellent (esp. Paulette Rasmussen), however, the service we receive from Erinaceous leaves a lot to be desired.

Responses to Q17. Please list any proposed service initiatives in which you would require support from VAMS. 1. I have not used this yet. However, I am very keen to see how this reconciles with Corporate Register. 2. Putting together proposals for regenerating areas, including the valuation of estates. Traditionally the latter has been outsourced to FPDSavills via an RSL partner or via the main consultant working on the project. It means that we do not have anybody internally who can answer questions or who can keep the information to create a bigger picture which can be built on in developing future schemes. 3. Leases; Contacting Landlords; Property advice; Asset Management Plan. 4. The development of a housing regeneration strategy would fail unless it is founded on sound valuation advice. 5. Improved communication. 6. Swifter Valuations. 7. Strategic input to all of our work through relevant governance arrangements and on occasion strategic property advice. 8. Construction of new build property to be owned by LBL. Refurbishment of council asset for commercial space. 9. Accountancy - disposals, valuations, listings, etc.

Responses to Q18. Any other comments? 1. I will like to see a clear linkage between both Corporate properties and Finance functions. With each understanding how they contribute to each other's objectives. 2. Value for money does not come into play much as far as I am aware as most business is day-to-day and non-chargeable. 3. The survey form should indicate return to start to save or have another save/close button. 4. Your questions should allow a n/a answer. 5. An in-house service has a better appreciation of the borough and the planning policies and guidance affecting development potential. It would generally provide better value for money especially given that the Council would need to fund an effective client function to manage an outsourced service. 6. I would be happy to participate in any review of the level of resource needed to provide a cost effective service. 7. Corporate Finance and Property Services need to work more closely to ensure asset management is effective. We may have progressed but there is some way to go.