deputy leader (policy) deputy leader (finance & investment)
TRANSCRIPT
bCABINET
Date: Monday 9 March 2015
Time: 7.00 pm
Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
Copies of agendas, reports, minutes and other attachments for the Council’s meetings are available on the Lambeth website. www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov
Members of the Committee
Leader of the Council, Councillor Lib PeckDeputy Leader (Policy), Cllr Imogen WalkerDeputy Leader (Finance & Investment), Councillor Paul McGloneCabinet Member for Children & Adult Services, Councillor Jackie MeldrumCabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability, Councillor Jennifer BrathwaiteCabinet Member for Early Years, Youth & Families, Councillor Rachel HeywoodCabinet Member for Health & Wellbeing, Councillor Jim DicksonCabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Matthew BennettCabinet Member for Jobs & Growth, Councillor Jack HopkinsCabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, Councillor Jane Edbrooke
Further InformationIf you require any further information or have any queries please contact:Gary O'Key, Telephone: 020 7926 2183; Email: [email protected]
Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting and the Town Hall is fully accessible. If you have any specific needs please contact Facilities Management (020 7926 1010) in advance.
Queries on reports:Please contact report authors prior to the meeting if you have questions on the reports or wish to inspect the background documents used. The contact details of the report author is shown on the front page of each report.
@LBLdemocracy on Twitter http://twitter.com/LBLdemocracy or use #LambethLambeth Council – Democracy Live on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/
Digital engagement
We encourage people to use Social Media and we normally tweet from most Council meetings. To get involved you can tweet us @LBLDemocracy.
Audio/Visual Recording of meetings
Everyone is welcome to record meetings of the Council and its Committees using whatever, non-disruptive, methods you think are suitable. If you have any questions about this please contact Democratic Services (members of the press please contact the Press Office). Please note that the Chair of the meeting has the discretion to halt any recording for a number of reasons including disruption caused by the filming or the nature of the business being conducted.
Persons making recordings are requested not to put undue restrictions on the material produced so that it can be reused and edited by all local people and organisations on a non-commercial basis.
Representation:
Ward Councillors may be contacted directly to represent your views to the Council: (details via the website www.lambeth.gov.uk)
Speaking rights at Cabinet meetings Cabinet normally has a large amount of business to consider at each meeting. Accordingly, the order of the agenda and time allowed for each item is decided by the Leader of
the Council beforehand. Cabinet expects there to have been prior consultation with the public and other interested parties
on proposals and a summary of the results to be included in the report. Therefore, oral contributions from members of the public at the meeting should not normally be necessary.
The time available may allow contribution(s) to be heard on reports on the agenda but this is entirely at the discretion of the Leader of the Council. Anyone wishing to speak must advise the Secretary to Cabinet before the day of the meeting, advising what aspect not covered in the report they wish to cover.
Any such contributions are required to be brief; a maximum of three minutes is likely to be available.
Speakers should ideally be on behalf of a number of people or a specific group. Speakers will be advised at the meeting whether and when they will be heard. Councillors may speak at the discretion of the Chair on agenda items, and are entitled to speak on
matters that specifically concern their ward.
Public Involvement at Council, Committee etc meetings - public notice questions, petitions, deputations and speaking rights (Standing Order 10):
Please contact Democratic Services for further information – 020 7926 2170 or the number on the front page.
AGENDA
Page Nos.
1. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest
Under Cabinet Rule 1.5.2, where any Cabinet Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct (para. 4)) in any matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council, a committee, sub-committee or joint committee, they must withdraw from the meeting room during the whole of the consideration of that matter and must not participate in any vote on that matter unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Monitoring Officer.
2. Minutes of Previous Meeting 1 - 6
To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2015 as a correct record of the proceedings.
3. Building the Homes we Need to House the People of Lambeth – the Cressingham Gardens Regeneration Project
7 - 90
(Report 14/15-155 and appendices)
Tulse Hill wardNon-key decision
Cabinet Member for HousingStrategic Director, Delivery Strategic Director, Commissioning
Contact: Neil Vokes, Programme Director, Strategic Capital Projects; 020 7926 3068; [email protected]
4. Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission: Response and Action Plan
91 - 128
(Report 14/15-156 and appendices)
All wardsKey decision
Cabinet Member for Environment & SustainabilityStrategic Director, Commissioning
Contact: Kristian Aspinall, Lead Commissioiner, Commissioning; 020 7926 2429; [email protected]
5. Lambeth Education & Learning Strategy 2015-2018 129 - 150
(Report 14/15-157 and appendix)
All wardsKey decision
Deputy Leader of the Council (Policy)Strategic Director, Delivery
Contact: Cathy Twist, Director, Education, Learning & Skills; 020 7926 1541; [email protected]
Colm Doyle, Delivery Lead, Lambeth School Services, Education, Learning & Skills; 020 7926 8942; [email protected]
6. Special Educational Needs & Disability (SEND) Review Update 151 - 164
(Report 14/15-158)
All wardsNon-key decision
Deputy Leader of the Council (Policy)Cabinet Member for Children & Adult Services Strategic Director, Delivery
Contact: Claire Kirwan, Transformation Officer; 020 7926 6678; [email protected]
Ca bCABINET
Monday 9 February 2015 at 7.00 pm
MINUTES
PRESENT:
Cabinet Members: Portfolio:
Councillor Matthew Bennett Cabinet Member for HousingCouncillor Jennifer Brathwaite
Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability
Councillor Jim Dickson Cabinet Member for Health and WellbeingCouncillor Jane Edbrooke Cabinet Member for NeighbourhoodsCouncillor Rachel Heywood Cabinet Member for Early Years, Youth and FamiliesCouncillor Jack Hopkins Cabinet Member for Jobs & GrowthCouncillor Paul McGlone Deputy Leader (Finance and Investment)Councillor Jackie Meldrum Cabinet Member for Children & Adult Social CareCouncillor Lib Peck Leader of the CouncilCouncillor Imogen Walker Deputy Leader (Policy)
Also present:
Action required by
1. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTERESTThere were none.
2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGRESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 January, 2015 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.
It was also noted that Cabinet received an open letter from the Parent and Community Campaign, ABS2FormEntry.
3. REVENUE & CAPITAL BUDGET 2015/16 - PROVISIONAL BUDGET
Page 1 Agenda Item 2
STRATEGY 2016/17 - 2017/18(Report 151/14-15 and appendices) (Key decision – call-in deadline Friday 20 February 2015)
The Deputy Leader, Finance and Investment introduced the report and started by thanking Overview and Scrutiny for their views on the budget and all of the recommendations they made had been considered. He went on to highlight that delivering the budget would be a challenge and the Council needed to ensure that the message to local residents on the implications of the budget were clear. Central Government had targeted local authorities and deprived areas and if the national picture did not change there would be more cuts down the line and options become more and more limited. Core funding had already been cut by 50% which had resulted in losing 1000 Council staff. Equalities objectives were at the heart of a fair and balanced budget and sound financial management was also vital going forward. As in previous years an outcomes-based budgeting approach was being used to ensure the most important services were retained and those most in need were supported.
After 6 years of no rise in Council Tax this year the Administration have had no choice but to make a small increase. Demands were higher and longer term the Council would continue to support local businesses and grow the local economy. The Council continued to adopt a positive approach and the commitment to work with local people to determine what services matter the most remained a top priority.
Cabinet received representations from Jon Rogers, representing a collective of Trade Unions, he addressed Cabinet and said the following:
The Council had lost 28% of its workforce however there was not less work which was unacceptable.
There continued to be an excessive use of agency staff which reflected the lack of control frontline managers had on the situation and that needed to be looked at.
The current staffing structure needed to be revisited and it did not reflect reality of how the organisation actually worked.
A change of economic policy was needed nationally and locally, the Trade Unions were keen to continue working with the Council on minimising effects of the cuts but were reaching their limit on what could be tolerated.
The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny, Councillor Ed Davie addressed Cabinet and shared the views of Overview and Scrutiny:
There was a disproportionate use of consultants and agency staff compared to other boroughs and that needed to be looked at.
They supported the integration of health services officers needed to be realistic about the savings and the work involved as there were considerable risks.
There was wide engagement with Overview and Scrutiny on the Budget proposals which resulted in a number of recommendations, and were glad that these had been considered.
The Interim Chief Executive responded on the issue of agency workers and advised that the Council used agency staff for a number of reasons such as being able to retain flexibility in certain areas, using agency staff where the Council were unable to commit to permanent recruitment due to ongoing staffing changes and where there was a need to employ
Page 2
specialised services for short periods of time. He advised that the figures were reviewed regularly and the organisation would not tolerate excessive, unnecessary use of agency workers.
The Strategic Director, Commissioning responded on the issues of integrating services by giving assurances that our partners were aware of the level of savings required and were committed to working towards those goals. More details on the proposals would be available over the next three to six months.
The following Cabinet Members spoke in favour of the proposals:
The Cabinet Member for Health and Well Being advised that Cabinet were not taking the rise in Council Tax lightly and the 6 year freeze was testimony to that. The small increase means the Council could improve services and keep our commitments to the most vulnerable people. He also advised that he understood the risk about the integration of health services and was confident that our existing relationships would help deliver the integrated services agenda.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Adult Services said she was pleased with the Equalities Impact Assessment which she felt truly reflected the views of local people. She was pleased to see that the Council were using capital more innovatively and that investment in projects continued.
The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods commented that she welcomed the rounded approach to Anti-Social Behaviour and the focus on enviro-crime. This approach would support not replicate the work of the police.
The Cabinet Member for Jobs and Growth advised that many of the partners that would help to deliver this budget were external and we needed to think more innovatively when the majority of money was outside of the organisation. Commissioning had a major role to play by ensuing interventions were at the right time and that working with partners to come up with solutions to problems continued.
The Deputy Leader for Policy said that less painful savings were made some time ago and it was unfair that Local Authorities continued to receive cuts in funding. She said that Cabinet were committed to making tough decisions as well as maintaining high standards.
The Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability informed the meeting that this budget was not just about the cuts and we continued to look at innovative ways in delivering our services that matter to local people.
The Deputy Leader for Finance and Investment summarised by saying that there was no new money for Local Authorities and we needed to continue to champion the needs of local people, the Council were committed to looking after our most vulnerable residents and needed to ensure that the messages about the budget we clear and reached all parts of the borough. RESOLVED:(1) To recommend Council to adopt the recommendations.
Page 3
(2) To approve the disposal of the properties identified as ‘new disposals’ in Appendix 7a and Appendix 7b – (exempt from disclosure).
(3) That the views of Overview and Scrutiny be noted.
4. REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGET 2015/16 - 2017/18: VIEWS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
This report was taken as part of Item 3, Revenue and Capital Budget 2015/16.
5. TRANSFORMING ADULT MENTAL HEALTH REHABILITATION SERVICES(Report 152/14-15 and appendices) (Key decision – call-in deadline Friday 20 February 2015)
The Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing introduced the report as highlighted:
That this report sought approval for the Council to enter into a partnership agreement with NHS Lambeth CCG to pool commissioning budgets for mental health rehabilitation services.
This work had been supported through the Lambeth Living Well Collaborative (LLWC)
These proposals would deliver c23% savings.
He also thanked all the officer involved in making this happen and particularly praised the Director of Integrated Commissioning, Moira McGrath and Assistant Director Mental Health & Adults (Integrated Commissioning) at NHS Lambeth, Denis O’Rourke.
Cabinet Members were pleased with this approach and said that: We needed a way to deal with issues differently and this was a
new way of dealing with old problems. Good governance and partnership structures out the Council in a
better position to deal with any issues and risks. They were pleased to see that more support would be given to
help people back to work.
RESOLVED:
1) That the proposed section 75 partnership agreement between NHS Lambeth CCG and Lambeth Council to support the commissioning of the Integrated Personalised Support Alliance (IPSA) Agreement, with the provision of a pooled fund and lead commissioning arrangement, led by NHS Lambeth CCG be agreed
2) That the award of two years contract with provision for a one year extension. To take the form of an Integrated Personalised Support Alliance Agreement (and allied NHS standard contracts) to support service transformation as set out in this report be agreed
3) That the proposed financial contribution to the proposed pooled fund as set out in the report be agreed.
4) To delegate the final sign off of the Section 75 Partnership Agreement and Alliance Agreement to the Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board.
Page 4
6. LAMBETH DRAFT REVISED STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT(Report 153/14-15 and appendices) (Non-Key decision)
The Cabinet Member for Jobs and Growth introduced the report and highlighted that Statement of Community Involvement was now out of date due to changes in planning legislation and needed to be updated. This report was seeking approval to go out for consultation.
The Assistant Director for Planning advised that changes would deliver savings without affecting the service. The main aim was to reduce consultation costs and move to people to cheaper and more effective channels of engagement.
Cabinet Members were pleased with this approach but felt the title of the exercise did not highlight this was specifically for planning and wanted that to be made clear to the public.
RESOLVED:
(1) That the draft revised Statement of Community Involvement (Appendix 1) for public consultation between February and March 2015 be agreed.
The meeting ended at 7.55 pmCHAIR
CABINETMonday 9 March 2015
Date of Despatch: Friday 13 February 2015Call-in Date: Friday 20 February 2015Contact for Enquiries: Wayne ChandaiTel: 020 7926 0029 Fax: (020) 7926 2361E-mail: [email protected]: www.lambeth.gov.uk
Page 5
This page is intentionally left blank
Cabinet
9 March 2015
Building the homes we need to house the people of Lambeth – the Cressingham Gardens regeneration project
Wards: Tulse Hill Ward
Report Authorised by:
Strategic Director, Delivery: Sue Foster
Strategic Director, Commissioning: Helen Charlesworth-May
Contact for enquiries:
020 7926 3068; [email protected];Neil Vokes, Programme Director, Strategic Capital Projects
Report Summary
Our ambition is to ensure that every resident in Lambeth has the opportunity to live in a good quality home that is affordable and suitable for their needs.
The Council is committed to delivering 1,000 extra homes at Council rent levels to deliver a new generation of homes for Lambeth’s residents. These 1,000 new Council homes will be delivered over the next 4 years through a combination of estate regeneration, small sites development and specific housing projects.
The intention is to maximise the provision of new homes at Council rent levels using external capital and long-term investment models that maximise the number of genuinely affordable homes and retain as much control within the local community.
This report provides Cabinet with an update on the Cressingham Gardens estate regeneration project. The project aims to not only improve the condition of housing for existing residents but to provide additional homes at Council rent levels that will house Lambeth residents.
A further Cabinet paper with a recommendation on the preferred option for Cressingham Gardens will be brought to Cabinet in May 2015.
Page 7 Agenda Item 3
Finance Summary
The cost estimate to bring the Cressingham Gardens estate up to the Lambeth Housing Standard is £9.4m. The original 2012 Lambeth Housing Standard business plan included a provision of £3.4m for these works.
There is currently no provision for this additional expenditure in the Council’s LHS programme and costs would need to be met by reallocating expenditure from other HRA investment programme schemes.
The latest version of the HRA Business plan with 2015/16 as the Base Year indicates that there is minimal or no scope for any additional funding of Capital or Revenue works over the current LHS programme and the ongoing investment required in the stock post LHS.
Recommendations
(1) To note that the cost estimate to bring the Cressingham Gardens estate up to the Lambeth Housing Standard is £9.4m.
(2) To note that there is currently no provision for this level of cost within the Council’s LHS programme.
(3) To recommend that officers progress with further consultation on options for significant regeneration of the estate as set out in this report and that a viable regeneration proposal is brought back to Cabinet in May 2015 together with full supporting evidence.
(4) To agree the Tenant offer document and the Freeholder and Leaseholder offer document which are appended to this Cabinet report in draft as the basis for ongoing consultation with residents on Cressingham Gardens.
Page 8
1. Context and History
1.1 In October 2012 the report ‘Lambeth Estate Regeneration Programme: Strategic Delivery Approach (131/12-13)’ was presented to Cabinet where it approved the development of a Lambeth Estate Regeneration Programme.
1.2 The programme aims to not only improve the condition of housing for existing residents but to provide additional homes at Council rent levels that will house the people of Lambeth.
1.3 Three overarching principles have been developed to assess whether an estate would be considered eligible for regeneration; these are:
to focus on those housing estates where the costs of delivering the Lambeth Housing Standard are prohibitive and/or’
where residents and the Council have identified that the Lambeth Housing Standard works in themselves will neither address the fundamental condition of the properties nor address many of the wider social and economic issues experienced by residents and/or;
to focus on those estates where the wider benefits arising from regeneration justify the intervention.
1.4 In December 2014 the report Building the homes we need to house the people of Lambeth (108/14-15) set out the Council’s commitment to 1,000 extra homes at Council rent levels and recommended that estate regeneration forms an important part of the strategy to achieve this.
1.5 The report stated that Lambeth’s strategy would be to deliver homes for Council rent, homes for subsidised rent and affordable home ownership. The role of the local authority being to fill the gaps that the private market cannot. This will mean an entirely new model of housing finance and delivery.
1.6 It’s important that we acknowledge the high level of housing need and demand in the borough and recognise the fact that different solutions are needed to address different parts of the challenge. A response is necessary because Lambeth, as with London generally, has experienced such significant economic polarisation alongside population growth that current and future needs of residents will not be effectively served by market forces alone.
1.7 Lambeth’s housing estates are it’s largest land asset and if we are to tackle the housing crisis then we need to use that land efficiently and effectively to deliver benefit to as many people as possible.
Page 9
2. Proposal and Reasons
2.1 The December 2014 Cabinet report included Cressingham Gardens within phase 1 of the Lambeth Estate Regeneration Programme however discussions with the residents have been ongoing since 2013. The estate qualified for estate regeneration as there were stock condition issues which would be expensive to resolve such as the replacement of the roofs and the low density of the existing estate means that there is scope to increase the number of homes.
2.2 A Cressingham Gardens Project Team, including resident representatives, was established and a design team, cost consultant and engagement team procured to help explore options for the future of the estate.
2.3 The options analysis looked at 5 different scenarios:
Option Description
1 Lambeth Housing Standard only
Cressingham Gardens would return to the Lambeth Housing Standard programme. The estate is in Year 5 of the programme and so the earliest the works would be carried out would be 2016/17. The type of works expected are:
Roof replacement Window repairs Repairs to blocks External works Internal works (kitchens, bathrooms, boilers, rewiring etc) Common parts upgrade Decants Front doors Rainwater goods Underpinning
This option would not deliver any new homes at Council rent levels and there is insufficient headroom within the HRA to fund the levels of works required on the estate.
2 Lambeth Housing Standard and new homes through infill development
This option would see 19 properties in Crosby Walk demolished (including 6 voids) and replaced with 38 new homes. The remaining properties would be returned to the Lambeth Housing Standard programme.
Page 10
3 Partial redevelopment (low intervention)
This option would see 31 properties demolished (including 6 voids) and replaced with 51 new homes. The remaining properties would be returned to the Lambeth Housing Standard programme.
4 Partial redevelopment (higher intervention)
This option would see 120 properties demolished (including 6 voids) and replaced with 193 new homes. The remaining properties would be returned to the Lambeth Housing Standard programme.
The Council believes there are opportunities to increase the number of new homes through good design and that this increase will improve the viability of the option which in turn means more additional, new homes at Council rent levels.
5 Full redevelopment
This option would see all 306 properties demolished and replaced with 464 new homes.
The cost to buy back the homeowners makes this option challenging and would require significant upfront capital investment to make it work.
The Council believes there are opportunities to increase the number of new homes through good design and that this increase will improve the viability of the option which in turn means more additional, new homes at Council rent levels.
2.4 Each of the regeneration options are assessed against a set of criteria; these are:
Homes meet the Lambeth Housing Standard Additional homes for Council rent are built Quality of life for residents is improved Residents influence over decision-making is increased The scheme is financially viable for the Council
2.5 The intention has always been to narrow down the options before going back to the residents as part of the decision making process.
2.6 Underpinning the options analysis is a series of commitments / guarantees to the residents, including that this would be a Council-led development.
Page 11
2.7 Appended to this report are more detailed offer documents for Tenants, Freeholders and Leaseholders. The key points however are:
Council Tenants
Council tenants on Cressingham Gardens who have to move because of a decision to demolish and rebuild part of the estate they live on will be offered a new lifetime home on the estate at Council rent levels
Residents choosing to move elsewhere will be given Band A priority to bid for an alternative property
If the Council pursues building new homes through a Special Purpose Vehicle these homes will be rented at Council rent levels, from the Council’s housing register but with a lifetime assured tenancy, rather than a secure tenancy, and so would not have a statutory Right to Buy.
Homeowners (both Freeholders and Leaseholders)
Resident homeowners wishing to sell their property would be offered market value plus 10% plus reasonable disturbance costs
Non-resident homeowners would be offered market value + 7.5% Resident homeowners wishing to stay on the estate would be offered a swap to a
retained property on the estate subject to availability and their ability to port their mortgage
Resident homeowners wishing to stay on the estate would be offered shared equity of a new home on Cressingham Gardens subject to their ability to port their mortgage.
2.8 The above commitments and those contained in the offers attached are so that residents can understand the potential impact of any regeneration on them and their community. Every effort has been made to develop offers which allow residents currently living at Cressingham Gardens to remain if they wish in homes which are affordable.
2.9 A 3 month programme of engagement has recently been completed. The Council agreed with the residents to continue exploring refurbishment as an option within that process however has been clear that full refurbishment of the estate or a significant proportion of the estate is currently unaffordable within the constraints of the Housing Revenue Account.
2.10 The Council also does not consider any pure refurbishment option to be in accordance with the Council policy to review its estates and identify locations for delivering more homes at Council rent levels. Cressingham Gardens has been included in the estates regeneration programme, as set out in the Cabinet Paper of December 2014, because there is an opportunity to deliver new homes. Therefore, those options which neither significantly reduce the costs to refurbish
Page 12
the estate to an affordable level nor deliver the quantum of new homes that the Council would expect to see will not be consulted on further.
2.11 This will enable the Council and residents to narrow the focus onto options which significantly reduce the refurbishment costs to the estate and deliver new Council homes.
2.12 This recommendation has been made in a letter from the Cabinet Member for Housing to residents of Cressingham Gardens. At the same time as making this recommendation, detailed offers as attached will be made to the Council Tenants, Leaseholders and Freeholders. The Council will then carry out a test of opinion with the residents to identify how they view the proposed recommendations.
3. Finance
3.1 In October 2012 Cabinet agreed the Lambeth Housing Standard programme. The estimate at that time was that the programme would require £499m of investment over five years. The Cabinet report identified an estimated £443m in capital resources possibly available to fund the programme and estimated a funding shortfall of £56m. This upfront capital budget is derived from the 30 year borrowing plan within the Council’s HRA. Borrowing in the HRA is capped by Central Government and the current forecast shows no borrowing headroom until 2020-21 at the earliest.
3.2 The business plan developed to support the decision making over the Lambeth Housing Standard programme included a cost estimate of £3.4m to bring Cressingham Gardens up to the Lambeth Housing Standard. This cost estimate was based on information held on the Lambeth Asset Management Database. It is clear that the actual costs to bring the estate up to the Lambeth Housing Standard are considerably higher than estimated in October 2012.
3.3 In assessing the costings for refurbishment the Council jointly commissioned with the tenants and residents association a stock condition survey. The survey was carried out by structural engineers Tall and the identified works costed by Ian Sayer and Co. The costed analysis presented a worst case scenario of £13.9m. It was acknowledge that this was a worst case scenario and certain elements such as replacement of windows might not be required.
3.4 Further analysis of the refurbishment costs was carried out by Lambeth Living and this has resulted in an updated cost estimate figure of £9.4m. The difference between this figure and the Ian Sayer and Co figure is largely due to the Lambeth Living costings not including any window replacements whilst the Ian Sayer and Co figure included 100% window replacement.
Page 13
3.5 This cost of £9.4m to bring homes up to the Lambeth Housing Standard would need to be met from within the Housing Revenue Account as there is currently no provision for this level of costs within the Council’s LHS programme. Putting this in context, the average Lambeth Housing Standard cost for the estate of more than £30k per unit at Cressingham Gardens compare to a borough average range of £11.5k to £19.9k. In broad terms this equates to between 100 and 200 properties.
3.6 The latest version of the HRA Business plan with 2015/16 as the Base Year indicates that there is minimal or no scope for any additional funding of Capital or Revenue works over the current LHS programme and the ongoing investment required in the stock post LHS.
3.7 The HRA Business Plan assumes contributions from Leaseholders to the
financing of the Capital spend requirements. This profile has risks attached to it as the collection profile cannot be accurately predicted.
3.8 Despite Leaseholder Contributions and the recent Decent Homes Backlog Funding received for 2015/16 (the latter requires the Council to bring the remaining 10% homes to the DHS standard without grant) there is still a funding gap over years 4 to 5 of the Business Plan
3.9 Some residents on Cressingham Gardens commissioned a Quantity Surveyor to provide their own costings based on information they had available. This produced a lower figure (approximately £7m) than the Lambeth Living estimate. Lambeth Living have worked through the residents’ QS estimations. Unfortunately these excluded costs to a number of areas that would require works such as communal electrics and re-plastering of homes affected by damp and condensation.
3.10 A summary of the agreed works required is set out below:
Window repairs Roof replacement Repairs to blocks External works Internal works (kitchens, bathrooms, boilers, rewiring etc) Common parts upgrade Decants Front doors Rainwater goods Underpinning
3.11 A number of the capital works are to replace like with like, such as the roofs, and therefore the significant investment required to the properties would in essence
Page 14
bring them up to their original standards rather than improve them to modern standards of insulation and sustainability.
3.12 The replacement of the roofs will have the most significant impact both in terms of cost and disruption to residents. The Tall Survey identified a design fault with the roofs which has caused water ingress into cavity walls. The roofs will therefore need to be changed to address this design issue and where properties have suffered from long-term water ingress, they will require a period of drying out. It is estimated that the works will take 6 to 9 months per property.
3.13 The Council therefore needs to look at alternative options for Cressingham Gardens. The options which include an element of new build would be able to attract alternative funding sources such as GLA Housing Covenant grant funding, single capital pot funding and recycled s106 receipts. These options would therefore help reduce the cost to the Council.
4. Legal and Democracy
4.1 Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 introduced a new “general power of competence” for local authorities, defined as “the power to do anything that individuals generally may do” and which expressly includes the power to do something for the benefit of the authority, its area or persons resident or present in its area.
4.2 Section 9 of the Housing Act 1985 empowers the Council to provide housing accommodation by erecting houses, or converting buildings into houses, on land acquired by them.
4.3 Section 105 of the 1985 Housing Act requires the Council to maintain such arrangements as it considers appropriate to enable those of its secure tenants who are likely to be substantially affected by a matter of housing management, including a new programme of maintenance, improvement or demolition:
(a) to be informed of the authority's proposals in respect of the matter, and(b) to make their views known to the authority within a specified period;
4.4 The Council is required, before making any decision on the matter, to consider any representations made to it in accordance with those arrangements In Moseley v LB Haringey, the Supreme Court held that procedural fairness sometimes requires the public authority to explain why alternative proposals have been rejected when consulting residents.
Page 15
5. Consultation and Co-Production
5.1 Social Life led, on behalf of the Council, the consultation and co-production process. This involved initial research to understand how residents feel about the estate and the prospect of regeneration. From July to September 2013 Social Life carried out interviews with 109 residents, exploring what they like about the estate and what they would change. This included conversations with 61 tenants, 23 leaseholders and 7 freeholders, including people living across the different blocks on the estate.
5.2 Interviews ranged from in-depth discussions, lasting up to 2hrs, and shorter 5 and 10 minute conversations. Open questions were asked and coded using qualitative research methods. The findings were published as an exhibition (20th October 2013), and also as a booklet (Appendix 3b) which was distributed to every household on the estate.
5.3 The next significant period of engagement began in November 2014. In recognition that the uncertainty over the future of the estate was a serious concern to residents the Council agreed a 3 month engagement plan at the end of which a decision on the future of the estate could be taken. Six workshops were run in total, plus a feedback session from the six working groups that had been set up to explore particular issues in depth. In total 102 residents were involved, either attending workshops or working groups. This included 52 Council tenants, 41 homeowners and 1 private tenant. This is approximately 40% of homeowners and approximately 75% of resident home owners, and 25% of Council tenants living on the estate.
Workshops DescriptionNovember 7th (afternoon and evening)
60 residents came to the two workshops. 28 leaseholders, 30 tenants, 1 private tenant and one person of unknown tenure.
The process was explained. Residents discussed what criteria should be used to assess the options. Residents gave feedback on the four initial options Lambeth officers and members explained their thinking to date.
November 22nd (tenants am and homeowners pm)
60 residents came to the two workshops, 25 council tenants to the morning workshop and 35 homeowners in the afternoon.
These workshops gave information about residents position should their homes be demolished. They were another opportunity to give feedback about the initial options.
Page 16
December 10th
(tenants afternoon and evening)
11 council tenants attended these sessions (plus one leaseholder)
The same format as the November 22nd workshops were used. The aim of these workshops was to give more council tenants the opportunity to attend, as their attendance had been lower than homeowner attendance to date.
Lambeth and the Independent Residents Advisor also organized a visit to Stockwell Park estate on 10th December, 10 residents attended this - 9 council tenants and one leaseholders. This ran at the same time as the afternoon workshop.
January 19th 40 residents attended: 17 council tenants, 18 homeowners Leaseholders and 5 of unknown tenure.
This was an opportunity for working groups to give feedback and discuss conclusions and recommendations and how these fit together.
Working Groups
Description
Resident Management
To explore different resident led management options
Wellbeing Recommended the involvement of SLAM, using their mental wellbeing assessment methodology, in work going forward.
Green Retrofitting
Green retrofitting solutions to be fed back to Lambeth Living as part of any refurbishment works.
5.4 Social Life asked residents who attended workshops to indicate their views of the different indicative options developed by Roland Karthaus.
Page 17
5.5 Looking forwards, a Cabinet paper will be presented in May 2015, which sets out the detailed business case and strategy for taking forwards regeneration of Cressingham Gardens. In the intervening period, the Council plans to present to residents the conclusions set out in this Cabinet paper and then to seek a test of opinion from residents concerning their personal views of the prospects for regeneration and their personal aspirations for the outcome of regeneration, as well as testing their views on the offers made to them (as per those attached to this Cabinet paper).
6 Risk Management
6.5A project team is in place and a risk register is maintained. Key risks and mitigations are noted below;
Page 18
Residents do not engage and actively oppose any option which involves demolition and new build
H H Co-production and on-going involvement to ensure that proposals reflect local wishes as far as it offers VFM. Effective communication and consultation strategies and action plans.
Residents do not validate the data on which Regeneration, demolition and new build actions are based
H H Resident reps involved in the project team, can validate how options are arrived at,
Project plan –delivery stage addresses tasks required to mitigate
Residents take external legal action to stop demolition options, do not vacate homes when required
H H Resident reps involved in the project team, can validate how options are arrived at,
Project plan –delivery stage addresses tasks required to mitigate
The Resident Advisor can advise residents on options and impacts
7 Equalities Impact Assessment
7.1 As this project would be providing new homes within an existing estate, there are a number of potential equality and diversity impacts that must be considered and monitored. Care will be taken to identify the local demographic and ensure all consultation and communication methods are in line with Council policy in this regard. All new homes or facilities to be provided will meet all relevant standards and good practice with regard to equalities and diversity. Lettings, including a local lettings policy, will be in accordance with the Council’s policies. All the above are within existing Council policies and procedures which have themselves been subject to an EIA.
Page 19
8 Timetable and Implementation
A paper will be presented to the Council Cabinet in May 2015 setting out the preferred strategy for taking forwards the regeneration of Cressingham Gardens.
9 Community safety
New development will contribute positively to community safety by removing areas that attract anti-social behaviour and providing more passive surveillance of streets and spaces. The wider regeneration initiatives will promote estate pride actively design out crime as part of the development process.
Page 20
Audit trail
Name/Position Lambeth cluster/division or partner
Date Sent Date Received
Comments in para:
Sue Foster – Strategic Director Delivery 20/02/15 27/02/15Helen Charlesworth-May - Strategic Director
Commissioning 20/02/15 27/02/15
Mike Pocock: Delivery Director – Business, Growth & Regeneration
Delivery 20/02/15 24/02/15
Rachel Sharpe – Commissioning Director
Commissioning 20/02/15 27/02/15
Greg Carson - Legal Services Enabling 13/02/2015 16/02/2015 4.1 to 4.4Gary O’Key - Democratic Services
Enabling 20/02/15 27/02/15
Hamanth Bharadia/ Akuffo,Solomon -Finance
Enabling 13/02/2015 19/02/15 Throughout
Cllr Matthew Bennett, Cabinet Member
Housing 20/02/15 27/02/15 Throughout
Report historyOriginal discussion with Cabinet Member
11.02.15
Report deadline 20.02.15Date final report sent 27.02.15Report no. 155/13-14 Part II Exempt from Disclosure/confidential accompanying report?
No
Key decision report NoDate first appeared on forward plan
n/a
Key decision reasons n/a
Background information The Community Plan, 2013-16http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s55297/06b%2020130403%20Community%20Plan%20FINAL.pdf Delivering Better Homes, Cabinet report, dated 4th
Nov 2013http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s61039/07_Delivering%20Better%20Homes.pdf Lambeth Estate Regeneration Programme:
Strategic Delivery Approach’ (22/10/12)
Page 21
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s50180/06%20Estate%20Regen%20Final_22%2010%2012_NV.pdf
Appendices Appendix 1 Council tenant bookletAppendix 2 Leasehold and Freehold bookletAppendix 3a Coproduction and engagementAppendix 3b Living on CressinghamAppendix 4 Refurbishment costs
Page 22
CRESSINGHAM GARDENS REGENERATION
INFORMATION FOR SECURE TENANTS
DRAFT
Page 23
FORWARD BY THE CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING
The Need for More Homes
There is an urgent need for new, genuinely affordable homes in Lambeth. There are 21,000 households on the housing register and prices for homes to rent and buy are rising beyond the reach of many local people. Furthermore, Lambeth’s population is growing, putting even more pressure on housing. Estate Regeneration
To help meet that growing housing need, the Council must make good use of its resources, looking at where it can provide additional homes and improve conditions for existing residents. In December 2014, the Council resolved to review its existing estates to identify those where: 1. the costs to bring the homes up to the Lambeth Housing Standard are prohibitive;2. refurbishment works themselves will not address underlying problems faced by residents, such as poor design, poor access, crime and anti-social behaviour; and/or3. there is potential to deliver additional homes.
Cressingham Gardens
The Council has included Cressingham Gardens as an estate for consideration as part of its estates regeneration programme, primarily because of items (1) and (3) above. Significant parts of Cressingham Gardens suffer from poor internal living conditions and it would be very costly to improve the long-term quality of these homes through just refurbishment. There is scope for increasing the number of homes at Cressingham Gardens.
Over the last year the Council has been working closely with the residents of Cressingham Gardens to explore the future options for the estate; these are detailed in a separate booklet.
Housing and Communities
From the Council’s perspective, the primary purpose of engaging on the estate regeneration programme is to deliver more affordable housing. The vast majority of all new homes created at Cressingham will be more council housing. To add to this, a critical part of the future vision for the estate is a strong desire by the Council to ensure that where individuals and communities wish to remain located within the area that they currently live in and where people wish to remain together as a community that they will have the options and opportunities to do so.
Cllr Bennett
Page 24
1. Key Guarantees from the Council
2. Regeneration of Your Estate
3. Your Involvement
4. Council Commitments Explained
5. Supporting You through the Process
6. Allocation of the New Homes
7. Your New Tenancy Explained
8. Compensating You for Moving
9. The New Homes
Purpose of the booklet
This booklet is for secure tenants living on Cressingham Gardens who would be affected if a decision were taken to demolish and rebuild the part of the estate that you live on.
The booklet is designed to provide you with the information you need to fully understand the implications of the regeneration proposals.
We do understand that this is a stressful time and hope that by providing clear and accurate information within this booklet you will fully understand the regeneration and rehousing process. It also sets out the help, support and guidance available to you.
Page 25
KEY GUARANTEES FROM THE COUNCIL
Commitments to secure tenants in relation to the regeneration proposals1. Any tenant who wishes to continue to live at Cressingham Gardens will have the
opportunity to do so.
2. Any tenant who wishes to remain a Council tenant will be allowed to do so.
3. Secure tenants on Cressingham Gardens who have to move because of a decision to demolish and rebuild the part of the estate you live on will have the choice
a. EITHER to take a lifetime tenancy in a new home on the estate
b. OR, if available, to take a lifetime tenancy in an existing refurbished home on the estate
c. OR will be given high priority, Band A, to bid for a new home elsewhere in the Borough through the Choice Based Lettings scheme
4. Where a tenant chooses to remain on the estate, the new tenancy will be an assured lifetime tenancy. Where a tenant chooses to move away from the estate they will have the opportunity to bid for a secure tenancy or an assured tenancy elsewhere in the Borough.
5. The new home will meet your housing needs according to the Lambeth Housing Allocation Scheme 2013.
6. Tenants who are overcrowded will be offered a larger home that addresses the overcrowding, according to the Council’s allocations policy.
7. Tenant’s under-occupying by more than one bedroom will be offered a new home with one bedroom above their need, for example a couple living in 3 bed home would be offered a 2 bed home.
8. Rents for the new homes will be at Council rent levels and set in accordance with government guidelines.
9. The Council will pay the statutory home loss payment, this was £4,900 in December 2014, plus reasonable costs of removal and disturbance. An element of home loss payment can be made before the final move to help facilitate the move. The amount will be agreed on a case by case basis advance payments will be maximum £1,000.
10. The Council will provide help with rehousing to all affected households during the process. Additional support will be offered to residents with special needs or disabilities. This additional support could include:
a. Packing and unpacking services at the time of your move
b. Help in claiming benefits at your new address
c. Liaising with other agencies such as social services
11. The Council will make every effort to ensure that people only have to move once by phasing development so that some new homes are built before existing homes are demolished.
12. Those tenants, who require adaptations to their property due to their disability or to the disability of a family member, will have this carried out before they are required to move into a new property. Any necessary adaptations should be carried out in consultation with the user and with relevant professionals e.g. Occupational Therapists or Social Workers.
Page 26
13. Vulnerable tenants will be offered a handyperson service to help with small jobs required for the removal.
14. The Council will provide all possible advice, information and support to tenants seeking rehousing either elsewhere in Lambeth or outside of the Borough.
Page 27
REGENERATION OF YOUR ESTATE
The purpose of regenerating Cressingham Gardens is to provide more affordable housing and to improve the quality of those existing homes that are selected to remain. This is a Council-led regeneration of the estate. The majority of the new homes will be council homes.
The regeneration of Cressingham Gardens is NOT going to be a private development.
The Council is NOT selling the estate to private developers or a housing association.
There will be some private homes to enable existing homeowners the opportunity to remain on the estate.
A separate booklet is provided to outline the Council’s recommended regeneration and refurbishment options for the estate.
Those living in the parts of the estate to be regenerated will need to move home.
Those living in the parts of the estate to be refurbished will have the option to remain in their existing home or to move to a new home. It is likely, however, that the refurbishment works will require tenants and homeowners to move temporarily, even if they then return to their existing home (more details are provided on page XX).
Page 28
YOUR INVOLVEMENT
Consultation and EngagementThe Council is committed to involving the community in the regeneration of Cressingham Gardens. This includes both residents directly affected by the regeneration, because their home will need to be replaced, as well as the wider community that is affected by the regeneration programme taking place around it.
The Council has already embarked on an extensive engagement exercise with residents that has taken place over the last 18 months.
Keeping residents informedThe Council will keep residents informed of progress on the regeneration programme for example through newsletters, a website, letters and events.
The Council will produce an annual report to residents setting out progress on the regeneration, identifying any changes to the programme phasing and any new options open to residents. The report will include details of the proposed regeneration phases and indicative timescales.
Working with Individual residents The Council will work with all affected residents individually, and in particular with those who are vulnerable.
The Council guarantees that all residents living in the development sites will have access to individual independent advice throughout the process.
The Council will give those tenants who will be moving to alternative new build properties within the regeneration area opportunities to be involved in the design of their properties and offer individual choices in relation to the finishes in their properties where this is feasible.
The wider community The Council is committed to ensuring that all members of the community have access to information and opportunities to: find out more; be consulted and give their views; and receive feedback on regeneration projects. Public exhibitions, drop-ins and regular updates in the regeneration programme have all been employed to achieve this and we will continue to employ the most appropriate methods to achieve this.
Page 29
COUNCIL COMMITMENTS EXPLAINED
1. Secure tenants on Cressingham Gardens who have to move because of a decision to demolish and rebuild the part of the estate you live on will have the choice
a. EITHER to take a lifetime tenancy in a new home on the estate
b. OR, if available, to take a lifetime tenancy in an existing refurbished home on the estate
c. OR will be given high priority, Band A, to bid for a new home elsewhere in the Borough through the Choice Based Lettings scheme
2. Where a tenant chooses to remain on the estate, the new tenancy will be an assured lifetime tenancy. Where a tenant chooses to move away from the estate they will have the opportunity to bid for a secure tenancy or an assured tenancy elsewhere in the Borough.
3. The new home will meet your housing needs according to the Lambeth Housing Allocation Scheme 2013.
4. Tenants who are overcrowded will be offered a new, larger home that addresses the overcrowding, according to the Council’s allocations policy.
5. Tenant’s under-occupying by more than one bedroom will be offered a new home with one bedroom above their need, for example a couple living in 3 bed home would be offered a 2 bed home.
6. Rents for the new homes will be at Council rent levels and set in accordance with government guidelines.
7. The Council will pay the statutory home loss payment, this was £4,900 in December 2014, plus reasonable costs of removal and disturbance. An element of home loss payment can be made before the final move to help facilitate the move. The amount will be agreed on a case by case basis advance payments will be maximum £1,000.
8. The Council will provide help with rehousing to all affected households during the process. Additional support will be offered to residents with special needs or disabilities. This additional support could include:
a. Packing and unpacking services at the time of your move
b. Help in claiming benefits at your new address
c. Liaising with other agencies such as social services
9. The Council will make every effort to ensure that people only have to move once by phasing development so that some new homes are built before existing homes are demolished.
10. Vulnerable tenants will be offered a handyperson service to help with small jobs required for the removal.
Page 30
SUPPORTING YOU THROUGH THE PROCESS
Household needs survey
A household needs survey of the residents of Cressingham Gardens has recently been carried out on behalf of the Council to help inform the strategy for regenerating the estate and to provide an indication of the types of new homes that will be needed as part of the regeneration.
Assessment of your household and personal needs
If the regeneration project goes ahead every council tenant will be given an initial interview to enable the Council to understand your individual circumstances and to explain the rehousing options open to you in more detail.
We realise how important your home is to you and your wellbeing. We also understand the prospect of moving home may be stressful and disturbing. The Council is fully committed to reaching agreement with residents over their move to a suitable new home, which fully meets their needs.
You will not be expected to make any choices straight away and will have a minimum of a year to consider your options and get the support you need to make the best choice for your household. The following support and advice will be available to help you reach a fully informed decision.
You will have a designated Rehousing and Advice Officer
You will be allocated a dedicated Rehousing and Advice Officer to help you through the process. They will talk to you regarding your housing requirements and your preferences for your future home, as well as providing assistance to ensure that you are as prepared as possible when it is time for you to move to your new home.
It’s important you tell the Rehousing and Advice Officer as much as possible about your circumstances so we can help find the right property for you. You may want to think about:
Are there any health and well-being issues that the Council need to be aware of? Would you need any special adaptations in your new home?
Rehousing information packs
Detailed information packs will be provided containing a range of useful information to assist you. This will include lists of local contractors and removal firms as well as”how to” lists for getting appliances re-connected and accounts moved.
Extra help for vulnerable and elderly tenants
Extra assistance, where it is required, could include organising and managing your move for you and checking on you after you’ve moved in. Your Rehousing and Advice Officer would discuss these options with you long before your move takes place.
Plenty of notice
Residents will know which phase of development they are due to move in at least one year in advance and will be given a precise moving date at least three months in advance.
Page 31
Early moves
In some circumstances it may be possible for tenants to move ahead of their scheduled phase. You will be able to discuss your preferences and needs with your Rehousingand Advice Officer.
Moving outside the regeneration area
If residents wish to move outside of the regeneration area we will try to find another council home that meets your needs in another part of Lambeth. If residents want to move outside of Lambeth, or even outside of London, we will also try to assist in finding you a suitable tenancy.
Asking for a move outside of the regeneration area will not affect your offer of a new home in the local area. A new local home would be reserved for you until you secured an alternative. If you are interested in this possibility you should discuss it with your dedicated Rehousing and Advice Officer.
Minimising temporary moves
The Council will do everything it can to ensure tenants only move once, from their existing home direct into their new permanent home. To do this the redevelopmentof the estate will be phased, with sufficient new homes built before existing homes need to be vacated.
For the first phase, however, there is the possibility that some tenants would need to move to new homes outside of the regeneration area, but the commitment remains to rehouse within the immediate local area. If this is the case you will have the option to return to a new home on the estate, should you want to do so when they are ready to be occupied.
Page 32
YOUR OPTIONS
Tenants needing larger homes
If you are a family that is overcrowded, then you will be housed in a larger property which meets your need in accordance with the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme.
Tenants moving into a smaller property
If you are currently living in a property that is larger than your allowed property size under the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme you will be offered a property that is one room larger than you need. For instance, a couple living in a 3-bedroom home will be offered a 2-bedroom home.
You can of course move to a smaller home if you would like. For instance, a couple living in a 3-bedroom home can ask to be offered a 1-bedroom instead. Please speak to the Decant Officer about this.
Residents of working age who are in receipt of welfare benefits should note that their benefit may be reduced if the occupy a home larger than they are assessed as needing under the benefit rules. This assessment may be different to your allowed property size under the Housing Allocation Scheme, especially if any exceptions to the normal property size rules apply. An offer of housing by the Council does not imply that your rent will be covered in full by welfare benefits, nor that any shortfall will be covered by the Council.
Tenants with grown up children or other adults living with them
Household members over 21 years old are disregarded in determining the size of home you need, unless they are over 65 years old, have a disability or provide care for someone in the household who has a disability. This means that you will not be able to move somewhere larger than you current home by virtue of having grown up children living with you.
However, as an exception to the normal policy we will take into account household members over 21 years old who would otherwise be disregarded when determining if you are under-occupying. This means that you will not be expected to move somewhere smaller because of grown up children living with you. For instance, a couple living in a 3-bed home with their 25 year old son would be able to move to another 3-bed home.
Moving within the estate
The Council will prioritise the rehousing of existing secure tenants on the estate into the new homes on Cressingham Gardens.
The Options
There are four main re-housing options:
I. Option 1 - Move to a new build Council home on Cressingham Gardens.
II. Option 2 – Move to a Council or housing association home off the Cressingham Gardens Estate, but still within the London Borough of Lambeth;
III. Option 3 - Move to sheltered housing within the London Borough of Lambeth, if eligible.
Page 33
IV. Option 4 – Buy a property elsewhere within the borough, or outside Lambeth through low cost home ownership schemes e.g. Shared Ownership, Shared Equity.
Option 1 – Move to a brand new Council home on Cressingham Gardens
This is a move to a new build home on Cressingham Gardens estate.
The new home will meet your housing need.
A phasing programme for the development will be prepared and you will be informed as to which phase your new home will be in.
You will receive the statutory Home Loss payment of £4,900*. In addition you will also receive a disturbance payment to cover the reasonable costs of moving home. Disturbance payments are normally reimbursed on production of receipts.
You may also be entitled to compensation for improvements you have made to your home since 2004, as long as the improvements meet the approved criteria. (Criteria is defined in step 3 of the booklet).
*Home loss compensation, disturbance payments and compensation for improvements are defined in Section 9 of this document titled Compensation*
Option 2 – Move to a Council or housing association home off the Cressingham Gardens estate, but still within the borough of Lambeth.
The Decant Officer will help you join Lambeth’s Housing Register. Once registered, you can start bidding for available properties anywhere in the Borough via Home Connections – Lambeth’s Choice Based Lettings System.
Because your home would be demolished, you will be given Band A priority, which means you very high priority bidding for available properties.
You will be able to bid for properties that meet your housing need and which are in line with the Housing Allocation Scheme.
Properties are advertised weekly on the Home Connections website - www.homeconnections.org.uk
You will be able to bid for both Council and housing association properties
You will still receive the statutory Home Loss payment of £4,900 if you choose to move away from the estate.
You can claim a disturbance payment to cover the reasonable costs of moving home.
Option 3 – Move to sheltered housing within the London Borough of Lambeth
Sheltered housing is for residents who are 60 years and over, or who are 55 and over with medical needs.
Sheltered housing is a self contained home where you can live completely independently but have easy access to help and support to remain independent.
Page 34
You will be entitled to apply for sheltered and extra care housing that meets your housing need;
You will be able to apply for both council and housing association sheltered housing ;
You will still receive the statutory Home Loss payment of £4,900; You will also receive an additional disturbance payment to cover the reasonable
costs of moving home.
Option 4 – Buy a property elsewhere within the borough or outside Lambeth through low cost home ownership schemes e.g. shared ownership, shared equity
Tenants and non-dependants in the household can apply for New Build Home Buy properties across London. Formerly known as Shared Ownership or Part Buy, Part Rent, you could buy a share in a new or refurbished home. You usually pay a mortgage on the part you own and a subsidised rent on the part you don’t own. The initial share that you purchase could be as little as 25% of the market value of the property.
(See appendix 1 at the rear of this booklet for further details and an example of how shared ownership works).
Taking up this option will mean becoming a Shared Ownership Leaseholder and you will no longer be a Secure tenant
You will still receive the statutory Home Loss payment of £4,900; Reasonable costs of moving home will be paid for through a Disturbance
Payment;
Other housing optionsDepending on your circumstances and wishes, there may be other options you are interested in, such as moving to private rented accommodation. You will be able to discuss this with the Rehousing and Advice Officer.
Page 35
ALLOCATION OF THE NEW HOMES
The new properties will be allocated in accordance with your housing need at the time of the move, as discussed with your Re-housing and Advice Officer.
A full housing needs assessment will be carried out close to your time of move. The number of bedrooms in your new property will be determined by the size and compositionof your household.
If you are currently under-occupying your property then the Council has committed to providing a new home the size of which meets your assessed need or one room above your assessed need.
Page 36
YOUR NEW TENANCY EXPLAINED
The new development will provide a new home, on a social rent for all current council tenants who have to move.
It is the Council’s clear intention to continue charging social rents which will be set well below market or equivalent Affordable Rent levels. However, the new housing will not be available for some years, so it is not possible to provide an indication of rent levels at this stage.
There will be a change in your tenancy conditions
In order to provide as many new homes as possible at council rent levels, the council is considering setting up a separate organisation to develop the new homes. This means that Secure tenancies will not be granted. However, we understand how important security of tenure is for residents and propose to use Assured tenancies for your new homes. The Assured tenancies will be contracts between the landlord and tenant which means they can only be changed in future if both the landlord and tenant agree on the change. The council proposes to match your current tenancies as closely as possible in order to provide security of tenure. You should note that the right to buy is not available under assured tenancies.
The table below compares secure and assured tenancies.
Right Lambeth Secure Tenancy
New Assured Tenancy
The Right to live in your home without the threat of being evicted without good cause
The Right to buy
The Right to acquire
Yes
Yes
Not applicable
Yes
No
?? Greg to advise
The Right to refuse changes to your Tenancy Agreement( except for rent and service charges) without your consent
No Yes
The Right to pass on your home when you die (succession)
Yes Yes
The right to transfer and exchange your home Yes Yes
The Right to sub-let part of your home and take in lodgers
Yes Yes
The Right to repair Yes Yes
The Right to carry out improvements and receive compensation
Yes Yes
The Right to be consulted about housing management
Yes Yes
Page 37
The Right to information about the management of your home
Yes Yes
The Right to manage Yes ?? Yes (Greg to advise)
There are some circumstances where people will not qualify for a new home in the redevelopment: You are not a lawful occupant of the property(named tenant is not occupying the property as only and principle home).
. You have had a notice of seeking possession served against you for breach of tenancy conditions including antisocial behaviour and rent arrears and you have failed to comply with agreed terms of the court order.
Page 38
COMPENSATION
All council tenants who have lived in their home for more than a year will be entitled to a statutory home loss payment of £4,700 to compensate them for the move. This amount is fixed by central government and is reviewed annually.
Any rent arrears would be deducted from the compensation element of any payment from the Council.
Disturbance payment
You will also be in line to receive a disturbance payment which will cover your reasonable costs of moving, these could include, although are not limited too:
. Removal costs
. Disconnection and reconnection of services
. Disconnection and reconnection of appliances, including movable fixtures and fittings, e.g. light fittings.
. New window dressings up to a value to be determined.
. Redirected mail (time limited)
. Incidental administrative costs incurred by change of home – change of driving licence address etc.
. Other reasonable expenses considered by Rehousing and Advice Officer.
7.2 Other compensations
If pre-approved improvement works have been undertaken in your home you may be eligible for compensation in-line with the Council’s existing policy.
If the estate’s existing parking scheme is altered there will be a level of compensation, (to be determined) offered to existing resident permit holders.
When you are asked to move no tenant should suffer financially. You will be eligible for two types of compensation which are detailed below.
Home Loss Payment
The Home Loss Compensation figure is set by Government and is a statutory amount. The figure is reviewed every September by the Department for Communities and Local Government and is up-rated if necessary.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/compulsorypurchase4
Page 39
There will be a Home Loss Payment of £4,900 if you have lived in the property for more than 12 months. For those who have been in their homes for a shorter period, they may be entitled to a discretionary disturbance cost.
The Home Loss Compensation figure is set by Government and is a statutory amount. The figure is reviewed every September by the Communities and Local Government department and is up-rated if necessary.
Deduction of Arrears
Secure Tenants should note that any arrears owed on current or former accounts will be deducted from the £4,900 Home Loss Payment that you will receive. Arrears owed on any associated Court cost accounts would also be deducted.
Disturbance Payments
Disturbance Payments are made to compensate for reasonable expenses incurred in moving such as;
Removals Disconnection and reconnection of washing machine and
dishwashers by an approved plumber. The Council will normally organise this on your behalf.
Disconnection and reconnection of TV aerials and satellite dish, but only where prior written consent was obtained from the Council
Reasonable costs of moving home. Redirection of mail. Telephone disconnection and reconnection. If there is a gas supply to the new homes, disconnection and
reconnection of gas cookers, which must be carried out by an approved Gas Safe Registered Engineer.
Removal of non-standard possessions such as aquariums.
In addition to home loss and disturbance compensation you may also be entitled to claim for improvements made to your existing home, this is known as The Right to Compensation and is defined as follows;
The Right to Compensation applies to improvements if they were started on or after 1st April 2004.
If your tenancy is ending because you are leaving your home, you may receive compensation for improvements you carried out to your existing home.
The improvement must meet a certain standard and should be carried out by a qualified or competent tradesperson.
Any eligible payments awarded will vary depending on the age of the improvement. Compensation would not be for 100% of the original cost.
Such improvements may include;
New baths, wash-hand basins and toilet.
Page 40
Security measures (excluding burglar alarms). New kitchen sinks, units or worktops. New windows, such as double glazing. New central heating system and hot water boilers.
*This is not a complete list of every type of possible eligible improvement*
The Council would calculate the compensation with reference:
To evidence submitted by the tenant i.e. an invoice. If you do not have an invoice, you should be able to give us a rough
idea of the total cost and provide proof that you have paid for the improvement.
The length of time the improvement would be expected to last The number of years that has elapsed since the work was completed.
You can receive up to a total of £3,000 for any one improvement.
You will not receive any compensation if the amount is below £50
**The Council can also deduct any money you owe (current or former rent accounts and court cost accounts) from a compensation payment**.
3. Moving to your new home and housing benefits
We realise that moving to your new home can be the most difficult part of the process and that there is a lot of information to remember and work to be done.
We can provide you with support on a number of issues such as:
Help to claim benefits from the new address. Ensure change of utilities run smoothly, such as electric supply. Liaising with other agencies such as Social Services. Property adaptations. Assistance with packing and moving your personal possessions to your new
home.
Housing Benefit
If you are currently receiving Housing Benefit when you sign up for your new home, you will be asked to sign a change in circumstances Housing Benefit form with your new address.
If you are moving to a different neighbourhood or to a housing association property you will need to check with your Rehousing Support Officer to find out where you sign your housing benefit documentation.
Page 41
THE NEW HOMES
Specifications
Your new home will meet the Mayor of London’s quality and size standards.
Your new home would have the option to have an oven/hob, fridge freezer and washing machine/dryer fitted.
We will work with residents where it is possible on the internal layout of the new homes (e.g. where adaptations are required, where there is the opportunity to either provide an open plan living area or to provide a separate kitchen area)
If you consider adaptations will be required to your new home then the Council will carry out an occupational needs assessment. Any adaptations required would be made prior to you moving in.
You will be able to express a preference of floor levels however properties will be prioritised on a need basis with ground floor properties most likely to be allocated to those with limited mobility or other relevant health conditions.
The type of heating systems provided has not yet been decided. It is worth noting however that the Mayor of London encourages the use of district heating systems which tend to be a more energy efficient option, given the significant improvements in such systems over the last ten years, including residents having individual control of the level of heating provided in their property. Approaching the time of completion you will be able to visit your new home.
What you can expect from a new home?
Reduced service charges
Reduced energy costs
Page 42
Page 43
This page is intentionally left blank
CRESSINGHAM GARDENS REGENERATION
INFORMATION FOR LEASEHOLDERSAND FREEHOLDERS
DRAFT
Page 45
FORWARD BY THE CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING
The Need for More HomesThere is an urgent need for new, genuinely affordable homes in Lambeth. There are 21,000 households on the housing register and prices for homes to rent and buy are rising beyond the reach of many local people. Lambeth’s population is growing, putting even more pressure on housing.
Estate RegenerationTo help meet that growing housing need, the Council must make good use of its resources, looking at where it can provide additional homes and improve conditions for existing residents. In December 2014, the Council resolved to review its existing estates to identify those where:
(1) The costs to bring the homes up to the Lambeth Housing Standard are prohibitive;
(2) Refurbishment works themselves will not address underlying problems faced by residents, such as poor design, poor access, crime and anti-social behaviour; and/or
(3) There is potential to deliver additional homes.
Cressingham GardensThe Council has included Cressingham Gardens as an estate for consideration as part of its estates regeneration programme, primarily because of items (1) and (3) above.
Significant parts of Cressingham Gardens suffer from poor internal living conditions and it would be very costly to improve the long-term quality of these homes through just refurbishment.
There is scope for increasing the number of homes at Cressingham Gardens.
Over the last year the Council has been working closely with the residents of Cressingham Gardens to explore the future options for the estate; these are detailed in a separate booklet.
Housing and CommunitiesFrom the Council’s perspective, the primary purpose of engaging on the estate regeneration programme is to deliver more affordable housing. The majority of all new homes created at Cressingham will be more council housing. To add to this, the Council is determined to ensure that where individuals and communities wish to remain located within the area that they currently live, and where people wish to remain together as a community that they will have the options and opportunities to do so.
Cllr Bennett
Page 46
CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER
1. Key Guarantees from the Council X
2. Regeneration of Your Estate X
3. Your Involvement X
4. Supporting You through the Process X
5. Your Options
6. Compensating You for Moving X
7. The New Homes X
Purpose of the booklet
This booklet is for those leaseholders and freeholders living on Cressingham Gardens who would be affected if a decision were taken to demolish and rebuild the part of the estate that you live on, and for leaseholders in homes that would remain.
The booklet is designed to provide you with the information you need to understand the implications of the regeneration proposals for you and your home.
We do understand that this is a stressful time and hope that by providing clear and accurate information within this booklet you will understand your options and the rehousing process. It also sets out the help, support and guidance available to you.
Page 47
KEY GUARANTEES FROM THE COUNCILFor those who are affected by regeneration proposals for Cressingham Gardens, the Council makes the following commitments if the regeneration project goes ahead:
1. Any leaseholder or freeholder who wishes to continue to live at Cressingham Gardens will have the opportunity to do so.
2. The Council will buyback existing homes at market value. The Council will pay relevant and reasonable legal and valuation costs which enables homeowners to obtain independent advice.
3. Homeowners will receive homeloss payments plus disturbance costs.
4. Assistance given with the property transaction and moving home (a homeowners’ advisor will provide assistance).
5. Homeowners will be able to swap to a retained home at Cressingham Gardens subject to availability and a similar offer to tenants:
a. Retained property to be owned 100% by homeowner (subject to any mortgage or other charge)
b. Retained home to meet the Lambeth Housing Standard with any major works funded by the difference in value between old and new home and investment of the homeloss payment to pay for improvements
6. Homeowners will have access to shared ownership of a new home at Cressingham Gardens:
a. Minimum equity share to be 25% and maximum 75%b. Rent payable on unsold equity of 2.75% pa
7. Homeowners wll have access to shared equity of a new home at Cressingham Gardens
a. Minimum equity share to be 60% or value of existing home plus Homeloss payment, whichever is the higher
b. No rent payable on unsold equityc. One succession allowed for a spouse, civil partner or family member
nominated by the leaseholder only. Any other inheritance (or when the property is sold) will require the council’s equity share to be repaid
d. Property not to be let without notifying the Council
8. For homeowners unable to fund any of the options above, nomination to a home for intermediate or market rent at Cressingham Gardens or elsewhere, subject to financial assessment.
9. Priority will be given to purchase a new home for sale outright at Cressingham Gardens
10. Right-to-Buy Discounts – where the homeowner is still within the RTB discount period, they will not have to pay back the discount if they sell their home within the three year period
11. The Council will provide advice, information and support to leaseholders seeking rehousing either elsewhere in Lambeth or outside of the Borough.
Page 48
REGENERATION OF YOUR ESTATEThe purpose of regenerating Cressingham Gardens is to provide more affordable housing and to improve the quality of those existing homes that are selected to remain. This is a Council-led regeneration of the estate. The majority of the new homes will be Council homes.
The regeneration of Cressingham Gardens is NOT going to be a private development.
The Council is NOT selling the estate to private developers or a housing association.
There will be some private homes to enable existing homeowners the opportunity to remain on the estate.
A separate booklet is provided to outline the Council’s recommended regeneration and refurbishment options for the estate.
Those living in the parts of the estate to be regenerated will need to move home.
Those living in the parts of the estate to be refurbished will have the option to remain in their existing home or to move to a new home. It is likely, however, that the refurbishment works will require tenants and homeowners to move temporarily, even if they then return to their existing home (more details are provided on page XX).
Page 49
YOUR INVOLVEMENTConsultation and EngagementThe Council is committed to involving the community in the regeneration of Cressingham Gardens. This includes both residents directly affected by the regeneration, because their home will need to be demolished, as well as the wider community that is affected by the regeneration programme taking place around it.
The Council has embarked on an extensive engagement exercise with residents that has taken place over the last 18 months.
Keeping residents informedThe Council will keep residents informed of progress on the regeneration programme for example through newsletters, a website, letters and events.
The Council will produce an annual report to residents setting out progress on the regeneration, identifying any changes to the programme phasing and any new options open to residents. The report will include details of the proposed regeneration phases and indicative timescales.
Working with Individual residents The Council will work with all affected residents individually, and in particular with those who are vulnerable.
The Council guarantees that all residents living in the development sites will have access to individual independent advice throughout the process.
The Council wishes to give those residents who will be moving to alternative new build properties within the regeneration area opportunities to be involved in the design of their homes and choices in relation to the finishes in their properties where this is possible.
The wider community The Council is committed to ensuring that all members of the community have access to information and opportunities to find out more, be consulted and give their views, and receive feedback on the project. Public exhibitions, drop-ins and regular updates have all been provided to achieve this and we will continue to employ the most appropriate methods to achieve this.
Page 50
SUPPORTING YOU THROUGH THE PROCESS
What are your circumstances?There are two categories of leaseholders:
Those who are living in their property at Cressingham Gardens –a Resident Leaseholder; and
Those who not living in their property at Cressingham Gardens –a Non-resident Leaseholder.
The options available are different for these two categories of leaseholder.
Household needs surveyA household needs survey of the residents of Cressingham Gardens has recently been carried out on behalf of the Council to help inform the strategy for regenerating the estate and to provide an indication of the types of new homes that will be needed as part of the regeneration.
You will have a designated Rehousing and Advice Officer If the regeneration project goes ahead every leaseholder will be assigned a named Rehousing and Advice Officer to help you through the process. They will talk to you regarding your housing requirements and your preferences for your future home, as well as providing assistance to ensure that you are as prepared as possible when it is time for you to move to your new home.
Assessment of your household and personal needsWe realise how important your home is to you and your wellbeing. We also understand the prospect of moving home may be stressful and disturbing. The Council is fully committed to reaching agreement with residents over their move to a suitable new home, which meets their needs.
You will not be expected to make any choices straight away and will have a minimum of a year to consider your options and get the support you need to make the best choice for your household.
The following support and advice will be available to help you reach a fully informed decision:
Each leaseholder will be invited for a private one-to-one meeting with your Rehousing and Advice Officer to discuss your case and to answer any concerns that you may have about the process
The aim of the interview is to give clear information about what leaseholders can expect when asked to move from their home. The Council is determined that all residents are treated fairly and equally, can have confidence in the rehousing process, and receive a high level of service from the Council
It is at this point you should advise your named officer whether you are a resident or non-resident leaseholder. If you are a non-resident leaseholder, it is important to note that the Council is under no formal obligation to re-house either your tenant or any other occupant in the property, and repurchase will only be concluded on a property that is vacant and where a vacant possession can be completed.
Valuing your home If your property is included within the regeneration area, we will arrange for a chartered surveyor to visit you and work out the value of your property. Following this visit the surveyor will then send you written notification of the open market value of your property, and how much in home loss and disturbance payments you could receive.
Page 51
Compensating You As we want to buy your property, it is important that you do not have to incur any costs because of the process. This is summarised later in this booklet which will explainwhat you as a leaseholder are entitled to from the Council in terms of compensation.
Rehousing information packs Detailed information packs will be provided containing a range of useful information to assist you. This will include lists of local contractors and removal firms as well as’how to’ lists for getting appliances re-connected and accounts moved.
Extra help for vulnerable and elderly tenants Extra assistance will be provided where it is required, and could include organising and managing your move for you and checking on you after you’ve moved in. Your Rehousing and Advice Officer would discuss these options with you long before your move takes place.
Plenty of notice Residents will know which phase of development they are due to move in at least one year in advance and will be given a precise moving date at least three months in advance.
Early moves In some circumstances it may be possible for tenants to move ahead of their scheduled phase. You will be able to discuss your preferences and needs with your Rehousingand Advice Officer.
Minimising temporary moves The Council will do everything it can to ensure residents only move once, from their existing home direct into their new permanent home. To do this the redevelopmentof the estate will be phased, with sufficient new homes built before existing homes need to be vacated.
For the first phase, however, there is the possibility that some tenants would need to move to new homes outside of the regeneration area, but the commitment remains to rehouse within the immediate local area. If this is the case you will have the option to return to a new home on the estate, should you want to do so when they are ready to be occupied.
Page 52
YOUR OPTIONSWe will always try to negotiate an agreement with leaseholders without the need to use our legal powers to buy the property from you. If we are unable to reach an agreement with you and this could cause delay to the regeneration of Cressingham Gardens, we may apply for a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to buy your home, but we will only use this power as a last resort. Even if we do commence a CPO, we would continue to seek to negotiate with you to reach a mutually agreeable solution.
Some leaseholders will wish to make their own arrangements whenthey have agreed a price for their existing property. This is where you find and buy a property yourself, called an ‘open market purchase’; this is for people who do not need the support of the Council to find a new home. However, given that we are intent on building more homes, we may be able to offer alternative options to you.
The new home options for resident leaseholders 1. Open market purchase
2. Leasehold swap
3. Leasehold swap with shared equity
4. Shared ownership
5. Leasehold swap to a retained home
1. Open market purchase This option is where we buy your leasehold property for an agreed price. When you accept the price, and an amount of compensation such as home loss and disturbance payments, you will then make your own arrangements to find a suitable new home.
2. Leasehold swap A leasehold swap is when we agree to replace your present home with a new-build property of a similar value within the estate. We will swap your remaining lease to the new property. We will value your current and new-build properties, and work out a detailed arrangement for the difference if the price of the new property is more or less than the cost of your current property.
Key points for this option:
We will ask a chartered surveyor to value your existing property You choose a property of the same number of bedrooms from those under
construction We will value the new property and agree the price with you When you are ready to buy the new property the value of your existingproperty is
agreed by both parties It is expected that any current mortgage you have will be transferred to your new
home You will be told the estimated annual service charge for the new property The length and rules of the lease will be the same as your existing lease You will have the normal rights and responsibilities of someone who owns and
lives in their property
3. Leasehold swap with shared equity Where your current property is worth less than the new property, you may still be able to swap your lease where the Council agrees to buy and own the rest of the lease. We would exchange the lease on your current home for part of a lease on a new-build home of the same number of bedrooms (or smaller if you wish) in the regeneration area, and then the Council would buy the rest of the lease. You will have the same rights and responsibilities as a full leaseholder.
Page 53
As noted under the Council’s key guarantees, this option is only available if you are able to purchase a minimum of 60% of the new home.
This arrangement is known as shared equity, as we share the ownership of the property, and therefore the future value of the property, with you
The part that you cannot afford to purchase outright is owned by the council, and is repayable at a future date:
when the property is sold or disposed of when a change in ownership occurs or the lease is assigned to anotherperson or
persons when the property is inherited by any person or persons other than someone who
is the spouse, civil partner or nominated family member of the owner
Key points for this option:
The value of your existing property is determined by a chartered surveyor in the same way as in the previous options
You choose a property from those under construction in the regeneration area The new-build property is then valued by us and agreed with you If a difference in value occurs, we may offer to buy the part of the lease of the
new property which is not covered by the value of your current home As a guideline, the value of your existing property including any mortgage to be
transferred plus your Home loss compensation should not be less than 60% of the value of the new property; we would then offer to purchase the remaining share, up to 40%. Rent is not payable on the part owned by us, but we claim the share when the home is sold or changes ownership
You will only be able to move to a property which is the same size as the one you currently own or smaller, based on the number of bedrooms
The property is jointly owned by you and us, and the percentage of the property owned by each of us is recorded on the lease
You can increase the amount of the property you own up to full ownership of the lease
It is expected that your current mortgage will be transferred to the new property Any planned maintenance will be charged according to the terms and conditions
of your lease The length and rules of the lease will be the same as your current lease You will have the normal rights and responsibilities of someone who owns and
lives in their property, except that you are not allowed to rent out some or all of the property without first obtaining our permission. This is because this option is only offered to those who will live in the property as their only or main home
When the owner of the lease dies, succession of the partly owned lease can only take place once and will normally be limited to the leaseholder’s spouse or a person living with the leaseholder as husband or wife (including civil partnerships) or a nominated family member, providing that they were living in the home as their only or main home at the time of the leaseholder’s death. If the lease changes ownership after succession has taken place, the value of the part of the lease not owned by you will need to be repaid 4. Shared ownership The shared ownership option involves you buying a percentage of a new-build home, and paying rent on the part owned by us. We will value your current property and agree its value with you. The money from the sale of your property will be used to buy a percentage of the value of the new-build home you are moving to. You will have the same rights and responsibilities as a full leaseholder but you will pay rent on the part of the property that you do not own.
After an initial settling in period, you will have the right to buy additional shares in the property right up to full ownership. If you increase the amount of the property you own,
Page 54
the amount of rent you pay decreases.
Key points for this option:
The shared ownership scheme is a part-buy part-rent scheme You will typically pay 2.75% of the value of the part of the property that you do
not own in rent per annum You will have to pay an annual service charge You will have to pay 100% of the service charge for the home whatever your
percentage share may be You will have the normal rights and responsibilities of a full owner-occupier,
except that you are not allowed to rent out some or all of the property without first obtaining our permission. This is because this option is only offered to those who will live in the property as their only or main home
You have the right to increase the amount of the property you own up to 100% The costs of repairs and improvements are charged in accordance with the lease
6. Leasehold swap to a retained home
Leaseholders will be able to swap to a retained home at Cressingham Gardens subject to availability and a similar offer to tenants, Under this option you would relinquish the lease for your existing home and take a new lease on a retained home at Cressingham Gardens. We will value your current property and agree its value with you. The money from the sale of your property will be used to buy the retained home you are moving to.
Key points for this option:
Retained property to be owned 100% by homeowner (subject to any mortgage or other charge)
Retained home to meet the Lambeth Housing Standard with any major works funded by the difference in value between old and new home and investment of the homeloss payment to pay for improvements
You will have to pay an annual service charge The costs of repairs and improvements are charged in accordance with the lease
Page 55
THE NEW LEASE
Short section summarizing any changes between existing RTB leases and the new leases – eg – notification for sub-letting.
Page 56
COMPENSATIONIf the Council is seeking to acquire your home through negotiation in the shadow of a compulsory acquisition, you would be entitled to compensation over-and-above the market value of your property.
The level of compensation varies according to whether you are a Resident Leaseholder or a Non-resident Leaseholder.
Home loss payment for Resident LeaseholdersA home loss payment is additional compensation that you are entitled to if you are forced to leave your home, such as when your home will be demolished to improve an area. This payment is in addition to the payment of the value for your home. To claim home loss, you must have lived in your property as your only or main home for at least one year.
The amount of home loss payment is 10% of the market value of your home, witha minimum payment of £4,700 and a maximum payment of £47,000.
Home loss payment for Non-resident LeaseholdersNon-resident leaseholders who rent out their property are entitled to 7.5% of the market value up to a maximum payment of £75,000. You must have owned the property for at least a year. If you have owned your property for less than a year, you are only entitled to the minimum payment of £4,700.
Please note that all amounts are correct at the time of writing.
How do I receive a home loss payment? When we value your home, you will receive a letter that clearly sets out the market value of your home. We will include the level of home loss payment that you are entitled to on top of the market value. For example, a resident leaseholder’s flat valued at £250,000 would receive a home loss payment of £25,000.
You will need to complete a Home Loss payment claim form and provide proof of identification, and proof that you have lived at your current property for at least a year before you have to move. For example, you may be asked to provide birth certificates, Council Tax bills, bank statements and gas or electric bills. You will be able to get more details about this from your Rehousing and Advice Officer.
The home loss payment is paid at the same time as the payment for the purchase of your home.
Disturbance payments Disturbance payments are another additional payment that leaseholders are entitled to, which compensate you for money you’ve paid out because of the improvements to or demolition of homes in your area.
How do disturbance payments work? Leaseholders can claim back the cost of items listed below as disturbance payments, plus the cost of advice from legal and valuation advisors.
The disturbance payment can be paid in two ways:
Either
1. A one off payment of £5,000 without the need to review the receipts and invoices for the costs you incur. The payment is made at the same time as you receive the money for
Page 57
your home, and the home loss compensation.
Or
2. You can obtain financial support by taking receipts to your Rehousing and Advice Officer, who will be able to assist you.
Disturbance costs that you can claim from us are:
Removal costs
Forwarding your mail (for 1 year only)
Carpet alterations
Curtain alterations
Disconnection + reconnection of appliances (washing machines, cookers)
Disconnection and reconnection of services (gas, electricity, telephone) Special adaptations of the replacement premises (adaptations for residents with
disabilities)
Moveable fixtures and fittings (fitted wardrobes)
Other costs of acquiring new property
Replacement carpets and curtains - however these are only permitted if you can demonstrate that your existing furnishings do not fit your new home, or cannot be altered to fit your new home. You should check this in advance with your Rehousing and Advice officer
Legal / surveyor costs
Surveyors fees arising from buying a replacement property Survey fees and costs in connection with transfer of an existing mortgage or
getting a new one
Solicitor costs for the purchase of your current home
Solicitor costs for your new property Stamp Duty Mortgage redemption fees (fees for paying off a mortgage) Mortgage arrangement fees (fees for arranging a new mortgage)
Please note that if your property is being repurchased by us, you are not required to provide a Home Information Pack (HIP)
For leaseholders in homes to be retained For those leaseholders in homes that will not be demolished, you will be responsible for paying capital charges and other service charges according to the terms of your lease. ,
Page 58
THE NEW HOMES
Specifications
Your new home will meet the Mayor of London’s quality and size standards.
Your new home will be provided with carpets or other flooring (including underlayer sound proofing),.
We will work with residents where it is possible to influence aspects of internal layout of the new homes (e.g. where adaptations are required, where there is the opportunity to either provide an open plan living area or a separate kitchen area)
If you think adaptations will be required to your new home then the Council will carry out an occupational needs assessment. Any adaptations required would be made prior to you moving in.
You will be able to express a preference of which floor your new home is on, however properties will be prioritised on a need basis with ground floor properties most likely to be allocated to those with limited mobility or other relevant health conditions.
The type of heating systems provided has not yet been decided. It is worth noting however that the Mayor of London encourages the use of district heating systems which tend to be a more energy efficient option, given the significant improvements in such systems over the last ten years, including residents having individual control of the level of heating provided in their property. You will be able to view your new home on plan and
in a model. Approaching the time of completion you will be able to visit your new home.
What you can expect from a new home?
Reduced service charges
Reduced energy costs
Page 59
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONSOptions for leaseholders in financial difficulties and in need of support and assistance
We understand that some leaseholders may have difficulties in buyinga new home on the open market and would require some additional support and assistance in securing a suitable home. In order for us to be able to offer the options involving our support, we will ask for documents to be provided to confirm income and expenses, and other documents may be required as well. If it is agreed that you cannot afford to move without support and assistance, then the Council will work with you to identify the best solution for you that you can afford.
Options for leaseholders assessed as vulnerable and in need of assistance and supportWe are also aware that there may be leaseholders who have complicated needs making them vulnerable, that is, if a person is less able to deal with buying and selling a home themselves and may be at risk of harm as a result. We will provide support to those with complex needs who are assessed as being vulnerable and assist them in securing alternative suitable homes through the options provided below. Your Rehousing and Advice Officer will be able to provide further information on this process.
One of the support options available is to apply for social rented accommodation. If you qualify for this option, you can apply to us to rent a Council / housing association property. We will consider your circumstances in line with the rules of our general Allocations Scheme. This will take into account your needs and the proceeds from the sale of the property and the home loss payment.
If we decide that you qualify to move to a Council or housing association property, your application will be given a level of priority based on your needs and how urgently you will need to move. You will be able to bid for suitable empty properties in the borough using our Choice Based lettings system. You will not be able to remain in your existing property after it has been purchased by us.
Examples of people who may need this support
A person who needs help as a result of old age, mental illness or physical disability or other special reason
A person (not a student) over 21 who needs help as a result of having been looked after, accommodated in a care home or fostered
A person who needs help as a result of having been a member of the regular naval, military or air forces
A person who needs help as a result of having spent time in prison A person who needs help as a result of leaving their home because of violence or
threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out
Temporary housing option for leaseholders For most people who decide to enter into either a leasehold swap with shared equity or a shared ownership arrangement, the demolition and rebuilding works will be timed to enable you to move to your replacement home at the same time as you complete the sale on your current home, so that you will only need to move once.
For a very small number of leaseholders however, it may not always be possible for us to offer you a move to a new-build replacement home immediately after we need you to move out of your current home. In order to ensure that the full options remain available to you and you are not forced to move elsewhere, we are prepared to consider providing you with temporary housing in one of the existing empty homes in the area, until your new home is ready to move into.
Page 60
This offer would be a formal legal agreement between you and the Council and would mean that you will need to accept the following arrangements:
The open market value of your current property would be agreed with you, and money to that value would be deposited by us into an account held on your behalf (an Escrow Account). The money would only be released from the account when you are ready to buy your new-build replacement home
If you qualify for a home loss payment, the full amount will also be paid into the Escrow Account when you move to the temporary home
If your current home has a mortgage, special arrangements will be made with your bank or lender
The value of the replacement home yet to be built will also be agreed with you at the time you move to temporary accommodation. This price will be fixed and will not change if the price of the new property goes up or down in the future
The Escrow Account would not pay any interest to you but in return we will not charge you any rent or service charges for your temporary home
To assist with the costs of the move to a temporary home, disturbance payments will be made to you
You will occupy the temporary home during the whole period as your main home
Page 61
ITEMS TO NOTE
Value of the new-build homes We are committed to delivering high quality new homes as part of our regeneration proposals. It is likely that the new-build homes being built and potentially offered to you will be higher in value than existing homes with the same number of bedrooms.
Mortgage transfer Please note that any existing mortgage you may have on your current property will need to be transferred to the new lease (depending on the value of your chosen new property) therefore you will have to notify your mortgage company.
Resident and non-resident leaseholders and freeholders These options are intended to allow resident leaseholders the option to remain in their current areas. Different options may be available to non-resident leaseholders.
Contact Details
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-social-sector-housing-under-occupation-wr2011.pdf
Page 62
Social Life activities on Cressingham Gardens, July 2013 to February 2015
1 Initial research: how residents feel about the estate and the prospect of regeneration? July to September 2013
Social Life carried out interviews with 109 residents, exploring what they like about the estate and what they would change. This included conversations with 61 tenants, 23 leaseholders and 7 freeholders, including people living across the different blocks on the estate.
Interviews ranged from in-depth discussions, lasting up to 2 hours, and shorter 5 to 10 minute conversations. Open questions were asked and coded using qualitative research methods.
At the end of interviews, residents were told about the planned Taskforce process and asked whether they would be interesting in participating.
Social Life attended several TRA meetings to explain the process and the plan to carry out a “co-production” process where residents would work alongside the council shape the options for the future of the estate.
Social Life spoke to a further 50 residents during this time about the process. These people did not want to be interviewed but gave contact details for further information, they were also told about the Taskforce process.
The findings were published as an exhibition, and also as a booklet which was distributed to every household on the estate.
Exhibition/Sunday Lunch: 20th October32 residents attended, 10 council tenants, 10 leaseholders, 5 freeholders and 7 of unknown tenure.
Roland Karthaus used the event to ask for feedback about the shared spaces on the estate, using his birds eye view map.
Social Life spoke to residents about the planned Taskforce process (dates for four meetings were given from 10th December 2013 to 4th February 2014), encouraging them to attend.
2 First planned Taskforce meetings
Taskforce 1: 10th November, 7-8pm at the RotundaThis was an introductory meeting about the process as the results of the estate survey and the financial assessment were not available.
26 residents attended: 14 tenants, 6 leaseholders, 4 freeholders and two private tenants.
Page 63
Lambeth Council used the time planned for the second taskforce meeting on January 6th 2014 to speak to residents about the results of the TALL survey and to announce the project team.
Late in January: a new set of four Taskforce dates announced from 12th February to 16th March 2014.
Early February: all Taskforce meetings postponed because information about the financial situation was not yet available.
3 November 2014 process reconvened
Meetings were now described as “workshops”, to differentiate them from the planned meetings in the past. The aim was still to run a co-design process.
Six workshops were ran in total, plus a feedback session from the six working groups that had been set up to explore particular issues in depth.
In total 102 residents were involved in this process, either attending workshops or working groups. This included 52 council tenants, 41 home owners and 1 private tenants. This is approximately 40% of home owners, and a significant proportion of resident home owners, and 25% of council tenants living on the estate.
November 7th: two workshops (afternoon and evening)
60 residents came to the two workshops. From the information they gave on that date, 23 were council tenants, 24 leaseholders or freeholders, and 1 private tenant (12 people did not give us this information on the day). After looking back at our contact list we have revised this to 28 leaseholders, 30 tenants, 1 private tenant and one person of unknown tenure.
The process was explained. Residents discussed what criteria should be used to assess the options (these are in a separate document). Residents gave feedback on the four initial options (see also below), Lambeth officers and members explained their thinking to date.
November 22nd: two workshops, one for tenants (am) and for leaseholders (pm).
60 residents came to the two workshops, 25 council tenants to the morning workshop and 35 homeowners in the afternoon.
These workshops gave information about residents position should their homes be demolished. They were another opportunity to give feedback about the initial options.
December 10th: two workshops for council tenants (pm and evening)
11 council tenants attended these sessions (plus one leaseholder)
The same format as the November 22nd workshops were used. The aim of these workshops was to give more council tenants the opportunity to attend, as their attendance had been lower than homeowner attendance to date.
Lambeth and the Independent Residents Advisor also organized a visit to Stockwell Park estate on 10th December, 10 residents attended this - 9 council tenants and one leaseholders. This ran at the same time as the afternoon workshop.
Page 64
January 19th: Feedback Session for Working Groups (evening)
40 residents attended: 17 council tenants, 18 homeowners Leaseholders and 5 of unknown tenure.
This was an opportunity for working groups to give feedback and discuss conclusions and recommendations and how these fit together.
January 31st: final workshop was planned but cancelled.
A series of working groups was also convened
The membership of the three convened by Roland Karthaus and Social Life are below.
Resident managementOverall membership: 4 tenants, 5 home owners, 1 private tenantWorking group meeting 1: 2 tenants, 2 home owners
This group met once in January and visited WECH (Walterton and Elgin Community Homes). A meeting was planned, and external experts invited, however residents did not attend the meeting as it clashed with another event.
WellbeingOverall membership: 5 tenants, 4 home owners, 1 private tenantWorking group meeting 1: 4 tenants, 1 home ownerWorking group meeting 2: 3 tenants, 1 home owner
This group met three times in December and January.
The group asked Social Life to investigate how levels of wellbeing on Cressingham could be valued, and to assess the levels of vulnerability on the estate. A report was written about this.
The group recommended that Lambeth involve SLAM, using their mental wellbeing assessment methodology, in work going forward. They also wanted the wellbeing valuation work to be taken account in assessing options for the future of the estate, and would like a wellbeing assessment to be made of each option. They would also like the aspects of life on Cressingham Gardens that are outlined in Social Life’s report to be recognised and valued in the regeneration process, and that anything that undermines resident wellbeing in the regeneration process is minimized.
Green retrofittingOverall membership: 3 tenants, 7 home owners, 1 private tenantWorking group meeting 1: 1 tenant, 3 home ownersWorking group meeting 2: 1 tenant, 3 home owners
This group met twice, and worked with Sturgis consultants. A further meeting to progress discussions with Lambeth Living is planned.
Feedback on options
Social Life asked residents who attended workshops to indicate their views of the different indicative options developed by Roland Karthaus.
Page 65
Page 66
Social Life has spent the past few months speaking to residents about
what it is like to live on Cressingham, and on the 20th October we held
an event in the Rotunda where we shared what we have been told. This booklet includes the information we
presented at that event.
This booklet reports on conversations with over 100 residents on Cressingham Gardens estate.
Living on Cressingham
Page 67
Cressingham’s history
Cressingham Gardens Estate
Cressingham Gardens was built between 1967 and 1978 by Lambeth council. It is a low rise, low density estate, originally designed by Edward Hollamby, Lambeth’s borough architect. The estate was built to ‘Parker Morris standards’ which means homes are spacious and light inside.
It was built around the many trees on the site, its design blends well into Brockwell Park and separates it from Tulse Hill. The HVWDWH�LV�GHVLJQHG�LQ�EORFNV��ZLWK�KRXVHV�DQG�ÁDWV�RSHQLQJ�LQWR�shared areas. There are many large green areas, gardens and balconies.
7KH�QDPHV�RI�WKH�HVWDWH�DQG�EORFNV�UHÁHFW�WKH�KLVWRU\�RI�7XOVH�Hill. “Mercy Cressingham, spinster” owned the land when it was used for farming, from 1806 onwards. “Bodley”, “Upgroves” and “Scarlettes” were all names of former Manors in Tulse Hill.7KH�DUFKLWHFW�ZDV�VWURQJO\�LQÁXHQFHG�E\�:LOOLDP�0RUULV�DQG�WKH�VRFLDO�LGHDOV�RI�WKH�$UWV�DQG�&UDIWV�PRYHPHQW��ZKLFK�LV�UHÁHFWHG�in the careful design of the estate.
Sue’s daughter on Hardel Walk in the 1980s, Sue in 2013.
Bodley Manor Way.
Page 68
The estate was originally built as council housing but now is home to a mixture of council tenants, leaseholders, freeholders and private tenants. There are 306 homes on the estate, 209 of these are home to council tenants, there are 73 leaseholders and 17 freeholders. Some of the leasehold and freeholders now rent out their homes.
Comparing Cressingham’s population to the Lambeth average, there are more children and young people under 20 living on the estate, more people over 40, and fewer people in their 20s and 30s. More people on Cressingham are unemployed or long term sick than the Lambeth average, fewer people work full time. People living on Cressingham are more likely to consider they are in poor health than people across Lambeth.
The three biggest ethnic groups that residents consider they belong to are White British, Black African and Black Caribbean. The majority of people living on the estate were born in the UK. Slightly more people are overcrowded than the Lambeth average. A quarter of council tenants on the estate have made an application to the council to transfer to a new property. This is slightly lower than the average for the borough.
Who lives on Cressingham?
$OO�WKHVH�VWDWLVWLFV�FRPH�IURP�WKH�2IÀFH�RI�1DWLRQDO�6WDWLVWLFV�DQG�DUH�for 2011. They cover the Cressingham Gardens estate and a small area on the other side of Tulse Hill.
Total homes Council tenants
Leaseholders
FreeholdersLong term voids
185
73
306
17
7
Other Black81
154 Black Caribbean
196Black African
241 White English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British
Other White74
White Irish22
5 Arab
12 Any other ethnic group
Mixed White/Black Caribbean43
30 Mixed White/Black African
5 Mixed White/Asian
38 Mixed Other
4 Indian
7 Pakistani
4 Bangladeshi
10 Chinese
18 Other Asian
Ethnic origin
0
5
10
15
20
911 to 5 6 to10
11 to15
16 to20
21 to25
26 to30
31 to40
41 to50
51 to60
61 to70
71 to80
81 to90 plus
Lambeth
London
England
Cressingham
Age
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Very BadHealth
Very Good Good Health Fair Health Bad HealthHealth
Lambeth
London
England
Cressingham
Health
%
Total numbers of people by ethnic group.
Page 69
Why is Social Life here?
Social Life’s work
Social Life has been appointed by Lambeth Council to work
with the residents of Cressingham Gardens to consider the
different options for the future of the estate.
Social Life will work with tenants and residents to develop a set of proposals. We will give everyone living on the estate a voice in shaping what happens in the future. Our starting point has been the discussions between residents and the council that began in 2012.
Developing options for the estate with residents
Social Life will be running a taskforce – a series of four meetings – from December 2013 to February 2014. Our aim is to bring WRJHWKHU�D�JURXS�RI�UHVLGHQWV�WKDW�UHÁHFW�WKH�GLIIHUHQW�EORFNV��housing types and backgrounds of the people living on the estate.
The taskforce will be run as a series of “deliberative workshops”. This is a way of bringing a group of people together to explore an issue in-depth, to look at new information, and to come to a shared view. We believe that everyone makes better decisions when they are given an opportunity to talk through the issues and when they are given good information and support from experts.
We aim to develop options for the future of the estate. We need residents to volunteer to take part in this taskforce. We want people to commit to as many meetings as possible, but we know you all have busy lives. We will make sure that what is coming out of the taskforce meetings is made available to all residents through estate notice boards, through a website that Lambeth is setting up.
Social Life is a social enterprise set up by the Young Foundation in 2012.
Talking to residents
The Social Life team have spoken to 109 households on Cressingham Gardens, with two to four Social Life staff visiting the estate to speak to residents on 22 occasions in total.
Most of these visits have been with the Social Life trolley. On some visits we spoke to residents in their homes or on their doorsteps, often following up initial contacts that we had made through our trolley visits.
These conversations have helped us understand residents’ perceptions of the estate, the council, what they know of plans for future change, and how they would want to be involved in this. We have also looked at the statistics about comparable areas, using data that Social Life has developed.
Social Life’s work from July to October 2013.
109
conversations
with
households
118
conversations
with
individuals
22 visits
0
10
20
30
40
50
What Cressingham residents said they like about living here, by number of responses (from 118 interviews).
0
5
10
15
20
25
What Cressingham residents said they would change about the estate, by numbers of responses (from 118 interviews).
Page 70
What we’ve found
Cressingham is largely a peaceful estate where
neighbours have good social relationships.
Social networks are mainly within blocks.
Residents describe the estate as being “safe” and “peaceful”.
Cressingham is seen as a safe place, and (apart
IURP�LVRODWHG�LQFLGHQWV��WKLV�SHUFHSWLRQ�LV�UHÁHFWHG�
in crime statistics. Some longer standing residents
have said that the estate has improved a lot,
it used to feel more unsafe in the past.
The current design of the estate appears to support
local social life and resident wellbeing, residents
value the good relations between neighbours,
the easy access to the park and the bus stops.
There are problems with disrepair in some individual
properties, and in the common areas in some blocks.
Residents of certain blocks experience shared
problems, possibly caused by wider structural problems
RI�WKH�HVWDWH�DQG�E\�IDXOWV�LQ�WKH�GHVLJQ��WR�EH�FRQÀUPHG�
by the survey which will report at the end of October)
Some vulnerable residents are living in homes with
severe disrepair. There is a feeling that getting
repairs done takes a long time and is often ineffective.
Common problems include leaks,
blocked drains and damp
People have a high degree of attachment to
their estate, for some this is because of the design
and architecture; others have less attachment to the
buildings but wish to retain their good relationships with
their neighbours and the peacefulness of the estate.
The vast majority of residents would
prefer to stay on the estate.
Some residents – social and private tenants, freeholders
and leaseholders – would be happy to leave the
estate, either to get a home that suits their
needs better, or for personal reasons. Some people living
with disrepair and structural problems would be happy to
move to a better home without problems. Some people
would like a better or larger home on the estate.
Many residents are confused by the process
to date, and believe that there is already a plan to
demolish the estate. There is a group who are unwilling
to take part in consultation because of time delays
and because they feel they have made their feelings
known in the past. Some residents are actively
campaigning against substantive change for the estate;
another group who used to participate in the TRA feel
alienated from current TRA activities.
Compared to similar areas, Cressingham has lower
crime than we would expect. Cressingham residents’
sense of belonging and their feelings of safety
are higher than in similar areas. They also
have better relationships with their neighbours.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
What Cressingham residents said about the problems with their
homes, by numbers of responses (from 118 interviews).
Page 71
Living on Cressingham
“Peaceful” and “quiet” were commonly used to describe
why people liked living on the estate. There are many things
that give the estate this special quality, some people say it’s
because of its village-like feel and others says it’s because
it’s next to the park.
Many people fear that if there are more people living on the estate, its unique character will change.
One resident from Scarlette Manor said he likes the layout because it’s set back from the main road and there’s the park, so it’s ideal for kids to play. Hearing kids running around makes the estate feel safe and lively. He wants his kids to play here as they grow up.
Many of the residents that moved onto the estate in the 1970s are still living here. Families have gone through a whole cycle of expanding and then shrinking. There are some families with three generations living on the estate. However many of the original residents have left or passed away. People miss their old friends.
The original residents have mixed views about how the estate has changed. Some people feel that when they moved in it was a wonderful estate and now it has been left to decline. Others remember crack dens and squats and say the estate feels much better now.
According to many of residents we spoke to, there is a perception that the estate as a whole has been very poorly maintained over the years.
“It’s a beautiful
place to live in”
Upgrove Manor resident
The estate’s character
“When we came
here we thought
‘my god! It’s
wonderful!’” Hardel Walk resident
“It was like a
fairytale, so
beautiful’” Hardel Walk resident
“They’ve let it go
to rack and ruin”
Longford resident
Hambridge Way.
Page 72
One of the unique qualities of the estate is its proximity to Brockwell Park. Almost all residents told us they liked living here because of it.
The common green spaces on the estate, including the mounds, are used less because people go to the park. People with small children often let their kids play out on the estate. The green spaces are well used for gardening.
Residents liked the location of the estate. There is access to many buses that can take you to Brixton, Tulse Hill and Streatham for example. Many people feel that this community is part of the wider Brixton community. However some expressed concerns that the face of Brixton is changing and there’s a fear that these changes, particularly in terms of the population, will spread to Cressingham.
The wider area
Informal shortcuts to the park used by younger residents.
Bodley Manor home next to Brockwell Park.
“The park is such a bonus,
moving would be a massive
change” Crosby Walk resident
Page 73
Block headlinesHere is the breakdown of the comments residents have made, by block; what they liked about the estate; what they would change about the estate; and if they had any problems with their home.
We carried 4 interviews with 4 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
2 said they liked the wider area
2 said their house
2 said being close to the park
1 said their neighbours
1 said it is a good estate
1 said good design of their home and the estate
1 said it was peaceful.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
1 said the paths
1 said problems caused by trees
1 wants the council to create a register of vulnerable on the estate.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
1 said poor drainage inside their house
1 said the cost of heating and hot water.
Chandler’s Way
We carried out 14 interviews with 11 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
7 said their neighbours
4 said it is a good estate
4 said they feel safe
2 said being close to the park
2 said good design
1 said it was peaceful
1 said they liked the wider area
1 said the greenness
1 said their house
1 said they liked the parking.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
2 said poor maintenance
2 said they want the Rotunda to be used more
1 said it feels unsafe
1 said the paths
1 said the drains and gutters.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
4 said their home was poorly maintained
3 said they had serious damp
2 said they were unhappy with their house
2 said they had leaks
2 said they had problems with their windows
1 said they had cracks in their house
1 said the zinc roof is too hot.
Bodley Manor Way
We carried out 22 interviews with 20 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
12 said being close to the park
8 said they liked the wider area
6 said their neighbours
6 said it is a good estate
6 said they feel safe
6 said their house
2 said it was peaceful
1 said the greenness
1 said they liked the Rotunda.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
4 said it feels unsafe
3 said poor maintenance
1 said the estate needs more lighting
1 said problems with their neighbours
1 said the poor design of their homes and the layout of the estate
1 said the drains and gutters
1 would change the green bins.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
6 said their home was poorly maintained
5 said their house was too small
4 said their houses generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
4 said they had damp
4 said they had leaks
3 said they had serious damp
3 said poor drainage inside their house
3 said they needed new bathrooms and kitchens
2 said they had major leaks
2 said they had cracks in their house
��VDLG�WKH\�KDG�VLJQLÀFDQW�FUDFNV�LQ�WKHLU�house
2 said they were unhappy with their house, feeling they had too many problems and ZHUH�WLUHG�RI�WU\LQJ�WR�JHW�WKLQJV�À[HG�2 said the cost of heating and hot water
2 said they want to move to another house
2 said they had problems with vermin
1 said they had problems with their windows
1 said they have a problem with asbestos.
Crosby Walk
We carried out interviews with 8 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
5 said their neighbours
3 said being close to the park
3 said the greenness
3 said it was peaceful
2 said their house
2 said they liked the wider area
1 said it is a good estate
1 said good design of their home and the layout of the estate
1 said they feel safe
1 said good transport links.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
2 said it feels unsafe
2 said the drains and gutters
1 said the paths
1 said problems with their neighbours
1 said they want the Rotunda to be used more.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
3 said their home was poorly maintained
3 said they want to move to another house
2 said they were unhappy with their house
��VDLG�WKH\�KDG�VLJQLÀFDQW�FUDFNV�LQ�WKHLU�house
2 said poor drainage inside their house
2 said their house was too small
2 said they needed new bathrooms and kitchens
1 said their houses generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
1 said they had damp
1 said they had serious damp
1 said they had leaks
1 said they had cracks in their house
1 said they had problems with their windows.
Hambridge Way
Hardel Walk
We carried out 29 interviews with 27 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
15 said their neighbours
12 said they feel safe
11 said being close to the park
8 said it is a good estate
8 said it was peaceful
7 said their house
6 said they liked the wider area
6 said good transport links
5 said good design
5 said the greenness
1 said the estate is well maintained
1 said that local schools are good.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
8 said poor maintenance
6 said problems with their neighbours
6 said the poor design of their homes and the layout of the estate
4 said the drains and gutters
3 said they want the Rotunda to be used more
2 said it feels unsafe
2 said the estate needs more lighting
1 said problems caused by trees
1 said the paths
1 said problems with cars, parking and car parks
1 said that residents should make more effort to look after the estate
1 said that there is no playground for older children
1 wants a summer school or activities for young
1 wants the Rotunda to be repaired
1 wanted to see fewer “trophy dogs” on the estate
1 wanted to see something done about drug dealing.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
7 said their home was poorly maintained
5 said their houses generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
4 said they had leaks
4 said poor drainage inside their house
3 said they want to move to another house
2 said they were unhappy with their house
2 said they had damp
2 said their house was too small
2 said the cost of heating and hot water
2 said they had problems with their windows
1 said they had major leaks
1 said they had cracks in their house
1 said that slugs fall in through the roof
1 person said their home was too hot in summer, too cold in winter.
We carried out interviews with 9 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
8 said their neighbours
5 said they feel safe
4 said it was peaceful
3 said it is a good estate
3 said they liked the wider area
3 said being close to the park
2 said good design
1 said their house
1 said the estate is well maintained
1 said good transport links.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
1 said poor maintenance
1 said problems with their neighbours
1 said they want the Rotunda to be used more
1 said the drains and gutters
1 wanted service charges for leaseholders to be lower.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
5 said poor drainage inside their house
3 said they had leaks
3 said their home was poorly maintained
2 said they had problems with vermin
1 said their house generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
1 said they had damp
1 said they had serious damp
1 said they had major leaks
1 said they had cracks in their house
1 said their house was too small
1 said the cost of heating and hot water
1 said they had problems with their windows
1 said they want to move to another house.
Longford Walk
We carried out interviews with 4 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
3 said it is a good estate
2 said they liked the wider area
2 said being close to the park.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
1 said it feels unsafe.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
2 said their home was poorly maintained
2 said they needed new bathrooms and kitchens
1 said their house generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
1 said they had damp
1 said they had serious damp
1 said they had leaks.
Papworth Way
We had 4 interviews with 4 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
2 said it is a good estate
1 said their neighbours
1 said good design
1 said the greenness
1 said their house.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
1 said poor maintenance
1 said problems with cars, parking and car parks.
No one reported any problems with their home.
Ropers Walk
We carried out interviews with 7 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
5 said their neighbours
5 said they feel safe
3 said it is a good estate
3 said being close to the park
2 said it was peaceful
2 said they liked the wider area
2 said the greenness
1 said their house
1 likes the TRA and what they do for the community.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
3 said poor maintenance
3 said problems caused by trees
1 said the paths
1 said they want the Rotunda to be used more.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
4 said they had damp
3 said their houses generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
2 said their home was poorly maintained
2 said the cost of heating and hot water
1 said they were unhappy with their house, feeling they had too many problems and ZHUH�WLUHG�RI�WU\LQJ�WR�JHW�WKLQJV�À[HG�1 said they had serious damp
1 said they had leaks
1 said their house was too small
1 said poor drainage inside their house
1 said they needed new bathrooms and kitchens.
Scarlette Manor Walk
We carried out 14 interviews with 11 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
5 said their neighbours
5 said their house
4 said it is a good estate
4 said it was peaceful
4 said being close to the park
3 said they liked the wider area
1 said the greenness
1 said they feel safe
1 said the estate is well maintained
We asked what they would change about the estate:
4 said problems with their neighbours
4 said the drains and gutters
3 said poor maintenance
3 said problems with cars, parking and car parks
1 said it feels unsafe
1 said problems caused by trees
1 said the estate needs more lighting
1 said the paths.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
7 said their home was poorly maintained
4 said they had major leaks
3 said their houses generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
3 said poor drainage inside their house
3 said they needed new bathrooms and kitchens
3 said they had problems with vermin
2 said they were unhappy with their house, feeling they had too many problems and ZHUH�WLUHG�RI�WU\LQJ�WR�JHW�WKLQJV�À[HG���VDLG�WKH\�KDG�VLJQLÀFDQW�FUDFNV�LQ�WKHLU�house
2 said the cost of heating and hot water
2 said they need a new oven
1 said they had serious damp
1 said they had leaks
1 said their house was too small
1 said they want to move to another house.
Upgrove Manor Way
12
3289
39
13
12
10
25
27
40
Image: Cressingham’s blocks with the number of homes in each.
PANTONE A3 Ex boards .indd 8 28/11/2013 17:42:55
Page 74
Block headlinesHere is the breakdown of the comments residents have made, by block; what they liked about the estate; what they would change about the estate; and if they had any problems with their home.
We carried 4 interviews with 4 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
2 said they liked the wider area
2 said their house
2 said being close to the park
1 said their neighbours
1 said it is a good estate
1 said good design of their home and the estate
1 said it was peaceful.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
1 said the paths
1 said problems caused by trees
1 wants the council to create a register of vulnerable on the estate.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
1 said poor drainage inside their house
1 said the cost of heating and hot water.
Chandler’s Way
We carried out 14 interviews with 11 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
7 said their neighbours
4 said it is a good estate
4 said they feel safe
2 said being close to the park
2 said good design
1 said it was peaceful
1 said they liked the wider area
1 said the greenness
1 said their house
1 said they liked the parking.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
2 said poor maintenance
2 said they want the Rotunda to be used more
1 said it feels unsafe
1 said the paths
1 said the drains and gutters.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
4 said their home was poorly maintained
3 said they had serious damp
2 said they were unhappy with their house
2 said they had leaks
2 said they had problems with their windows
1 said they had cracks in their house
1 said the zinc roof is too hot.
Bodley Manor Way
We carried out 22 interviews with 20 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
12 said being close to the park
8 said they liked the wider area
6 said their neighbours
6 said it is a good estate
6 said they feel safe
6 said their house
2 said it was peaceful
1 said the greenness
1 said they liked the Rotunda.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
4 said it feels unsafe
3 said poor maintenance
1 said the estate needs more lighting
1 said problems with their neighbours
1 said the poor design of their homes and the layout of the estate
1 said the drains and gutters
1 would change the green bins.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
6 said their home was poorly maintained
5 said their house was too small
4 said their houses generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
4 said they had damp
4 said they had leaks
3 said they had serious damp
3 said poor drainage inside their house
3 said they needed new bathrooms and kitchens
2 said they had major leaks
2 said they had cracks in their house
��VDLG�WKH\�KDG�VLJQLÀFDQW�FUDFNV�LQ�WKHLU�house
2 said they were unhappy with their house, feeling they had too many problems and ZHUH�WLUHG�RI�WU\LQJ�WR�JHW�WKLQJV�À[HG�2 said the cost of heating and hot water
2 said they want to move to another house
2 said they had problems with vermin
1 said they had problems with their windows
1 said they have a problem with asbestos.
Crosby Walk
We carried out interviews with 8 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
5 said their neighbours
3 said being close to the park
3 said the greenness
3 said it was peaceful
2 said their house
2 said they liked the wider area
1 said it is a good estate
1 said good design of their home and the layout of the estate
1 said they feel safe
1 said good transport links.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
2 said it feels unsafe
2 said the drains and gutters
1 said the paths
1 said problems with their neighbours
1 said they want the Rotunda to be used more.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
3 said their home was poorly maintained
3 said they want to move to another house
2 said they were unhappy with their house
��VDLG�WKH\�KDG�VLJQLÀFDQW�FUDFNV�LQ�WKHLU�house
2 said poor drainage inside their house
2 said their house was too small
2 said they needed new bathrooms and kitchens
1 said their houses generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
1 said they had damp
1 said they had serious damp
1 said they had leaks
1 said they had cracks in their house
1 said they had problems with their windows.
Hambridge Way
Hardel Walk
We carried out 29 interviews with 27 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
15 said their neighbours
12 said they feel safe
11 said being close to the park
8 said it is a good estate
8 said it was peaceful
7 said their house
6 said they liked the wider area
6 said good transport links
5 said good design
5 said the greenness
1 said the estate is well maintained
1 said that local schools are good.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
8 said poor maintenance
6 said problems with their neighbours
6 said the poor design of their homes and the layout of the estate
4 said the drains and gutters
3 said they want the Rotunda to be used more
2 said it feels unsafe
2 said the estate needs more lighting
1 said problems caused by trees
1 said the paths
1 said problems with cars, parking and car parks
1 said that residents should make more effort to look after the estate
1 said that there is no playground for older children
1 wants a summer school or activities for young
1 wants the Rotunda to be repaired
1 wanted to see fewer “trophy dogs” on the estate
1 wanted to see something done about drug dealing.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
7 said their home was poorly maintained
5 said their houses generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
4 said they had leaks
4 said poor drainage inside their house
3 said they want to move to another house
2 said they were unhappy with their house
2 said they had damp
2 said their house was too small
2 said the cost of heating and hot water
2 said they had problems with their windows
1 said they had major leaks
1 said they had cracks in their house
1 said that slugs fall in through the roof
1 person said their home was too hot in summer, too cold in winter.
We carried out interviews with 9 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
8 said their neighbours
5 said they feel safe
4 said it was peaceful
3 said it is a good estate
3 said they liked the wider area
3 said being close to the park
2 said good design
1 said their house
1 said the estate is well maintained
1 said good transport links.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
1 said poor maintenance
1 said problems with their neighbours
1 said they want the Rotunda to be used more
1 said the drains and gutters
1 wanted service charges for leaseholders to be lower.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
5 said poor drainage inside their house
3 said they had leaks
3 said their home was poorly maintained
2 said they had problems with vermin
1 said their house generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
1 said they had damp
1 said they had serious damp
1 said they had major leaks
1 said they had cracks in their house
1 said their house was too small
1 said the cost of heating and hot water
1 said they had problems with their windows
1 said they want to move to another house.
Longford Walk
We carried out interviews with 4 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
3 said it is a good estate
2 said they liked the wider area
2 said being close to the park.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
1 said it feels unsafe.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
2 said their home was poorly maintained
2 said they needed new bathrooms and kitchens
1 said their house generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
1 said they had damp
1 said they had serious damp
1 said they had leaks.
Papworth Way
We had 4 interviews with 4 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
2 said it is a good estate
1 said their neighbours
1 said good design
1 said the greenness
1 said their house.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
1 said poor maintenance
1 said problems with cars, parking and car parks.
No one reported any problems with their home.
Ropers Walk
We carried out interviews with 7 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
5 said their neighbours
5 said they feel safe
3 said it is a good estate
3 said being close to the park
2 said it was peaceful
2 said they liked the wider area
2 said the greenness
1 said their house
1 likes the TRA and what they do for the community.
We asked what they would change about the estate:
3 said poor maintenance
3 said problems caused by trees
1 said the paths
1 said they want the Rotunda to be used more.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
4 said they had damp
3 said their houses generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
2 said their home was poorly maintained
2 said the cost of heating and hot water
1 said they were unhappy with their house, feeling they had too many problems and ZHUH�WLUHG�RI�WU\LQJ�WR�JHW�WKLQJV�À[HG�1 said they had serious damp
1 said they had leaks
1 said their house was too small
1 said poor drainage inside their house
1 said they needed new bathrooms and kitchens.
Scarlette Manor Walk
We carried out 14 interviews with 11 households. We asked what they liked about the estate:
5 said their neighbours
5 said their house
4 said it is a good estate
4 said it was peaceful
4 said being close to the park
3 said they liked the wider area
1 said the greenness
1 said they feel safe
1 said the estate is well maintained
We asked what they would change about the estate:
4 said problems with their neighbours
4 said the drains and gutters
3 said poor maintenance
3 said problems with cars, parking and car parks
1 said it feels unsafe
1 said problems caused by trees
1 said the estate needs more lighting
1 said the paths.
We asked if they had any problems with their home:
7 said their home was poorly maintained
4 said they had major leaks
3 said their houses generally needed upgrading or refurbishing
3 said poor drainage inside their house
3 said they needed new bathrooms and kitchens
3 said they had problems with vermin
2 said they were unhappy with their house, feeling they had too many problems and ZHUH�WLUHG�RI�WU\LQJ�WR�JHW�WKLQJV�À[HG���VDLG�WKH\�KDG�VLJQLÀFDQW�FUDFNV�LQ�WKHLU�house
2 said the cost of heating and hot water
2 said they need a new oven
1 said they had serious damp
1 said they had leaks
1 said their house was too small
1 said they want to move to another house.
Upgrove Manor Way
12
3289
39
13
12
10
25
27
40
Image: Cressingham’s blocks with the number of homes in each.
PANTONE A3 Ex boards .indd 8 28/11/2013 17:42:55
Page 75
Estate maintenance
Living on Cressingham
Residents get on very well with the estate cleaners from Pinnacle; many mentioned how the public spaces are well kept. Others told us that they have to do the maintenance of the communal spaces themselves.
Some residents have set up a gardening club to maintain the communal spaces and are taking real pride how Cressingham looks. There is a feeling that some residents could maintain the spaces outside their homes better. People complained about rubbish being dumped.
People feel fed up of asking the Council and Lambeth Living for things to be done, and a lot of people told us they are doing repairs themselves. Some worry about the amount of money they have spent on them.
Image: Resident-led planting across the estate’s public spaces; Bubbles: What residents liked and didn’t like most about the estate, by number of responses.
Wider area (29)
“Good estate”
(35)
Park (42)
Safety (34)
Vacant properties on Crosby Walk.
“The estate is managed by
people who don’t have the skills
to manage an estate, they dont
understand buildings, trees and
plants” Hardel Walk resident
Safety (11)
Nuisance and ASB
(13)
Drains and gutters
(13)
Peaceful (25)
Poor maintenance
(21)
Dislikes, by number of
responses
Likes, by number of responses
Neighbours (53)
Page 76
Safety
Although some residents feel unsafe, for the majority, Cressingham is a safe place where they are not afraid of crime.
Crime statistics for Tulse Hill show that the estate has lower crime than other estates in the area. Local agencies told us the same thing.
Residents described there being a lot of ‘natural surveillance’ on the estate with residents always keeping an eye out for each other. For example, they will watch each other’s children when they’re playing outside and alert one another if there are unfamiliar people hanging around.
Some people talked about how the layout and design of the estate contributes to the sense of safety: the kitchens face onto the block walkways, and cars cannot get onto the estate.
Some people liked the fact that Cressingham doesn’t have some of the characteristics of other nearby estates like dark stairwells. The car parks on Cressingham used to attract anti-social behaviour but this seems to have stopped.
Some residents have had people breaking into their homes through their back gardens and there are houses with barbed wire attached to their garden walls. Two residents spoke to us DERXW� GLIÀFXOW� LQFLGHQWV� LQ� WKH� SDVW�� DQG� KRZ� WKHVH� EURXJKW�neighbours together.
One resident living in the north part of Crosby Walk says that the empty homes, which she called the “concrete jungle”, make her feel very unsafe. Another resident living in this end of the estate says he is used to the empty homes now, people look out for each other, but he won’t go to the rest of the estate because there you have “to watch your back”.
“I leave the door open
and let the kids play
outside. You don’t get
that often in London”
Longford Walk resident
Some residents said the area between the back gardens of Hardel Walk and the fronts of Hambridge Way feels unsafe.
Hardel Walk.
Page 77
Living on Cressingham
What residents said that they most liked about the estate was
the strong community feel. Forty-seven residents talked to
us about their good relationships with their neighbours.
Block unity
The ten blocks of Cressingham Gardens are designed so that each one has a small pedestrian street or walkway that binds the two rows of houses facing each other. Each block has its own distinct identity, some are higher and face onto the street, others are bungalows next to the park. Each block also has its own smaller community, with neighbours, especially longer standing residents, often knowing every single person living on their block. Hardel Walk, the largest block, tends to have clusters of neighbours with each raised level. People spoke about how the layout of the blocks means that you constantly bump into your neighbours, seeing each other coming and going.
There is a high level of trust on the estate and a lot of residents will leave their front doors open or hang out in their block walkway so that they can keep an eye on their children or chat
with their neighbours. Some blocks have communal gardens.
Although people do know residents across the estate, people say the strongest relationships and sense of community is to the block where you
live and your block neighbours.
One Hardel resident told us that 45 different nationalities live in her block, including people from Jamaica, Ireland, Portugal, England, Nigeria … she enjoys going to the different celebrations and sharing food from different countries.
Mutual support
According to some residents, there is a lot of inter-generational support on Cressingham. Many older people have said neighbours kids will help them with their shopping. Younger people told us that their parents send them out to help with shopping or shovel snow in the winter. And this support is also reciprocated; older people look after kids if a parent needs to pop out, or watch out for them playing out front. One woman said the local kids
call her “Nanny” and another looks after her neighbour’s baby.
There are a lot of people on the estate in ill-health and many that are living alone. For them it is important to know that their neighbours will check in on them to make sure they’re ok.
Several people told us they know their neighbours will come and help if they are unwell and this gives them
peace of mind. One resident from Bodley Manor pointed out how important neighbourliness is for people’s mental health, saying it happens here “in a very natural way”.
Many residents leave a spare set of door keys with their neighbours. They look after neighbours’ plants or pets while they are away, and notice if they haven’t seen someone for a while.
The Tenants and Residents Association
There is an active Tenants and Residents Association (TRA) that came together a year ago. The TRA meets fortnightly and has organised planting, improvements to the estate, the Open House in September, and an estate action day where over 70 repairs were carried out and many trees removed.
7KH�75$�KDV�VXUYH\HG�WKH�HVWDWH�WR�ÀQG�RXW�ZKHWKHU�UHVLGHQWV�want to stay on the estate, what repairs they need done, and what they think about possible regeneration plans. The TRA describes its aim as: “to represent residents, ensuring that an RSWLRQ�WR�UHSDLU�WKH�HVWDWH�UHPDLQV�D�ÀUP�RSWLRQ��
The TRA is endeavouring to ensure transparency from Lambeth Council, by scrutinising their claims relating to the proposed regeneration. If the research shows that repairs are the best option, the TRA would campaign for that.”
Some residents not actively involved in the TRA feel that the TRA doesn’t understand the experience of everyone living on the estate, and there is a perception amongst some that it “isn’t for them”. The TRA would like more people to be involved and to run wider activities but feel all their time has had to be focused on the future changes.
“When it’s good
sunshine we always
get together”
Hambridge Way resident
´,W·V�GHÀQLWHO\�friendly” Roper’s Walk resident
“It’s a really
lovely community”
Scarlette Manor resident
The sense of community
“It creates a
community
through all the
ages” Bodley Manor resident
Page 78
The Rotunda
The Rotunda is valued by many for its special architectural history. In the last year the TRA have put a lot of work into renovating the building and would like to make it a resource for the whole community. The management of the Rotunda is voluntary and carried out by residents. Different residents have been involved in trying to run activities in the past but it has been hard for them to maintain that commitment.
Some activities that people would like to see are English lessons, GDQFH�FODVVHV��ÀWQHVV�DFWLYLWLHV��DFWLYLWLHV�IRU�\RXQJ�SHRSOH�OLNH�roller blading and table tennis, and play schemes in the school holidays.
A small number of people, most of them elderly, spoke of how they believe that the Rotunda used to serve the community
“We should learn to
knit, make cushions,
put on a play”
Upgrove Manor resident
“If we could have an
exercise club down there
that would be brilliant”
Hardel Walk resident
English lessons
Dance
Fitness and meditation
Youth activities
Over 55s club
better. These people described how there used to be more activities for residents, like the Over 55s Tea Afternoon which was an opportunity for older residents to get together, have some refreshments and talk. Many of the residents who used to go to this said they would love to see activities like this happen again.
Image: The Rotunda; Bubbles: Some of the suggested activities that residents said they would like to see in the Rotunda.
�´,�ZRXOG�OLNH�WR�VHH�LW�À[HG�up, have a team to run it,
generate some income that
could contribute to repairs” Bodley Manor residentThe Rotunda
Page 79
One resident expressed that his living standards are holding him back and making him unhappy.
Some people told XV� WKDW� WKH� ÁDWV� DUH�expensive to heat, that they can be too hot in Summer and cold in winter.
Homes
Living on Cressingham
Many people are happy with their homes on Cressingham and appreciate the light, spacious design.
On most blocks there are residents who are living in overcrowded conditions. Some would like to move to a home with more bedrooms, others are reluctant to move because they would like to stay on the estate, and are willing to put up with being overcrowded to stay on Cressingham.
The majority of people have had problems with their houses. %XW� PDQ\� VDLG� WKDW� WKH� EHQHÀWV� RI� WKH� HVWDWH� RXWZHLJK� DQ\�problems.
“How much nicer can you get, at the end of a long day working, to go and sit out there”Scarlette Manor resident on their garden
“If I’m going to give up my great living room, my garden and park over the road, I want something as good.” Longford Walk resident
Image: Longford Walk; Bubbles: What residents liked and didn’t like the most about their homes, by number of responses.
Good home (26)
Space
Good design (12)
Likes, by number of responses
Light
Gardens
Drains (19)
Leaks (25)
Damp (24)
Poor maintenance
(34)
Dislikes, by number of
responses
Needs upgrading
(18)
Cracks (12)
House too small (12)
Page 80
Scarlette Manor resident in his living room; a typical back garden; a typical stairwell on Hardel Walk; Longford Walk resident in front of her house.
“The house is not
just a house, it’s
a home” Scarlette Manor resident
Page 81
Get involved!
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 07975738097
Taskforce meetings
Tuesday 10 December, 7-8pm
Thursday 9 January, 7-9pm
Saturday 25 January, tbc
Tuesday 4 February, 7-9pm
It would be wonderful if you could be one of the taskforce
group members. If you are interested, please get in touch.
Now we have a clearer picture of what it is like to live here, we
are starting a series of taskforce meetings with residents, where
we will work through the different possible options for the estate’s
future.
We are looking for a committed group of residents to attend all
these meetings.
We would like people to come to all of the meetings, so that
they can follow the discussion, be informed, and help shape the
conversation.
Come along to the kick off meeting on Tuesday 10 December to
ÀQG�RXW�ZKDW�LW·V�DOO�DERXW�
The meetings will be at the Rotunda, the dates are:
Page 82
Cressingham Gardens - Comparison between estimates carried out by: Morrow for residents, I.Sayer's for Lambeth Living and Lambeth Q.S. section.Category Morrow Value (£) I.Sayer Value (£) Differences
(Morrow/I.Sayer)Lambeth's Value (£) Comments
Drainage Survey & Repairs (this figure has been taken from the I.Sayer's estimate, Pg. 1) £ 41,000.00 £ 41,000.00 £ - zero Drainage Survey & Repairs; these works (below ground drainage) were carried out by L.L. in 2014.
Window repairs £ 296,332.00 £ 235,000.00 -£ 61,332.00 £ 45,491.40 L.L. = competitively tendered rates based on quantities derived from Hunters' 2014 'Weathertight' survey = £49,583.63 (inc. 'Teleflex') less 9% OH & P asthis is added below = £4,094.23 from £49,585.63 = £45,491.40.
Window replacements £ 27,668.00 £ 3,000,000.00 £ 2,972,332.00 £ 30,000.00 Lambeth = 6 of the 3 bed voids need windows x (7 windows x £500 av. (incl. unblocking, etc.) + patio door @ £1,500) = £30,000
Roof ᴥᴥ (zinc including insulation, gutters inc. ply, 25% decking & joist) ᴥᴥ - all 3 roof prices are for the replacement of the existing roof in its' current form.replacement roofing £ 1,781,000.00 £ 2,996,585.93 £ 1,215,585.93 £ 2,230,693.81 Morrow's value is comprehensive = £1,781,000 but add, also, for temp. roofs at £303,600 and roof glazing at £131,456.25 as 'Weathertight' tender =
£2,216,056.25; L.L.'s'Weathertight' tender average unit cost = £11,222.22 x 205 roofs (not inc. 8 f'holds) = £2,300,000 + glazing a.b. £131,456.25 =£2,431,456.25. Latter figure chosen here but this includes for OH&P which is also included below so deduct 9% OH&P = £200,762.44 from £2,431,456.25 =£2,230,693.81.
scaffolding for replacement roofing £ 377,400.00 not identified -£ 377,400.00 £ 349,095.00 Scaffold costs were arrived at by using an earlier, Hunter's estimate of £314,499.30 uplifted to the present by 11% (as Morrow did), rounded to nearest £.temporary roof £ 303,600.00 £ 263,609.64 -£ 39,990.36 £ 281,160.44 Temporary roof costs were arrived at by using an earlier, Hunter's estimate uplifted to the present which (same as Morrow's figure) to come to £303,600.
Hunter's = £249,328.39 (before OH & P and uplift) so deduct 9% OH & P as LL add below = £22,439.56 from £303,600 = £281,160.44.rounding-up figure (I.Sayer only) £ 39,804.43 £ 39,804.43 zero
Repairs to blocks (taken from/as I.Sayer report value) £ 449,000.00 £ 449,000.00 £ - £ 392,716.00 This is for a multitude of repairs to cracks, concrete, bricks, etc. based on the TALL survey. I.Sayers estimate is based on it, Morrow's & L.L. £ is same as I.Sayer.
8% OH & P included sporadically by Sayer (totalling £31,284) so LL omitted this sum as our OH & P is added separately below. The I.Sayer figure includesfor £228,283.27 for internal repairs of which £140k is for dec's to 50 properties. The £88k residue = £416.43 per property such that the Lambeth sum for'repairs' below is now omitted in lieu. However, the £140k includes for dec's to kitchens & bathrooms which were already allowed for within Mear'srates for these sections. As such, deduct £500 x 50 properties for this (%'s not an issue as added separately below) = £25k.
Externals Works (I.Sayer figure here is a 'say' one with absolutely no build-up, alsosee their 'External Improvements' below)
£ 100,000.00 £ 100,000.00 £ 723,690.00 The L.L. sum is derived from an L.L., estate-wide survey (in 2015) and uses rates based upon NHF rates and does not include for OH & P. The worksconcerned are: re-building boundary walls, renewing boundary fencing, renewing asphalt to walkways & steps, p.c.c. paving and tarmaccing.
4,500m² pavings slabs & various sub-bases £ 334,500.00 -£ 334,500.00 included above500m² asphalt & g.r.c. pavings to w'ways £ 103,407.60 -£ 103,407.60 included abovewalkways & car parks drainage repairs including to stacks £ 102,827.20 -£ 102,827.20 £ 69,356.88 The L.L. figure here is for above ground foul/waste drainage and is derived from the tendered 'Weathertight' survey = £75,599 less 9% OH & P = £6,242.12
from £75,599 tender sum = £69,356.88balancing figure (because Morrow rounds up to £541,000) £ 265.20 -£ 265.20 zero
Internals (see sheet 2 for build-ups to 5 categories' totals below)(Morrow amalgamates all; kitchens, bathrooms, heating, rewires & asbestos)Kitchens £ 289,491.00 £ 775,465.57 £ 485,974.57 £ 435,706.70Bathrooms £ 207,239.00 £ 395,427.23 £ 188,188.23 £ 204,901.01Boilers/Heating £ 342,802.00 £ 1,041,760.05 £ 698,958.05 £ 429,465.79Rewires £ 192,387.00 £ 887,871.28 £ 695,484.28 £ 342,377.46Asbestos Removal £ 64,201.00 not included for -£ 64,201.00 £ 103,635.73WC's not included separately £ 124,449.18 £ 124,449.18 £ 32,200.00 L.L. value = separate W.C. rate = as 4 year contract/Breyers = £700 each, to 3/4 beds only = 51 properties x 90% = 46 x £700. 'Repairs' not included separately £ 228,825.91 £ 228,825.91 included in 'repairs to blocks'
above L.L. value = tender re: estate repairs = £300/unit (not including OH&P, see/added at bottom) x 212 tenanted/voids = £63,600 but I.Sayer included £416.43on average per property for this within their 'repairs to blocks' (above) figure (after exclusion of monies for decorations).
balancing figure (because Morrow rounds up to £1,100,000) £ 3,880.00 -£ 3,880.00 zero 'Common Parts Upgrade' (= I.Sayer heading); Lambeth = for Communal Electrics only. not included separately £ 1,338,163.20 £ 1,338,163.20 £ 121,360.00 Lambeth = Spon's page 141 (elec. mains & boards to affordable apartments = all electrical works outside the properties and to include for estate lighting
etc) = £410 x 296 (all) properties = £121,360.
'External Improvements' not included separately £ 669,081.60 £ 669,081.60 see external works, aboverounding-up/arithmetical correction re: I.Sayer (final page) not applicable £ 38,955.98 £ 38,955.98 zero I.Sayer round-up on final page = £44,337 but arithmetical errors re: sums for 4P flat, 2P bungalow & 1P flat are (£5,381.02) wrongDe-cants not included for not included for n/a £ 42,000.00 De-cants = 212 x 10% = 21 x 8 weeks each x £500/week = £42,000.
Front Entrance Doors not included for not included for n/a £ 122,565.96 L.L. value = Mears' 4 year contract rate, item 1.1A & 1.2c (1) [composite material + sidelight] = £537.57 x (212 tenanted & void {not the 9 freeholders} x 90%) 191 nr + (75 leaseholders x 50%) 37 = 228 total = £122,565.96.
Rainwater goods not included for not included for n/a £ 68,406.06 L.L. = received 2014 competitive tender of (£24,923.44 + £10,897.31 +£38,741.85) = £74,562.60 for gutters, downpipes & zinc cavity closer but this figureincluded for OH & P which LL include for separately below = £6,156.55 from £74,562.60 = £68,406.06.
Underpinning not included for not included for n/a £ 97,000.00 L.L. value = 6 to Crosby = 7 party/gable walls x 8m long + 6 prop's x 6 wide x 2 (front/back) sides = 128m x 1m deep = 128m² x Spon's page 169, (£380 + £75re: 2m depth) = £58,240 ÷ 6 properties = £9,700 x 10 in total (i.e. + 4 more) = £97k.
sub-total: £ 4,917,000.00 £ 12,625,000.00 £ 7,708,000.00 £ 6,121,822.24Preliminaries £ 824,000.00 included in above sections -£ 824,000.00 £ 1,002,178.05 Morrow % equates to 16.76% of works above, all rates lifted from Mears' tender for 4 year contract; see attached L.L. Preliminaries tab re: L.L. value.2nd sub-total: £ 5,741,000.00 £ 12,625,000.00 £ 6,884,000.00 £ 7,124,000.29Overheads and Profit (Lambeth = 9% = 6 + 3 as Mears 4 year contract tender) already included already included n/a £ 641,160.03 Morrow & Lambeth = @ 9%, I.Sayer = @ 8% but Morrow & I.Sayer already included this in sections above.3rd sub-total: £ 5,741,000.00 £ 12,625,000.00 £ 6,884,000.00 £ 7,765,160.31Professional Fees @ 10% £ 574,100.00 £ 1,265,000.00 £ 690,900.00 £ 776,516.034th sub-total: £ 6,315,100.00 £ 13,890,000.00 £ 7,574,900.00 £ 8,541,676.35Contingency @ 10%* £ 634,900.00 included in above sections -£ 634,900.00 £ 854,167.63 Contingency percentage is higher than normal but, as there are a lot of unforeseeable aspects, it's acceptable.Estimate Totals: £ 6,950,000.00 £ 13,890,000.00 £ 6,940,000.00 £ 9,395,843.98
Morrow's Estimate I.Sayer Estimate Total Differential Lambeth's Estimateall costs exclude VAT (in all three estimates)
No allowance for: land purchase costs; finance & legal costs; planning/buildingcontrol/statutory fees and section 106 costs; costs re: contaminated soil removal anddiversion of services (I.Sayer report only); potential costs for replacement ofstairwell & front door canopies
* = Morrow's contingency is added to the first sub-total and fees. The latter comes to £6,315,100 which would mean that the contingency would be £631,510 but Morrow'sfigure is £634,900.
Green-highlighted are items included for by Lambeth only; these are separate WC's, repairs,common parts upgrades, de-cants, front doors, rainwater goods and underpinning. Also seeattached Prelim's tab where extra R.L.O., Project Manager, Senior Quantity Surveyor, AssistantSite Agent, temporary heating and de-humidifiers are added by Lambeth.
Page 83
Morrow's extrapolated rates and totals for Internal works (not easily identifiable on their estimate as all are lumped together)1 Bed & Bungalows 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed Disabled
Mears' rate* + 9% OHP Total Mears' rate* + 9% OHP Total Mears' rate* + 9% OHP Total Mears' rate* + 9% OHP Total as 1 Bed/Bungalows plus 30% Total Overall TotalsKitchens £ 1,143.60 £ 102.92 £ 1,246.52 £ 1,261.50 £ 113.54 £ 1,375.04 £ 1,261.50 £ 113.54 £ 1,375.04 £ 1,327.00 £ 119.43 £ 1,446.43 £ 1,246.52 £ 373.96 £ 1,620.48Number of Properties 106 40 34 25 12
£ 132,131.54 £ 55,001.40 £ 46,751.19 £ 36,160.75 £ 19,445.77 £ 289,490.66
Bathrooms £ 738.19 £ 66.44 £ 804.63 £ 878.19 £ 79.04 £ 957.23 £ 1,105.69 £ 99.51 £ 1,205.20 £ 1,105.69 £ 99.51 £ 1,205.20 £ 804.63 £ 241.39 £ 1,046.02Number of Properties 106 40 34 25 12
£ 85,290.47 £ 38,289.08 £ 40,976.87 £ 30,130.05 £ 12,552.18 £ 207,238.66
Boilers/Heating £ 1,372.06 £ 123.49 £ 1,495.55 £ 1,372.06 £ 123.49 £ 1,495.55 £ 1,572.42 £ 141.52 £ 1,713.94 £ 1,572.42 £ 141.52 £ 1,713.94 £ 1,495.55 £ 448.66 £ 1,944.21Number of Properties 106 40 34 25 12
£ 158,527.81 £ 59,821.82 £ 58,273.89 £ 42,848.45 £ 23,330.51 £ 342,802.47
Rewires £ 759.49 £ 68.35 £ 827.84 £ 818.61 £ 73.67 £ 892.28 £ 855.66 £ 77.01 £ 932.67 £ 892.43 £ 80.32 £ 972.75 £ 827.84 £ 248.35 £ 1,076.20Number of Properties 106 40 34 25 12
£ 87,751.47 £ 35,691.40 £ 31,710.76 £ 24,318.72 £ 12,914.37 £ 192,386.72
Asbestos Removal £ 267.00 £ 24.03 £ 291.03 £ 267.00 £ 24.03 £ 291.03 £ 267.00 £ 24.03 £ 291.03 £ 267.00 £ 24.03 £ 291.03 £ 291.03 £ 87.31 £ 378.34Number of Properties 106 40 34 25 12
£ 30,849.18 £ 11,641.20 £ 9,895.02 £ 7,275.75 £ 4,540.07 £ 64,201.22
Grand Total: £ 1,096,119.72
* = Morrow has allowed for only the following percentages of properties to have these works done to them: kitchens & bathrooms - 70%; heating - 50%; boilers - 30%; rewires - 60%; asbestos - surveys, 100% & removal, 30%.and, so, the Mears' rates, above, have all been modified by being multiplied by these perecentages.
Page 84
I.Sayer's extrapolated rates and totals for Internal works (not easily identifiable on their estimate as all are included together)1P Flat 2P Bung/Flat 2P DB Flat 4P DB Flat 4P House/5P Mains/6P House Compound of I.S. %'s = 12.64%, 8% & 10% = 1.3381632
Sayer's rate Sayer's rate Sayer's rate Sayer's rate Sayer's rate Overall Totals Prelim's, OHP & Contingency, Compound = add 33.81632%Kitchens £ 1,500.00 £ 2,500.00 £ 3,000.00 £ 4,000.00 £ 3,500.00Number of Properties 8 94 2 2 91
£ 12,000.00 £ 235,000.00 £ 6,000.00 £ 8,000.00 £ 318,500.00 £ 579,500.00 £ 775,465.57
Bathrooms £ 1,500.00 £ 1,500.00 £ 1,500.00 £ 1,500.00 £ 1,500.00Number of Properties 8 94 2 2 91
£ 12,000.00 £ 141,000.00 £ 3,000.00 £ 3,000.00 £ 136,500.00 £ 295,500.00 £ 395,427.23
Boilers/Heating £ 3,000.00 £ 3,500.00 £ 3,500.00 £ 4,500.00 £ 4,500.00Number of Properties 8 94 2 2 91
£ 24,000.00 £ 329,000.00 £ 7,000.00 £ 9,000.00 £ 409,500.00 £ 778,500.00 £ 1,041,760.05
Rewires £ 3,250.00 £ 3,250.00 £ 3,250.00 £ 3,500.00 £ 3,500.00Number of Properties 8 94 2 2 91
£ 26,000.00 £ 305,500.00 £ 6,500.00 £ 7,000.00 £ 318,500.00 £ 663,500.00 £ 887,871.28
WC £ - £ - £ - £ 1,000.00 £ 1,000.00Number of Properties 8 94 2 2 91
£ - £ - £ - £ 2,000.00 £ 91,000.00 £ 93,000.00 £ 124,449.18
Repairs £ 750.00 £ 750.00 £ 750.00 £ 1,000.00 £ 1,000.00Number of Properties 8 94 2 2 91
£ 6,000.00 £ 70,500.00 £ 1,500.00 £ 2,000.00 £ 91,000.00 £ 171,000.00 £ 228,825.91
1st sub-total: £ 80,000.00 £ 1,081,000.00 £ 24,000.00 £ 31,000.00 £ 1,365,000.00 £ 2,581,000.00 £ 3,453,799.22Preliminaries @ 12.64% £ 326,238.402nd sub-total: £ 2,907,238.40OH&P @ 8% £ 232,579.073rd sub-total: £ 3,139,817.47Contingency @ 10% £ 313,981.75Grand Total (Internals): £ 3,453,799.22Common Parts Upgrade' £ 1,000,000.00 £ 126,400.00 £ 1,126,400.00 £ 90,112.00 £ 1,216,512.00 £ 121,651.20 £ 1,338,163.20External Improvements 500,000 add Prelim's @ 12.64% add OH&P @ 8% add Contingency @ 10% £ 669,081.60I.Sayer rounding-up £ £ 44,337.00I.Sayer arithmetical errors (the sums of the 4P Flat, 2P Bungalow & 1P Flat are all wrong) -£ 5,381.02I.Sayer Total (final page) £ 5,500,000.00
Page 85
Lambeth's rates and totals for Internal works1 Bed & Bungalows 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed Disabled
Mears' rate* Mears' rate* Mears' rate* Mears' rate* as 1 Bed/Bungalows plus 30% Total Overall TotalsKitchens £ 2,161.44 £ 2,329.87 £ 2,329.87 £ 2,423.45 £ 2,161.43 £ 648.43 £ 2,809.86Number of Properties 101 28 25 26 11
£ 218,305.44 £ 65,236.36 £ 58,246.75 £ 63,009.70 £ 30,908.45 £ 435,706.70
Bathrooms £ 1,054.56 £ 1,054.56 £ 1,054.56 £ 1,054.56 £ 1,054.56 £ 316.37 £ 1,370.93Number of Properties 101 28 25 26 11
£ 106,510.56 £ 29,527.68 £ 26,364.00 £ 27,418.56 £ 15,080.21 £ 204,901.01
Boilers/Heating £ 2,156.70 £ 2,156.70 £ 2,156.70 £ 2,557.43 £ 2,156.70 £ 647.01 £ 2,803.71Number of Properties 101 28 25 26 11
£ 217,826.70 £ 60,387.60 £ 53,917.50 £ 66,493.18 £ 30,840.81 £ 429,465.79
Rewires £ 1,697.65 £ 1,796.18 £ 1,857.93 £ 1,919.12 £ 1,697.65 £ 509.30 £ 2,206.95Number of Properties 101 28 25 26 11
£ 171,462.65 £ 50,293.04 £ 46,448.25 £ 49,897.12 £ 24,276.40 £ 342,377.46
Asbestos Removal £ 533.38 £ 533.38 £ 533.38 £ 533.38 £ 533.38 £ 160.01 £ 693.39Number of Properties 101 28 25 26 11
£ 53,871.38 £ 14,934.64 £ 13,334.50 £ 13,867.88 £ 7,627.33 £ 103,635.73
Grand Total: £ 1,516,086.69
The number of properties included above is the total number of tenanted & void properties broken down by property size and then multiplied by 90% anticipated requirements as per current LHS trends (actual figures are 112, 31, 28, 29 & 12).Kitchen values, above, are made up of tender items K1/2/3 + K4 to 11 inclusive = £1,633.71/£1,802.14/£1,895.72 + £527.73 (combined figure).Bathroom values, above, are just tender item B1.Boilers/Heating (full system including boiler), values above are either tender items FS3 or FS4 (5-7 radiators or 9-11 radiators).Re-wire values, above, are made up of tender items E1/2/3/4 + E10a or 11a x 3 nr and E12 x 2 nr = £1,265.81/£1,364.34/£1,426.09/£1,487.38 (£60.90 x 3) + (£124.57 x 2).Asbestos Removal value of £533.38 is made up of the following: items 2e, f & p and 9 (floor tiles, texture ceilings, flue and survey) = [16m² x £12 & £12.50 + £24.38 + £117] = £533.38.
Page 86
Lambeth's Preliminaries The rates below are taken from Mears 4 year, LHS contract,(£6 - 9 million category)
Description QuantityTotal
Number ofWeeks
Unit Rate Totals
Contracts Manager 0.4 104 week £ 1,621.40 £ 67,450.24Project Manager 0.4 104 week £ 1,321.03 £ 54,954.85Senior Site Agent/Supervisor 1 104 week £ 1,157.10 £ 120,338.40Assistant Site Agent/General Foreman 1 104 week £ 994.89 £ 103,468.56Senior Resident Liaison Officer 0.5 104 week £ 866.31 £ 45,048.12Resident Liaison Officer 1 104 week £ 794.43 £ 82,620.72Senior Quantity Surveyor 0.4 104 week £ 1,523.18 £ 63,364.29Quantity Surveyor 1 104 week £ 1,323.59 £ 137,653.36Mechanical/Electrical Supervisor/Engineer 0.2 104 week £ 1,207.84 £ 25,123.07Health & Safety Supervisor/Inspector 0.05 104 day £ 368.00 £ 1,913.60Labourer/Hoist Operator 1 104 week £ 466.78 £ 48,545.12Driver/Labourer 1.5 104 week £ 516.85 £ 80,628.60Site Office (including furniture) 1 104 week £ 32.00 £ 3,328.00Canteen Unit 1 104 week £ 30.00 £ 3,120.00Drying Room 1 104 week £ 30.00 £ 3,120.00Storage Unit 3 104 week £ 12.00 £ 3,744.00Toilet Block 1 104 week £ 35.00 £ 3,640.00Single Portable Toilet 1 104 week £ 21.98 £ 2,285.92Delivery & Installation of Temporary Site Buildings (site office, canteen, dryroom, store, toilet block) 2 Item £ 280.00 £ 560.00Removal & dismantling of Temporary Site Buildings (site office, canteen, dryroom, store, toilet block) 2 Item £ 280.00 £ 560.00Photocopiers/Scanner/Printers/Sundries/Consumables 1 104 week £ 18.00 £ 1,872.00I.T. Equipment - Computers (desk & laptop, software charges) 1 104 week £ 32.00 £ 3,328.00Fixed Telecommunications 1 104 week £ 28.00 £ 2,912.00Mobile Phones 1 104 week £ - £ -Power/Temporary Electrics/Generator/Fuel/Check Meter 1 104 week £ 18.00 £ 1,872.00Water (including Check Meter) 1 104 week £ 8.50 £ 884.00 'Heras' Fencing (30 linear metres) 1 104 week £ 30.00 £ 3,120.00Site Security 1 104 week £ - £ -Skips (7 cubic yards) 1.5 104 nr/week £ 600.00 £ 93,600.00Small Plant & Tools & Transformers 1 104 week £ 6.80 £ 707.20Temporary heating to one property 1 104 week £ 36.00 £ 3,744.00Temporary dehumidifier to one property 2 104 week £ 64.00 £ 13,312.00Signage Item £ 500.00 £ 500.00Transport (inc. consideration of cycle usage, Congestion Charges & Parking) 1 104 week £ 10.00 £ 1,040.00CDM Preparation Item £ - £ -Considerate Constructor Scheme ( Per Project ) Item £ 550.00 £ 550.00Conditions surveys including photographic, video & written records 286 per property £ 45.00 £ 12,870.00Other 1 104 week £ 100.00 £ 10,400.00Lambeth's Preliminaries Total: £ 1,002,178.05
Green-highlighted are items not included on Morrow's Preliminaries estimateBlue-highlighted is where we increased a Mear's rate as was considered to be too low
Page 87
Cressingham Gardens - difference between Morrow's & Lambeth's figuresDrainage -£ 41,000.00Window Repairs -£ 250,840.60Window Replacements £ 2,332.00Roof £ 398,949.25Repairs to Blocks -£ 56,284.00External Works £ 252,046.88Kitchens £ 146,215.70Bathrooms -£ 2,337.99Boilers £ 86,663.79Rewires £ 149,990.46Asbestos Removal £ 39,434.73Separate W.C.'s £ 32,200.00Estate Repairs £ - 'balancing figure' -£ 3,880.00 'Common Parts Upgrade' £ 121,360.00De-cants £ 42,000.00Front Doors £ 122,565.96Rainwater Goods £ 68,406.06Underpinning £ 97,000.001st sub-total: £ 1,204,822.24Preliminaries £ 178,178.052nd sub-total: £ 1,383,000.29plus 9% OHP £ 641,160.033rd sub-total: £ 2,024,160.32plus 10% Fees £ 202,416.034th sub-total: £ 2,226,576.35plus 10% Contingency £ 219,267.63
Total difference: £ 2,445,843.98Morrows Estimate: £ 6,950,000.00Lambeth's Estimate: £ 9,395,843.98Green-highlighted are items not included on Morrow's Preliminaries estimate
Page 88
Repairs to Blocks; I.Sayer's estimate, identification of the Internal Repairs within the overall totalI.Sayer Page Ref. Address Item Value Multiple Total Value Relevant Prelim's % OH&P % Contingency %
5 2 Longford Walk (A) internal rear and flank walls £ 50.00 9 £ 450.00 18% 8% 5%3/5 Longford Walk (A) internal base of party wall shared £ 50.00 9 £ 450.00 18% 8% 5%6 Longford Walk (A) to front wall and ceiling in kitchen £ 50.00 9 £ 450.00 18% 8% 5%
6 1 Scarlette Manor Way (A) ceilings throughout £ 250.00 8 £ 2,000.00 18% 8% 5%(A) all affected internal walls £ 500.00 8 £ 4,000.00 18% 8% 5%
27 Scarlette Manor Way (A) to bathroom walls £ 100.00 9 £ 900.00 18% 8% 5%3 Chandlers Way (A) to all internal walls to remain £ 250.00 5 £ 1,250.00 18% 8% 5%
Decoration throughout £ 2,800.00 5 £ 14,000.00 18% 8% 5%9 Chandlers Way Crack stitch in bathroom £ 200.00 5 £ 1,000.00 18% 8% 5%
7 2 Papworth Way (A) ceiling for 1m next to lounge partition £ 50.00 12 £ 600.00 18% 8% 5%(A) to hallway cupboard £ 50.00 12 £ 600.00 18% 8% 5%
6 Hambridge Way (A) to all internal wall £ 200.00 7 £ 1,400.00 18% 8% 5%Decoration throughout £ 2,800.00 7 £ 19,600.00 18% 8% 5%
8 1 Bodley Manor Way (A) to 1m of ceiling in bedroom £ 50.00 13 £ 650.00 18% 8% 5%(A) to front wall in kitchen £ 50.00 13 £ 650.00 18% 8% 5%
8 Bodley Manor Way Redecorate internal wall throughout £ 2,800.00 13 £ 36,400.00 18% 8% 5%29 Bodley Manor Way (A) to flank wall in bathroom £ 50.00 13 £ 650.00 18% 8% 5%
(A) to right corner of ceiling in bathroom £ 50.00 13 £ 650.00 18% 8% 5%8 & 9 16 Upgrove Manor Way (A) to all internal walls £ 100.00 10 £ 1,000.00 18% 8% 5%
Decoration throughout £ 2,800.00 10 £ 28,000.00 18% 8% 5%9 4 Ropers Walk (A) to ceiling in hallway and kitchen £ 50.00 6 £ 300.00 18% 8% 5%
(A) to front wall in kitchen £ 50.00 6 £ 300.00 18% 8% 5%(A) to rear wall in bedroom £ 50.00 6 £ 300.00 18% 8% 5%(A) to 1m of ceiling in bedroom £ 50.00 6 £ 300.00 18% 8% 5%
11 1 Hardel Walk (B) to front wall in entrance hall £ 200.00 14 £ 2,800.00 18% 8% 5%(A) to front flank wall in kitchen £ 50.00 14 £ 700.00 18% 8% 5%
34 Hardel Walk (A) to front wall in kitchen £ 50.00 15 £ 750.00 18% 8% 5%(A) to ceiling below walkway £ 50.00 15 £ 750.00 18% 8% 5%(A) to rear wall in bedroom £ 50.00 15 £ 750.00 18% 8% 5%
49 Hardel Walk (A) to front wall in kitchen £ 50.00 15 £ 750.00 18% 8% 5%(A) to all rear walls in bedroom £ 50.00 15 £ 750.00 18% 8% 5%(A) to 1m of ceiling in bedroom £ 50.00 15 £ 750.00 18% 8% 5%
122 Hardel Walk (A) to all internal walls and ceilings £ 150.00 15 £ 2,250.00 18% 8% 5%Decoration throughout £ 2,800.00 15 £ 42,000.00 18% 8% 5%
12 Rotunta (Internal) Replace worn kitchen units £ 2,000.00 1 £ 2,000.00 18% 8% 5%Replace rotten timber post in ladies' WC £ 100.00 1 £ 100.00 18% 8% 5%Repair toilet in men's WC £ 250.00 1 £ 250.00 18% 8% 5%Test men's WC seals for water tightness £ 100.00 1 £ 100.00 18% 8% 5%1st sub-total: £ 170,600.00Preliminaries @ 18%: £ 30,708.002nd sub-total: £ 201,308.00Overheads & Profit @ 8%: £ 16,104.643rd sub-total: £ 217,412.64Unmeasured/Contingency @ 5%: £ 10,870.63
Internal Repairs within the overall £449k 'Repairs to Blocks' total: £ 228,283.27The sum of the 5 yellow-highlighted items above = £140,000 ÷ 50 properties = £2,800 per propertyThe residue = £88,283.27 ÷ 212 properties = £416.43
Page 89
This page is intentionally left blank
Cabinet
9 March 2015
Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission: Response and Action Plan
Wards: All
Report Authorised by: Strategic Director, Commissioning: Helen Charlesworth-May
Portfolio: Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability: Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite
Contact for enquiries:[email protected] Aspinall, Lead Commissioner, Commissioning, 020 7926 2429
Report summary
The Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission was established in the summer of 2013 at the request of the Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee. The Commission has now completed its work and submits its report for Cabinet’s consideration. The Commission’s report examines the scale and impact of environmental crime in Lambeth and makes a number of recommendations for how the council can reduce environmental crime in the borough.
We recognise that envirocrime such as fly tipping is a criminal offense, and that the council spends substantial resources pursuing criminals who try to spoil our neighbourhoods and borough. Where possible, we use the full range of enforcement tools and powers to catch criminals engaged in this behaviour but we cannot avoid the reality that the council is constantly playing catch up with offenders who commit this crime. The recommendations within this action plan will help mitigate the impact of envirocrime in the borough and tackle the perpetrators of envirocrime.
Cabinet is requested to consider the commission’s report and approve the action plan setting out the response to the Commission’s recommendations.
Finance summary
No financial implications - actions outlined in the attached plan will be met from existing budgets and programmes of work.
Recommendations
(1) To receive the report and recommendations of the Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission (Appendix 1).
Page 91 Agenda Item 4
(2) To approve the action plan prepared in response to the Commission’s recommendations (Appendix 2).
Page 92
1. Context
1.1 In July 2013, the Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission began looking at the scale and impact of environmental crime in the borough and what steps the Council was taking, and could take, to reduce environmental crime. The Commission has produced a report and a number of recommendations for how the council can further reduce environmental crime in Lambeth. The reasons for the Commission’s recommendations are outlined in detail within the body of the Commission’s report (Appendix 1).
1.2 The Commission presented its findings to Overview and Scrutiny Committee (the ‘parent’ committee) on 11 December 2014 and now submits its report to Cabinet for consideration.
1.3 This report and the attached action plan (Appendix 2) responds to the Commission’s findings and sets out how the recommendations will be taken forward.
2. Proposal and Reasons
2.1 The commission presented a wide range of recommendations covering all aspects of envirocrime and ASB, including operational issues, communication recommendations and commissioning recommendations.
2.2 In response an action plan has been developed that outlines the appropriate response from the authority, within existing budgets and programs of work, where appropriate. The majority of actions are either already underway or will be incorporated into the Community Safeguarding re-commissioning plan.
2.3 Some of the key proposals include the re-shaping of our anti-social behaviour and envirocrime teams into single neighbourhood teams that will provide a more locally focussed team to tackle all forms of ASB and envirocrime in their neighbourhood. In addition, we are exploring commissioning a private contractor to issue fixed penalty notices for litter, fly-tipping and dog-fouling in the borough which will increase our enforcement options and send a clear signal that we do not tolerate enviro-crime in Lambeth.
2.4 It is recommended that proposal 7, increased signage for fly-tipping, is not taken forward for a number of reasons as outlined in the action plan, including the resource implications and effectiveness of installing new signage without substantially increasing the relevant enforcement capacity at the same time.
3. Finance
3.1 There are no direct financial implications for this report, as all actions will be met through existing commissioning workstream budgets.
3.2 The procurement of the private contractor to issue FPNs on behalf of the authority will be conducted inline with appropriate council public procurement policies.
3.3 Legal and Democracy3.4 There are no legal implications arising from the recommendations in this report or the
action plan at Appendix 2.
Page 93
3.5 Part 3, Section 6, Rule 17(a) of the Council’s Constitution states that:
‘Once a scrutiny report on any matter which is the responsibility of the Cabinet has been completed, the Cabinet will consider the report, together with a prepared action plan by officers of the Council, within 2 months of the report having first been agreed by the scrutiny committee.’
4 Consultation and co-production
4.1 In the course of conducting its work the Commission undertook a number of exercises to solicit the views of Members, residents and relevant experts. Further details and the findings of that work are detailed within the body of the Commission’s report.
5 Risk management
5.1 There are risks around the procurement of a private contractor to issue FPNs for the council. A poorly managed contract or payment incentive model could lead to adverse publicity for the council, through excessive fine issuance or concentrating enforcement capacity in specific locations / time spots.
5.2 In order to mitigate this risk, the procurement will be developed with payment incentives that reward fines paid rather than the number of tickets issued, which will reward correctly issued quality of tickets rather than quantity of tickets. In addition, a requirement to provide enforcement across the borough rather than just specific hotspot locations will be built into the contract.
6 Equalities impact assessment
6.1 Envirocrime affects all our communities, but like all crime issues can have a disproportionate impact on our most deprived communities. The proposals within this action plan will help mitigate the impact of envirocrime, and tackle the perpetrators.
6.2 When procuring the new FPN private contractor, a full EIA will be conducted to ensure this contract is inline with our equalities duties and that it does not disproportionality impact on any single community or area.
7 Community safety
7.1 Envirocrime is part of the anti-social behaviour spectrum which can significantly impact on resident’s quality of life and our communities. The new Community Safeguarding service will focus our resources on providing effective ASB case management at a local, neighbourhood level which should improve the effectiveness of our response to environmental crime and ASB.
8 Organisational implications
8.1 Environmental
Page 94
Envirocrime directly impacts on the quality of the borough’s environment, and our responses as contained within will improve environmental quality and well being in the borough.
8.2 Procurement
As outlined above, over the next 6 months the authority will procure a private contractor to issue FPNs for litter, spitting and dog fouling on behalf of the council. This will be undertaken with procurement support and inline with the council’s policies and standards. London Living Wage salaries will be required from any potential provider.
9 Timetable for implementation
9.1 The timetable for implementation of the actions agreed by Cabinet in response to the Commission’s recommendations are set out in Appendix 2 (Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission Action Plan).
Page 95
Audit trailConsultation
Name/Position Lambeth cluster/division or partner
Date Sent Date Received
Comments in para:
Helen Charlesworth-May Strategic Director 20/02/2015Sue Foster Strategic Director 20/02/2015 24.02.2015 ThroughoutFinance Business Partnering 20/02/2015Legal Services: Jean-Marc Moocarme
Enabling: Integrated Support
26/02/2015 27.02.15 3.3
Democratic Services: Gary O’Key
Enabling: Corporate Affairs
20/02/2015 27.02.15
Councillor Jane Edbrooke Cabinet Member: 20/02/2015 26.02.2015Councillor Jennifer Braithwaite
Cabinet Member 20/02/2015 26.02.2015 Throughout
Report historyOriginal discussion with Cabinet Member 17.02.15Report deadline 25.02.15Date final report sent 26.02.15Report no. 156/14-15 Part II Exempt from Disclosure/confidential accompanying report?
No
Key decision report YesDate first appeared on forward plan 07.11.14Key decision reasons N/A
Background information Overview and Scrutiny Committee report, Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission, 11 December 2014Background documents used in the production of the Commission’s report are listed in Appendix 1.
Appendices Appendix 1: Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission ReportAppendix 2: Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission Action Plan
Page 96
1
b
Environmental CrimeScrutiny Commission
October 2014
Commission Members:Councillor John Kazantzis (Chair)Councillor Donatus AnyanwuCouncillor Martin TiedemannFormer Councillor Judy Best
Contact for enquiries:Claire Butcher, Lead Scrutiny Officer020 7926 [email protected]
Page 97
2
Contents
Foreword by the Chair of the Commission 3
List of Recommendations 4
Introduction 6
Background 8
Section One: Tougher Enforcement 10
Section Two: Better Information 14
Section Three: Council Systems 17
Section Four: Partnership Working – Community Groups and Businesses
21
Annex 1: Background documents 24
Page 98
3
Foreword by the Chair of the Commission
The state of the environment we live in is one of the top concerns of residents of the Lambeth. Nobody wants to live in an area blighted by litter and fly-tipping or where dog owners regularly allow their dogs to foul the pavement and do not clear up after them. Unfortunately this type of “enviro-crime” appears to have been on the rise in many areas of the borough in recent years and the commission was set up to tackle it.
Graffiti was one type of enviro-crime that was very prevalent in Lambeth a number of years ago, however following a very successful enforcement operation and zero tolerance approach by the council, it has now been almost completely eradicated and is far less of a problem. It is the commission’s aim to deal with fly-tipping and other enviro-crimes in the same way as graffiti was successfully tackled.
Residents’ biggest concern with regards to enviro-crime is undoubtedly fly-tipping. In some areas of the borough, particularly the quieter residential streets, hardly a day goes by without another instance of a dumped mattress, or a fridge or sometimes the entire contents of a flat being reported dumped on a street corner. The council is usually very good at removing them quickly, however it shouldn’t have to be doing this. If anything, the faster it removes the rubbish the more it encourages further dumping as it is seen as acceptable – “the council will just take it away”. Law abiding residents are effectively paying twice for this as well, as they currently have to pay for bulky refuse items collection and they are paying, through their council tax, for cleaning up after other people.
What is needed is tougher enforcement action against the perpetrators of fly-tipping. A greater use of fines and fixed penalty notices and where prosecutions are successful these should be publicised as widely as possible to deter others. In addition, local communities should be supported and encouraged to help tackle fly-tipping and other enviro-crime themselves.
Everyone has a right to live in a clean and pleasant environment. Once litter and fly-tipping take hold in an area it very quickly becomes run down, attracting more crime and anti-social behaviour. We have to clamp down on enviro-crime, improving the environment and the quality of life for all our borough’s residents.
Cllr. John Kazantzis (Chair)
Page 99
4
List of Recommendations
Tougher Enforcement
Recommendation 1The Commission recommends that the principal of enforcement be prioritised in the council’s approach to tackling environmental crime.
Recommendation 2The Commission recommends a greater use of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) to address littering and small-scale fly-tipping in Lambeth and encourages the council to work with other local authorities to lobby central government for a more effective FPN power to tackle larger scale fly-tipping (i.e. the ability to issue a larger FPN of up to £400-£500).
Recommendation 3That the council adopts a zero tolerance approach to the enforcement of public urination, dog fouling and spitting in public.
Recommendation 4The Commission recommends targeting of enforcement in areas of persistent fly-tipping, including prosecutions, which should be widely publicised if successful to share that action has been taken.
Better Information
Recommendation 5 The Commission recommends that the council explore further options for increasing publicity around enforcement action and penalties, and considers using high profile communication campaigns and education materials to encourage people to take a more responsible and proactive approach to protecting their local environment.
Recommendation 6 The Commission recommends that improved publicity and information be made available on what materials can be taken to the Lambeth Reuse and Recycling Centre at Vale Street, and that consideration be given to increasing the range of items that can be disposed of there, such as the inclusion of mattresses.
Recommendation 7The Commission recommends the installation of clear signage to deter fly-tipping in problem areas.
Recommendation 8During its evidence-gathering the Commission learned that it is legal to dispose of dog excrement in ordinary litter bins if it is properly bagged. The Commission recommends that better signage and information be provided to raise residents’ awareness of this, particularly in areas where dog fouling is most prevalent.
Council Systems
Recommendation 9The Commission recommends that the council adopts a targeted approach to the use of closed-circuit television to capture evidence of people fly-tipping.
Page 100
5
Recommendation 10That the council be requested to review the effectiveness of Lambeth’s policy of charging residents to use its bulky waste collection service, including an appraisal of how much money is raised through the service and the costs of enforcement.
The review should also take into consideration the bulky waste collection services provided by Lambeth Living as the commission observed during its evidence-gathering that collection points on estates are popular spots for fly-tipping.
Recommendation 11The Commission recommends that the timed collections of waste and refuse, particularly in respect of kerbside recycling collections, be more strictly enforced.
Recommendation 12The Commission noted on their walkabout of the borough that green rubbish bags and bags of garden/ green waste are currently stored by staff on the borough’s streets and pavements for later collection, and that this frequently generates incidences of littering and fly-tipping; the Commission recommends that the practice of storing green rubbish bags and garden waste on streets/ pavements for later collection be reviewed.
Recommendation 13The Commission noted that a significant amount of littering and fly-tipping was generated by some of the on-street recycling banks located around the borough; the Commission recommends that the positioning of the recycling banks be reviewed and consideration given to re-locating those banks which generate the most fly-tipping and litter.
Recommendation 14The Commission encourages the council to adopt and trial innovative solutions to tackling environmental crime, such as the use of new technology to log and record incidences of enviro-crime, and the systematic use of data and intelligence to target enviro-crime enforcement efforts.
In addition, the Commission recommends that consideration be given by the council to undertaking a trial use of Big Belly solar compactor bins in a targeted area of the borough.
Partnership Working – Community Groups and Businesses
Recommendation 15The Commission supports the increased emphasis on building capacity to empower local communities to play an active role in shaping the delivery of enforcement and community safeguarding services and recommends that the council works more closely with community groups on initiatives to prevent environmental crime. The Commission notes the good practice already being undertaken in some local communities and recommends that the learning from these initiatives is captured and applied across the borough.
Recommendation 16The Commission recommends that Responsible Retail Agreements are used more widely by the council to reduce the impact of litter, waste and fast food detritus on local environmental quality.
Page 101
6
Introduction
The Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission was established in the summer of 2013 at the request of the Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee, following the submission of a commission proposal by Cllr John Kazantzis. Prior to affirming the proposal, the Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee had considered a report by officers (October 2012) outlining specific actions and proposals developed by the council’s enforcement and regulatory services to tackle environmental offences and offending behaviour. Acknowledging the direct and visible impact of environmental crime on local environmental quality, contribution to levels of crime and anti-social behaviour, and residents’ concerns about environmental crime, the committee felt that this issue warranted further exploration and requested that the commission be established (approved by Overview and Scrutiny Committee, November 2012).
Over the ensuing months councillors were appointed and the range of the Commission scoped. Members of the Commission identified a number of core questions which they wanted to see addressed in the commission. These included:
What are the worst types of environmental crime and where in the borough are they most prevalent?
How much does environmental crime cost the council each year? What enforcement powers does the council have and how and when should it use
them? How can the council work in partnership with local residents, organisations and
communities to reduce environmental crime and/or prevent it happening in the first place?
Based on these questions, the following terms of reference were agreed:
To assess the levels of environmental crime, particularly fly-tipping, in Lambeth To review the policies and strategies for dealing with environmental crime in Lambeth To explore where in the borough instances of environmental crime are most
prevalent To investigate the costs implications of environmental crime, for example, for removal
and clean up to the borough To consider what enforcement powers the council has and how and when it should
use them To consider what prevention strategies are in place to help address environmental
crime To examine how the council can work in partnership with local residents,
organisations and communities to reduce environmental crime and/or prevent it from happing in the first place
To review best practice of other local authorities and seek the views of national experts in the field, such as Keep Britain Tidy
To make evidence-based recommendations to the relevant decision-makers that will result in reductions in environmental crime and other improvement to this policy area
Page 102
7
The table below sets out the Commission’s information-gathering sessions:
10 July 2013 Session 1
Introductory and question and answer session with Cabinet Member for Safer and Stronger Neighbourhoods, Commissioning Director and Head of Environmental Services and Highways.
27 September 2013
Session 2
Borough walkabout with Streets and Highways Manager to view first-hand examples of environmental crime in Lambeth.
6 February 2014 Session 3
Public meeting in Streatham to hear from local residents and communities about their experiences of environmental crime in Lambeth.
23 April 2014 Session 4
Expert witness session – a number of witnesses were invited to a final evidence-gathering session of the commission, including Lambeth officers and representatives from Keep Britain Tidy and the London Borough of Waltham Forest Enforcement.
31 July 2014 Session 5
Final meeting of Commission to discuss findings and agree outline conclusions and recommendations.
The report begins with some contextual information about environmental crime and is followed by four sections which reflect the commission’s key findings, around which the commission’s recommendations are grouped: Tougher Enforcement; Better Information; Council Systems; and Partnership Working – Community Groups and Businesses. In the course of their investigations, the Commission determined that waste-related offences – particularly fly-tipping, litter and dog fouling – were perceived as the most problematic environmental crimes in Lambeth, and so have focused their recommendations on these issues. Graffiti and other types of environmental crime were not seen to be as significant a problem, while noise nuisance has been the subject of a separate recent scrutiny commission1.
1 Noise Nuisance and Lambeth’s Noise Service Scrutiny Commission (November, 2011)
Page 103
8
Background
1. The term ‘environmental crime’ (or ‘enviro-crime’) encompasses a wide range of offending behaviour generally associated with offences or breaches of statutory legislation which have an adverse impact on local environmental quality, such as fly-tipping, litter, dog fouling and graffiti. It became clear from the commission’s walkabout of the borough and views expressed by residents at the commission’s public meeting that fly-tipping was a particular problem in Lambeth. Some factual information about fly-tipping is provided below to frame the findings that follow in the rest of the report.
What is fly-tipping?
2. Fly-tipping describes waste or rubbish dumped indiscriminately by persons trying to avoid proper disposal. Lambeth categorises such incidents as either a small dump or as a fly-tip. Small dumps are typically abandoned items of domestic furniture, garden waste and refuse that can be collected or handled by refuse and street cleansing operatives. Fly-tips generally require removal by mechanical loading and removal, comprising large quantities of inert waste such as rubble, soil or tyres (as defined in para 2.3.18, LBL Municipal Waste Management Strategy).
3. The National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group summarises some of the key impacts of fly-tipping as follows2:
Fly-tipping:
Is a criminal activity that can cause serious pollution of the environment, can be a risk to human health and can harm wildlife
Spoils local neighbourhoods and quality of life Costs landowners and the taxpayer an estimated £100m every year to clean up Costs local authorities £44m each year to clear up Undermines legitimate waste management companies who are undercut by illegal
operators
In addition fly-tipped waste can have a negative impact on residents’ perceptions and local pride, as well as deterring investment in the local area and economy. Environmental offences have also been shown to have a significant effect on collective wellbeing.
4. In line with national protocols, local authorities are responsible for dealing with most types of small-scale fly-tipping; while the Environment Agency has responsibility for tackling larger incidents (usually those involving more than a tipper load of waste), fly-tipping of certain hazardous wastes, and incidents involving organised crime.
Lambeth Context
5. On requesting information about the financial costs of environmental crime to Lambeth, the Commission learned that the full cost of Lambeth’s street cleansing service in 2013/14 was £7.024m. A large proportion of this comprised costs associated with litter, fly-tipping and dog-fouling; the only other significant service covered within this figure was collection from high streets in Timed Collection Areas. In response to questions about the extent of waste-related environmental crime in the borough, the commission learned that the council’s ‘clear-all’ policy meant that it was difficult to provide precise information about levels of environmental crime in Lambeth. However, the Commission learned that 10,006.32 tonnes
2 National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group (2006) Tackling Fly-Tipping: A Guide for Landowners and Land Managers
Page 104
9
of waste was collected by street cleansing services in 2013/14 (covering cage rounds, mechanical brooms, High Streets, night-time etc.).
6. In 2004 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs established the ‘Flycapture’ database to enable local authorities to record the number of fly-tipping incidents on public land within their geographical area each month. An assessment of the fly-tipping recorded on Flycapture for the period April 2012 to March 2013 shows that the most common type of fly-tipping in Lambeth is household waste. Other types of waste recorded as being disposed of illegally for this period are set out in the table below3:
Waste Type Number of incidents 2012-2013
Other household waste 907Other commercial waste 122Black bags household 117Other waste type 107Construction/ demolition/ excavation
69
Green 51Black bags commercial 39White goods 17Other electrical 10Tyres 8Vehicle parts 3Asbestos 2Animal carcass 1Chemical drums, oil or fuel 1Clinical 0Total 1454
7. Flycapture data for 2012/13 further shows that the majority of fly-tipping in Lambeth occurs on footpaths and highways. This was borne out by a walkabout of the borough undertaken by members of the commission, during which dumped and fly-tipped waste was observed at locations such as Streatham High Road and Durning Road in the south of the borough.
Land type Total incidents 2012-2013
Footpath/ bridleway 689Highway 573Private/ residential 65Other incidents 63Council land 25Back alleyway 23Commercial/ industrial 16Agricultural 0Railway 0Watercourse/ bank 0Total 1454
3 Defra, Flycapture (2013) Fly-tipping incidents and actions reported by local authorities in 2012-13
Page 105
10
Section One: Tougher Enforcement
8. In order to gauge residents’ views and experiences of environmental crime in Lambeth, the Commission held a public meeting in Streatham in February 2014 which was well-attended by members of the local community. It was clear from the views expressed that enforcement is considered to be central to addressing and alleviating levels of environmental crime in the borough. A snapshot of residents’ views regarding environmental crime and enforcement is provided below:
Of all environmental crimes in Lambeth, fly-tipping was felt to be the most prevalent and serious.
The council’s use of its enforcement powers, such as issuing fines for fly-tipping, was felt to be important and it was generally agreed that the council needed to be more proactive in using these; there was also a feeling that the council was reluctant to use enforcement powers.
The council should consider investing in a security guard to position by fly-tipping hotspots such as Streatham Common which would enable the council to gather evidence which could be used to prosecute perpetrators. This could cover the costs of having to clear up the area.
Some members of the public were of the view that action was also needed to tackle spitting and disposing of chewing gum on the ground, which they believed showed a general disdain for the environment. As well as being anti-social, it was noted that tuberculosis could be spread by spitting. Members of the public present approved of the introduction of fining for spitting, however, it was pointed out that some people had to spit for religious reasons.
There were concerns that there was a lack of joined-up thinking across the council on waste and enforcement issues, and that there needed to be greater awareness of the variety of powers available to different teams and services.
Lambeth Approach to Enforcement
9. The Commission learned that Lambeth uses a range of enforcement and regulatory services to tackle environmental offences and offending behaviour, and that a broad enforcement remit covering the following activities has been established4:
a) Highway enforcement – predominantly via provisions outlined within the Highways Act 1980
b) Waste and Environmental Quality – via powers outlined within the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005
c) Street Trading / Markets – via provisions outlined within the London Local Authorities Act 1990 (as amended)
d) Associated Anti-Social Behaviour – via provisions outlined within both the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005 and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003
e) Noise Nuisance – via provisions outlined within the Environmental Protection Act 1990
10. The broad ranging nature of the aforementioned legislative framework currently utilised by the council in respect of environmental crime requires a flexible approach towards both the adoption and use of statutory powers. The Commission heard that this approach had over the last decade or so allowed the enforcement unit to respond to the equally broad range of referrals / complaints made by residents and other service users. Lambeth’s environmental enforcement service has also consistently sought to develop a ‘can do’ pro-
4 Report to LB Lambeth Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee (October 2012) Tackling Environmental Crime/ Enforcement
Page 106
11
active approach towards the delivery of enforcement services; with the aim of responding quickly to the diverse nature of environmental crime activity within the borough.
11. In addition, the Commission heard that the council was working towards the establishment of a ‘Community Safeguarding’ approach encompassing the delivery of enforcement and community safety related services. It was envisaged that the following principles will underpin the creation of the community safeguarding model5:
The re-alignment of existing Community Safety and Public Realm enforcement services to establish a more co-ordinated approach towards the delivery of specific outcomes and key priorities.
The delivery of an improved approach towards intelligence gathering/analysis; which captures information from across the existing departmental services in order to develop a preventative/pro-active service model.
An increased emphasis on building capacity to empower local communities to play an active role in shaping the delivery of enforcement and community safety related Council services
12. In response to questions about the council’s approach to enforcement and environmental crime, the Commission heard that the rolling out of the council’s waste strategy would be underpinned by enforcement. Officers also confirmed that the council did pursue prosecutions if there was sufficient evidence, for instance, through photographic evidence or in situations where house-holders responsible for fly-tipping could be traced through evidence found in fly-tipped waste. Similarly, those individuals transporting waste without an appropriate transfer note were pursued. Multi-agency operations had been very successful in identifying vehicles transporting controlled waste that were not registered to do so. These were also very useful for the police as they often resulted in offences such as firearm possession being identified. In addition the placement of CCTV in each Town Centre Area was assisting with enforcement and the introduction of heavier lids was helping to deter people dropping large rubbish bags.
13. Commission members were advised that a number of performance measures are used to monitor environmental crime related enforcement activity and the chart below illustrates the number of formal statutory enforcement interventions taken over the last three year period.
Year No Fixed penalties
FPN income No Statutory Notices
2009/10 848 £37,290 486
2010/11 672 £35,870 315
2011/12 776 £36,090 485
14. Fixed Penalty Notices can be issued when an authorised officer has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence under the relevant legislation; an FPN offers the opportunity to discharge any liability to conviction of an offence by payment of the fixed penalty. Non-payment within fourteen days can result in prosecution.
15. Officers confirmed that Lambeth had a payment rate of around 65% of FPNs and that the fluctuation in the number of interventions was partly due to the previous reductions in the
5 Ibid.
Page 107
12
enforcement officer cohort resulting from efficiency saving service restructures. It was however anticipated that the merger of the former Enviro-Crime and Noise Nuisance service units would provide an opportunity to deliver an increased number of enforcement interventions. The council currently had fourteen enforcement officers. 16. Various IT development projects were also underway to improve the existing service management systems to capture the in-depth nature of enforcement activity (type of Fixed Penalties being issued in specific ward cluster area etc.) as part of the broader community safeguarding approach towards identifying and targeting local issues of concern.
17. The overall number of fixed penalties was also likely to be positively influenced by the recent adoption of a range of FPN powers linked to the Highways Act 1980 and the development of a more robust enforcement policy with regard to noise nuisance and breaches of statutory noise abatement notices issued via s.80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
18. In addition, Lambeth officers advised that recent pan London enforcement forums had identified a number of potential additions to the existing legislative framework, and the council had signalled its commitment towards working in partnership with other London Councils in order to support proposals to add the following powers to the existing enforcement toolkit:
An effective FPN power to tackle fly-tipping – the existing framework allows for minor instances of fly-tipping to be dealt with via £80 litter fixed penalties outlined within s.88 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There are no proportionate powers to allow larger fly-tipping offences to be effectively enforced via fixed penalty – the ability to issue a larger FPN of up to £400-£500 may well prove an effective deterrent.
An effective FPN power to tackle spitting & street urination – the existing framework allows action to be taken via Police public order powers; however the ability for council officers to tackle this anti-social activity in the same way as littering offences may prove an effective tool.
Enactment of fly-tipping vehicle seizure powers – Enforcement provisions outlined within the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005 would allow vehicles linked to fly-tipping activity to be searched and seized by local councils, however this particular legislation has not been fully enacted and guidance has yet to be introduced by central government to allow these powers to be routinely used.
Waste carrier license registration – The Control of Pollution Amendment Act 1989 places a requirement on licensed waste carriers to produce documents relating to the authority to transport waste (licensed issued by the Environment Agency) – the possible introduction of a licensing system (similar to the vehicle tax disc system) would place an immediate requirement for those transporting waste material to display a valid license. This approach would be designed to provide residents with a degree of reassurance with regard to the legitimacy of waste disposal organisations.
Delegation of Planning Officer powers– powers outlined within s.215 of the Town & Country Planning Act provide council officers with the ability to require private land owners to improve the condition of private land which has an adverse impact on the amenity of the locality (overgrown vegetation, vehicles on forecourts etc); these powers could be delegated to Environmental Enforcement officers who are at
Page 108
13
present only able to tackle the build-up of waste/refuse material on private land via powers outlined within the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
19. Officers were also assessing the possible option of commissioning private sector organisations to deliver environmental enforcement related services. A relatively small group of contractors had established service models designed to provide local authorities with a cost neutral enforcement resource funded via an increase in revenue resulting from an increase in the number of statutory fixed penalties (litter, dog fouling etc.). It was noted that this approach could be unpopular with citizens as contracted enforcement officers could be viewed as being motivated by profit and therefore not providing an impartial service. Such an approach would need to be accompanied by a clear message.
Evidence from experts and practitioners
20. As part of the commission’s evidence-gathering members heard from an expert at Keep Britain Tidy. In considering the role of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) in dealing with environmental crime, the expert advised that it was useful to consider whether the local approach as a whole was broad enough; a broad approach should include effective campaigning, engagement with the local community, education to encourage behaviour change, and good services. Used appropriately, fixed penalty notices provide a visible and effective way of dealing with a range of low-level environmental problems in an area6. However, research undertaken by Keep Britain Tidy and London Councils suggests that attitudes to enforcement are greatly shaped by the degree to which individuals thought that receiving a FPN for local environmental quality and related antisocial behaviour offences were a real threat7.
21. Indeed, a good practice guide for local authorities produced by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science University College London, ‘Fly-tipping: Causes, Incentives and Solutions’, highlights that fly-tipping is not currently a very risky activity and identifies that a simple increase in the perceived risk of getting caught should have a significant effect on behaviour. Tactics suggested to increase the risk include8:
the use of CCTV; using signage to indicate that an area is being watched; publicising all successes as widely as possible; increasing patrols or improving natural surveillance at hotspots, by cutting away
foliage at lay-bys for example; keeping offenders guessing about the level of risk, for example, by undertaking
periodic, high profile ‘crackdowns’ in areas where fly-tipping is prevalent and performing random vehicle stops to check that licences are held by those carrying waste; and
consider working with courts to educate them about the seriousness of the issues and to encourage more persistent and effective penalties
22. The Commission also received evidence from the Head of Enforcement at the London Borough of Waltham Forest, who described Waltham Forest’s approach to Fixed Penalty Notices. Waltham Forest send a letter when FPNs are first issued offering a discounted rate on payment of the fine, an additional letter is then sent and this often worked to encourage people to pay the fines (payment rate was around 55-65%). There was also an appeals process in place. It was considered important that prosecution was pursued when
6 Keep Britain Tidy (2011) The Effectiveness of Enforcement on Behaviour Change, p.47 Ibid. p.68 Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science University College London (2006) Fly-tipping: Causes, Incentives and Solutions – A good practice guide for Local Authorities, p. vii
Page 109
14
appropriate as this sent out the right message to the public. Every person successfully prosecuted was publicly named and shamed in the Waltham Forest News.
23. The Commission heard that the LBWF were also issuing increasing numbers of notices for spitting and urination offences. Working with the borough’s anti-social behaviour teams a number of hotspots for these offences had been identified. A high proportion of fines issued for urination were paid in full; those offenders that paid their fines discharged any liability for conviction and were not ‘named and shamed’. The local authority had also pursued a number of spitting cases in court which had been uncontested.
24. Members of the Commission were persuaded by the evidence that enforcement has a significant role to play in addressing environmental crime in the borough. Indeed, reflecting on the views expressed by constituents and at the public evidence-gathering session, the Commission felt that the principle of enforcement should be prioritised in the council’s approach to tackling environmental crime. The Commission also felt that fixed penalty notices should be more widely used to address littering and small-scale fly-tipping, and that the council should continue to lobby central government for a more effective FPN power to tackle larger scale fly-tipping. Enforcement action should also be targeted at those areas with persistent fly-tipping, including prosecutions, and any successes should be publicised as widely as possible to increase the perceived risks associated with fly-tipping. Commission Members were additionally of the view that more action was needed to address public urination, dog fouling and spitting in public.
Recommendation 1The Commission recommends that the principal of enforcement be prioritised in the council’s approach to tackling environmental crime.
Recommendation 2The Commission recommends a greater use of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) to address littering and small-scale fly-tipping in Lambeth and encourages the council to work with other local authorities to lobby central government for a more effective FPN power to tackle larger scale fly-tipping (i.e. the ability to issue a larger FPN of up to £400-£500).
Recommendation 3The Commission recommends targeting of enforcement in areas of persistent fly-tipping, including prosecutions, which should be widely publicised if successful to share that action has been taken.
Recommendation 4That the council adopts a zero tolerance approach to the enforcement of public urination, dog fouling and spitting in public.
Section Two: Better Information
25. According to Keep Britain Tidy, any enforcement or broader behaviour change strategy needs to be based on a solid foundation of education, which starts with understanding what the environmental problem(s) are in an area, and then raising local awareness through education, campaigning and targeted communications9. Education and information are
Page 110
15
particularly important because many people may not know what their responsibilities are, or how and where they can dispose of their waste lawfully. Indeed, it has been noted that many people who dump illegally may find it easy to rationalise or ‘excuse’ their behaviour to themselves and others, for instance, by dumping goods where there is already waste material using the justification that it is already an unofficial dump site. The UCL Jull Dando Institute of Crime Science suggests the following strategies for removing such excuses10:
effective advertising, marketing and education of services and of fly-tipping and other environmental crime issues;
making residents, businesses and traders aware of their responsibilities and of the services that are available to them;
installing signs at recycling stations and on bins that make clear that it is not acceptable to leave waste anywhere other than inside the waste/ recycling receptacles; and
educating residents to the dangers of unregistered waste collectors
Information available to Lambeth residents and service-users
26. A range of information about the waste-related services available to residents and other service-users can be found on the council’s website. Extensive information is provided on topics spanning: bins, bags and rubbish collections; commercial and hazardous waste; garden and food waste; recycling and waste reduction; and tools to report rubbish in the local area. The latter includes options for reporting sex and drugs related rubbish, dead animals found in the street, dog fouling, dumped rubbish in a public place and fly-posting and graffiti. Members of the public can report incidents using an online form or can phone a dedicated telephone number for Lambeth waste services. The Commission heard that any instances of fly-tipping reported would be cleared within 48 hours. Furthermore, if people had witnessed fly-tipping, they could email the Streetcare team with details and photographs of the fly-tipped material and the council would respond. In addition waste and streetcare services would soon be made available to those with a “My Lambeth” account which would provide a further option for reporting environmental crimes. The council also currently monitored problem-reporting websites such as “Fix My Street” and “My Council Services”.
Further options for increasing publicity
27. Commission members agreed that strong messages and education about environmental crime and its consequences were important. They noted that some other London boroughs had undertaken high profile campaigns to help address environmental crime which had been effective. For instance, they heard from the Head of Enforcement at the London Borough of Waltham Forest about the borough’s high profile ‘Don’t Mess with Waltham Forest’ campaign. The campaign includes posters and leaflets carrying strong messages about a range of enviro-crimes including fly-tipping, spitting in public, dropping litter, dog fouling and urinating in public. As well as carrying strong messages such as ‘Bin the poo’ and ‘Ever been dumped? It’s not very nice, is it?’ leaflets include useful information such as details of waste collection times. 28. The Commission heard that it was difficult to evidence the direct impact of initiatives such as communications campaigns taken to address environmental crime. Some possible measures included numbers of fixed penalty notices issued; performance indicators for street cleansing; monitoring perceptions of environmental crime through questionnaires and the residents’ survey; members’ complaints; and whether the same people were committing
9 Keep Britain Tidy (2011) The Effectiveness of Enforcement on Behaviour Change, p.1010 Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science University College London (2006) Fly-tipping: Causes, Incentives and Solutions – A good practice guide for Local Authorities, p. viii & p.9
Page 111
16
offences and being issued with FPNs. LBWF’s residents’ survey included a question about residents’ awareness of current campaigns to address enviro-crime. 29. In discussing Lambeth’s approach to enviro-crime with officers the importance of taking steps to encourage behaviour change was acknowledged, for instance, through publicising what services were offered by the council and making information available e.g. schedules for waste collection. However, in terms of the key objective driving the council’s approach to enviro-crime, in recent years this had been to gain greater control of waste. Nonetheless, Commission Members felt that more could be done to raise awareness of environmental crime, for instance, through a campaign highlighting what enviro-crime offences are and their possible consequences. It was also important that any targeted messages were followed up with appropriate activity. The council had to be clear about what it could and could not do. The Commission learned that a recent targeted campaign in Clapham had been supported by a good communications strategy.
30. A number of suggestions for better information and education around environmental crime emerged during the Commission’s public meeting with residents. These included:
Improved publicity and information on what materials can be taken to the Lambeth Reuse and Recycling Centre at Vale Street. It was also felt that more types of waste should be accepted by the reuse and recycling centre, particularly mattresses which were a common source of fly-tipping in Lambeth.
Public shaming had proved effective at addressing commercial waste tipped by a business along a road in Streatham, and it was suggested that ‘naming and shaming’ be adopted as a behaviour change tool by the council.
Some members of the public were surprised to hear that it was safe to dispose of dog excrement in ordinary bins as long as it was bagged, and it was suggested that steps be taken to raise awareness of this through better signage and information. For instance, some boroughs used signs in dog fouling hotspots to publicise that bagged dog waste could be disposed of in ordinary bins.
In addition, it was felt that signage could be used more effectively throughout the borough to deter fly-tipping and other environmental crimes.
31. Members of the Commission felt strongly that any strategy to reduce environmental crime should include information and education about the services available as well as the consequences and impacts of committing environmental crimes. They also felt that signage could be better utilised to deter fly-tipping and reduce dog fouling in problem areas.
Recommendation 5 The Commission recommends that the council explore further options for increasing publicity around enforcement action and penalties, and considers using high profile communication campaigns and education materials to encourage people to take a more responsible and proactive approach to protecting their local environment. Recommendation 6 The Commission recommends that improved publicity and information be made available on what materials can be taken to the Lambeth Reuse and Recycling Centre at Vale Street, and that consideration be given to increasing the range of items that can be disposed of there, such as the inclusion of mattresses. Recommendation 7The Commission recommends the installation of clear signage to deter fly-tipping in problem areas.
Page 112
17
Recommendation 8During its evidence-gathering the Commission learned that it is legal to dispose of dog excrement in ordinary litter bins if it is properly bagged. The Commission recommends that better signage and information be provided to raise residents’ awareness of this, particularly in areas where dog fouling is most prevalent.
Section Three: Council Systems
32. Early on in the Commission’s evidence-gathering members undertook a walkabout of the borough, accompanied by the council’s Streets and Highways Manager, to get an idea of the types and extent of environmental crime committed in Lambeth. The walkabout focused largely on central and southern parts of the borough and took in a range of sites including Streatham High Road, Abercairn Road, Bencroft Road, Central Hill Estate, Durning Road, Deerhurst Road, Hill House Road, Glenelden Mews and Rudnor Lane. The site visit was particularly useful for bringing to light a range of issues concerning the council’s systems for addressing environmental crime (both directly and indirectly), details of which are provided below.
Use of surveillance 33. Commission members noted during their walkabout that a number of fly-tipping hotspots existed within the borough, including sites such as Central Hill which because of its location made it very easy for people to discretely drive into and leave their waste on the estate. The Commission also heard that domestic dumping in residential areas was a key issue in Lambeth, and border-tipping – which involved people coming in from other boroughs and dumping their waste – was very common in Streatham. The Commission learned that the use of overt or covert surveillance, such as closed-circuit television (CCTV), to deal with such issues had worked well in other boroughs. For instance, members learned that one London borough had significantly reduced levels of fly-tipping in some locations through the strategic placement of re-deployable (mobile) cameras. The Commission considered that a targeted approach to the use of closed-circuit television could be useful in capturing evidence of fly-tipping.
Recommendation 9The Commission recommends that the council adopts a targeted approach to the use of closed-circuit television to capture evidence of people fly-tipping.
Bulky waste 34. Bulky waste includes white goods and large electrical items, cookers, lawnmowers, carpets, bedframes, furniture, mattresses and televisions. Lambeth Council offers a bulky waste collection service which is available to most Lambeth residents, including private home owners, private renters and council tenants/ leaseholders. The charge for using Lambeth’s bulky waste service is £20 for up to four separate items or four bags. Residents living on Lambeth Living estates are required to arrange bulky waste collections through their estate management office. While undertaking their site visit Commission members observed a number of examples of dumped bulky waste items, including a sofa and a mattress. A breakdown of the fly-tipping recorded on Flycapture for the period April 2012 to March 2013 shows that 17 white goods and 907 items of household waste, which could include the results of house or shed clearances, old furniture and carpets, were fly-tipped.
Page 113
18
Examples of bulky items left at locations in the borough
35. Fly-tipped bulky items also emerged as a key concern among residents at the Commission’s public meeting, where it was noted that some residents may not be able to afford the charge for bulky waste collection, and so fly-tipped or stacked their waste in their front or back gardens. Indeed, the good practice guide, ‘Fly-tipping: Causes, Incentives and Solutions’, suggests that offering free or subsidised bulky waste collections for householders may help to reduce the financial rewards of fly-tipping11. Some residents also felt that fly-tipping had seemed to increase since the council had started to charge for removing bulky waste items, although officers noted that the charge had remained the same for the last four years. The Commission considered that a review into the effectiveness of Lambeth’s policy of charging for bulky waste collection would be beneficial, including the bulky waste collection services provided by Lambeth Living as the Commission noted that collection points on estates were popular spots for fly-tipping.
Recommendation 10That the council be requested to review the effectiveness of Lambeth’s policy of charging residents to use its bulky waste collection service, including an appraisal of how much money is raised through the service and the costs of enforcement.The review should also take into consideration the bulky waste collection services provided by Lambeth Living as the commission observed during its evidence-gathering that collection points on estates are popular spots for fly-tipping.
Timed collections36. During the course of its evidence-gathering (November 2013) the council introduced a ‘time banded’ approach towards the collection of refuse and recycling across the town centre areas, which obliges both businesses and local residents to present waste material on the public highway within defined collection periods (typically two hour collection periods).
37. Officers explained in a report to the Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee12 that the timed collections are designed to improve environmental quality and deliver operational efficiencies; it was also anticipated that the proposals may provide scope to reduce waste disposal costs. The rationale behind the approach was linked to consistent feedback from resident surveys; which continued to suggest that the impact of litter and refuse on environmental quality remains high on the list of local priorities. The new approach does not place a blanket ban on the placement of waste receptacles on the public
11 Ibid. p.712 Report to LB Lambeth Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee (October 2012) Tackling Environmental Crime/ Enforcement
Page 114
19
highway; instead the restrictions only allow waste receptacles to be placed on the public highway within specific collection periods, with bins stored away from public view at all other times.
38. The Commission heard that the development of a timed collection process will provide the Council and local communities with an opportunity to exert more control over when and how waste is presented. The system will also provide an opportunity to further educate businesses with regard to compliance with the waste ‘Duty of Care’ outlined within s.34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Environmental enforcement will play a key role in underpinning the success of the timed collection program with activity focusing on the following issues;
Commercial businesses without a legitimate method of waste disposal
Illegal waste transfer / disposal organisations operating within the borough
Effective controls on the storage of waste receptacles on the public highway
Identification of commercial outlets failing to adhere to timed waste collection controls
39. Commission Members noted on their walkabout that some residents and businesses were leaving rubbish and recycling on the kerbside/ public highway outside of the defined collection periods and felt that such activity could be more strictly enforced by the council.
Rubbish left on the kerbside in Streatham Town Centre and overflowing bins in Brixton
Recommendation 11The Commission recommends that the timed collections of waste and refuse, particularly in respect of kerbside recycling collections, be more strictly enforced.
Green rubbish sacks and recycling banks 40. During the Commission’s site visit members further observed the practice of staff leaving green rubbish sacks and bags of garden/ green waste on streets and pavements for later collection, which seemed to generate additional incidences of littering and fly-tipping; the Commission felt that this practice should be reviewed. The Commission also noted that some of the on-street recycling bins and clothes banks generated significant amounts of littering and fly-tipping in the surrounding areas, and felt that consideration should be given to re-locating banks which generated the most fly-tipping and litter.
Page 115
20
Garden/ green waste left on pavements in Streatham
Recommendation 12The Commission noted on their walkabout of the borough that green rubbish sacks and bags of garden/ green waste are currently stored by staff on the borough’s streets and pavements for later collection, and that this frequently generates incidences of littering and fly-tipping; the Commission recommends that the practice of storing green rubbish sacks and garden waste on streets/ pavements for later collection be reviewed.Recommendation 13The Commission noted that a significant amount of littering and fly-tipping was generated by some of the on-street recycling banks located around the borough; the Commission recommends that the positioning of the recycling banks be reviewed and consideration given to re-locating those banks which generate the most fly-tipping and litter.
Innovative solutions 41. At the Commission’s public evidence-gathering session residents suggested a number of solutions for dealing with different aspects of environmental crime. For instance, with respect to the derelict shops on Streatham High Road which generated high levels of littering, fly-tipping and public urination, suggested solutions included better use of the council’s compulsory purchase order powers and instigating a clean-up of the shops’ front windows and entrances to improve the appearance of the area and deter environmental crime; transfers on windows were suggested as a cheap and effective solution. One local resident also suggested that where technology was freely available for reporting environmental crimes, the council should use this rather than investing in other systems and publicise the availability of such technology to the public. Commission members were also of the view that new technology should be harnessed to log and record incidences of environmental crime and the data and intelligence used systematically to target enviro-crime enforcement efforts.
42. Residents also highlighted a number of problems associated with rubbish bins, the most common being that bins at particular locations often over-flowed, which generated fly-tipping and litter around the bins. One local resident suggested that the use of ‘Big Belly Solar Compactor’ bins could provide a possible solution to the problem of bins over-flowing. These bins were used by a number of other local authorities. When full, a text and email is sent to the local authority’s waste contractor. Although a large capital expense initially, it was suggested that these bins could save money in the long-term as they would reduce the
Page 116
21
number of street bin collections needed. The Commission supported the use of these and other innovative solutions to address environmental crime in Lambeth.
Recommendation 14The Commission encourages the council to adopt and trial innovative solutions to tackling environmental crime, such as the use of new technology to log and record incidences of enviro-crime, and the systematic use of data and intelligence to target enviro-crime enforcement efforts.In addition, the Commission recommends that consideration be given by the council to undertaking a trial use of Big Belly solar compactor bins in a targeted area of the borough.
Section Four: Partnership Working – Community Groups and Businesses
Community Groups43. Throughout the Commission’s evidence-gathering officers emphasised the importance of working with citizens and the local community on initiatives to reduce environmental crime and encourage behaviour change. Engagement was considered to be key, and the Commission learned that there were a number of forums available for local residents and stakeholders to raise issues of concern, including13:
The environmental enforcement unit is represented at all of the relevant cluster based ‘Area Issues Groups (chaired by the relevant Lambeth Community Safety - Area Crime Reduction Managers) as these forums provide an opportunity to share intelligence and develop partnership based responses to specific issues of concern raised by local residents;
There is an Environment & Noise enforcement presence at the borough-wide ‘Partnership Tasking and Coordination group (PTAC) which provides a broader forum to develop multi agency problem solving responses in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and other enforcement / regulatory agencies;
Enforcement Officers attend ward based Safer Neighbourhood Panel meetings as these forums provide an opportunity to engage directly with local residents and obtain more information with regard to local issues of concern;
Attendance at public forums is also supported by routine engagement with local residents groups, with enforcement officers required to obtain information about resident groups established within their specific ward cluster areas;
Enforcement Officers also conduct area inspections on a routine basis in order to identify problem issues and respond to localised reports of offending behaviour.
44. The above activity is supported by local community Freshview operations, an initiative led by residents to address local environmental quality related problems. On their site visit Commission Members observed examples of a number of such initiatives which had successfully improved the quality of the local environment. For instance, Empire Mews had previously been a major dumping spot, however, improvements made during a community Freshview such as the addition of planters had successfully addressed this. The Commission also heard that some neighbourhood groups used letters to residents to encourage people not to commit environmental crime, such as leaving bins or waste on the street. The Commission was encouraged by the good practice already being undertaken in
13 Ibid.
Page 117
22
some local communities, and supported the increased emphasis on building capacity to empower local communities to play a more active role in shaping the delivery of enforcement and community safeguarding services.
Recommendation 15The Commission supports the increased emphasis on building capacity to empower local communities to play an active role in shaping the delivery of enforcement and community safeguarding services and recommends that the council works more closely with community groups on initiatives to prevent environmental crime. The Commission notes the good practice already being undertaken in some local communities and recommends that the learning from these initiatives is captured and applied across the borough.
Businesses
45. A common view expressed at the Commission’s public meeting was that the council needed to work more closely with local businesses in dealing with environmental crime, including better education on the options available to businesses. Both residents and councillors highlighted that litter and rubbish left and dropped outside fast food shops and other premises along town centre streets and highways was a particular problem in Lambeth. It was widely felt that there should be a duty on businesses to tend to rubbish outside their premises. The Commission heard that action was being taken to deal with these issues with officers advising that the defacement of public land by fast food packaging, event flyers and leaflets had been identified by the council as a key environmental enforcement issue.
46. The Commission learned that the existing statutory powers outlined within s.93 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides council officers with the ability to issue Street Litter Control Notices; which compel those directly or indirectly responsible for the accumulation of litter on the public highway to take specific action to reduce the impact on local environmental quality14.
47. The aforementioned legislation had proved extremely effective in dealing with problem issues as it provides an opportunity for the Council to compel those commercial outlets indirectly responsible for the accumulation of waste material to take specific action to reduce the impact of litter on environmental quality; this action can in some cases require commercial outlets to deliver street cleansing / waste removal services within defined areas of the public highway.
48. The Street Litter Control notice powers outlined above were rarely used at present; with only a handful of notices currently in effect within the borough. This was mainly due to the increased use of Responsible Retail Agreements which are designed to ensure that businesses play a more active role in resolving specific environmental quality related issues. Responsible Retailer Agreements have historically tended to be used to tackle broader anti -social behavioural issues linked to licensed premises, with licensees often signing voluntary agreements to outline specific codes of conduct / responsibilities. These agreements were now being developed to reduce the impact on local environmental quality with voluntary codes of conduct covering the following issues:
Fast food / litter Waste/refuse management
14 Ibid.
Page 118
23
Noise and associated public nuisance
49. It was envisaged that the creation of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) throughout the borough will provide the council with an opportunity to further develop effective partnerships with business communities.
The Commission supported measures to work more closely with local businesses to address environmental crime, and particularly welcomed the use of Responsible Retail Agreements to reduce the impact of litter, waste and fast food detritus on local environmental quality.
Recommendation 16The Commission recommends that Responsible Retail Agreements are used more widely by the council to reduce the impact of litter, waste and fast food detritus on local environmental quality.
Page 119
24
Annex 1: Background Documents
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2013) Flycapture - Fly-tipping incidents and actions reported by local authorities in 2012-13
Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science University College London (2006) Fly-tipping: Causes, Incentives and Solutions – A good practice guide for Local Authorities
Keep Britain Tidy (2011) The Effectiveness of Enforcement on Behaviour Change
LB Lambeth Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee (October 2012) Tackling Environmental Crime/ Enforcement
National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group (2006) Tackling Fly-Tipping: A Guide for Landowners and Land Managers
Page 120
Appendix
LAMBETH SCRUTINY ACTION PLAN
Report title: Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission
Report commissioned by: Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Sub-Committee
Date adopted by Cabinet: 9 March 2015
Proposed dates for monitoring reports to Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Update Date Completed? Note
1st 6 months after adoption
2nd 18 months after adoption
Page 121
Environmental Crime Scrutiny Commission Action Plan – March 2015
Recommendation Response Milestones & target dates
Resource implications
Lead Officer
1. The Commission recommends that the principal of enforcement be prioritised in the council’s approach to tackling environmental crime.
Enforcement is a key component of the council’s re-commissioned Community Safeguarding service, which brings together all current ASB, crime and regulatory services into one neighbourhood focussed service providing a single response to these issues. The new service will utilise all the enforcement powers available to the authority where appropriate within resources in order to deter envirocrime and prosecute offenders
New service go live date of July 2015
Part of the on going OBB savings proposal for Community Safeguarding
Kristian Aspinall / Ann Corbett
2. The Commission recommends a greater use of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) to address littering and small-scale fly-tipping in Lambeth and encourages the council to work with other local authorities to lobby central government for a more effective FPN power to tackle larger scale fly-tipping (i.e. the ability to issue a larger FPN of up to £400-£500).
The council is procuring a private contractor to issue FPNs for littering, spitting and dog fouling that will increase the usage of FPNS for littering in the borough. Internal teams utilise FPNs where appropriate.In terms of lobbying, the LGA on behalf of local government lobbied the select committee for improved fly-tipping powers and more effective legislation in October 2014 as part of the government review of littering and fly-tipping legislation, and a response is expected before parliament goes into recess.
FPN contract to be procured by July 2015.
Lobbying on going.
Zero cost contract for private FPN issuing.
Kristian Aspinall
3. That the council adopts a zero tolerance approach to the enforcement of public
The council does not tolerate any level of envirocrime in Lambeth, and where FPN contract – July
None – FPN contract will be
Kristian Aspinall / Gill
Page 122
urination, dog fouling and spitting in public.
possible we will enforce and prosecute with the full range of powers. We are exploring the procurement of a private FPN contractor will increase our enforcement capacity to tackle spitting and dog fouling, and we will publicise the launch of this new enforcement service heavily to deter this type of envirocrime. In addition, our behaviour change communications campaign is working to change people’s attitudes and understanding towards these forms of envirocrime.
2015Behaviour change campaign – on going
at zero cost, and the behaviour change campaign is an on going communications campaign through “do the right thing”
York
4. The Commission recommends targeting of enforcement in areas of persistent fly-tipping, including prosecutions, which should be widely publicised if successful to share that action has been taken.
Our new Community Safeguarding model is based around neighbourhood teams, which will allow resources to be prioritised according to each areas needs. E.g. one neighbourhood team might prioritise fly-tipping if that was an issue in the area, whilst another may focus on night time economy related anti-social behaviour.
New service go live date of July 2015
Part of the on going OBB savings proposal for Community Safeguarding
Kristian Aspinall / Ann Corbett
5. The Commission recommends that the council explore further options for increasing publicity around enforcement action and penalties, and considers using high profile communication campaigns and education materials to encourage people to take a more responsible and proactive approach to protecting their local environment.
The council has an environment focussed “Do the right thing” campaign for March to June, but additional publicity on top of this (and the FPN contractor publicity highlighted above) is resource intensive and not a viable option within current budgets.The use of low cost social media, such as twitter, for the new neighbourhood teams to publicise local enforcement
Enviro campaign – May to July 2015. New service model – July 2015
Part of the on going financial commitments for these workstreams
Gill York / Kristian Aspinall / Ann Corbett
Page 123
results will be explored in the new commissioned service.
6. The Commission recommends that improved publicity and information be made available on what materials can be taken to the Lambeth Reuse and Recycling Centre at Vale Street, and that consideration be given to increasing the range of items that can be disposed of there, such as the inclusion of mattresses.
A communications plan will be produced to regularly advertise to citizens what items can be taken to Vale Street. The plan will include advertising in: Lambeth Talk, the Weekender, using Twitter, Facebook and the Environment blog.The comms plan will also advertise free collection services offered by other organisations, such as the British Heart Foundation and Emmaus.Research will be carried out to see whether disposal companies can be found for other items currently not collected at Vale Street. Please note that there are already on going talks with the London Textiles Forum regarding the disposal of mattresses from Vale Street.
Comms plan to be completed by beginning of April 2015.Investigation into collection of other materials to be completed by beginning of July 2015. After July 2015, depending on results of investigation, contracts with new collection companies to be drafted and signed.
No additional resources will be needed for the comms plan to be produced and actioned. Additional resources will also not be required to investigate whether extra materials can be collected. However, extra funding may be required for additional items to be disposed of.
Kevin Crook
7. The Commission recommends the installation of clear signage to deter fly-tipping in problem areas.
Currently there are no plans to increase council signage for fly-tipping, due to both resource and effectiveness costs – without substantially increasing enforcement resources at the same time additional signage could potentially “legitimise” fly-tipping in an area. Additionally, extra signage risks increasing public concern over an issue that may not be a significant concern for that area.
N/A N/A N/A
Page 124
8. During its evidence-gathering the Commission learned that it is legal to dispose of dog excrement in ordinary litter bins if it is properly bagged. The Commission recommends that better signage and information be provided to raise residents’ awareness of this, particularly in areas where dog fouling is most prevalent.
We will ensure that this information is cascaded through our Street Champions program, as this will be the most effective way of informing our residents of this option for disposing of dog waste.
On going N/A – already on going program Doug Perry
9. The Commission recommends that the council adopts a targeted approach to the use of closed-circuit television to capture evidence of people fly-tipping.
The council already uses CCTV where appropriate, based on intelligence and need to assist in the prosecution of fly-tipping. This includes re-deployable cameras and the CCTV van.
Already implemented N/A Ann Corbett
10. That the council be requested to review the effectiveness of Lambeth’s policy of charging residents to use its bulky waste collection service, including an appraisal of how much money is raised through the service and the costs of enforcement.
The review should also take into consideration the bulky waste collection services provided by Lambeth Living as the commission observed during its evidence-gathering that collection points on estates are popular spots for fly-tipping.
Officers will conduct a review of the bulky waste collection service and how this links to incidents of fly-tipping, including whether charging for waste collection impacts on fly tipping rates. The review will set out the financial and environmental implications of removing the charge. This is not a review of the fees and charges for waste collection, but an assessment of the link between charging for waste collection and fly-tipping.
Officers from environment will work with colleagues and residents from estate, during 15/16 on a number of waste presentation, recycling and reuse initiatives. This will include a review of the free bulky collection service on
The report for the street based service will be completed in July as part of the 2nd waste strategy review.
The collaborative work being carried out on estates will be on-going through 15/16 and beyond. However it is envisaged at this point that the review of estate waste and how this is presented will be a priority for the first quarter of
There are no cost implications associated with the production of this review.
Michael Clarke Kevin Crook
Page 125
estates and the link perceived or real with high incidents of fly-tipping.
15/16.
11. The Commission recommends that the timed collections of waste and refuse, particularly in respect of kerbside recycling collections, be more strictly enforced.
Zones are already in place after being rolled out over the last 12 months, and enforced as necessary.
Already implemented N/A Ann Corbett
12. The Commission noted on their walkabout of the borough that green rubbish bags and bags of garden/ green waste are currently stored by staff on the borough’s streets and pavements for later collection, and that this frequently generates incidences of littering and fly-tipping; the Commission recommends that the practice of storing green rubbish bags and garden waste on streets/ pavements for later collection be reviewed.
The council will operate a trial in two areas (Streatham Vale and Oval/Vassall) from March 2015 until June 2015. That looks at the impact of introducing lockable on-street containers for the purpose of storing green bags that contain Street cleansing arising’s. The move to a needs based intelligence led deployment of cleansing resources will also provide a number of opportunities for better integration of cage vehicle resources with the street sweeping operation.
The trial will be completed in early June when officers will prepare a report that details the impacts of the trial on environmental quality. The report will also explore options for funding a wider role out if the trial is successful.
The trials of 16 units are being funded by Veolia the incumbent contractor. However there may be a requirement for capital investment should we wish to roll the scheme out further.
Michael Clarke Kevin Crook
13. The Commission noted that a significant amount of littering and fly-tipping was generated by some of the on-street recycling banks located around the borough; the Commission recommends that the positioning of the recycling banks be reviewed and consideration given to re-locating those banks which generate the most fly-tipping and litter.
Recycling banks provide a valuable way for citizens to dispose of items, which cannot be collected in their regular weekly collection, such as clothing, oil and electrical items. These items could be otherwise fly-tipped.Investigation work will be carried out to discover which recycling banks have dumping problems and ideas will be looked at to see how dumping can be reduced/stopped at these sites,
The investigation work and report will be completed by October 2015. Depending on the results of this investigation, a timetable will then possibly be drawn up for some recycling banks to be re-located. The contract
The investigation work will not require any additional resources. However, it should be noted the move of recycling banks will incur a
Kevin Crook
Page 126
including whether the offending recycling banks should be removed. There is a concern that moving a recycling bank will just transfer the dumping problem to another place. A report will be produced to conclude whether the benefits of a recycling bank outweigh the negatives.Veolia are contracted to remove dumped waste from recycling banks on a daily basis. We will also carry out monitoring to ensure this is happening.
monitoring of banks will be completed by July 2015.
charge and could lead to a possible loss of income for the Council. No additional resources will be required for the contract monitoring.
14. The Commission encourages the council to adopt and trial innovative solutions to tackling environmental crime, such as the use of new technology to log and record incidences of envirocrime, and the systematic use of data and intelligence to target envirocrime enforcement efforts.
In addition, the Commission recommends that consideration be given by the council to undertaking a trial use of Big Belly solar compactor bins in a targeted area of the borough.
Through development of the new single point of contact for the recommissioned Community Safeguarding service we will better support residents to report envirocrime, such as being able to upload photo’s through their MyLambeth account. Introducing other methods of reporting envirocrime outside of this contact point, In terms of the Big Belly Solar compactor bins, a trial is underway in Clapham to assess the effectiveness and impact of solar compactor bins.
Single point of contact – July 2016
Solar compactor bins – on-going
Single point of contact – cost met through corporate capital budgets for MyLambeth development.
Kristian Aspinall / Kevin Crook & Veolia
15. The Commission supports the increased emphasis on building capacity to empower local communities to play an active role in shaping the delivery of enforcement and community safeguarding services and recommends that the council works more closely with community groups on initiatives to prevent environmental crime. The Commission
Both the street champions initiative and the new neighbourhood based Community Safeguarding teams will increase local engagement in the tackling of ASB, including envirocrime, in their neighbourhoods. Both put the local resident in the centre of problem solving and improving the quality of their neighbourhood.
Ongoing Ongoing Doug Perry / Ann Corbett / Sandra Roebuck
Page 127
notes the good practice already being undertaken in some local communities and recommends that the learning from these initiatives is captured and applied across the borough.
In addition, the BIDs now in place in the borough offer a further route for local communities to tackle envirocrime in their area.
16. The Commission recommends that Responsible Retail Agreements (RRAs) are used more widely by the council to reduce the impact of litter, waste and fast food detritus on local environmental quality.
We will continue to secure RRAs as part of our approach and to promote responsible business practice in the borough. We are also promoting responsible retailership through the Business Improvement Districts (BIDS). In addition, we will be looking at using our planning powers to ensure appropriate and responsible business ownership, particularly when a business changes its purpose & license.
Ongoing Ongoing Ann Corbett / Sandra Roebuck
Page 128
Cabinet: 9th March 2015
Report title Education and Learning Strategy 2015-18
Wards: All
Report Authorised by: Strategic Director, Delivery: Sue Foster
Portfolio: Deputy Leader of the Council (Policy): Councillor Imogen Walker
Contact for enquiries:
Cathy Twist, Director, Education, Learning & Skills, London Borough of Lambeth
020 7926 1541 [email protected]
Colm Doyle, Delivery Lead, Lambeth School Services, Education Learning & Skills, 020 7926 8942 [email protected]
Report summary
The Lambeth Education & Learning Strategy outlines the Council’s ambition for learners and demonstrates Lambeth Council’s continued commitment to the championing of excellent educational outcomes for its children and families.
We view the LA’s champion role as crucial to ensure a direct and positive impact on learners and their families. Championing is fundamentally about local leadership through influencing and generating consensus:
“It is about Councils exercising their unique, democratically mandated leadership role to create, in partnership with schools, settings, and the communities they serve, a compelling narrative that describes a shared commitment to high aspiration and achievement, equality of opportunity and access to education, and an expectation of lifelong learning.” (SOLACE - 2010)
We believe strong schools are essential for strong communities and this document articulates our shared ambition between schools, partners and the Council.
Finance summary
None arising from this report
Recommendation
(1) To agree the Education and Learning Strategy 2015-18 (attached as appendix 1)
Page 129 Agenda Item 5
1. Context
1.1 The ‘Learning Together’ strategy 2011-14 developed a new relationship between schools and the local authority following significant changes to Council resources to support education in 2010. The Learning Together strategy sought to create a new local infrastructure to support school improvement working closely with schools. It included:
- A Strategic core LA school improvement service retaining the statutory role of monitoring, challenge and intervention and brokering structural and developmental solutions to ensure high standards in all our schools. A strong traded service for schools: Lambeth School Services.
- Collaborative partnerships with Lambeth’s school Clusters providing strengthened and integrated approaches to a range of outreach work for children and families, early intervention, some shared services, local networks and professional development for teachers
- Supporting High quality Teaching Schools which offer learning dialogues, high quality local research and initial teacher training
Following the embedding of the Learning Together structures the Lambeth Education & Learning Strategy 2015-18 sets out the vision and commitment of the Council, schools and other education providers to support the achievement of all learners in Lambeth. As a universal service, the success of schools, early years settings, colleges and adult learning provision underpin the successful delivery of the Council’s three main priorities and many of the sub priorities underpinning these.
1.2 The Education and Learning Strategy summarises the Council’s commitment to excellent education and learning provision and outcomes for learners and presents a shared aspiration for high standrads over the next three years. Acheivement of the Community plan outcomes to ensure residents are ready for work, that young people fulful their ambitions and that vulnerable children are protected is underpinned by strong education performance. The Council has a statutory role to champion high education standards and to intervene when there are concerns. The Strategy has been co-produced with schools.
2. Proposal and Reasons
2.1 We want Lambeth Council to continue to be at the forefront of change and improvement in education nationally, retaining good relationships with early years providers, schools and further education providers and building on our collective strengths and achievements.
2.2 We have developed a strong partnership between schools, families, local communities and the Council that is allowing us together to work towards securing an autonomous and self-improving education system. This is supported by a sound infrastructure of early years support through children’s centres and childcare providers.
2.3 We see the Council’s role as champion of children, families and schools, early years providers and colleges within a framework of democratic accountability based upon
Page 130
shared understanding and trust. Strong schools also allow successful earky intervention with children and familes, community cohesion and a strong local economy.
2.4 Cabinet is asked to agree the Strategy and to endorse the Council’s commitment to working withschools to achieve high educational standards.
3. Finance
3.1 There are no specific financial implications from this report, but a poorly performing educational system would have significant implications on local residents and impede successful community working and the opportunity for effective early intervention. Reputation and the local economy would also be adversely affected.
4. Legal and Democracy
4.1 The Council’s responsibilities to provide sufficient high quality education and champion high standards and intervene where there are concerns are outlined in the Education Acts 1996, 2010 and 2014. Whilst there are no specific comments arising from this report, legal advice will be provided as requested.
4.2 This proposed key decision was entered in the Forward Plan on 19th December 2014 and the necessary 28 clear days notice has been given. The report will be published for five clear days before the decision is approved by Cabinet. A further period of five clear days - the call-in period – must then elapse before the decision is enacted. If the decision is called-in during this period, it cannot be enacted until the call-in has been considered and resolved.
5. Consultation and co-production
5.1 The strategy has been developed in consultation with headteachers .
Drafts of the strategy have been presented at the Working Together with Headteacher termly events in 2014
The strategy drafts have been considered at the Headteachers’ Council Executive (HTCE) meetings. The HTCE is made up of lead headteachers for each of the 10 Lambeth school clusters. The strategy was sent to HTCE for consultation and feedback from the individual school cluster meetings.
The strategy was presented to the Lambeth Children’s Strategic Partnership Board and to the Community Wellbeing Outcome Panel in January 2015
6. Risk management
6.1 The key risks for consideration are linked to the Council’s champion role working with schools and supporting children to achieve good outcomes.
- Capacity to support and challenge schools- Maintaining high levels of pupil achievement (meeting outcome targets)- Ensuirng good to outstanding school Inspection outcomes
Failure to mitigate these risks could have a negative reputational impact on the Council
Page 131
7. Equalities impact assessment
7.1 An Equalities Impact Assessment of the Strategy has been produced and submitted for consideration at the Equalities panel on 4th March 2015
7.2 Narrowing the gap in achievement between groups is at the heart of our shared work with education establishments. Tackling inequality and social exclusion is one of the key challenge and cross-cutting themes that is central to our core business supporting all education and learning provision, employers and as community leaders. By law we are also required to have due regard to eliminating unlawful discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity and good community relations when planning and carrying out our functions or policies.
7.3 The Education and Learning Strategy promotes:
- Narrowing the gap in educational achievement between groups of pupils/learners- Targeted work with underperforming groups of pupils e.g. Somali, Portuguese and
white working class pupils/learners.- Improving key stage performance of white working class pupils, Caribbean boys,
Portuguese, Somali and adult learners where groups under perform- Reducing the disproportionate number of school exclusions of black Caribbean boys - Ensuring that 14-19 curriculum is planned to be fully inclusive and to offer learning
programmes which will contribute to the reduction of young people not in education employment and Training (NEET)
- Increasing the number of black and minority ethnic local authority governors in Lambeth schools to more closely mirror the diversity of Lambeth’s population
- Continuing to improve the analysis, recording and reporting of data to early identify, target and support underperforming and vulnerable groups of pupils (refugees, asylum seekers, traveller children and white working class pupil
- Improving the representation of BME staff / teachers / leaders in all education provision.
8. Community safety
8.1 Strong,well managed schools contribute significantly to good community safety.
9. Organisational implications
None
10. Timetable for implementation
10.1 10th March – 10th April 2015 - Strategy to be designed, printed, published and distributed widely
10.2 Date of decision: 9th March2015
Call-in deadline: 17th March 2015
Date of implementation: 18th March 2015
Page 132
Page 133
Audit trailConsultation
Name/Position Lambeth cluster/division or partner
Date Sent Date Received
Comments in para:
Sue Foster Strategic Director Delivery
26/02/15 26/02/15
Cathy Twist Delivery Director, Education, Learning & Skills
30/01/15 26/02/15
Nilesh Jethwa Business Partnering: Finance
30/01/15 05/02/15
Legal Services: Andrew Pavlou
Enabling: Integrated Support
30/1/15 3/02/15 4.1
Democratic Services: Wayne Chandai
Enabling: Corporate Affairs
30/01/15 2/2/15 4.4 / 10.2
Councillor Imogen Walker Deputy Leader (Policy) 26.02.15 26.02.15
Report historyOriginal discussion with Cabinet MemberReport deadline 30.01.15Date final report sent 27.02.15Report no. 157/14-15 Part II Exempt from Disclosure/confidential accompanying report?
No
Key decision report YesDate first appeared on forward plan 19.12.14Key decision reasons 1. Will amend Community Plan Outcomes
Framework or Budget and Policy Framework – 3. Meets community impact test
Background information The Education White Paper, The Importance of Teaching
AppendicesThe Education & Learning Strategy 2015-18
Page 134
1
Lambeth Education and Learning Strategy 2015- 18
Page 135
2
Welcome
Welcome to Lambeth’s Education and Learning Strategy 2015-18 which looks ahead to the next few years and outlines our shared ambition for our learners of all ages. It has been developed in partnership between schools and other educational establishments and the Council.
We want Lambeth to continue to be at the forefront of change and improvement in education, retaining good relationships between early years providers, schools, further education and the Council, building on our collective strengths and achievements.
We have very strong partnerships between schools, colleges, neighbouring authorities, families, local communities and the Council that enable us to work towards securing an autonomous and self-improving education system. This is supported by a sound infrastructure of early years provision in our Children’s Centres and childcare providers. Over the next three years we will further develop integrated working between schools, the Council, health and social care.
We take the Council’s role as a champion of children, families, schools and early years providers very seriously and act within a framework of democratic accountability based upon shared understanding and trust.
Introduction
In a diverse educational landscape the local authority (LA) must exercise a range of roles and responsibilities with a growing mix of education providers. The LA works positively with maintained faith and community schools, alternative provision, early years settings, special schools, academies, free schools, sponsors, independent schools and further and adult education providers who comprise a part of the mixed economy of local education provision.
The majority of Lambeth schools have actively chosen to retain their close working relationship with the LA. Most schools and education providers work in local Clusters that maintain close links with each other and the LA. We have strong Teaching Schools that take a strong role in sharing accountability for outcomes for all children.
“Councils have an indispensable role to play as champions of vulnerable children and young people, parents and families, and educational excellence.” (The Education White Paper, The Importance of Teaching)
We view the LA ‘champion’ role as crucial to ensure a direct and positive impact on learners and their families. Championing is fundamentally about local leadership through influencing and generating consensus:“It is about Councils exercising their unique, democratically mandated leadership role to create, in partnership with schools, settings, and the communities they serve, a compelling narrative that describes a shared commitment to high aspiration and achievement, equality of opportunity and access to education, and an expectation of lifelong learning.” (SOLACE - 2010)
Page 136
3
We consider the LA champion roles to be defined as:
1. A champion of vulnerable children and young people. This means ensuring that they can access and be fully included in schools and settings of their choice. Our role is to maintain a strategic overview of admissions, inclusion, special education needs and the educational progress of all children and young people especially the most vulnerable, e.g. looked after children, whatever state-funded school or setting they attend. In discharging this responsibility we expect all educational providers to ensure access to high quality educational provision and support as needed for the most vulnerable.
2. A champion of parents and families.This means encouraging and enabling parents, carers and corporate parents to participate in and have a significant impact on their children’s education. It means inviting them to support and challenge their child’s setting or school to continuously raise standards and to meet the needs of their child. It means involving them in debate about how well their aspirations for their children are met and listening to their views on local need in terms of educational outcomes, access, inclusion and employability. This is especially important for the most vulnerable children and for the LA as corporate parent of children in care. Encouraging learners to participate in and have a significant impact on their education at all stages.
3. A champion of educational excellence.This means creating the necessary conditions and environment for success and celebrating the achievement of children and young people in education and that of their setting or schools. It means a collective commitment to setting or school improvement that challenges and tackles all forms of underperformance. It means providing support, challenge and early intervention to ensure that schools retain their autonomy.
To deliver its champion roles with all schools, Lambeth LA will: – hold all schools and providers to account for how well they serve all learners,
particularly the most vulnerable, through access, inclusion and pupil progress– retain an overview of performance of all Lambeth learners and ensure a
dialogue with providers where there are concerns– ensure that we meet our statutory functions for all children and young people
regardless of the setting they attend– create and nurture strategic partnerships with and between schools and
others. – engage with partners in an influencing role that respects their autonomy and
expertise, but intervening directly in schools or contacting the Secretary of State or Ofsted where there are serious concerns.
In addition, for all Lambeth schools, the LA will through the ‘Working Together’ programme:
– align schools and other education providers with a shared vision and values for education in Lambeth through our Charter for the Learning Community
– act as broker to maximise resources and talent and as an independent mediator
– support innovative initiatives in schools – commission high profile achievement events to celebrate success.– undertake innovative research and share findings locally and
nationally
Page 137
4
Our Vision:
Continuing rapid early years, school and college improvement over the coming three years will make sure that all our education settings are good or better and variability in progress is reduced, continuing our drive of exceeding national averages for quality, achievement and attainment for all groups of learners.
Our increasing early years and school age population will be educated in high quality surroundings, wherever possible with access to green outside space and for younger children within easy travelling distance.
Our adult learners, particularly the most vulnerable, will be able to learn in venues near to where they live
Our looked after children and those learning out borough because of their particular educational need will be placed in schools that are judged as good or better by Ofsted.
We believe that strong schools and settings are essential to strong communities, local community cohesion, economic growth and healthy societies
Working together, our education community and other partners provide a critical universal service to ensure our children and young people are happy, healthy and have the opportunities to achieve their ambitions. Over the next three years this universal service will broaden to include greater partnership with health care and early intervention services.
Working with our adult education partners we will give Lambeth citizens the skills and confidence to make positive changes in their lives through access to further learning and/or employment.
Key Principles
The key principles of the strategy are:
– a further raising of the expected standards and shared ambition for all children and young people that live in or are educated in Lambeth; including all children in care to Lambeth who are in schools out of borough and those who attend specialist provision out of borough.
– a commitment to collective responsibility for all children and young people in Lambeth, (not just those who attend a particular setting or school), through maintaining the family of local schools with its underlying principle of inclusive provision;
– a commitment to improved outcomes and accelerated progress for children and young people through sustaining and continuously refreshing the partnership between early years and child care settings, children’s centres, schools, colleges and the Council;
– continuing to ensure the pre-conditions for effective learning and high quality provision are in place through effective local authority intervention.
– continuing rigorous monitoring and use of data to identify areas that need improvement at all key stages including 16 – 18 (25 for High Needs learners)
– a commitment to promoting and providing high quality learning for adults aged 19+, especially for the most disadvantaged Lambeth residents.
Page 138
5
Impact
Lambeth has come a long way in raising standards for its learners. Ten years ago it was near the bottom of the national league tables. Now the borough is one of the highest performing areas in the country for the attainment of pupils at GCSE; it is above national averages at all key stages for most groups of pupils and our special school and alternative education provision is all judged to be ‘good’ or better. Ninety percent of all our education provision is judged good or better. Lambeth Adult Learning & Morley College are judged ‘Good‘ and Lambeth College is ‘improving’.
This change has come about because of strong local leadership, an investment in the education estate and learning environments; the creation of sustainable learning communities - for example the move to all-through primary schools and the development of federations of small schools; the investment in our teachers and school leaders, believing they are the key to improvement of outcomes for learners and a continued investment by the Council in high quality school improvement advice, research, data and relevant traded services.
Key Issues
– Whilst huge progress has been made for significant groups of students: the highest attainers and some 16-25 year old young people are still not meeting the standards we expect.
– 11 and 16 year olds have overtaken the national levels for expected achievement but securing national and then London levels of performance for higher attainers are the next milestones for both phases.
– Whilst there is a real commitment to collective responsibility for all children, the capacity of different Clusters and individual schools varies.
– Secondary schools: Overall the secondary phase is strong with all but two schools now judged good or outstanding by Ofsted. Our aim is that all secondary and college provision is judged at least ‘good’ by 2018.
– Primary schools have improved significantly over the last 5 years and Lambeth primary schools are performing at the top of the national league tables. However, while 90% are good or better, a small number require improvement. Robust school to school support is being brokered to accelerate improvement in those schools.
– All schools are signed up to the standard of reaching at least ‘good’ by 2018. Strong school-to-school support and effective intervention and governance will be key to achieving this goal.
– Our schools and colleges are rapidly raising attainment in challenging circumstances. We have a rapidly increasing population with a third more children entering reception classes in September 2014 than started in 2006; high mobility; increasing cultural, faith and linguistic diversity and high levels of complex special educational needs.
– Early years settings are still behind the London and national average in terms of good and outstanding settings.
Page 139
6
Accelerating Improvement for 2015 -2018 and beyond
– There is real evidence of continued improvement against a backdrop of increasing challenge through population growth, increasing levels of need and staffing recruitment difficulties.
– Standards are not yet all at the levels the local authority, headteachers, governors and our community want and there is still some variability of quality.
– The local authority’s key strategy is to work with headteachers and other key partners to further encourage their commitment to local and pan authority partnerships for the benefit of all our children and young people.
– The LA is building on high quality examples of school-to-school support in our federations and clusters
Our overarching objectives are:
- Every educational setting and school to be good or outstanding- Every further education provider to be a good or outstanding provider- To reach national standards and beyond for all children and groups of pupils- To improve opportunities and outcomes for all pupils at aged 16-18 / 19-25
(SEN)
Priority areas for action
1. To improve performance for 16-18 / 19-25 age group2. To improve the proportion of young people who achieve the highest levels for
their age3. To provide sufficient school places 4. To embed the shared approach to early intervention and thus avoid entrance
into the social care system in our schools and education settings5. To improve the percentage of good and outstanding early years settings6. To ensure every young person leaves school with a clear destination into
further education, employment or apprenticeship7. To encourage inclusion and reduce exclusions from primary and secondary
schools8. To improve outcomes for our children looked after by the Council
Page 140
7
To achieve priorities these we will:
A Further support the leadership of teaching through:1. A renewed shared recruitment strategy and aspiring leaders strategy; 2. Supporting the development of the Teaching Schools to support teacher
recruitment including areas of current shortage such as specialist SEN;3. Supporting and brokering school Clusters to develop their expertise
further;4. Signposting and brokering school-to-school support for teaching and
leadership;5. Intervening where school leadership lacks the skills or capacity to improve the
quality of teaching;6. Continuation of life long learning and progression to volunteering and where
appropriate employment.
B Further support the quality of school governance through:1. Work with the Governors’ Forum to monitor and evaluate the impact of our
work on improving governance;2. Supporting access to governors with skill sets in shortage areas; 3. Providing strong professional advisory support to governors, linking with a
range of partners; 4. Providing improved access to professional clerks; 5. Promoting high quality training and mentoring for governors and particularly the
chairs of governing bodies; 6. Actively intervening if governing bodies are providing insufficient support and
challenge to their schools.
C Further the development of school led school improvement promoting networks, clusters, partnerships, federations and support through:
1. Signposting and brokering; 2. Supporting collective models which address specific areas of
underachievement; 3. Working with schools to ensure resources are directed to where they are
needed;4. Encouraging schools to work together for mutual benefit and to raise aspiration
in a locality.
D Continue to focus on 14-19 / 16-18/ 16-25 outcomes at all levels through:
1. Implementing the key actions set out in the Raising Participation Strategy, through monitoring and evaluating provision, impact and suitability in the 14 to 19 Strategic Group and NEET monitoring groups;
2. Independent advice and guidance (IAG): to ensure an effective service that offers advice and feedback to students and schools;
3. Promoting quality first teaching which aims to shift performance for all students, but especially for higher attainers, so that more achieve A and A* at 16 and at 18;
4. Ensure that all schools educating looked after children are supported to maximise pupil achievement.
Page 141
8
E. Ensuring each school has robust policies for higher achievers, those with additional or special educational needs and those with particular talent;
1. Establishing cross borough excellence groups, matching those available for music and sport, debating (Model United Nations) and mathematics (Annual Maths Olympiad);
2. Ensuring academic outcomes, including the performance of vulnerable groups and the effectiveness of intervention strategies is closely analysed by governing bodies so that they support and challenge their schools appropriately;
4. Intervening and brokering specific support where children are underachieving or where school results are too variable;
5. Ensuring our Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) offer is ambitious for all our children, and staff have the expertise and flexibility to meet an increased diversity of need. (See also SEND Pledges);
6. Ensuring all pupils have access to a broad balanced and rich curriculum focusing on STEM subjects but also maintaining emphasis on arts and music.
What will success look like by 2018?
1. Every family should be able to send their child to a good or outstanding local school or FE provider, early years setting or college – an Ofsted ‘good’ is the local expected standard.
2. Every young person leaves school with a recognised qualification and a clear destination, apprenticeship, further study or employment
3. Sufficient inclusive education places of the right quality, both mainstream and special are available to meet the full range of needs and provide best value.
4. Performance indicators – all national attainment indicators to be met plus a percentage of children and young people with a SEN statement or Education, Health Care Plan (EHCP) are educated in mainstream schools and a high percentage of children with statements or EHCPs are educated in local Special provision or Resource Bases rather than having to travel out of the borough for specialist education.
5. Our looked after children achieve at or above national expectations at age 11, 16 and 18
6. No primary or secondary school below the national floor standard in attainment or progress to keep pace with government policy and equip our young people for the next stage of their education.
7. An overall raising of expectation by the end of primary, secondary, tertiary and adult education with an increasing number of students progressing both to apprenticeships and top universities and into work.
8. A locally agreed target of 71% 5A*to C at GCSE including English and mathematics by 2018.
9. A cross phase commitment to raise the proportion of young people achieving the highest levels by 2018: 17% A/A* at GCSE in mathematics; 16% A/A* at GCSE in English; 30% Level 5 in English at the end of KS2; 35% Level 5 in mathematics at the end of KS2; A Level : A/A* to C 78%; Average Point Score (APS) per pupil 765; APS per entry 230
10. Appropriate pathways and provision for all young people, including high quality alternative provision to be in place so that all are supported to remain in education, gain a recognised qualification, and to make at least expected progress.
11. Reduction of NEET and not known in line with the Raising of the Participation Age requirements of full participation of young people to the age of 18 in
Page 142
9
learning, apprenticeships or work with learning to be in line with the Inner London average figures.
12. Achieve national average for overall attendance in primary and secondary schools, and at least in line with median trend line for similar schools.
13. Permanent exclusions – maintain below national average performance 14. The majority of adult learners achieve a recognised qualification as a result of
their studies15. Local businesses work closely with our schools and education providers16. All education providers contribute to the local partnership working on early
intervention and entrance to social care system is reduced
Key facts about Lambeth schools, colleges and young people
– Lambeth is home to 67,000 children and young people, 22% of the total population of 300,000.
– The borough is experiencing one of the fastest rising birth rates in the country. – In September 2013, a third more children entered Reception than in 2006. – Our forecasts indicate that the combined primary and secondary populations
(Year R to Year 11) will grow by around 10,000 over the coming five years to 2017/18.
– 52% of all primary aged children and 38% of all pupils at secondary school in Lambeth do not speak English as a first language. The average for England is 17% and 13% respectively.
– Approximately one in three children in Lambeth is born into poverty, higher than the national average of one in five.
– There are 59 primary phase schools, five special schools, five nursery schools, two all through (primary and secondary phase) schools and two pupil referral units. Of the 16 secondary schools, nine are academies. Two primary schools are academies. Two sixth form free schools are in the pipeline as is a further secondary free school and a special free school.
– As of September 2014 there are 12 schools with sixth forms, (including one special school), one further education college and one adult college.
– There are ten special educational needs resource bases attached to mainstream schools
– Lambeth is ranked 3rd out of 152 local authorities in terms of expected progress in maths, and joint 8th in writing and 73rd at GCSE in the 5+A*-C including English and maths.
– On all Ofsted measures Lambeth is ranked 4th out of 33 London boroughs for performance (2013 Ofsted performance)
– 78% of disadvantaged pupils and 88% of non disadvantaged pupils in Lambeth achieved the expected level in reading, writing and maths combined at age 11, compared with 67% and 83% nationally for each group.
– 65% of disadvantaged pupils and 50% of non disadvantaged pupils in Lambeth achieved five A* to C GCSEs or equivalent, including English and maths, compared with 37% and 64% nationally. Lambeth is ranked 10 out of 152 local authorities for achievement of pupils on free school meals at 16.
– NEET in Lambeth is 2.9% compared with the inner London average of 3.84%, while not knowns are at 22.0% compared with the inner London average of 18.57%. (Jan 14)
Page 143
10
Appendix 1: School led Clusters and Partnerships
Cluster Partnership Schools in cluster:North Lambeth
6 schools
Archbishop Sumner Primary School St. Mark’s Church of England Primary School Ethelred Nursery and Children’s CentreOasis Johanna Primary School (Academy)Archbishop Tenison’s Church of England School (Secondary) Oasis Southbank (Academy)
Oval
12 schools
Wyvil Primary School Ashmole Primary School Herbert Morrison Primary School Henry Fawcett Primary School Reay Primary School St. Andrew’s Church of England Primary School St. Stephen’s Church of England Primary School Vauxhall Primary SchoolWalnut Tree Walk Primary SchoolLansdowne School (Secondary Special)London Nautical School (Secondary)Lilian Baylis Technology School (Secondary)Turney School (Secondary Special)
Roman Catholic Cluster
9 schools
St. Anne’s RC Primary SchoolCorpus Christi RC Primary School (Academy) St. Andrew’s RC Primary SchoolSt. Bede’s RC Infant Primary SchoolSt. Bernadette’s RC Junior SchoolSt. Helen’s RC Primary School St. Mary’s RC Primary School Bishop Thomas Grant RC School (Secondary)La Retraite RC School (Secondary)
Brixton Learning Collaborative
12 schools
Christ Church, A Church of England Primary SchoolEffra Nursery and Children’s CentreHillmead Primary SchoolJessop Primary SchoolLoughborough Primary School St. John’s Angell Town Church of England Primary SchoolSt. John Divine Church of England Primary School St. Saviour’s Church of England Primary SchoolStockwell Primary School Saint Gabriel’s College (Secondary)Evelyn Grace Academy (Secondary)The Michael Tippett School (Secondary Special)
Gipsy Hill Federation
6 schools
Gipsy Hill FederationElm Wood Primary SchoolFenstanton Primary School Glenbrook Primary SchoolKingswood Primary SchoolPaxton Primary SchoolNorwood School (Secondary) (Crawford Primary School, Southwark)
Tulse Hill 3 schools Rosendale Primary SchoolElm Court School (Special)
Page 144
11
Cluster Partnership Schools in cluster:The Elmgreen School (Secondary)
Windmill 10 schools Holy Trinity Church of England Primary SchoolChristchurch Church of England Primary School, (Streatham)Holmewood Nursery and Tree House Children’s CentreJubilee Primary SchoolOrchard Primary SchoolRichard Atkins Primary SchoolSt. Jude’s Church of England Primary School St. Martin in the Fields Church of England School (Secondary)St. Luke’s Church of England Primary SchoolSudbourne Primary SchoolCity Heights E-ACT Academy
Clapham & Larkhall Collaborative
7 schools
Heathbrook Primary SchoolAllen Edwards Primary SchoolLark Hall Primary SchoolMacaulay Primary School Lambeth Academy (Secondary)Triangle Nursery SchoolClapham Manor Primary School
South Lambeth Schools’ Partnership
10 schools
Julian’s Primary School Crown Lane Primary SchoolGranton Primary SchoolHitherfield Primary School Immanuel and St. Andrew Church of England Primary SchoolSt. Leonard’s Church of England Primary SchoolStreatham Wells Primary SchoolSunnyhill Primary School Woodmansterne Primary School Dunraven School (Secondary)
Streatham, Balham and Clapham (SBC)
9 schools
Henry Cavendish PSBonneville Primary School Henry Cavendish Primary School Iqra Primary School Kings Avenue Primary School Telferscot Primary SchoolMaytree Nursery School and Children’s CentreThe Livity School (Special)
Page 145
12
Appendix Two: Our Teaching Schools The Lambeth Teaching Schools' Alliance (LTSA) members have a shared moral purpose to work together to improve the learning and achievement of all the young people in Lambeth schools, and to support other schools in the region to do the same.
This is being achieved by pursuing excellence in teaching and learning across Lambeth by offering training, support, research and development that is "by schools for schools".
We firmly believe that we are "stronger together" and that partnership and collaboration between practising teachers in different schools is the only way to continually develop and improve teaching and learning for the benefit of pupils, parents and the communities in which we work.
There are two lead Teaching Schools in Lambeth. LTSA@Vauxhall and LTSA@Kingswood.
The LTSA@Vauxhall is led jointly by Vauxhall Primary School and Lilian Baylis Technology School. Our strategic partners are the Institute of Education, The London Leadership Strategy and the following schools;
Allen Edwards Primary School Ashmole Primary School Granton Primary School Heathbrook Primary School Henry Fawcett Primary School Hillmead Primary School St Andrew's Primary School Wyvil Primary School
Teaching School activities
School Direct: School based initial teacher training delivered in partnership with the Institute of Education
School to School Support: The LTSA brokers School to School Support at a subject or whole school level. In most cases this will be provided by National or Local Leaders of Education or Specialist Leaders of Education from across Lambeth
Specialist Leaders of Education: As a Teaching School we are able to accredit Specialist Leaders of Education.
Leadership Development: We aim to support aspiring middle and senior leaders through offering a small range of nationally accredited qualifications
Succession planning: We are developing a mentoring network to support new and aspiring senior managers once they have completed Leadership Development Training
Research and Development: We are working on several research projects such as a 3 year project with King’s College to investigate the impact of setting on progress in English and maths at KS3.
Page 146
13
The LTSA@Kingswwod recognises the potential of every individual to achieve excellence. We strive to positively address underachievement and have very high expectations for all members of our school communities. We work hard to creatively remove barriers to achievement and raise esteem. We are determined to create a true culture of ‘learning for all’ through meaningful partnerships with the whole school community. We aim to deliver a broad, balanced and enriched curriculum in an optimum learning environment that is attractive, stimulating, informative and instills a sense of pride. Our vision for work as a Teaching School is an extension of this Federation vision. In addition, we seek to provide heightened opportunities for staff to share intelligence and outstanding practice in order to raise attainment in all pupils. As a Teaching School, we are keen to provide high quality School to School support, including generic and bespoke support, according to an individual school’s needs. This may include support with tracking pupil progress, staff development and maximising pupil premium.
Our strategic partners are: Southbank University, London Institute of Education and the following Federation schools:
Elm Wood Primary School Paxton Primary School Crawford Primary School and Children’s Centre Fenstanton Primary School Glenbrook Primary School Phoenix Primary School Ilderton Primary School
Teaching School Activities include: School to School support Accreditation of Specialist Leaders of Education Leadership development (including hosting of local, national and international
school communities) Initial Teacher Training support (for example School Direct) Research and Development
Page 147
14
Appendix Three: Our Charter for the Lambeth Learning Community
Page 148
15
In ConclusionLambeth LA and all education providers are committed to our role as champions for children and young people and to discharging our statutory responsibilities to the highest standard. We see education as the highest priority in times of austerity, since the future employability and wellbeing of Lambeth’s citizens depend on it. We are proud of the strong education system across the borough. We will be energetic in supporting the continued improvement of our children’s centres, schools, colleges and other education settings.
We look forward to an exciting future, secure in the knowledge that the Council and all education settings have at their heart, strong shared values and a commitment to ensuring that our children’s life-chances are the very best possible.
Page 149
This page is intentionally left blank
Cabinet
9 March 2015
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Review Update
Wards: All
Report Authorised by: Strategic Director Delivery: Sue Foster
Portfolio: Deputy Leader of the Council: Councillor Imogen Walker; Cabinet Member for Children and Adult Services: Councillor Jackie Meldrum
Contact for enquiries:
Claire Kirwan, Transformation Officer, SEND Review; 020 7926 6678; [email protected]
Report summary
This report provides a further update on the progress of Lambeth’s Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) strategy agreed by the Cabinet on 12 November 2012. It also updates Cabinet on the progress of the review in Lambeth agreed on the same date. The key aim of the SEND Review was to provide additional places for children and young people (CYP) with a variety of types of SEND in our local schools and settings as well as to prepare the Council for and embed the key tenets of the Children and Families Act 2014.
Finance summary –
The pupil led funding is sourced from the annual allocation of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) which is a ring fenced grant to be used in the support of the Authority’s schools budget. Funding for places is delegated through budget shares and funding for pupil led top-ups to support SEN Statements and Education, Health and Care plans. Money is held centrally as part of the SEN retained budgets. Many children also have a statutory right to home to school transport which is paid for from the Councils general fund. It is therefore important to continue mitigate against existing budget pressures by reducing the cost of placements through the increased provision of in-borough places.
The implementation of the recommendations arising from the SEN review included the re-designation of Lambeth’s existing special school provision to ensure that it better meets identified need. This is making a strong contribution to reducing the need for out-of-borough placements which are more costly than in- borough provision. Transport costs to out of borough placements are also higher.
Page 151 Agenda Item 6
Recommendations
(1) To note the progress of the SEN Review in delivering over 200 additional SEND places in the borough.
(2) To note the Council’s implementation of the Children and Families Act 2014.
Page 152
1. Context
1.1 In November 2012 Cabinet launched the borough’s SEN Review and planning for the impending Children and Families Act which came into force on 1 September 2014. Cabinet also approved the potential plan for increasing capacity for SEND school places across the borough. Subsequently, following full statutory consultation, Cabinet approved on 9 September 2013 the new designations of all Lambeth special schools.
1.2 Cabinet approved the expansion of The Michael Tippett School by 20 places and Lansdowne Special School by 10 places. In addition, the proposals for a 78 place secondary Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Free School, and for Resource Bases in primary and secondary mainstream schools covering the specialism of ASD and Speech Language & Communication Needs (SLCN) were also ratified.
1.3 A new development has also been added to Turney School to provide a 15 place post sixteen places for young people with ASD. This is to enable the Local Authority to support the minority of young people at post sixteen who are not able to make the transition from school to college to remain in education. Discussions with the school leadership are at an advanced stage.
1.4 In April 2013 the Cabinet noted the progress of the SEN review and the implementation of the Children & Families 2014 Act from 1 September 2014 which provides for children with SEND (0-25).
2. Proposal and Reasons
Special Educational Needs (SEN) Review local programme update
2.1 The Council based its SEN Review Report of November 2012 on an analysis of local and national data trends. This was used to predict capacity needs from 2012 to 2018. The focus of this work was provision for children and young people with ASD which was identified as the most prevalent need. Additional places were in mainstream schools, in ‘Resource Bases’ – specialist classrooms attached to mainstream schools, and in tow new special schools.
2.2 A further data analysis, done on 23 May 2013, used the detailed numbers from the actual pupils placed in schools and settings with statements of SEND and those at School Action Plus who have Lambeth addresses. This enabled geographical locations in the postcode areas to be used to identify where Resource Bases would be best placed. This analysis also posed questions regarding the links between ASD and SLCN and the patterns seen in the distribution between different classifications of SEND in different year groups.
2.3 The data analysis was also done by National Curriculum year groups, including nursery, which gave an indication of the potential demand as the year groups’ work through the system. The data was read in the context of the social demographics of the Borough which vary across postcode areas.
Page 153
2.4 The data was also looked at in the context of the Bercow Review of Services for Children and Young People (0-19) with Speech Language and Communication Needs (SLCN) (2008) and the subsequent research papers (University Of Warwick) on the migration between categories of SEND as pupil’s progress through the education system with particular emphasis on SLCN.
2.5 This data analysis was reviewed again in January 2015 to identify if what was seen in May 2013 were consistent patterns or trends over time. The new data helps to confirm that the provision put in place as a consequence of the 2012 report will need to be further augmented. The new data will have “School Action Plus” replaced with “SEN Support” as defined in the new Children & Families Act 2014 Act, and so analysis will not be comparing exactly like for like, but it will be very close. In the future a similar review of need will take place annually. One further secondary specialist classroom will be needed.
2.6 As a result of the May 2013 analysis the projected need was revised to include some primary SLCN provision. 131 additional primary ASD and SLCN places have been created or are planned. 90 additional secondary ASD places have been created or are planned.
2.7 A detailed analysis of the special needs of the population of the The Michael Tippett School (Severe Learning Difficulties and Profound Multiple Learning Difficulties, many students with ASD) was done in January 2014 which was repeated in September 2014. The analysis showed how the profile of the needs of the young people has changed and is changing since the school was built. The needs are becoming more complex and require more therapy and other support. The analysis also showed that the school was functioning at around 8 places under its design size where parents were choosing expensive alternative placements which offered this wider range of support and therapy. The analysis resulted in a business case to redevelop the interior of the school to provide more appropriate accommodation to meet the needs of the pupils including spaces for therapy and medical support. This work is being implemented with a target date of September 2015 alongside the refurbishment of the Weir Estate premises for the additional 20 sixth form places identified in the 2012 Cabinet Report.
Mainstream Settings2.8 The specialist mainstream provisions are called Resource Bases (RBs). All are subject
to Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between the Local Authority and schools.
2.9 The RBs are specialist provisions with their own admission numbers, and children and young people are admitted through the SEN admissions process as they are in special schools. All on roll in RB have Statutory Statements of SEN or Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs).
2.10 The SLAs specify the number of pupils in each provision (generally 15), the distribution across year groups and the levels of need that are appropriate for a child or young person to benefit from the provision. The SLA’s clearly state that the primary aim is to achieve the maximum inclusion in the life of the mainstream school for the child or young person on the roll of the RB. The headteacher has to balance any admission into the RB
Page 154
against the known needs of other pupils with Statements or EHCPs, especially those in the same RB and/or mainstream year group cohort. This is to ensure that an admission is not incompatible with the primary educational aim of inclusion into mainstream classes for all pupils in that year group.
Resource Bases Progress: as of Jan 2015
Primary
School Area of need
Pupil number when full
Pupils already on roll
Date when build completed
Building workProgress
Bonneville ASD 15 0 1/9/15 Adaptations under way
Crown Lane ASD 15 9 1/9/15 Adaptations under way
Allen Edwards
SLCN 15 3 under consideration
1/1/15 Accommodation included in Funding Agency for Schools development
Archbishop Sumner
SLCN 15 3 under consideration
1/10/15 Adaptations under way
Lark Hall ASD 32 29 open Refurbishment underway
Wyvil SLCN 15 15 open No work required
Dunraven SLCN 15 3 under consideration
open Accommodation within existing new build
Other primary provision
Aurora House(Wyvern Federation)
ASD 45 with plans to increase to 56 on new site
16 In permanent accommodation 1/9/15
Currently in good quality temporary accommodation.
Secondary
Page 155
City Heights ASD 15 6 open In new building
Dunraven SLCN 15 15 open In new building
Other secondary provision
Vanguard Free School
ASD 78 0 01/9/16 Site under consideration
Turney School Post 16
ASD 15 0 01/09/2015 Adaptations under consideration.
The feasibility of a secondary ASD Resource Base at the London Nautical School to the north of the Borough is being explored. Vanguard Free School will be based in Lollard Street. Final negotiations are currently being concluded.
The Lambeth Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Profiles
2.11 Lambeth has developed a series of SEND ‘profiles’ to assist with practitioners’ accurate assessment of need. The areas covered are Autism. Learning Needs, SLCN, Social and Emotional Wellbeing. They were launched with The Special Educational Needs Coordinators in schools (SENCOs) in October 2013, and are now in general use in schools in Lambeth. Their purpose is:
1. To provide a common language framework to inform the writing of assessments and support pupils’ SEND plans.
2. To provide SEND profiles of individual young people that are shared with parents and carers and all involved professionals to provide shared understanding of a young person’s needs, identify interventions and placements.
3. To be, or support, a provision map for a young person including the cost of interventions and support which will enable schools and settings to demonstrate clearly the need for additional High Needs Block funding where appropriate.
4. To more clearly define the range of educational needs met in mainstream and specialist provision in line with the designations of special schools and other settings.
2.12 In meeting these purposes profiles enable the Local Authority to carry out its statutory planning duty to provide a range of suitable provision to meet the needs of those children and young people with SEND.
2.13 Each child or young person’s SEND documentation must make reference to the profiles as these are the tools the LA is using to support its statutory responsibilities to secure the appropriate provision for the children and young people with SEN across its settings. They also support the efficient use of resources in matching needs to settings and interventions. They provide transparency to the SEND assessment process, from the
Page 156
discussions at SEN Support Level and in the EHC meetings to the writing of the EHCPs leading to an agreed final identification of the most appropriate setting for a child or young person.
The ‘Local Offer’
2.14 On 1 September 2014 Lambeth Council published its ‘Local Offer’ of the Education, Health and Social Care provision for children and young people with SEND in Lambeth. The Local Offer sets out what the Local Authority expects to be available for local children and young people who are disabled or have special educational needs. It is on the ‘Young Lambeth’ website and in pamphlets which are available in a range of locations across the Borough. The website has since been subject to some focus group reviews including the young people at Dunraven secondary SLCN provision. The feedback from these meetings is being acted on. Further focus group sessions are planned. In addition, each page on the website has a feedback facility. The Council is required by statute to report on this feedback and what action is being taken as a result of the feedback both in terms of improving the website and also the provision itself. This means that the Local Offer is continually evolving to provide ever improving services and information to the children and young people with SEND and their families. This feedback will be posted on the Local Offer website.
2.15 Every school in Lambeth was supported in publishing its SEND ‘Information Report’ on school websites, also by 1 September 2014. This information sets out how the school delivers its contribution to the expectations published in Council’s Local Offer.
The Local Offer was formally launched by Councillor Jackie Meldrum to an audience of approximately 150 parents, carers and providers in January 2015
Education Health Care Needs (EHC) Assessment Process
2.16 The EHC Assessment process began on September 1st 2014. The SEND Service has three EHC Coordinator posts. The EHC Co-ordinators have been following the 20 week process and have been successful in getting requests for EHC assessments well within the six week deadline as set out in the new SEND Code of Practice, in facilitating a better experience for Lambeth parent/carers and children and young people going through this process. The aim is to have requests at SEND Panel within four weeks allowing more time for gathering information, attending multi-agency meetings and creating the EHCPs.
2.17 There have been challenges embedding this process including how to write an EHCP with aspirational outcomes and how to ensure provision to meet those needs and to achieve those outcomes are clearly stated. At a review meeting in January 2015 it was decided that the multi-agency meeting (MAM), where the child and family are joined by
Page 157
professionals working with the child to discuss strengths and needs and to focus on the writing of outcomes, should be moved to later in the process. This decision has been made in response to the difficult nature of organising meetings with a number of professionals in a short space of time. By moving the MAM to later in the process after advice has been sought from professionals, it is believed that:
Increased attendance by professionals will be achieved because professionals will have more advance notice of meeting dates
Outcomes and provision can be discussed more efficiently once all assessments are up to date
Any overlap between services and provision can be discussed and resources allocated more efficiently
Involvement of Health Professionals in EHC Assessments
2.18 Therapy Services: Pathways are being embedded between the therapy services (Speech and Language Therapy, Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy). The importance of providing up to date assessment information in a format that will facilitate the process is currently being discussed with therapy leads who are keen to provide information that is professional, but also written in a way that makes it useful for the early years/school practitioner and the family.
2.19 Therapy leads and heads of service are looking at their core offer with regards to what would trigger their service to provide a report and attend the multi-agency meeting.
2.20 Paediatricians: Paediatric Doctors will be asked for advice, but not in the same format as a therapist. This reflects their diagnostic role and overarching view of health care for that young person. Paediatricians will be asked to provide information on health needs, making clear what needs are related to education or training and therefore needing provision from Education, and which needs require provision from health services, e.g. hospital reviews.
2.21 Child and Adolescent Mental Health: Creating pathways and understanding the kind of knowledge and support CAMHS can provide to a child and his/her family is a target for development this first quarter of the year.
Involvement of Social Care Professions in EHC Assessments
2.22 Children and young people who are known to Social Care already have established a range of plans and meetings. How to utilise existing meetings to facilitate the EHC assessment process are part of the pathway discussions.
The Transfer of SEN Statements to EHCP’s (Conversions)
2.23 Lambeth SEND Service are required to convert approximately 1600 statements of SEN to EHCPs by 31 March 2018. A plan has been established and target cohorts identified based on Department of Education guidelines.
Page 158
2.24 A process has begun and a number of conversions have taken place both across the borough in our schools and also in out of borough placements.
In order to do this the SEND team is being increased and the quality assurance of the EHCPs preparation and writing is kept in the SEND team.
16-19 Learning Disability Assessments:
2.25 The SEND Service have been working closely with Lambeth College and other providers to work on processes to identify those young people in need of having conversions from statements to EHCP’s. Conversions for this age group need to come at the request of the young person and so an information event for young people and their parents is in the process of being planned to inform our young people of their rights under the new law. This event is open to all young people in post 16 provision who have a current Learning Disability Assessment.
19 – 25 Extension to SEND Service caseload: Preparing for Adulthood
2.26 The SEND Service is working closely with the Adults with Disabilities team to ensure a smooth transition.
Personal Budgets
2.27 Under the Current Children and Families Act 2014 Local Authorities need to offer personal budgets to families and young people with a clear criteria as part of their EHCPs. A common policy across SEND, Adults and Children Social Care is being developed.
Hearing Support Service
2.28 An informal consultation on the future shape of the Hearing Support Service (HSS) was completed on 28 November 2014. Parents of all pupils supported by the HSS in Lambeth schools, out-of-borough placements and the Jubilee Primary School provision, all HSS staff, NHS professionals, interested organisations, the children and young people themselves and the governors at Jubilee Primary School were consulted. Meetings were held with staff and parents and NHS colleagues. The proposals were informed by the views expressed during the consultation and the available national guidelines for hearing support services and specialist provisions. A final report was circulated on 26 January 2015.
The recommendations in the final report are:
Lambeth should develop, within the Lambeth Local Offer, a Hearing Support Service that reflects recognised best practice and meets the needs of deaf children and young people in Lambeth and their families. This will include as full a range of provision as can be provided with the resources available to the Council, and give children and young people and their parents choice.
Page 159
1. The Local Authority continues with its current practice of educating as many deaf children and young people as possible within their local mainstream school, as part of their community, where they receive high quality support from the Outreach Service, within a deaf-friendly environment in which all staff receive training and support to enable deaf Children and Young People to make at least good progress.
2. The Local Authority creates Early Years provisions which support deaf children and their families. These will be secured by the Council from amongst the Borough’s Early Years providers.
3. A Primary Resource Base for deaf children is retained in a primary school in the Borough as a specialist provision. This provision will be for deaf children, who the SEND Placement Panel judges, because of additional vulnerabilities, need the additional support such a provision will provide so that they can make good progress in their learning, social development and inclusion in mainstream classes where they will access the full curriculum. This will be part of the Hearing Support Service (HSS) and will provide choice for parents and children.
4. The Primary Resource Base will work collaboratively with the Outreach Service to ensure the development of the skills and expertise of all specialist staff in the HSS and mainstream staff in Lambeth mainstream schools where deaf children and young people are supported by the HSS. This support would also be made available under Service Level Agreements (SLAs) in non-Lambeth schools that educate deaf Children and Young People with Lambeth addresses who wish to purchase support from the HSS.
5. The Hearing Support Service, consisting of the Outreach Service and the Primary Resource Base, will be provided by the Loughborough Federation under an SLA. The SLA will take account of nationally recognised quality standards and best practice for resource provisions and outreach services which support deaf children and young people.
6. The Hearing Support Service and the existing Elmgreen Secondary Resource Base for deaf children and young people are encouraged to work with other organisations to promote opportunities for deaf Children and Young People to socialise and take part in a range of events and activities, particularly with those of their own age, within the deaf community.
7. The Elmgreen Secondary Resource Base will be quality assured by the Hearing Support Service.
These recommendations are now being implemented and the necessary service level agreements negotiated.
3 Finance
3.1 The revenue funding for the new mainstream Resource Bases and additional places at the special schools is met from the Local Authority’s annual allocation of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Specific provision is made within the DSG to meet needs of pupils who have identified high needs and this part of the DSG is known as the High Needs Block (HNB). The DSG is a ring fenced grant that must be used in the support of the Authority’s Schools Budget.
Page 160
3.2 The HNB is a notional funding block defined by the Department of Education (DfE) which clearly identifies the resources available to the Local Authority to meet its statutory duties in supporting SEN. As it is a notional budget, it does not increase in line with service demand or pupil growth. It is imperative that the best use is made of it to meet pupil need. By enhancing local provision both travel and high cost residential or boarding fees can be reduced.
3.3 Any increased SEN provision must be met within the existing HNB budget. The alternative options are to a) obtain Schools Forum agreement to transfer resources from the Schools Block and Early Years Block; or b) to make a case to the Department for Education (DfE) for additional DSG funding which would be top-sliced from the DSG nationally.
3.4 It is anticipated that the implementation of the recommendations arising from the SEN Review will result in reducing the demand for costly out-of-borough placements and generate cost reductions in placements in subsequent years. They will also reduce transport costs which are covered from the Councils general fund,
3.5 However in the short-term, there will be costs associated with the start-up of the Resource Bases (at £60K each) and the reorganisation of the existing LA maintained SEND provision.
3.6 The estimated 2014-15 revenue costs of opening the mainstream Resource Bases and additional places at the special schools are £750K plus £420K for start-up funding. These will be met from the DSG allocation.
4 Legal and Democracy
4.1 There are no additional comments from a Democratic services perspective.
4.2 The Children and Families Act 2014 introduced a number of legislative changes which the Council is obligated to adopt. Whilst there are no specific legal comments arising from this report, legal advice will be provided to Officers as requested.
5 Consultation and co-production
5.1 The SEN Review process has included a number of consultations both informal and formal. The SEN Programme Board which steered the SEN Review agenda had parental representatives as well as stakeholders from across all the key agencies. Each of the individual workstreams which reported to the SEN Programme Board also had parent representation and multi-agency involvement. This also included the voluntary sector. There were also regular updates on the SEN Review to the Lambeth Active Parent Carer Association (LA/PC) and other parent groups at least once every term whilst scoping all the key areas of the review. Pupils have been involved in consultations regarding ‘The Local Offer’
6 Risk management
6.1 The SEN Review aims to provide in-borough capacity for children and young people with SEND who are being educated out of the borough. There is a calculable financial risk to the Council if the additional places are not realised in a timely manner, and deadlines for all the new places are not adhered to. This related in particular to transport and
Page 161
equipment costs which are far greater for children and young people placed out of borough.
6.2 There is also a risk of non compliance if the Council is not able to embed all the key statutory changes from the Children and Families Act 2014 which covers a range of areas including SEND.
7 Equalities impact assessment
7.1 An Equalities Impact Assessment was duly completed as part of the original proposals which came to Cabinet. These proposals went to the Equalities Impact Board in September 2013. The Board positively noted all the developments and are following the progress as the review and its implementation as it evolves.
8 Community safety
8.1 None
9 Organisational implications
9.1 Environmental
Resource Bases have been located in schools where there is sufficient physical indoor and outside capacity to host them in line with the Council’s desire to educate children locally and with adequate outside play space.
9.2 Staffing and accommodation
Redesignation of special schools and the setting up of Resource Bases bring with them additional staffing requirements, access to support of joint agencies, and the need to secure appropriate accommodation.
There are also structural changes to the SEND team in order to meet the Council’s new duties as implied in the new Act. These changes are essential in order to respond to the new ways of working expected from all Councils. It is expected that there will be a need to increase the capacity of the SEND Team in the areas such as new Assessments, rise in the age of participation from 19-25, and on converting current Statements to EHCPs.
Proposals to increase the current SEND establishment are now subject to ratification by Human Resources and consultation with staff. This will also mean expanding the current footprint of the SEND team’s accommodation requirements in order to cater for the capacity required to respond to the new statutory changes.
9.3 Procurement
None
9.4 Health
Page 162
None
10 Timetable for implementation
10.1 This report is an update of the Council’s SEN Review to date. The implementation and recommendations of the SEN Review is an ongoing process and is expected to run until 2018. However, the related national changes of the review and required by the Children and Families Act have been effective since September 2014.
Page 163
Audit trailConsultation
Name/Position Lambeth cluster/division or partner
Date Sent Date Received
Comments in para:
Sue Foster Strategic Director Delivery
04.02.15 04.02.15 Throughout
Cathy Twist Delivery Director, Education Learning and Skills
29.01.15 30.01.15 Throughout
Finance Business Partnering 30.01.15 04.02.15 3Legal ServicesAndrew Pavlou
Enabling: Integrated Support
30.01.15 02.02.15 4
Democratic Services: Wayne Chandai
Enabling: Corporate Affairs 30.01.15 02.02.15 4
Councillor Jackie Meldrum
Cabinet Member: Children and Adult Services
26.02.15 26.02.15 Throughout
Councillor Imogen Walker
Deputy Leader of the Council
26.02.15 26.02.15 Throughout
Helen Charlesworth-May Strategic Director, Commissioning
26.02.15 26.02.15
Mike Pocock Delivery Director, Business, Growth & Regeneration
26.02.15 26.02.15
Report historyOriginal discussion with Cabinet Member 23.2.15Report deadline 26.2.15Date final report sent 27.2.15Report no. 158/14-15 Part II Exempt from Disclosure/confidential accompanying report?
No
Key decision report NoDate first appeared on forward plan N/AKey decision reasons N/A
Background information Special Education Needs Review Update – Cabinet 12/11/12 (Report no:157/12-13)
AppendicesNone.
Page 164