Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CABINET Date: Monday 21 March 2016 Time: 7.00 pm Venue: Lilian Baylis Technology School, 323 Kennington Lane, SE11 5QY 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 Peck
Deputy Leader (Finance & Investment), Councillor Paul McGlone
Deputy Leader (Policy), Councillor Imogen Walker
Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Councillor Jackie Meldrum
Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Councillor Jane Pickard
Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, Councillor Jane Edbrooke
Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability, Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite
Cabinet Member for Health & Wellbeing, Councillor Jim Dickson
Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Matthew Bennett
Cabinet Member for Jobs & Growth, Councillor Jack Hopkins
Further Information If you require any further information or have any queries please contact: David Rose, Telephone: 020 7926 1037; Email: [email protected] Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting. 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 are shown on the front page of each report. @LBLdemocracy on Twitter http://twitter.com/LBLdemocracy or use #Lambeth Lambeth 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; and,
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.
While the Town Hall is closed meetings of Cabinet will take place at Lilian Baylis Technology School. Lilian Baylis Technology School, 323 Kennington Lane, SE11 5QY
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 - 4
3. Investing in better neighbourhoods and building the homes we need to house the people of Lambeth – Cressingham Gardens Estate Report 15-16/186 Key Decision Tulse Hill Cabinet Member for Housing: Councillor Matthew Bennett Strategic Director for Neighbourhoods and Growth: Sue Foster Contact: Neil Vokes, Assistant Director, Housing Regeneration, 020 7926 3068, [email protected]
5 - 34
4. Lambeth Children's Social Care Improvement Programme Report 15-16/198 Key Decision All Wards Deputy Leader of the Council (Policy): Councillor Imogen Walker Strategic Director for Adults, Children and Health: Helen Charlesworth-May Contact: Fern Barber, Improvement Team, Children’s Social Care, 020 7926 2125, [email protected]
35 - 48
5. Public Health Report 15-16/190 Key Decision All Wards Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing: Councillor Jim Dickson Strategic Director for Adults, Children and Health: Helen Charlesworth-May
49 - 60
Contact: Maria Millwood, Director of Integrated Commissioning, 020 7926 4843, [email protected]
6. Healthier High Streets Scrutiny Commission report Report 15-16/150 Key Decision All Wards Deputy Leader of the Council (Finance and Resources): Councillor Paul McGlone Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods: Councillor Jane Edbrooke Cabinet Member for Jobs and Growth: Councillor Jack Hopkins Strategic Director for Neighbourhoods and Growth: Sue Foster Strategic Director for Corporate Resources: Jackie Belton Contact: Gary O’Key, Lead Scrutiny Officer, 020 7926 2183, [email protected]
61 - 66
7. Lambeth’s Community Plan 2016-2020 Report 15-16/189 Key Decision All Wards Leader of the Council: Councillor Lib Peck Chief Executive: Sean Harriss Contact: Hannah Jameson, Head of Policy and Insight, 020 7926 6918, [email protected]
67 - 80
Ca
CABINET
Monday 8 February 2016 at 7.00 pm
MINUTES
PRESENT:
Cabinet Members: Portfolio:
Councillor Matthew Bennett Cabinet Member for Housing
Councillor Jennifer
Brathwaite
Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability
Councillor Jim Dickson Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing
Councillor Jane Edbrooke Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods
Councillor Jack Hopkins Cabinet Member for Jobs & Growth
Councillor Paul McGlone Deputy Leader (Finance and Investment)
Councillor Jackie Meldrum Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care
Councillor Lib Peck Leader of the Council
Councillor Jane Pickard Cabinet Member for Children and Families
Councillor Imogen Walker Deputy Leader (Policy)
Apologies for absence: None
Also present:
Action
required by
1. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
There were none.
2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
RESOLVED: That the minute of the previous meeting held on 11 January
2016 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the
proceedings.
Page 1 Agenda Item 2
3. REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGET 2016/17 TO 2018/19
The meeting was adjourned from 19.05 to 19.10 following disturbance
from the public gallery.
The Deputy Leader (Finance and Investment), Councillor Paul McGlone,
introduced the report and detailed the following:
Lambeth faced an unprecedented financial challenge and even
increased council tax to 1.99% and the 2% precept would not be
enough to fill the funding gap. The report also detailed the general
and capital investment funds for the next three years.
There had been tough choices following an estimated core funding
cut of 56% between 2010/11 to 2017/08 which would impact front
line services, whereas previous cuts still enabled the delivery of core
services.
There was a £16.12m overspend in the general fund, with a further
£28.32m savings in 2016/17 which would rise to £55m savings
needed over the following three years.
Even though Lambeth was the 29th most deprived borough in the
UK, it had the 13th highest level of cuts since 2010.
There were some positive economic indicators, but overall it showed
a central government committed to reducing all expenditure centred
on a small state ideology, with a focus on shrinking local
government; and presented an unprecedented financial challenge.
There were also greater needs placed on the Council, such as the
increasing costs of temporary accommodation; however, Lambeth
was working hard to cut costs, with over 1000 fewer staff than in
2010, moving more services online and by cutting down on fraud.
Christina Thompson, Director of Finance, emphasised that the level of
earmarked reserves and balances remained one of the lowest in London,
but they were at a safe level and contingencies had been factored for.
However, risks would need to be managed given the significant level of
savings next year.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Councillor Jane Pickard,
commented on youth and play and noted that it was always the Council’s
intention to end the Early Adopter Phase 1 funding in 2016. In addition,
the Council had lined up alternative providers, children supporters and co-
ops which were thriving and these strategies saved programmes and
operations from being closed. As an example of what could be achieved
when sites were outsourced into the voluntary sector, one of Lambeth’s
adventure playgrounds had recently won a bid for lottery funding to enable
it to open for three days instead of one day per week.
The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Councillor Jackie Meldrum,
noted that health and social care budgets were linked, however central
government did not believe in meeting the needs of this public service and
Page 2
were redistributing for 2020. As the 29th most deprived borough, Lambeth
was dependent on increasing business rates and council taxes, with the
2% precept to adult social care a drop in ocean against the cuts. The
£3.43m savings from adult staffing and contract efficiencies were
significant, although a number of projects were integrating to save funds
and were beginning to show real progress. However, how services would
be delivered in 2020 was a different matter and there was no certainty of
what services would be available.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Lib Peck, stated that these would be
challenging years for local government, and it was unclear what the
organisation would look like by 2020. The 56% cut was huge considering
that Lambeth was the 29th most deprived authority, and it was sensible to
raise income and investment to fill gaps in funding. However, the 2% adult
social care precept and the 1.99% council tax rise were nowhere close to
bridging this gap. Therefore greater efficiencies and back-office cost cuts
where needed and regrettably the Council would lose a lot of staff, some
500 between 2016/17 and 2017/18. There had been 4,000 staff in 2010,
with 1,000 likely to be lost by 2020, and this would impact on front line
services. The Council would mitigate this by reconfiguring to work with
services users such as providing more independence and care choices for
the elderly, or working with the community to deliver amenities instead of
shutting them down. It remained a very challenging time.
RESOLVED:
1) To recommend Council to note or adopt the recommendations
listed below.
2) To approve the disposal of the properties identified as ‘new
disposals’ in Appendix 8a and Appendix 8b – (exempt from
disclosure).
3) That the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (from the
meeting of 4 February 2016) be noted.
4. USE OF THE LEGISLATION CONTAINED IN LONDON LOCAL
AUTHORITIES AND TRANSPORT FOR LONDON ACT 2013
ENABLING LONDON COUNCILS TO AFFIX TRAFFIC SIGNS AND
STREET LIGHTING TO BUILDINGS
The Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability, Councillor
Jennifer Brathwaite, introduced the report.
Raj Mistry, Programme Director for Environment, Regeneration, Planning
& Neighbourhoods, informed Cabinet that this policy would see Lambeth
adopt Section 4 of the Act, without which it was difficult to obtain and
manage the separate agreements needed to carry out street lighting and
signage in a timely manner; and there had been a noticeable improvement
of street environments where it had been enacted. The agenda pack
(page 189-204) also contained the code of practice and model notice.
Page 3
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Lib Peck, noted that this was an
important policy designed to improve the Council’s efficiency in reducing
street clutter in streets and make signs more comprehensible.
RESOLVED:
1) To adopt the provisions at Section 4 of the London Local Authorities
and Transport for London Act 2013 (the Act) so that its provisions
enabling the Council to affix traffic signs and street lighting to
buildings shall apply to the London Borough of Lambeth from the
day appointed for this purpose.
2) To fix the Appointed Day from which the adopted provision takes
effect as Monday 4 April 2016 pursuant to Section 3 of the Act.
3) To adopt from the Appointed Day London Council’s code of practice
for Affixing traffic signs and street lighting to buildings in London
(appendix A) regarding notification and consultation with property
owners.
4) Authorise the Programme Director, Environment to publish notices
of the aforementioned resolutions in accordance with the
requirements of section 3(4) of the Act.
The meeting ended at 7.29 pm
CHAIR
CABINET
Monday 21 March 2016
Date of Despatch: Friday 12 February 2016
Call-in Date: Friday 19 February 2016
Contact for Enquiries: David Rose
Tel: 020 7926 1037
Fax: (020) 7926 2361
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk
Page 4
1
Cabinet
Date of meeting: 21 March 2016
Report Title: Investing in better neighbourhoods and building the homes we need to house the
people of Lambeth – Cressingham Gardens Estate
Wards: Tulse Hill
Report Authorised by: Strategic Director for Neighbourhoods and Growth: Sue Foster
Portfolio: Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Matthew Bennett
Contact for enquiries: Neil Vokes, Assistant Director, Housing Regeneration, 020 7926 3068,
Report Summary
Lambeth’s ambition is to ensure that every resident in the borough has the opportunity to live in
a good quality home that is affordable and suitable for their needs.
The borough faces a major housing crisis, with 21000 people on the waiting list; over 1800 families
in temporary accommodation, overwhelmingly families with children; and 1300 families are
severely overcrowded. To address this challenge the council administration was re-elected in
2014 on a pledge to build 1000 additional council rent homes by 2018-19.
Lambeth is investing hundreds of millions of pounds in bringing existing council homes up to the
Lambeth Housing Standard, but the budget shortfall in the LHS programme has grown from an
estimated £56m when the programme was launched in 2012 to over £85m as last reported. The
council faces additional pressures on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) due to government
changes in the reduction of 1% per annum in council rents (over the next 4 years), as well as the
Welfare Reform and Housing and Planning Bills that will put further pressure on the HRA in the
next few years.
Rebuilding Cressingham Gardens will enable the council to fulfil its obligations and duties to
council tenants, despite the major shortfall in the LHS budget, to live in a warm, dry, decent home
which meets the needs of their family at council rent levels. It will also deliver an additional 158
homes, of which 47% will be affordable.
The new affordable homes will all be for rent, with 27 extra family-sized homes for council rent
and a further 48 one and two bedroom properties at rents set at Lambeth’s Tenancy Strategy at
Page 5 Agenda Item 3
2
no higher than LHA rates. Lambeth aspires to increase the number of additional council rent
homes through the masterplanning process and is committed to maximising the number of
additional genuinely affordable homes for people in the local community.
The council will also do its very best to keep the community together by trying to phase any
rebuilding so that existing residents should only have to move once and by offering a range of
options, including shared equity, shared ownership or a rented home to existing homeowners so
that anybody who wants to stay living at Cressingham Gardens can continue to do so once it has
been rebuilt.
The council has consulted extensively and considered all representations, including the ‘People’s
Plan’ which was a proposal submitted to the Council on behalf of a group of residents. Having
considered all five options and the People’s Plan it is only the option of full rebuilding that can
both deliver better homes for existing residents but also increases the number of homes,
particularly genuinely affordable rented homes, in the depths of a severe housing crisis.
After over three years of on-off consultation this report will provide certainty for residents of the
estate, enable the key guarantees to be offered to tenants and homeowners, and enable the
council to commit the resources necessary to commence the masterplanning of a new,
exemplary, estate for the people of Cressingham Gardens.
Finance Summary
The Council is the freehold owner of most of the properties on the estate; all income and
expenditure for the estate falls within the Council-wide HRA. This means there are strict
budgeting controls that prevent the Council from running a deficit in any one year. Moreover,
the Council cannot borrow more than is currently planned because borrowing via the HRA is
capped by Central Government either by means of a fixed “headroom” limit or because the HRA
simply cannot afford to borrow more (i.e. there is insufficient income to pay any higher interest
payments). Furthermore, grants from Central Government, such as were previously available
for the Decent Homes programme, are now severely limited, if not curtailed altogether. This
means that money spent on the estate from within the HRA is money that is not available to be
spent on other Council-wide properties. Hence the Council has to make some difficult decisions
about how best to spend its scarce resources.
The recommendation to redevelop Cressingham Gardens is based on the initial financial
modelling and analyses from the massing studies that have been carried out. Refurbishment
options for the estate are not value for money. The original budget for the LHS refurbishment
programme was £499m, based on an average cost of refurbishment of £16,000 for every
property. The estimated average cost of refurbishment of properties on Cressingham Gardens
is just over £30,000. This represents poor value for money compared to carrying out
refurbishment on other estates.
Page 6
3
Financial viability analysis was also carried out to establish whether each of the four
refurbishment options for the estate would have an acceptable risk profile and a positive net
present value (NPV). If the NPV of a prospective project is positive, the project stands to
provide an increased return on investment and would be considered acceptable. None of the
refurbishment elements of the options would provide value for money because each has a
negative NPV, meaning that over a 30 year period there would be a net cost to the HRA.
Option 5 representing only redevelopment provides a positive NPV. Further detailed financial
modelling and viability assessment will be undertaken as the master planning process
progresses. Different funding options, structures and the impact of all taxation Stamp Duty
Land Tax (SDLT), Vat and corporation tax will all be explored further and reported appropriately.
Funding is already in place within the General Fund to progress the project through design,
planning and budget to commence initial property buybacks and land assembly costs. For any
additional land acquisitions and buyback costs further funding would need to be allocated subject
to approval.
Recommendations
(1) To authorise the redevelopment of the entire Cressingham Gardens estate, in accordance
with the approach set out in Section 2 of this report and to procure a development
management team to progress the redevelopment of the estate.
(2) To implement the Key Guarantees as included in Appendix K (pending any improvement to
the Key Guarantees through further consultation with residents) and to negotiate purchase
of leaseholder properties under the shadow of a compulsory purchase order (CPO), as set
out in paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7.
(3) To authorise inclusion of additional land holdings within the masterplan for Cressingham
Gardens estate, where such land lies on the boundary of the Estate, and where such
inclusions can be shown through the masterplanning process to improve the place-making
outcomes and/or deliver a net increase in the number of homes (see paragraph 2.6).
(4) To require officers and the procured development management team to work closely with
residents in the procurement and formulation of the masterplan, including a phasing strategy
and a local lettings policy for the Estate.
Page 7
4
1. History and Context
Context
1.1 The Council is seeking to improve the quality and quantity of the housing in Lambeth.
1.2 To address the quality of homes in the Borough, the Council commenced its Lambeth
Housing Standards Programme in 2012. There is, however, as set out below, a funding
gap and the Council cannot, in any reasonable time period, afford to bring all council homes
up to good quality standards. This means that difficult decisions have to be taken with
regard to prioritisation of estates for refurbishment and what to do with those estates that
are not good value for money to refurbish.
1.3 Lambeth, like all London boroughs, is facing a major housing crisis. Over 21,000 people are
on our waiting list for a council home; the number of homeless families in temporary
accommodation has risen sharply to over 1,800, the vast majority of which are families with
children; and 1,300 families are living in severely overcrowded homes. Every year between
3,000 and 4,000 people apply to be on the Council’s housing waiting list. This equates to
60 to 80 households per week. At the current time, each year the Council is able to provide
housing for around 1,200 households. This equates to around 23 per week and includes
internal transfers from one council house to another.
1.4 To begin to address these challenges, Lambeth has embarked upon an estate regeneration
and housing delivery programme to provide more and better homes for the residents of
Lambeth. The estate regeneration component of this programme can deliver better homes
for existing residents and additional new homes for those on the waiting list.
1.5 The Council has allocated investment funding of £25m through its General Fund to enable
progression those aspects of the estate regeneration programme that involve
redevelopment, where this investment will be recouped in due course through Homes for
Lambeth, the new company being established by the Council to directly deliver new homes
for Lambeth.
1.6 The detailed genesis of this estate regeneration programme is provided in Appendix A,
setting out the previous decision-making that led to Cressingham Gardens being considered
for estate regeneration. This is summarised below.
Lambeth’s Estate Regeneration Programme and Cressingham Gardens
1.7 After the national changes to the Housing Revenue Account in 2010, Lambeth Council
sought to take control of its own housing stock and bring about improvements to the lives
of its residents. A major initiative, which became known as the Lambeth Housing Standards
Programme, was commenced – a refurbishment programme aimed to bring all council
owned homes in the Borough up to a good quality. However, from the outset it was known
that the Council was unable to fund this programme in full and it was estimated that there
was a funding shortfall of some £56m.
Page 8
5
1.8 This funding shortfall has now grown to more than £85m as last reported for a variety of
reasons including that:
when the Council has commenced refurbishment on estates in the Borough, it has
discovered that there tend to be more properties requiring Lambeth Housing
Standards works than originally predicted; and,
the scope of works has tended to be more than expected.
The overall cost of delivering the Lambeth Housing Standard has therefore grown at the
same time that Central Government austerity measures have severely limited the
availability of finance through the HRA, whether through reductions in funding (such as
Decent Homes) or changes to council rents.
1.9 To seek to resolve the original (and now exacerbated) funding problem, the Council decided
to consider an estate regeneration programme, to identify those estates where it felt that
refurbishment alone would not achieve the goals of the Lambeth Housing Standard
Programme, where the level of work required to bring properties up to the Lambeth
Standard was difficult to justify. It was also noted that, in the context of the desperate
housing need, there was opportunity on some estates to intensify the use of land and to
build more homes.
1.10 In 2012, Cressingham Gardens was identified as a first estate to be included in the emerging
plans for estate regeneration. It was originally envisaged that, after six months consultation
with residents, a decision would be taken on the future of the estate. This six months has
drawn out to almost 4 years, which the Council fully recognises is far too long a time period
for residents to be living with uncertainty about the future of their homes.
1.11 Over the course of the ensuring 3 to 4 years, a robust discourse has taken place between
the Council and, increasingly, just a few residents on what the future of the estate should
be; it is clear from the recent round of consultation, that consideration of the future of the
estate has been going on for so long that many residents have disengaged. Over that time
period, however, the Council has gone on a long journey to explore with residents whether
there may be other opportunities to redevelopment. Key steps of that journey have
included:
2012 - original approach to residents to suggest redevelopment of the estate;
2014 - the estate was considered for listing by Historic England;
2013 - commissioning of Roland Karthaus Architects to explore design options for the
future of the estate;
2013 - carrying out of the Tall Report Survey to understand better the condition of the
properties on the estate;
2014 to 2015 - estimating the cost of refurbishment of the estate;
February/March 2015 – Housing Needs Survey carried out;
Page 9
6
March 2015 - Council decision to closedown options to only those that included
significant redevelopment (note this decision was subsequently successfully Judicially
Reviewed and quashed);
April/May 2015 – Test of Opinion Survey;
July 2015 – Council decision to redevelop the entire estate (the recommendations
within this Cabinet Decision in relation to the redevelopment of Cressingham Gardens
estate became invalid as a consequence of the Judicial Review of the March 2015
decision);
August 2015 – call-in of Cabinet decision by Council’s Scrutiny Panel (which
confirmed the July decision); and,
January 2016 – renewed consultation on the future of the estate.
1.12 Key documents that have been produced, all of which have been made available to
residents, include:
Roland Karthaus Architects – Design Options Report;
Tall Report (survey results);
Estimated refurbishment costs;
Living on Cressingham Gardens (Social Life report);
Housing Needs Survey; and,
Test of Opinion Survey.
1.13 Over the course of the 3 to 4 years since 2012, various design options were developed to
explore the future of the Cressingham Gardens estate. These are discussed in more details
in Paragraphs 1.42 to 1.46.
1.14 The recent consultation exercise leading up to the preparation of this Cabinet Report has
to be considered in the context of that long history since 2012.
Why has Cressingham Gardens been considered for estate regeneration?
1.15 There were and remain very good reasons for considering redevelopment of the
Cressingham Gardens estate. Cressingham Gardens is not a typical 1960s estate; it is not
a Brutalist concrete architecture; it is a relatively low-density estate built in brick on the edge
of the Brockwell Park, within a short bus-ride of Brixton (and commuting into London). It is
a desirable location to live and a proportion of the residents of the estate very much like it
as it is.
1.16 As a consequence of this location and the external appearance of the estate, a significant
proportion (circa 62%) of the right-to-buy properties have been onward sold to incoming
leaseholders, who have acquired these properties as a way of acquiring a home at a cost
that is lower than normal for this location. Almost immediately (in 2012) that it was
announced by the Council that it was contemplating regeneration of the estate, a Save
Cressingham Gardens campaign commenced.
Page 10
7
1.17 But, from the outset in 2012, the Council had identified that it was a costly estate to manage
and maintain, that there are serious problems with the condition of many of the properties
and that refurbishment of the properties would not alone resolve matters such as
accessibility (as in disabled access), which is manifestly problematic with numerous stair
cases around the estate (even many single storey properties have flights of steps inside
them). More evidence is provided below on the matter of the condition of the estate and
what it would cost to refurbish.
1.18 In a Cabinet Report of October 2012, reasons were provided for the inclusion of
Cressingham Gardens in the estate regeneration programme. These are re-iterated with
more evidence below.
1.19 Firstly, refurbishment of the Cressingham Gardens estate to Lambeth Housing Standard
would be above average cost. The original Lambeth Housing Standard programme
estimated a cost of £499m across circa 31,000 properties. This suggests an original
estimate of an average of £16,000 per property to refurbish. During 2013 a structural survey
(Tall Report) of the Cressingham Gardens estate was carried out. This fed through to a
more detailed estimate of the full refurbishment cost of the estate (albeit recognising that
these types of estimates are always just estimates); the suggested costs of refurbishment
were included in the Cabinet Report of March 2015. This indicated a minimum immediate
cost of £9.4m to refurbish the estate. With 306 properties on the estate, this suggests an
average refurbishment cost of over £30,000. This is roughly double the estimated average
cost for the Lambeth Housing Programme.
1.20 In the view of Council officers, the estimate of £9.4m (and hence the £30,000 per property)
is conservative and could be significantly more than this: for example this cost also excludes
significant other potential costs, such as replacement of windows. It is certainly the
experience elsewhere on the Lambeth Housing Standard programme that actual costs of
refurbishment have significantly exceeded initial estimates. This has contributed to the
widening gap in funding of the Lambeth Housing Standard programme as noted in
Paragraph 1.8.
1.21 Secondly, the on-going day-to-day maintenance costs for Cressingham Gardens are above
average. The average annual cost per property of maintaining the Cressingham Gardens
estate is £1,552. This compares to an average across Lambeth of circa £1,000 and a
median of below £1,000. Whilst it might be hoped that a major capital refurbishment would
reduce day-to-day running costs of the estate, given the condition of properties (see
Paragraph 1.22), this cannot be stated for certain. These high running costs are indicative
of an estate in a poor state of repair.
1.22 Thirdly, through the Tall Report, it was confirmed that there are more serious problems with
the properties on the Cressingham Gardens estate. It was identified that there are potential
structural problems with some areas of the estate. The problems that have been identified
with regard to the roofs on many properties, causing severe damp, will likely mean that
refurbishment of these properties would be highly disruptive to current residents, requiring
Page 11
8
those worst affected to move out of their homes temporarily, potentially for many months to
allow the homes to dry out.
1.23 Fourthly, and in line with the overall objectives of the estate regeneration, the design work
(albeit only a massing study) that was carried out during 2013 and 2014 indicates that there
is potential for additional new homes to be delivered as part of a redevelopment of the
Cressingham Gardens estate.
1.24 Fifthly, the Housing Needs Survey (Appendix H) carried out in Spring 2015 suggests that
there is significant overcrowding in the tenanted properties on the estate. This cannot be
resolved through refurbishment alone.
1.25 Sixthly, the work carried out by Roland Karthaus confirmed that it performs poorly in
comparison with modern expectations for disabled access.
1.26 Bringing all these factors together, the Council has good grounds for considering
Cressingham Gardens for redevelopment (in part or whole) as opposed to refurbishment.
The Judicial review of 2015
1.27 On 9 June 2015 a tenant issued a judicial review against the Cabinet's decision of exactly
three months earlier, which was to cease consulting on options 1, 2 and 3. The tenant
brought her claim on four grounds but permission to proceed was refused on two grounds
(including her alleged breach of the public sector equality duty).
1.28 On 24 November the High Court quashed the Cabinet decision of 9 March 2015. This was
because the judge was not satisfied that there was a sufficient change in circumstances to
entitle the Council, fairly, to abandon its consultation on options 1, 2 and 3 in March 2015.
Nevertheless, the Judge gave the Council permission to appeal on five grounds (see
'Application for Leave to Appeal' as Appendix I). The Council gave serious consideration to
appealing to the Court of Appeal but decided not to having regard to the uncertainty of such
an appeal and the time it would take. Accordingly, it engaged in a further round of
consultation.
Consultation – January to March 2016
1.29 Having had the Cabinet decisions taken during 2015 quashed, the Council commenced a
new round of consultation with residents in January 2016. A detailed summary of this
consultation exercise is included in Consultation Report, which is provided as a supporting
document to this Cabinet Report. This Consultation Report includes a detailed chronology
of the consultation exercise, lists out all the documents released to residents during that
consultation exercise and lists and summarises the responses that have been received.
1.30 The consultation exercise has operated as follows:
January 20th to February 19th (extended on request to February 22nd) – Setting out of
the issues that the Council has to consider in reaching a decision on the future of the
Page 12
9
estate, describing the options that could potentially be available, but making it clear
which options the Council considered to be value for money or not. This part of the
process included two exhibitions and running workshops to enable residents to
understand better the issues and to discuss with residents the potential impact on
them of different outcomes. During the period, residents were able to pose questions
and the Council sought to respond to these as best it could.
February 25th to March 4th – Setting out the recommendation (as per Section 2 of this
Report) to Cabinet and allowing residents to make comment on that recommendation.
This enabled residents to comment on a clear preferred proposal for the future of the
place they live.
There is also, as per normal Council processes, the opportunity for residents to view
the Cabinet Report in advance of the Cabinet Meeting and to make representations
at the Cabinet Meeting. This opportunity has been clearly communicated to all
residents on the estate.
1.31 The consultation took a variety of forms and enabled residents to participate, question and
comment in a variety of ways: exhibitions, workshops, drop-ins, on-line and by paper, by
email and by telephone.
1.32 During the course of the consultation exercise, the Council made sure that it had:
explained to residents the context of a decision on the future of the Cressingham
Gardens estate;
explained to residents the different issues that need to be considered for each of the
potential options;
explained to residents (homeowners and tenants separately) the impact of
refurbishment and redevelopment; and,
sought to be clear what information would be made available and what information
would not be made available.
This culminated in the issue of a 31 page Questions and Answers document that was issued
to all residents of the estate at around the time of the closing exhibition, which answered all
questions that had been raised throughout the consultation period. At the end of the
process, whilst some residents were still unhappy with the level of information provided and
were asking for yet more detailed financial analysis, others told officers at events that they
had been inundated and did not wish to receive any more information.
1.33 Identified below are key elements of the information provided to residents during the
consultation exercise:
Structure and scope of the consultation exercise:
o provided in booklet issued on 19th January 2016 (issued to all residents) and at
exhibition on 20th January 2016
Page 13
10
The status of the Housing Revenue account, the Council’s capacity to borrow in the
HRA and the Council’s inability to fund refurbishment of all council homes across the
Borough:
o set out in booklet issued on 19th January 2016; and
o further clarified with more detail in the Financial Q&As and both Viability
Workshops.
The difference between the HRA and the General Fund and the restrictions around
the HRA and properties that sit within the HRA:
o set out in booklet issued on 19th January 2016; and
o further clarified with more detail in the Financial Q&As and both Viability
Workshops.
The Council’s consideration of value for money of different options:
o set out in booklet issued on 19th January 2016; and
o further clarified with more detail in the Financial Q&As and both Viability
Workshops.
The Council’s consideration of other ideas that residents have put forwards:
o set out in booklet issued on 19th January 2016;
o discussed at the first Green Retrofitting Workshop;
o statement on Council’s view of the People’s Plan presented at exhibition on 25th
February 2016; and
o Appendix B and set out below in Paragraph 1.47 are assessments of the merits
of the People’s Plan proposal.
The impact on residents, if their home were to be redeveloped or refurbished:
o set out in booklet issued on 19th January 2016.
The impact on tenant’s tenancies:
o set out in letter and leaflet issued on 17th February 2016.
The financial impact on homeowners (including indicative sale prices of existing and
future properties):
o set out in the letter and document issued on 17th February 2016 (amended on
18th February 2016).
The impact on rents for tenants:
o discussed at workshop on 11th February 2016; and
o answered in Q&A issued on 29th February 2016.
The impact on living costs to homeowners and tenants, if redevelopment were to take
place, including a statement on service charges:
o answered in the Q&A document issued on 29th February 2016.
The options that residents would have should redevelopment take place:
o set out in booklet issued on 19th January 2016;
o discussed at the tenants meeting on 11th February 2016;
o set out in documentation around the Key Guarantees;
o set out in the financial information for homeowners document; and
o answered in the Q&A issued on 29th February 2016.
Financial appraisals, including Net Present Value information, showing the viability of
different options:
Page 14
11
o letters sent to all residents on 17th February 2016 summarising financial outputs
of the appraisals and directing residents to more detailed information;
o viability reports for refurbishment and redevelopment components of
regeneration; and
o redacted datasheets supporting the viability reports.
1.34 It was also made clear to residents during the consultation exercise, especially at the
Viability Workshops, that the financing of refurbishment and redevelopment has to be
considered entirely separately. Homes that are to be refurbished remain within the HRA
and are therefore reliant on identifying funding through the HRA to enable capital investment
to take place; refurbishment is therefore simply reliant on whether resource within the HRA
could (funding availability) or should (value for money) be allocated to refurbishment of
Cressingham Gardens. Homes that are to be redeveloped can be funded by other means,
outside of the HRA, and instead rely on whether a redevelopment scenario can be
considered viable as a commercial proposition. It is for this reason that the Viability Reports
in Appendix D are treated separately for refurbishment and redevelopment.
1.35 As residents had historically requested, and the Council had historically committed to
provide viability appraisals of all scenarios, then appraisals were run and supplied of both
the refurbishment and redevelopment components of each design option. It was, however,
made clear to residents during the Viability Workshops that the refurbishment appraisals
were purely theoretical and had no relationship to practical reality. Instead, in practice,
refurbishment simply relies on availability and allocation of funding from within the HRA.
1.36 The Consultation Report documents in detail the outcomes of the consultation exercise.
This is summarised below. Appendix C provides a summary of the key issues raised during
the consultation exercise and the response that has been given to residents.
1.37 In looking at the consultation responses, there are several clear conclusions that can be
reached. These are:
That there is a huge discrepancy in the level of engagement of residents on the estate,
with some not participating at all, while a few have been very heavily engaged. Of the
almost 200 questions included in the final Q&A document, almost half of these were
submitted by just two leaseholders and of 16 emails received by the Council seeking
clarifications and raising questions around half of these were from the same two
individuals. The workshop sessions were also dominated by repeat attendance of
only a few individuals.
Out of those who have responded, there remains a preference for refurbishment only.
Opinions on the estate appear to be quite polarised; there remain strong views both
for and against redevelopment. There is little support for the intermediate options 3
and 4.
That a sizeable proportion of the residents spoken to at events wish simply that a
decision is made one way or the other and to move forwards and bring to an end the
seemingly endless consideration of what the future of the estate should or could be.
Page 15
12
1.38 The above conclusions align with the outcome of the Test of Opinion survey that was held
prior to the Cabinet Decision of July 2015 and the experience of officers working on the
estate since early 2015.
1.39 It is also apparent from the rate of take-up of the Key Guarantees between July and
November 2015 that there is a significant number of households who simply desire to leave
the estate. From before July 2015, there were already 50 tenants of the estate signed up
to the housing transfer list; of these 35 tenants approached the Council to sign up to Band
A status to enable them to move away from the estate. In addition to this, 20 (out of 92)
leaseholders registered interest in the Council purchasing their property, which is 21.7% of
homeowners.
1.40 In contrast to the above observations, the Save Cressingham Gardens group also carried
out their own survey in July 2015 and they claim that on a response rate of 72%, 86% of
residents favoured refurbishment and only 4% wanted demolition.
1.41 It is undeniable that there is a significant number of residents who wish to remain living in
the Cressingham Gardens area; they both like the estate and the location; this was
demonstrated through earlier work carried out by Social Life, as part of the original
engagement process with residents during 2013 and 2014. It is, however, unclear what the
precise numbers are in terms of those who favour and those who oppose redevelopment.
Design Options – the future of Cressingham Gardens
1.42 During the course of the long engagement period with residents during 2013 and 2014, five
design options were formulated to facilitate the discussion. These were only massing
studies and give a very rough approximation of the capacity of different approaches for
regeneration, involving different degrees of refurbishment and redevelopment.
1.43 Options 1 to 3 are primarily refurbishment options with varying degrees of minor infill or
redevelopment of a few properties, such as the derelict void properties at Crosby Walk at
the northern end of the estate. Option 4 involves redevelopment of the northern third of the
estate, refurbishing the southern two thirds. In summary, Options 1 to 4 all comprise a
significant amount of refurbishment, while Option 5 represents complete redevelopment
with no refurbishment.
1.44 Appendix B provides a detailed analysis of the different options against the criteria that have
been adopted for all estates within Lambeth’s estate regeneration programme. The ability
of the Council to fund refurbishment of properties on the estate must be also factored onto
this.
1.45 As set out in Paragraphs 1.34 and 1.35, the funding of refurbishment and redevelopment
takes place by entirely separate means. The consequence of this is that for an option to be
viable to take forwards, it must separately meet the criteria of:
Page 16
13
redevelopment component of the option must be viable; AND,
refurbishment component of the option must be considered to be value for money
AND funding can be allocated from within the HRA.
1.46 Table 1 shows a comparison of the five design options and the outputs from the viability
analyses that have been undertaken.
TABLE 1 – Comparison of Design Options
Option 1 – full
refurbishment
Option 2 – part
redevelopment/
part
refurbishment
Option 3 – part
redevelopment/
part
refurbishment
Option 4 – part
redevelopment/
part
refurbishment
Option 5 –
comprehensive
redevelopment
Number of net additional homes
0 19 20 72 158
Number of new, replacement
homes at Council rent
0 7 17 93 212
Number of new, additional homes
at Tenancy strategy
0 11 12 35 75
Net Present Value for refurbishment
-£662k -£523k
-£526k -£493k n/a
Net Present Value for
redevelopment (base scenario)
n/a £2.6m £1.27m £3.15m £824k
People’s Plan
1.47 The “People’s Plan” for Cressingham Gardens has been submitted to the Council during
the recent consultation exercise; it is attached as Appendix J (excluding all the appendices
that were attached). The Council has committed to considering this proposal. A more
detailed technical assessment is provided in Appendix B, which suggests that despite the
apparent attractiveness of the proposal to residents there would be some very problematic
(quite probably irresolvable) technical difficulties to deliver it. It looks positively at numerous
different ideas focussed around refurbishing the estate, but glosses over or ignores the
negative issues associated with each proposition.
1.48 The “People’s Plan” is essentially another refurbishment option, effectively the same as
Option 2 but with some added components and the suggestion (albeit unfounded) that
additional funding could be found to support the proposals. Regardless of the technical
merits of the proposal, fundamentally the question of whether it is realistic or not depends
Page 17
14
on exactly the same set of questions as those applied to those design options reliant on
significant refurbishment. So, whether or not it is viable to build the proposed additional
new homes as suggested, the “People’s Plan” depends upon finding and allocating
sufficient resources from within the HRA to refurbish the retained homes. This in turn
depends on whether it is value for money to refurbish these properties and whether
refurbishment alone would resolve other problems with the condition of the estate.
1.49 It is, however, recognised that a great deal of effort has been expended in preparing the
“People’s Plan” and there are definitely some ideas contained within it that could be
incorporated into the redevelopment for the estate.
General Planning Commentary
1.50 In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and the London Plan (2015) the
Council has adopted planning policies, which seek to maximise the supply of additional
homes, including affordable housing, within the Borough. The delivery of new housing is a
key priority of the development plan, but this has to be balanced against the requirements
of other policies, which deal with a wide range of issues such as design, heritage, amenity,
trees, open space and transport. The Local Planning Authority has been proactively
involved in the initial design development work, which has been undertaken on the six
estates in the estate regeneration programme referred to in this report. Planning officers
have visited the sites, assisted in identifying constraints and opportunities in terms of the
existing built form and its surrounds, they have advised on key constraints and provided
commentary on the emergent design study proposals in the context of adopted planning
policies. It is considered that there is the potential to deliver new homes on each of these
estates whilst also addressing key existing issues such as poor quality accommodation,
lack of permeability, accessibility, insufficient legibility, anti-social behaviour; and poor
quality public realm / open space. Officers will be seeking to optimise the quantum of
additional housing that can be delivered on each estate taking account of the particular
constraints of the site.
1.51 Lambeth has a number of housing estates of architectural interest and heritage, including
the estates developed by Ted Hollamby between 1965 and 1980. Listing requests have
been made to English Heritage for two such sites already; one of which has been
successful. A listing application was made for Cressingham Gardens, which was assessed
and not recognised; this was rejected with the following reasons for not being designated:
“Cressingham Gardens, built 1921-78, by Lambeth Borough Council Architects’ Department
under Edward Hollamby, is not recommended for listing for the following principal reasons:
Variable architectural interest: some elements within the scheme are creatively
planned and visually engaging, whereas others have lesser interest; overall it lacks
the structural cohesion, strong architectural expression as an ensemble, and the
quality of details, of the best public housing schemes of the period;
Variable quality of planning: while the relationship between some elements within the
scheme is exceptionally successful, the relationship between other elements is either
less well resolved, or has a much looser, more informal quality;
Page 18
15
Alterattion: the wholesale window replacement and gradual attrition of the uniformity
of the buildings has undermined in part the quality of their simple, robust, details.
Park View Court
1.52 Park View Court represents a block of six flats on Tulse Hill Road, which is surrounded on
three sides by the Cressingham Gardens estate. From early on in the feasibility work, it
was identified that it might be beneficial in terms of net additional number of homes delivered
and quality of the masterplan to include Park View Court.
1.53 Through this consultation process, the residents of Park View Court have been notified that
there is a strong likelihood that their properties would in the future be included in the
masterplan. But they have been notified that no decision on this matter is being taken at
this time and that it will only be through the masterplanning process that this will be
considered.
Resident Commitments
1.54 As set out in paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in Appendix A, the Council has made commitments
to residents to minimise the impact to residents that could arise from redevelopment and
ensure, as far as is possible, that they can remain living on their estate. These commitments
are embedded in the Key Guarantees – see Appendix K; more details on the Key
Guarantees and associated processes were provided to all residents on the estate during
2015 in the documents Information for Secure Tenants and Information for Homeowners
and more recently they have been reminded of the availability of these documents in the
letter sent to all residents on 29th February 2016. Key elements of these Key Guarantees
are set out below. The Council recently asked TPAS to review formally the Key Guarantees
and TPAS has confirmed that the Key Guarantees meet, and in many cases exceed,
statutory requirements. The TPAS Review has also been made available to residents.
1.55 The commitments embedded in the Key Guarantees are that all tenants will be re-housed;
any tenant wishing to remain on their estate will be able to do so and will be provided with
a new home that meets their housing need. However, where tenants value their existing
secure tenancy, they can be elevated to Band A status on the Choice Based Lettings system
and will have plenty of opportunity has the planning for redevelopment takes place to look
for an alternative secure tenanted (or other) home elsewhere in the Borough. A draft new
Assured Lifetime Tenancy has been drafted and is available for residents to review.
Tenants will also be given help moving, with extra help provided for those who are
vulnerable or have special needs.
1.56 The commitment to homeowners embedded in the Key Guarantees involves a variety of
different options that are specifically made to deal with the different financial circumstances
of different households. The offers include purchasing a property, to enable the homeowner
to move away, or re-providing a home on the estate through a variety of mechanisms.
Furthermore, in the Homeowners Financial Information document, information was provided
to enable homeowners to understand better the potential financial impact of redevelopment,
including the ability to call independent mortgage advisers (paid for by the Council) to enable
Page 19
16
them to explore their own personal situation. In addition to this, assistance would be
provided to vulnerable homeowners to help them move.
1.57 For both secure tenants and homeowners, the Council will provide compensation through
homeloss payments and disturbance payments.
1.58 Concern has been expressed by some residents that the current appraisals do not appear
to show adequate replacement of 4-bedroom properties. The Key Guarantees contain a
commitment to provide existing tenants with replacement homes that meet their housing
needs. The combination of allocations policy and housing standards define how those
needs would normally be assessed, interpreted and provided for through a new home. The
advantage to tenants in the context of redevelopment is that new homes can effectively be
designed to cater for their particular needs, where these can be considered in terms of both
the current need (at time of moving into a new home) and in the immediate future thereafter
(to take account, for example, of growing children).
2. Proposal and Reasons
Proposal
2.1 The proposal is to proceed with complete redevelopment of the Cressingham Gardens
estate. This decision would enable the Council to procure a development management
team to progress design work towards a masterplan for the estate, which can then be taken
forwards to a planning application.
2.2 The demolition of all the properties on the Cressingham Gardens estate and building of new
homes can be expected to deliver:
replacement of all existing homes – all existing tenants and resident leaseholders will
have the opportunity to move into new high quality homes in a well-designed new
neighbourhood;
a minimum of 158 additional new homes; and,
a minimum of 75 additional affordable homes, of which a minimum of 27 would be for
council rent.
2.3 The design brief for the development management team (to be procured) will look to
develop a phasing strategy for the regeneration of the estate so as to minimise the need to
move anyone temporarily off the estate and to make sure (as far as is possible) that
households only need to move once. In any event, the Council would work with residents
to agree a construction programme that seeks to minimise disruption to residents.
2.4 In addition to this, in the spirit of the “People’s Plan”, which seeks both to embrace the
existing character of the estate and to promote a ‘green solution’ for the estate, the Council
will ensure that the development management teams engaged to progress the
masterplanning of the project embrace an ambition to achieve a highly sustainable solution,
Page 20
17
embracing low energy, ecology, etc., and recognise the unique location on Brockwell Park
to deliver an exemplar new housing neighbourhood.
Consequences of the Recommendations in this Report
2.5 If the recommendations in this Report are adopted, then the Council will embark on a
programme of masterplanning of the Cressingham Gardens Estate based on the
assumption that the whole estate would be redeveloped. The financial viability of the project
will continue to be assessed as the master planning develops. If the Council is unable to
reach agreement for acquisition of leasehold properties, then it would be necessary to seek
to acquire them by compulsory purchase.
Land Acquisition
2.6 Funding is already in place within the General Fund to commence the process of property
buybacks from those homeowners who wish to sell back to the Council. A strategy will be
developed to roll out this buy back programme, which will in due course become informed
by the phasing strategy, which will be part of the masterplan.
2.7 As the masterplan is developed, it may become apparent that acquisition of additional land
holdings on or adjacent to the estate, where such land holdings are partly enclosed by the
land area of the estate (in particular, freehold dwellings and Park View court), would enable
an enhanced masterplan to be produced and allow delivery of more homes. Where this is
the case, the following tests should be applied:
that the incorporation of such additional land area within a masterplan would
qualitatively improve the masterplan in place-making terms (both within the
masterplan area and in terms of how it fits within its wider context); and,
that incorporation of such additional land area would achieve net additional new
homes.
Incorporation of such additional land holdings should be pursued in first instance through
negotiation with the existing landowners. If this is not successful, then inclusion of such
properties within the redevelopment would be confirmed at the time the Council decides
whether to proceed with a compulsory purchase order for the estate. The decision to use
CPO powers will require a further report to Cabinet.
2.8 There is a strong likelihood that a compulsory purchase order (CPO) will be required in
order to proceed with the redevelopment. This is most likely to be once the masterplan has
been prepared and the perimeter for the future estate determined, prior to making a planning
application. This will enable the making of a CPO to run in parallel with the planning
determination process. In the meantime, every effort will be employed by the Council to
acquire properties by negotiation.
Resident Commitments
2.9 If the recommendation in this Report is confirmed, then the “Key Guarantees” (pending
refinement and improvement through a subsequent consultation exercise) for secure
Page 21
18
tenants and homeowners will now be implemented at Cressingham Gardens in accordance
with the following principles:
they will be implemented in the context of existing Lambeth Policies, noting specific
exceptions that are set out in the above referenced information documents;
officers will be tasked to work with the residents of the estate to formulate a local
lettings policy that will determine how new built homes will be allocated, taking into
consideration the housing needs of the existing residents on an estate; and,
while recognising that there is no obligation on the Council to do this, officers should
explore what opportunities there may be to provide assistance to tenants of private
landlords on the estate, with a view to enabling such tenants to remain part of the
community of the estate or at the least to remain part of the community of Lambeth.
Reasons
2.10 The reason for recommending complete redevelopment of the estate are set out below.
2.11 While recognising preferences expressed by residents for refurbishment and taking on
board all those elements of the estate that residents like, it would not be value for money to
commit funds to refurbishing properties on the estate because:
as stated to residents, it would cost significantly more to refurbish properties at
Cressingham Gardens than elsewhere;
it is highly unlikely that refurbishment would resolve all the problems with the
properties (as evidenced through the Tall Report);
there are inherent design problems with the estate, such as inability to cater for
disabled residents; and,
there is significant overcrowding in the properties on the estate.
All of the options that have been considered represent significant refurbishment and
consequently none of them can be justified.
2.12 Focussing on redevelopment, while the redevelopment component of Option 4 appears to
be the healthiest option in purely financial terms, this is ignoring that it leaves two-thirds of
the estate unfunded and requiring refurbishment. Option 5 is viable, is not reliant on funding
of any refurbishment and, as set out in Appendix B, best delivers to the Council’s stated
criteria and objectives for the estate regeneration programme.
2.13 The Council has assessed the People’s Plan and concluded that it is not a viable proposition
and would be technically very difficult and costly to achieve.
3. Finance
3.1 Because the Council is the freehold owner of most of the properties on the estate all income
and expenditure for the estate falls within the Council-wide HRA. This means there are
Page 22
19
strict budgeting controls that prevent the Council from running a deficit in any one year.
Moreover, the Council cannot borrow more than is currently planned because borrowing via
the HRA is capped by Central Government either by means of a fixed “headroom” limit or
because the HRA simply cannot afford to borrow more (i.e. there is insufficient income to
pay any higher interest payments). Furthermore, grants from Central Government, such as
were previously available for the Decent Homes programme, are now severely limited, if
not curtailed altogether. This means that money spent on the estate from within the HRA
is money that is not available to be spent on other Council-wide properties. Hence the
Council has to make some difficult decisions about how best to spend its scarce resources.
3.2 Refurbishment and redevelopment are funded differently. Refurbishment costs must fall
within the HRA because refurbished properties remain Council properties. However, with
redevelopment, existing properties are demolished and the land would be transferred to a
different owner so that the redevelopment costs can come from money borrowed from the
outside of the HRA, rather than from within the HRA.
3.3 It is for this reason that the Council is proposing to set up a Special Purpose Vehicle ('SPV'),
an independent company that would be wholly owned by the Council. Properties that would
be owned by the SPV would cease to be accounted for within the HRA so as to free these
properties from the above mentioned budgeting constraints. The SPV would be able to
raise private sector funds outside of the HRA for schemes that had a sound business case.
3.4 It is not possible to make a sound business case for investing in properties on the estate
that are to be refurbished. As noted above on average a typical Council property would cost
circa £16,000 to refurbish but properties on the Cressingham Gardens estate are estimated
to have an average refurbishment cost in excess of £30,000 per property. This expense
would not be offset by greater income and although maintenance costs would fall they would
not fall sufficiently to make the investment worthwhile to a private investor. Hence,
properties for refurbishment will have to remain within the HRA and subject to the
consequential financial constraints.
3.5 The Council instructed Airey Miller to run viability reports on the refurbishment and
redevelopment costs for each of the five options. Their reports are attached as Appendix
D. They have performed a financial viability analysis to establish whether each of the five
options for the estate would have an acceptable risk profile and a positive net present value
("NPV"). NPV is a measure of how profitable a future cashflow is by comparing the value
of a pound today to the value of that pound at a future point, taking inflation into account. If
the NPV of a prospective project is positive, the project stands to provide an increased
return on investment and would be considered acceptable. However, if NPV is negative,
the project probably should be rejected because the cost of implementing will not be
recovered in the future.
3.6 The NPV models for each of the four options that contain an element of refurbishment is
theoretical because they assume that the finance would be borrowed from the private
sector, which, as explained above, would not be possible for properties held within the HRA.
Page 23
20
However, these theoretical models give an indication of whether each option (if the finance
could be found from within the HRA) would provide value for money. In fact none of the
four options would provide value for money because each has a negative NPV meaning
that over a 30 year period the net cost to the Council would, by these theoretical models,
be:
Option 1: -£622k
Option 2: -£523k
Option 3: -£526k
Option 4: -£493k
3.7 The NPV models for the four options that contain an element of redevelopment are not
theoretical and indeed iterated versions of these (once further design work has been
undertaken) will form the basis for the business case that will be used to raise finance (this
is why some of the financial information has been redacted because the information cannot
be seen by potential contractors or investment partners). They show that each option has
a positive NPV meaning that over a 60 year period the Council could expect a return on its
borrowed finance by each of these dates:
Option 2: in 2046
Option 3: in 2019
Option 4: in 2020
Option 5: in 2022
3.8 From a financial perspective none of the options that involves an element of refurbishment
would offer value for money: each would require the Council to divert from the HRA a
considerable sum to fund the refurbishment part of the project. Option 4 is the least costly
of the four refurbishment options but even this would require the Council to incur a peak
capital debt on the project of £6.74m; money which is simply not available within the HRA.
3.9 Option 1 would offer even less value for money because it would require the Council to
divert £10.8m from other areas towards refurbishment of the Cressingham Gardens estate.
Furthermore, since Option 1 involves no redevelopment there would be no increased
income in the years to come.
3.10 From a financial perspective alone the Council recommends that Option 5 is progressed
because each of the other four options would not provide value for money and would require
the Council to divert considerable sums from its other Council-wide tenants and
leaseholders over the next few years. This would be at a time when there are already two
significant financial pressures on the HRA:
The programme of estate refurbishment that was agreed in 2010, which provided for
the Council to spend £499m over 5 years, was identified (even before the Chancellor's
budget of 2015) as having an expected funding gap of some £56m.
Page 24
21
That funding gap has now grown to more than £85m for reasons including: the
Chancellor's decision that council rents should decrease by 1% per year for 4 years;
and refurbishment costs have been greater than expected.
3.11 In addition to financial considerations there are other reasons, as noted above, for preferring
Option 5 over the other four options.
3.12 In June 2015 AMCAP Asset Management Cabinet Advisory Panel) recommended the
allocation of resources to fund the master planning work on the six estate regeneration
schemes. (Westbury, Knight’s Walk, South Lambeth, Fenwick, Central Hill, Cressingham).
This was followed up by the Cabinet Decision on 27th July 2015 to begin the procurement
process for development management teams for the estates within the estate regeneration
programme.
3.13 A sum of £5m per annum was also approved by Cabinet in April 2014 to support the
provision of affordable housing, including a budget to commence property buybacks and
site assembly costs.
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.
4.5 Article 1 of The First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that every person is
entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and that no one shall be deprived of
their possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by
law and by the general principles of international law. These provisions do not impair the
rights of the state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property
Page 25
22
in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.
4.6 Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires the Council in the exercise of its functions to
have due regard to the need to:
(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other form of conduct
prohibited under the act; and,
(b) to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between persons who
share a relevant protected characteristic (age, disability, gender re-assignment,
pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex, and sexual orientation) and
persons who do not share it.
4.9 Having regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share
relevant protected characteristics and persons who do not share it involves having due
regard, in particular, to the need to:
(a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant
protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;
(b) take steps to meet the needs of the persons who share that characteristic that are
different from the needs of persons who do not share it; and,
(c) encourage persons of the relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life
or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.
4.10 Where applicable, the Council, as a contracting authority, must adhere to the rules set out
in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The threshold above which the award of public
services contracts must comply with the full rigour of the Regulations is £172,514 and for
works contract the sum is £4,322,012. For over-threshold contracts, contracting authorities
must, among other things, publish a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European
Union. For public contracts below these thresholds, authorities must give due regard to the
general Treaty of Rome principles of openness, transparency and non-discrimination and
the observance of the Council’s procurement procedures in the selection process would
provide compliance in this regard
4.11 When considering whether to adopt the recommendations of this report, the decision maker
will be exercising discretion within the constraints of the duties referred to above and should
therefore have in mind the following principles of administrative law:
the decision must be within the Council’s powers;
all relevant information and consideration, including the Council’s fiduciary duty to the
Council Tax payer, must be taken into account; and,
all irrelevant considerations, including unauthorised purposes, must be ignored.
Page 26
23
4.12 This proposed key decision was entered in the Forward Plan on 19 February 2016 having
subsumed a previous edition of estate regeneration reports, and the necessary 28 clear
days’ notice has been given. In addition, the Council’s Constitution requires the report to
be published on the website for five clear days before the proposed decision is approved
by the Cabinet Member. Any representations received during this period must be
considered by the decision-maker before the decision is taken. 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 Estate regeneration projects involve a series of stages of work. There is initial feasibility,
during which the Council is making a first approach to residents to discuss regeneration of
the estate, followed by a process of engagement, in which residents can become closely
involved in the planning and design of the future of their estate. We appreciate that local
residents need to be able to bring forward ideas and also objections at an early stage. This
also allows us to set out our own objectives about improving quality and providing more
affordable homes.
5.2 There has been an extensive programme of consultation and engagement on the
Cressingham Gardens Estate which has opportunities for residents to shape the masterplan
objectives which will in turn shape the new development. The process by which the
engagement has operated is set out in detail in the Consultation Report; this includes a
detailed consultation log of all the consultation activity.
5.3 Once a decision is taken on the scale of redevelopment of an estate, then it is made clear
to residents whether their home will be part of a redevelopment process or not. This enables
residents to decide on whether they wish to be part of the future of an area and to become
involved in the masterplanning of the estate. The next step for the Cressingham Gardens
estate is to begin formulating masterplan objectives for the future of the estate.
5.4 A Resident Engagement Panel has been running for some time at the Cressingham
Gardens estate, together with an Independent Resident Adviser.
6. Risk Management
6.1 A project team is in place and a risk register is maintained. Key risks and mitigations are
noted below:
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation
Residents do not feel
engaged in the process H H
The approach we are adopting is to have
direct engagement throughout all the
processes and phases.
Residents do not agree
with the data on which M M
Resident reps involved in the Resident
Engagement Panel can help to
Page 27
24
regeneration, demolition
and new build actions
are based
demonstrate that the information and data
is correct.
Project plan – delivery stage addresses
tasks required to mitigate
We have instances of
legal objections or an
unwillingness to vacate
properties
H H
The Council is using a wide range of
communication methods to work with
residents to explain the benefits of estate
regeneration at both and individual and
collective level.
Where individual residents have concerns,
the Council can work with them to seek to
address issues.
The Independent Resident Advisor
retained to advise residents on options
and impacts
Masterplan is too
expensive L H
Robust financial advice and modelling to
make sure we are completely clear about
costs. A development management team
will be procured, where it will be their
responsibility to present back to the
Council viable options for regeneration.
Financial oversight to be provided by the
Financial Planning and Management
Team, reporting to AIMG/AMCAP
Planning permission not
granted L H
Planning colleagues and advisers to
remain engaged throughout masterplan
development.
PPA in place to ensure engagement
7. Equalities Impact Assessment
7.1 There are significant equalities issues that may arise as a consequence of this estate
regeneration programme; these will need to be managed through the course of regenerating
each estate.
7.2 An Equalities Impact Assessment was undertaken in June 2015 to support the earlier
Cabinet Report on Cressingham Gardens of July 2015. A review has been undertaken to
consider whether any additional empirical data has emerged since July 2015, which could
cause the Equalities Impact Assessment to need to be revised. No such data has arisen
during this time period. As a consequence, given that the recommendation in this Report
Page 28
25
is effectively identical to that of the July 2015 Cabinet Report, this Equalities Impact
Assessment has not been up-dated. It is attached as Appendix G.
7.3 The Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out for Cressingham Gardens to
support the recommendation in this Cabinet report to regenerate the entire estate. This
Equalities Impact Assessment is based on the information available at the time of this
decision and given the level of work that has been carried out so far on the estate.
Information that has been used to undertake this Equalities Impact Assessment includes:
Local and Borough-wide Demographic Data;
Information held by Lambeth Living;
Consultation work across the estate over the last 2 years;
Household Needs Survey (carried out in February/March 2015); and,
Test of Opinion Survey (carried out in May/June 2015).
7.4 A key action that arises from the Cressingham Gardens Equalities Impact Assessment is a
need to explore how to mitigate potential living cost increases arising from the regeneration,
such as rent increases and service charge changes. Mechanisms that the Council is
exploring to mitigate these is to implement a phasing in of new rents over, say, a 5-year
period and to ensure that the design brief demands careful consideration of the future
service and utility charges on the estates.
7.5 As the development strategy is progressed for the Cressingham Gardens estate, it will be
important to consider the whole living cost associated with moving into new homes both in
the short and longer term and work with residents to identify ways to minimise the impact of
any additional costs.
7.6 As the Cressingham Gardens regeneration project is progressed, then more information will
be obtained over time regarding the residents on the estate and the communities in the
areas surrounding the estate. This will allow more detailed equalities assessments to be
undertaken to support more detailed decisions on design, phasing and other particulars of
the development strategy.
8. Community Safety
8.1 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 and actively design out the
potential for crime as part of the development process.
9. Organisation implications
The following sections must be considered, but are optional and each should be deleted if
not relevant to the report. If there are no organisational implications, state “None”.
Page 29
26
9.1 Environmental
For Procurement reports, please include how the report demonstrates responsible
procurement. Keep to one paragraph, if needed.
9.2 Staffing and accommodation
Keep to one paragraph, if needed. HR must be consulted on any potential implications of
staffing or accommodation.
9.3 Procurement
Cover any key procurement information and considerations and how the procurement
process was used. For reports requiring consideration by the Procurement Board (PB), the
report author must record the date of the meeting in the Audit Trail and, after the PB, update
the report and audit trail to include comments made by the Board. Reports are no longer
signed by the PB Chair but decisions are noted in the meeting minutes. Include
“Responsible Procurement” implications, including achievement of apprenticeships
schemes, the London Living Wage and environmental considerations.
A separate part 2 (exempt from disclosure) report is required for procurements valued at
£100,000 and greater. Detailed advice on drafting part 2 reports is set out at doc 02
08. Simply adapt the single report template to include only the exempt information.
9.4 Health
Keep to one paragraph, if needed. In respect of policy reports, how does the policy meets
the priorities of the health and wellbeing strategy and what evidence there is to support the
proposed actions in the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA)?
10. Timetable for Implementation
Procurement Strategy
10.1 An OJEU compliant procurement process was commenced in the summer of 2015, to
procure a development management team to progress the regeneration of the Cressingham
Gardens estate through masterplanning, planning and any compulsory purchase and
procurement of construction of the project. This has been suspended as a consequence of
the outcome of the Judicial Review. If Cabinet decides to confirm redevelopment of all or
part of the estate, then this procurement process will be resumed where it left off.
Activities as a consequence of these recommendations
10.2 Set out below are the immediate activities to be progressed by Council officers if these
recommendations are adopted. These are just the actions that will be observed from a
resident’s perspective.
Communication: Letter announcing the recommendation to residents, setting out
what this will mean for them (this will be tailored to different residents).
Page 30
27
Engagement: Council officers to hold weekly or fortnightly drop-in sessions on the
estate (depending on demand) to be available to any resident to drop by and ask
questions.
Resident Engagement Panel: If the recommendations in this report are adopted,
then the membership of this existing Panel will be reviewed to make sure that it is
representative of residents on the estate and furthermore that its members are those
who are willing to engage to progressing the redevelopment of the estate.
Procurement: Progression of the procurement of the development management
team to completion. This process has already started and will continue as follows:
– selection of resident representatives to be on the interview panel;
– capacity building training for the selected resident representatives (and any
others who want to participate);
– exhibition of the bidders for the development management role;
– interviews with the bidders;
– announcement of the successful bidder; and
– event – “meet the development management team”.
Key Guarantees: Commencement of implementation of Key Guarantees, including:
– notification to residents on what the Council’s offers mean to them;
– details of the process involved in different options under the Key Guarantees;
– description of the “Resident Journey” from current home to new home; and
– formal buy-back of leaseholds (where desired by residents) will likely
commence at the beginning of 2016.
Household Needs: Council starting to gather detailed household needs information
from tenants.
Masterplanning: Early work of the selected development management team,
including setting out for residents what the masterplanning process will involve.
Other: Further meetings with landowners affected by the recommendations to
consider their options.
Timetable
10.3 The diagram on the following page shows a potential programme for Cressingham Gardens;
this will become clearer, refined and more detailed over time.
10.4 The programme suggests that first construction of an initial phase of development on the
estate could commence during 2018.
Page 31
28
CressinghamGardensEstateRedevelopment-IndicativeProgramme
CPOInquiry
Phase1construction(noCPORequired)
Phase2andbeyond-commencement
Firstdecanttonewproperties
3to6months
Oct-16 Jul17toOct-17 Oct-17toJan-18 Jan-18toJul-18
CPOConfirmed
9to12months 3to6months 3to6months 6to9months
CPOInquiryPreparations
Confirm
Masterplan
Objectives
Viable
Masterplan
Confirm
Red-line
Authorise
toproceedwith
CPO
Planning
Application
(probably
hybrid
outline+
detailed)
MakeCPO
Planning
Permission
DevelopmentManagementTeam
Masterplanning
PlanningApplicationPreparation
On-goingconsultation
On-goingbuy-back-non-residents
CPOReferencing
PlanningDeterminationImplementationofKeyGuarantees
FormulateLocalLettingsPolicy
Engagementwithresidentsindesign
On-goingconsultation
MasterplanObjectives
On-goingconsultation
On-goingconsultation
Confirmdetailedhousingneedsonestate
Formulationofphasingstrategyfordecant
On-goingbuy-back-non-residents
FinaliseDecantPolicy
Finalisenewtenancies/leases
Page 32
29
Audit trail
Name/Position
Lambeth directorate/
department or partner
Date Sent Date
Received
Comments
in para:
Councillor Matthew Bennett
Cabinet Member
Cabinet Member for
Housing
07/03/16 08/03/16 Throughout
Sue Foster, Strategic Director Strategic Housing,
Regeneration and
Communities
07/03/16 10/03/16 Throughout
Rachel Sharpe, Director,
Strategy and Commissioning
Strategic Housing,
Regeneration and
Communities
01/03/2016 08/03/2016 Throughout
Christina Thompson, Director
of Finance
Finance, Corporate
Resources
01/03/2016 09/03/2016 Throughout
Neil Vokes, Associate Director,
Housing Regeneration
Strategic Housing,
Regeneration and
Communities
01/03/2016 08/03/2016 Throughout
Greg Carson, Principal Lawyer Legal Services, Corporate
Resources
01/03/16 02/03/16 4.1 to 4.11
David Rose, Democratic
Services Officer
Democratic Services,
Corporate Resources
02/03/16 03/03/16 Throughout
Report history
Original discussion with Cabinet
Member
December 2015
Report deadline 11.03.16
Date final report sent 09.03.16
Report no. 186/15-16
Part II Exempt from
Disclosure/confidential
accompanying report?
No
Key decision report Yes
Date first appeared on forward
plan
19 February 2016
Key decision reasons
2. Financial expenditure or saving of over £500,000
3. Meets Community Impact Test
Background information
The Community Plan, 2013-16
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s55297/06b%202
0130403%20Community%20Plan%20FINAL.pdf
Delivering Better Homes, Cabinet report, dated 4th Nov
2013
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s61039/07_Deliv
ering%20Better%20Homes.pdf
Page 33
30
Lambeth Estate Regeneration Programme: Strategic
Delivery Approach’ (22/10/12)
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s50180/06%20Es
tate%20Regen%20Final_22%2010%2012_NV.pdf
Cressingham Garden Consultation on the future of the
estate
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=
225&MId=9379&Ver=4
Appendices
Appendix A – Background Decision-Making
Appendix B – Option Analysis
Appendix C – Summary of Key Issues raised during
Consultation
Appendix D – Financial Appraisal of Options
o Part 1 – Refurbishment Appraisals
o Part 2 – Redevelopment Appraisals
Appendix E – Financial Appraisal of People’s Plan
o Part 1 – Refurbishment
o Part 2 – Development
Appendix F – Financial Summary
Appendix G – Equalities Impact Assessment
Appendix H – Housing Needs Survey (2015)
Appendix I – Application for Leave to Appeal (November
2015)
Appendix J – Cressingham Gardens – “People’s Plan”
(excluding appendices)
Appendix K – Key Guarantees
Appendix L – Consultation Report (March 2015)
Page 34
Cabinet
Date of Cabinet: 21 March 2015
Report title Lambeth Children’s Social Care Improvement Programme
Wards: All
Report Authorised by: Strategic Director - Children, Adults and Health: Helen Charlesworth-
May
Portfolio: Deputy Leader of the Council (Policy): Councillor Imogen Walker
Contact for enquiries: Fern Barber; Improvement Team, Children’s Social Care;
[email protected]; Tel: 020 7926 2125
Report summary
Lambeth Council are committed to making the improvements required to secure the best possible
outcomes for our children and young people. This report outlines key developments in children’s
social care improvement since the last Cabinet report in November 2015, summarises the
different work streams of the Children’s Improvement Programme and outlines the council’s
priorities for improvement going forward.
Finance summary
The Children’s Social Care Improvement Programme identifies six work streams (described within
section 4.6 of this report). There are one-off improvement costs associated with building capacity
in key areas relating to these work streams. The costs of these will sit outside the Children’s Social
Care budget and will be met through transformation funding held centrally. The cost of this
improvement work is estimated to be in the region of £300,000-£400,000 and will cover among
other things a lean process review; development of practice standards (these pieces of work have
already been delivered); work to reduce demand into the system, introducing a new performance
framework, and training to embed a new approach to reflective supervision and a set of privileged
social work methodologies.
The Children’s Social Care budget is expected to be overspent over 2015/16 due to staffing levels
and placement costs, and invoice payments made this year which relate to previous financial
years. Planned budget reductions relating to the redesign were postponed, pending the diagnostic
work, new vision and improvement programme being agreed with the DfE. A one-off contribution
of £5m has been made available from reserves to off-set this overspend, with additional resources
of up to £400k allocated to cover the costs of the improvement work. This was previously agreed
in the November 2015 Cabinet report.
Page 35 Agenda Item 4
To avoid an overspend continuing in 2016/17 this has been addressed through the budget setting
process through bottom-up planning based on the costs for the redesigned staffing structure and
the setting of detailed budgets for placement activity. Budget management responsibilities are
being refocused to sit with team managers and retraining on the systems and processes is
underway within the teams in order to improve financial management. This is being reinforced by
a more rigorous budget monitoring process that has been endorsed by the Corporate
Management Team. It is anticipated that this will help managers to actively manage pressure in
the system.
Recommendations
(1) That Cabinet note developments since November 2015, including the Improvement Notice
issued on 16 December 2015, the Prime Minister’s announcement about poorly performing
local authority children’s services on 15 December 2015, a letter from the Department for
Education (DfE) dated 12 January 2016 and a DfE Stocktake meeting held on February 16
2016.
(2) That Cabinet endorse the progress which has been made in relation to Children’s Social
Care improvements so far, including progress toward key milestones, and note the feedback
from the two Ofsted improvement visits.
(3) That Cabinet endorse the priorities for improvement going forward and note the progress
which the DfE and their appointed expert advisors, Morning Lane Associates, will expect to
see by June 2016.
Page 36
1. Context
1.1 Following an Ofsted inspection in May 2015 Lambeth's Children's Services were judged to
be inadequate. Since then much work has taken place to reflect on the underlying causes
of the judgement, to develop a comprehensive work plan in response (the Children’s Social
Care Improvement Programme) and to ensure that we are focussed on outcomes for
children and families, rather than on process and compliance.
1.2 Since the November 2015 Cabinet update there have been a number of key
developments which have significantly increased the pace at which the changes outlined in
the Improvement Programme must be delivered. Every effort is being made to ensure that
the work we do is focussed on the children in our care and improving the quality of the
service we provide to children, young people and families.
1.3 On 16 December 2015 the council received its official improvement notice1 from the
minister of State for Children and Families. The letter explained that Morning Lane
Associates (MLA, the DfE-appointed improvement advisor) and the DfE will formally review
progress against the council’s improvement plan at least every six months.
1.4 On 14 December 2015 the Prime Minister announced that failing local authority children’s
services that do not show significant improvements within six months will be put under the
purview of an independent commissioner and potentially taken over by high performing
authorities, teams of experts or charities. This announcement, particularly the short
turnaround time indicated, significantly increased the pressure on the Lambeth’s
improvement planning.
1.5 On 12 January 2016 the council received a letter from the DfE2 confirming that a formal
review of Lambeth’s improvement progress will be held in June 2016 and that this will result
in a judgement on whether the council can retain control of its children’s services. The letter
makes clear that by June the DfE expect Lambeth to be able to “demonstrate effective
performance in a number of social work teams”. The letter included 15 questions arising
from the Lambeth’s improvement plan. The council’s and LSCB’s responses to each of
these questions are included in appendix 1.
1.6 On 16 February 2016 the DfE hosted a formal stocktake meeting in Lambeth to which the
Deputy Leader (Policy), Chief Executive, Strategic Director Children Adults and Health and
Director of Children’s Services attended, along with MLA and Ofsted. The purpose of this
meeting was to:
o come to a shared understanding of Lambeth’s strategy and progress to date including
successes and key areas of risk;
o provide assurance to DfE on key areas highlighted in January 2016 letter; and,
o come to a shared understanding of role and requirements of improvement partners
including what MLA will be looking for in June (and when in June they will be coming),
and what Ofsted will be looking for as part of their ongoing improvement offer.
1 Supporting document 5 of appendix 1 2 Supporting document 1 of appendix 1
Page 37
Appendix 1 is the supporting document pack that was circulated ahead of that meeting. The
minutes and actions from that meeting are at Appendix 2 which confirm that the DfE was
satisfied with progress to date.
1.7 The remainder of this report provides more detailed updates on specific areas of the
children’s social care improvement programme.
2. Proposal and Reasons
Children’s Social Care Improvement Programme
2.1 Our ultimate goal is to enact real change and enable real improvements in outcomes for our
most vulnerable children and their families, and every effort is being made to ensure that
their ‘voice’ is being incorporated into the improvement programme to ensure that we deliver
for them.
2.2 The Children’s Social Care Improvement Programme3 has been updated to bring the
actions and recommendations within the previously agreed Priority Action Plan, the Morning
Lane diagnostic4 and the Vision and Strategy together into a single programme for change.
2.3 The improvement programme is a major work plan dealing with significant issues requiring
considerable organisational capacity and commitment from across the council and its
partners. The Programme sets out in detail the actions which are required to deliver
systematic and cultural change alongside some of the process improvements that are
needed. It is divided into six key work streams which are outlined below with progress
updates from November.
Communicating the Vision
2.4 The purpose of this work stream is to ensure that the vision is communicated by inspirational
and committed senior management and political leadership to staff, partners and families.
Significant work has been undertaken by the Leader, Chief Executive, Strategic Director,
LSCB interim chair and Director of Children’s Services to ensure partners, and all parts of
the council understand the importance of the children’s improvement programme and the
role they must play in it.
Reshaping the service
2.5 Lambeth is in the process of restructuring Children's Social Care to enable social workers
to undertake meaningful and quality social work practice which makes a real difference to
people’s lives. A new structure is being implemented, which will introduce smaller teams,
an advanced practitioner role, an appropriate level of business support and fewer
management layers. This will start to be put in place by the end of the financial year. As a
result of this restructure all managers will go through a robust assessment process in order
to be appointed within the new structure.
2.6 To demonstrate rapid pace and show that senior leaders both know ‘what good looks like’
and can put this in place, alongside the formal redesign the department launched six pilot
3 See supporting document 9 of appendix 1 4 See supporting document 3 of appendix 1
Page 38
teams of social workers in March5. There are two teams in Referral and Assessment, two
teams in Family Support and Child Protection and two teams in Children Looked After.
Further teams are due to start coming on stream from April onwards following the formal
redesign.
2.7 Two permanent Assistant Directors have been appointed and will be joining the organisation
in the coming months.
Setting and embedding Social Care Values and Standards
2.8 The Director of Children’s Services has agreed a new set of Social Care Standards
coproduced with over 200 staff though a series of workshops, interviews and drop-in
sessions in January and February 2016. The standards are designed to set a baseline for
good practice in way that is agreed upon by the council’s employees and to support and
inform the HR and performance management frameworks.
Social Work Practice
2.9 Through this work stream the department will build up professional competence and
confidence, ensure that regular and effective supervision takes place, and make sure
decision making is at the right level. It will ensure that social workers have the skills and
support to be able to:
identify and manage risk to children and families;
minimise necessary involvement in the lives of children and families;
help families to change for the better; and,
apply a set of social work tools or privileged social work methodologies.
2.10 The Director of Children’s Services has agreed on a core set of tools, models and theories
for social work which reflect the council’s vision and values6 (‘privileged social work
methods’). All social workers and managers within the new organisational structure will
receive training and support in relation to these methods beginning in March 2016. The
department will track outcomes of cases where the privileged methods are used so there is
a robust evidence base going forward as to their efficacy. Lambeth will continue to be part
of DfE pilot to test the process of introducing social work accreditation.
2.11 Throughout January and early February 2016 staff across children’s social care were
engaged in the development of a new set of practice standards for social work, through a
series of workshops, interviews and drop-ins.
Whole- System Organisational Support
2.12 This work stream delivers the building blocks the organisation and wider partnership need
to put in place to ensure Children’s Social Care can improve. This includes effective
technological support (including the move from Framework-i to Mosaic at the end of the
financial year), finance, performance management, procurement, communications and
legal services.
5 See supporting document 11 of appendix 1 6 See supporting document 8 of appendix 1
Page 39
2.13 In terms of HR this will include developing and implementing a workforce strategy that
includes a Recruitment & Retention Strategy, a Learning & Development Strategy and
embeds the policy and system for regular, reflective supervision, with mechanisms for
measuring compliance and quality.
2.14 Since the last report to Cabinet in November 2015 a monthly performance digest has been
introduced and a dedicated improvement team providing additional capacity to the DCS.
Additional capacity has also been brought in to support HR activity (including the
Recruitment & Retention and Learning & Development strategies) in the form of a former
HR Director. Around 20 other council employees, largely from corporate resources
(including HR, analytics, performance, finance, legal), have also been tasked with
prioritising this work and their involvement is being coordinated by the improvement team.
2.15 Regular monthly Children’s Scrutiny Commission meetings are being set up with the focus
of providing challenge on the performance digest and the delivery across the six work
streams.
2.16 Throughout January and February 2016 the Department has been working with one of the
DfE’s named improvement partners, RedQuadrant, to identify ways to reduce bureaucracy
within the department7. This piece of work has involved engaging staff at all levels in work
shadowing, diary studies, systems reviews and customer journey mapping and has
identified 20 different projects which are being scoped and prioritised for delivery.
Local Safeguarding Children’s Board and the role of individual partners
2.17 This work stream sets out the key actions for partners in order to build a strong, active and
well-supported LSCB and to establish a broader child-focused system that understands how
to manage risk in a way that is beneficial to children and their families.8
Through the appointment of an interim chair of the LSCB and a new LSCB business
manager much progress has been made in the last 6 months9:
• all sub groups are regularly meeting;
• a dataset is regularly reviewed and challenged;
• a multi-agency audit programme is in place and audits being undertaken; and,
• a permanent Chair, Andrew Christie, has been appointed.
There is now a base from which the new Chair can move forward. Clear future priorities are:
to continue the board’s development, embed understanding of thresholds, complete the
updating of terms of reference for the sub-groups, develop the new approach to S11 audits
and organise and deliver the training programme for 2016/17.
Progress and improvements to date
2.18 It is important to note that since the Ofsted inspection the department has delivered some
tangible improvements in both process and outcomes for children and families.
7 See page 29 of appendix 1 8 See supporting document 16 of appendix 1 9 See supporting document 15 of appendix 1
Page 40
Feedback from Ofsted monitoring visits
2.19 The two Ofsted monitoring visits undertaken since November 201510 indicate that the
council is moving in the right direction in relation to leadership and management, quality of
performance information and strength of audits, and is beginning to show some early signs
of improved practice with drift and delay within the cases they examined reduced over
recent months.
2.20 However, the reports from these visits continue to highlight concerns about consistency and
quality of social work practice and the effectiveness of quality assurance processes, which
are identified as key priorities in section 4.1 of this report.
Performance indicators
2.21 Following concerted efforts there have been improvements in a number of key indicators
including:
the proportion of child and family assessments completed in 45 days;
the proportion of Child Protection Review (CPR) conferences held within timescale;
and,
the proportion of children who cease to be looked after because of a special
guardianship order (SGO).
2.22 Across the board the fostering data shows a stable service but more work is needed to fast
track the department’s strategy of increasing the number of in-house foster carers.
Performance and Quality Assurance
2.23 Since the new interim DCS and interim LSCB chair have been appointed much progress
has been made to develop a set of indicators for Children’s Social Care and for the LSCB
more broadly11. However, it is vital that performance data is not seen as standalone. Quality
Assurance mechanisms must sit alongside so that the quality of practice can been
continuously improved.
2.24 The department’s quality assurance framework (QAF) is under further development12. The
refreshed QAF will bring together QA activity in a more coherent way to drive service
improvement more consistently. It will identify both what good practice looks like and how
10 See supporting documents 13 and 14 of appendix 1 11 November 2015 – A draft Children’s Social Care digest was populated and presented to the DCS and
MLA for early feedback and data interpretation. The LSCB performance digest was challenged at the LSCB
in the latter part of November.
December 2015: A mock digest was presented to the Children’s Services Improvement Board and senior
managers within Children’s social care in December 2015 and was endorsed as meeting requirements.
January 2016: The digest was populated with December 2015 data and is being used formally to track
performance within Children’s Social Care Management and the Improvement Board. This version of the
digest brings together the manual and automated Framework-i data into a single document. See appendix
one for the January 2016 data digest.
February 2016: see appendix three for the February 2016 data digest. 12 See pages 16-18 of appendix 1
Page 41
at both a service-wide and function level it will be tested through qualitative measures,
quantitative measures and audit.
2.25 An experienced Head of Quality Assurance has been in place for the last four months and
has brought significant leadership to the service, and a new permanent AD for Quality
Assurance has been appointed and is due to join the organisation shortly. Under the
direction of the Head of QA improvements have been made to the department’s approach
to auditing and the quality of data and analysis that is undertaken (this was endorsed in the
most recent Ofsted review).
Priorities for improvement: Consistency and quality of social work practice
2.26 The two Ofsted monitoring visits have identified a need to ensure:
the quality of direct work with children and families is of a consistently good standard;
case records explain drift and delay for the child to understand when they are older;
audit recommendations are always being addressed; and,
the effectiveness of Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) is improved, the quality
of Child Permanence Reports is improved.
Immediate actions are being taken to address these issues; however, it is unlikely that the
department will see consistently solid practice until it has moved to the new structure and
firmly embedded approaches to performance and supervision.
2.27 The consistency and quality of reflective supervision - there are some examples of good
quality reflective supervision taking place and the frequency of supervision is improving, but
this is not consistent. Expectations have been made clear to all staff, and are set out in the
new Lambeth standards. All social workers and managers will receive training on reflective
supervision and the quality of this supervision will be audited for all teams as they move into
the new structure.
Priorities for improvement: Performance indicators
2.28 It is important to provide context to our current progress on performance indicators. The
service is in the initial implementation stages of a radical change programme which affects
both staffing and practice significantly. With this in mind, we anticipate some fluctuation in
performance indicators whilst the service adjusts. Moreover, monthly variations in
performance data are expected and we are aiming for a gradual long-term improvement.
Currently, incomplete or unreliable historic data mean that we still need to build a long-term
data profile in order to get an accurate picture of progress.
2.29 Priority areas for improvement remain the same as in January:
Referrals leading to a C&F Assessment (SG02) – Following steady improvements
over the last quarter, performance has dropped back to the lowest levels in the last
year. The targets set are based on the conversion rates from contact to referral and
referral to assessment in a typical London authority. However Lambeth has three
times as many contacts and referrals as statistical neighbours. The decline this month
is because team managers have recently been given the ability to close down a
Page 42
referral (this decision used to sit at service manager level) if they do not think there is
sufficient evidence that it meets thresholds. In the short term this will account for a
decline in the number of referrals leading to assessment. As referring agencies gain
a better understanding of thresholds the conversion rate is expected to improve.
Children seen alone (SG09) and LAC whose visits were conducted in timescale
(LC08) - these indicator continues to fluctuate and work is progressing to ensure
consistency of practice and recording.
Health assessments (LC06 and LC13) – health assessment remain a concern. An
electronic process of referring to Health has been introduced to speed up the
exchange of information between Health and Children Social Care. The timeliness of
Initial Health Assessments is dependent on the partnership working of the child’s
social worker, health clinicians and the foster carer. There are issues with out of
borough health assessments and in encouraging older teens to attend their
assessments. Further solutions and protocols need to be developed. We have
summer.
Thresholds and understanding of risk (SG12 and SG14) – we expect that between
40-45% of S.47 will go to ICPC and about 90% of these will become subject to a plan.
This is a good indicator of decision making around safeguarding thresholds as it can
suggest that either potentially more cases are deemed S47 than is actually required
or that the decision making did not take full account of the risks identified. Investigation
into the January cohort identifies that fewer s.47 needed to go to initial conference
this month and of these for two families their circumstances had changes positively at
the time of the conference that a plan was not required. SG.17 has remained the same
but we are auditing all cases subject to a plan for over 12 months and these will be
reviewed by the Head of Service.
Placement stability (LC02) – A review is underway to understand the proportion of
children for whom a change in placement is a positive outcome and to establish where
in the child’s journey unnecessary placement moves have occurred (for example are
the moves happening as a result of emergency placements early in the child’s
journey).
Outcomes for care leavers (LC18) – There are some recording issues with this
indicator; however, there is also an actual issue with performance. A NEET specialist
personal advisor is being brought into the service to provide expertise and support to
care leavers and partnerships are being created with local businesses and through
the council’s employment service.
Moving forward: June 2016
2.30 By June when DfE/Morning Lane review children’s social care the following signs of
recovery are expected:
the vision embedded across the workforce;
completion of the formal restructure;
six pilot teams fully operational and delivering improved outcomes for children through
the new service standards and privileged methods;
learning & Development and Recruitment & Retention strategies in place and
operational with recruitment to vacant posts concluded; and,
Page 43
timeliness improving in adoption, care proceedings, visits, conferences and
assessments.
2.31 Within the pilot teams the following is expected:
social workers who can talk confidently about: their cases, the evidence they used to
decide on particular interventions/social work methods and some examples of the
difference this has made to the lives of children. A selection of cases from the 6 pilot
teams will be audited in May 2016;
managers who can explain: the benefits of using the six privileged methods, how they
have supported their staff to take their own decisions about cases and how they have
supported staff development;
evidence that managers use performance data (including new weekly performance
dashboard) to investigate trends and make changes;
all cases up to date on Framework-i/and from April on Mosaic;
positive feedback from pilot staff about the impact of learning and needs analysis and
subsequent training and coaching; moving to smaller teams; having dedicated
business support officers within each team;
positive feedback from pilot staff and managers about leadership within Children’s
Social Care; and,
evidence of 3 x monthly reflective supervisions for each team member (March-May),
and evidence of group supervision. Some of these supervisions have been audited
by the QA team and any necessary improvements made. Staff can talk about the
benefits of their reflective supervision.
2.32 For the LSCB the following is expected:
a business plan and budget agreed for 2016/17;
well attended meetings and sub group meetings at which there is robust and
constructive challenge between partners;
a quality dataset and programme of multi-agency audits to which all partners
contribute; and,
a programme of partnership learning and development activities underway.
Moving Forward: September 2016
2.33 In September 2016 the department will be undertaking a LGA peer review across the
council’s children’s social care services, leadership and management and the LSCB. This
will give robust an independent challenge as to the strength of the department’s internal
quality assurance arrangements and the extent of its self-awareness.
3. Finance
3.1 The Children’s Social Care Improvement Programme identifies six work streams (described
within section 4.6 of this report). There are one-off improvement costs associated with
building capacity in key areas relating to these work streams. The costs of these will sit
outside the Children’s Social Care budget and will be met through transformation funding
held centrally. The cost of this improvement work is estimated to be in the region of
Page 44
£300,000-£400,000 and will cover among other things a lean process review; development
of practice standards (these pieces of work have already been delivered); work to reduce
demand into the system, introducing a new performance framework, and training to embed
a new approach to reflective supervision and a set of privileged social work methodologies.
3.2 Other changes which are proposed through the improvement programme are expected to
be delivered within existing revenue and capital budgets. Any changes that do have financial
implications will be brought back to Cabinet for decision before they are implemented.
3.3 The children’s social care revenue budget for 2015/16 will be overspent mostly as a result
of both staffing levels and placement costs being above budget and invoice payments made
this year but which were related to previous financial years. The planned reorganisation of
the service was put on hold following the Ofsted inspection until the improvement plan was
approved. This has meant that some £5m of savings in the financial year have not been
achievable and therefore a one-off contribution of £5m has been made available.
3.4 To avoid an overspend continuing this is being addressed through the budget setting
process for 2016/17 with bottom up planning based on the costs for the redesigned staffing
structure and the setting of detailed budgets for placement activity. The Oracle budget
management hierarchy is also being amended so that responsibility will sit with team
managers. Retraining on Oracle processes is underway and will be rolled out for new staff/
teams to improve the quality of financial management. The Corporate Management Team
has agreed a more rigorous budget monitoring process going forward that reemphasises
the responsibility on budget managers to remain within budget and urgently identify
recovery action where overspends are forecast. It is anticipated that this will help managers
to actively manage pressure in the system.
4. Legal and Democracy
4.1 The Children’s Social Care Improvement Programme has been devised following the
Morning Lane diagnostic and in response to the Improvement Notice issued by the
Secretary of State. Should the council fail to deliver the improvement programme at a
satisfactory level this could result in the Minister invoking statutory powers of intervention
under s497A of the Education Act 1996 to direct the council to enter into an appropriate
arrangement to secure the improvements required in children’s services.
4.2 No additional comments from Democratic Services.
5. Consultation and co-production
5.1 It is important that the council continues to involve a wide range of people. The
Communicating the Vision work stream of the Improvement Programme aims to share the
ambitions and values of the service via inspirational and committed senior management
and political leadership to staff, unions, partners and families. This will ensure that the Vision
and Strategy offers a holistic, sustainable response with meaningful actions able to deliver
better practice and better outcomes for children and young people in Lambeth. Consultation
with internal and external stakeholders is ongoing.
Page 45
5.2 Staff receive regular updates on improvement activities at staff engagement events and via
a dedicated intranet site, and have the opportunity to help shape the changes needed to
move the transformational work forward. They also have the opportunity to gauge how the
service is responding and capture issues that may impede progress through regular social
work fora and managers’ fora. Social work standards and bureaucracy reduction work has
been co-produced with staff.
5.3 A Children’s Scrutiny Commission has been established and is meeting monthly to
scrutinise the children’s performance digest on a monthly basis and to undertake focused
challenge sessions on particular topics. The Children’s Services Improvement Board will
continue to drive the improvement programme until the LSCB is fully functional.
5.4 Further work is required to ensure the voice of children and young people is being
adequately heard and addressed through the improvement programme. The Children in
Care Council has been fully briefed about the plans and their views will be sought about
any matters that could be improved upon. Part of ongoing training of social workers will be
to ensure that the voice of the child is clear in all assessments and work with young people.
Mechanisms to seek the views of other groups of children, (in particular children who are
subject to a child protection plan who are a group who are traditionally hard to reach and
engage with) will also be developed.
6 Risk management
6.1 Throughout the planning of the change programme the council has held in balance a focus
on maintaining business as usual, managing the risk that is inherent in running an under-
performing service and trying to rapidly progress with an ambitious programme of
improvement13.
6.2 The Children’s Social Care Improvement programme cannot be achieved without taking
considered risks. These risks will be managed through:
a comprehensive and robust programme management approach, including the
improvement team keeping a strategic and organisational risk log;
a weekly programme board chaired by the Chief Executive;
monthly Children’s Services Improvement Board chaired by the Chief Executive, with
challenge from MLA;
quarterly challenge by cabinet; and,
monthly challenge by scrutiny.
6.3 Major risks and mitigations include:
Maintaining a safe service through the transition. This will be mitigated by ensuring
the sequencing of actions and communications is right
The risk that the council will compromise on the standard of staff appointed to ensure
the service has adequate capacity. This will be mitigated by bringing in additional
short-term capacity to keep the service safe whilst permanent recruitment takes place.
13 See page 30 of appendix 1
Page 46
o Improving organisational culture at a time of high staff turnover. Senior leadership will
continue to host a series of briefings to encourage staff and there will be a specific
focus on recruitment and retention, training, staff relations, culture and morale.
o Maintaining whole-organisation priority and focus on children’s social care
improvement. All members of the Children’s Services Improvement Board hold
strategic positions and are able to delegate and mobilise resources to expedite
outcomes. The role of lead member has been strengthened.
7 Equalities impact assessment
7.1 A discussion was held in November 2015 with the Corporate EIA panel to examine the
quality of equalities evidence in relation to Children’s Social Care and identify key emerging
equality issues which need to be addressed. A further discussion is programmed for the
late spring. Equalities considerations are at the heart of this improvement programme which
is designed to improve outcomes for some of Lambeth’s most vulnerable children, young
people and their families.
8 Community safety
8.1 As a result of delivering the Improvement Programme Lambeth’s children will remain
protected from risk of harm. This will be done more specifically by improving the
effectiveness of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board, improving child protection
planning and improving how the organisation collects and uses data especially in respect
of child sexual exploitation and children who are missing from home, school or care.
9 Organisational implications
9.1 Environmental
None.
9.2 Staffing and accommodation
There will be staffing implications as the department reduces reliance on agency workers
and introduces a new organisational structure which reduces management layers and
creates smaller teams. This restructure has been conducted in line with appropriate
processes and consultation with unions.
9.3 Procurement
None.
9.4 Health
As a result of delivering the Improvement Programme the health outcomes for Lambeth’s
children should improve.
10.1 Timetable for implementation
10.1 The timetable for implementation is summarised on page 10-13 of Appendix 1. Key
milestones are on June 30 and again in December 2016 where the DfE will make a
decision about progress against the requirements set out in the improvement notice.
Page 47
Audit trail
Consultation
Name/Position
Lambeth
cluster/division or
partner
Date Sent Date
Received
Comments in para:
Rebecca Eligon Improvement
Team, Children’s
social care
16.02.16 22.02.16 Throughout
Helen
Charlesworth-May
Strategic Director,
Children’s, Health
and Adults
04.03.16 07.03.16
Ian Smith Director Children’s
Social Care
26.02.16 04.03.16
Sean Harris Chief Executive 04.03.16 09.03.16 Finance summary,
7.3
Nilesh Jethwa Finance 22.02.16 22.02.16 Finance summary on
page 1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3
and 6.4
Fateha Salim Legal Services 26.02.16 26.02.16 Legal summary and
throughout
David Rose Democratic
Services
26.02.16 26.02.16 Throughout
Councillor Imogen
Walker
Deputy Leader
(Policy)
09.03.16 Throughout
Maria Burton LSCB Business
Manager
22.02.16 22.02.16 2.17and 5.3
Carmel Howard Head of People
Management
22.02.16 26.02.16
Report history
Original discussion with Cabinet Member On-going
Report deadline 09.03.16
Date final report sent 10.03.16
Report no. 198/15-16
Part II Exempt from Disclosure/confidential
accompanying report?
N/A
Key decision report No
Date first appeared on forward plan N/A
Key decision reasons N/A
Background information N/A
Appendices
1. Report prepared for meeting with DfE,
Ofsted and MLA 16/2/16
2. Minutes and actions from Stocktake
meeting 16/2/16
Page 48
Cabinet
Date of meeting: 21 March 2016
Report title: Public Health Arrangements
Wards: All
Report Authorised by: Strategic Director Adult’s Children and Health: Helen Charlesworth-May
Portfolio: Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing: Councillor Jim Dickson
Contact for enquiries: Maria Millwood, Director Integrated Commissioning 20 7926 4843,
Report summary
The implementation of the Health and Social Care Act (2012) transferred substantial
responsibilities for Public Health from the NHS to local government. Within Lambeth although
many people say they have good health, a higher proportion are experiencing poor health and
wellbeing than nationally. Our success in helping people to improve their lives rests, to a large
extent, on whether they can maintain or attain good health and wellbeing. We need to make
progress on improving the social, environmental and economic conditions that affect our health,
as well as directly addressing existing inequalities. It is therefore important that the knowledge,
expertise and skills we have within our Specialist Public Health Team can lead and support this
work.
In 2013 at the time of transfer of the duty and responsibility of Public Health functions to Local
Authorities the Council entered a joint arrangement with London Borough of Southwark to
establish a joint Specialist Public Health team. We also agreed to retain individual commissioning
functions to support the commissioning of the health services for which the Council became
responsible. The two councils initiated a review of the joint arrangements in 2015, which
recognised that both boroughs were changing dramatically and are facing significant financial
pressure on budgets, which means that our efforts need to be targeted on differing priorities. A
consequence of which is that the joint arrangement is no longer a sensible option.
This paper sets out our intentions to end this arrangement and outlines the process we are taking
to move from a joint Department of Public Health led by one Director of Public Health (DPH) to
borough based departments each with its own DPH. It also provides an update on the refresh of
the Health and Wellbeing Strategy that along with the revised Community Plan will set the context
in which the public health functions will operate in the future.
Page 49 Agenda Item 5
Finance summary
The budget for the joint specialist team is £1.6m and is held within the overall, ring fenced, Public
Health grant for the Council, which for 16/17 is £33,053m. This will be reduced in 17/18 to
£32,238m. This reflects the cuts already announced by the Department of Health, which include
an in-year cut of 6.2% and a further 3.9% year on year cut as an average over the next four years
as announced in the recent Comprehensive Spending Review.
The investment will continue within the specialist team when it is transferred to the Council. Any
costs associated with the reconfiguration and transfer of the service will be met 50/50 in line with
our current contractual agreement with Southwark.
Recommendations
(1) To approve the recommendation to disaggregate the joint Specialist Public Health Team.
(2) To agree that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, be
delegated authority to enter negotiations with Southwark Council to transfer the Lambeth
Specialist Team to the council, subject to negotiations in relation to the transfer of staff from
Southwark to Lambeth.
(3) To note that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, will appoint
a Director of Public Health for the Council.
(4) To note the progress to date on the refresh of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy.
Page 50
1. History and Context
Context
1.1 Within Lambeth although many people in Lambeth say they have good health, a higher
proportion is experiencing poor health and wellbeing than nationally. Our success in helping
people to improve their lives rests to a large extent on whether they can maintain or attain
good health and wellbeing. We need to make progress on improving the social,
environmental and economic conditions that affect our health, as well as directly addressing
existing inequalities. Following the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act
(2012),(“The Act”) improving the health of the population and reducing health inequality and
the professional expertise to inform, lead and advise on the same became the responsibility
of London Borough of Lambeth. At that time we entered a joint arrangement with the London
Borough of Southwark (LBS) to appoint a joint Director of Public Health who managed a
joint specialist team hosted in LBS.
1.2 The Act sets out expectations for closer partnership working with the NHS, especially
through local Health and Wellbeing Boards. It gives local authorities new responsibilities
including public health responsibilities:
to improve population health and wellbeing and to reduce health inequalities;
to provide expert public health advice and support to local government and to the
NHS (especially Clinical Commissioning Groups – CCGs) led by a Director of Public
Health;
to commission a range of health services previously commissioned by primary care
trusts; and,
to set up Health and Wellbeing Boards through which partners would act strategically
to improve population health and wellbeing and reduce inequality.
1.3 Lambeth Council provides the professional expertise in population health to the health and
wellbeing economy and leads the commissioning of specific health services that were
formerly commissioned and contracted by Primary Care Trusts, these include:
Stop smoking services;
NHS Health Checks;
Weight management/healthy weight services (adults);
Lifestyle interventions such as Health Trainers, Expert Patient Programme, health
promotion;
National child measurement programme (NCMP);
Childhood obesity and community nutrition services;
Health visiting, school nursing and breastfeeding;
Substance misuse and alcohol services;
Mental health promotion and wider public mental health activities; and,
Sexual health services.
1.4 Local Authorities are accountable for delivery of the local system against the National Public
Health Outcomes Framework. They are expected to work in partnership with health and
other sectors to achieve the outcomes using the Health and Wellbeing Board to drive
Page 51
improvements. The Health and Wellbeing Board also has a statutory duty to produce a local
Health and Wellbeing strategy and a Joint Strategic Needs Assessment. The needs
assessment is expected to inform the priorities agreed by partners and in turn form the basis
of the strategy and local commissioning intentions and decisions.
1.5 The core work of a specialist public health team is to improve the health and wellbeing of
the whole population, especially populations who are disadvantaged and underserved.
Progress is achieved through action in the biological, environmental, social, policy making,
and the political spheres. Many people and organisations have a role to play, but to have
the greatest impact action and investment has to be informed by:
evidence and information on the many influences acting on populations over time,
and to what effect;
understanding of the potential impact of taking one course of action against another;
and,
how and what to prioritise at times of limited resources.
1.6 By these approaches, the team aims to support local partners to think, decide, act and lead
to best effect on behalf of their populations and communities.
1.7 Lambeth and Southwark Councils agreed to a jointly appoint a Director of Public Health and
to share a specialist public health team hosted and employed by Southwark Council. A joint
Director of Public Health was appointed in September 2012. The two former public health
teams, from each Primary Care Trust (PCT), transferred into Southwark Council on 1 April
2013 to form one team across Lambeth and Southwark.
1.8 The ambition of the Lambeth and Southwark Public Health Department from the outset was
for the people of Lambeth and Southwark to have the best possible health and wellbeing
and the best possible opportunities to stay well and to work with partners to help make the
best possible use of the available environmental, social, political and economic resources.
Health and Wellbeing Strategy refresh
1.9 Lambeth's Health and Wellbeing Board was set up in 2013, in accordance with the Health
and Social Care Act 2012, as a forum where key leaders from the health and care system
work together to improve the health and wellbeing of their local population and reduce health
inequalities. The Board is made up of lead Cabinet members and senior officers from
Lambeth Council, Chair and Chief Executive of Lambeth CCG, Director of Public Health,
NHS England, Kings Health Partners, representing the three local Foundation Trusts, and
Healthwatch Lambeth.
1.10 Board members collaborate to understand local needs, agree priorities and encourage
commissioners to work in a more joined up way.
1.11 Health and Wellbeing Boards are a key part of broader plans to modernise the NHS to:
ensure stronger democratic legitimacy and involvement;
strengthen working relationships between health and social care; and,
Page 52
encourage the development of more integrated commissioning of services.
1.12 The Boards also helps to give communities a greater say in understanding and addressing
their local health and social care needs.
1.13 Lambeth's Health and Wellbeing strategy is a statement about what health and well-being
means and how it impacts on individuals and families in Lambeth. It was co-produced by
the Health and Wellbeing Board, working with people and organisations. At its heart is a
belief that we can go further and faster in improving health and wellbeing in Lambeth if
citizens, services and business work together in an equal and reciprocal partnership.
1.14 Our ambition is set out in the strategy. We want Lambeth to be a place where:
Health and well-being is improving for all, and improving fastest for those communities
with the poorest health and wellbeing;
People are able to reach their full potential and to feel good about themselves;
Everyone is able to make a contribution and to feel valued; and,
People are safe from harm.
1.15 We are currently refreshing Lambeth's HWB strategy. Core to this refresh will be a number
of specific, and linked, areas of work:
(1) Focus on the creation of a new Strategic Partnership to lead on integrated care, with
the development of three Local Care Networks as a key priority. This will also link with
the development of primary care and mental health services, developments in
children's services, and developments across South East London. This work meets
the national challenge set out in the NHS 5 year Forward View.
(2) The recommendations of the Early Action Commission. Lambeth and Southwark
Health and Wellbeing Boards worked on this Commission, which was facilitated by
NEF. The Commission produced challenging recommendations in order to bring a
shift to early action, including work to develop local communities to take more of a
role.
(3) Acknowledgement of the impact on health and wellbeing of a range of other services,
and developing work to embed health and wellbeing in all policies.
(4) The recommendations outlined in the Healthier High Streets Scrutiny Commission
(5) Housing has been identified as a specific issue affecting health and wellbeing, and will
be an area of focus, in the context of the three issues set out above.
2 Proposal and Reasons
Review of joint arrangements and process
2.1 In early 2015 both Councils agreed to review the shared public health arrangements and
commissioned an external review which included interviews of a number of senior leaders
Page 53
across Lambeth and Southwark. This review was undertaken in the context of the rapidly
changing environment, employment and investment opportunities and the financial
challenges both boroughs are facing, which in turn has led to different approaches to
addressing the Health and Wellbeing priorities for the local population.
2.2 Following the review both Councils decided they wished to have their own borough
specialist team and appoint their own Director of Public Health. Over the last few months
both councils have worked with the Public Health Team to design two new borough based
specialist teams. The aim is that each team will be able to respond effectively and
strategically to the changing policy environment, and to maintain a high standard of day to
day delivery for both Councils and for both their respective Clinical Commissioning Groups
(CCGs).
2.3 Following the setting up of two new teams it is proposed that there will be a second stage
for the Lambeth team, which will involve a transfer of staff employed within the Lambeth
team to Lambeth’s employment. This transfer will take place in accordance with the Transfer
of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).
2.4 In designing the team consideration was given to the required and expected functions of
local (Council) specialist public health services as set out by the Department of Health1 and
the Faculty of Public Health2. In summary the functions relate to the domains of public health
practice: health improvement, health service and social care public health, health protection
and health intelligence (see Table 1).
Table 1. The roles and functions of Public Health
FUNCTION
HEALTH
PROTECTION
& INFECTION
CONTROL
Protecting the public from infectious disease & environmental hazards
through assessing needs, monitoring, & action to prevent & intervene
e.g. in outbreaks.
In Lambeth and Southwark this includes supporting infection control,
sexual health & emergency planning for pandemic influenza
HEALTH
IMPROVEMENT
Addressing the wider social & economic determinants of health and
inequalities: The Public Health team works with partners on health &
wellbeing impact assessment & realising the health benefits of wider
policies (e.g. environment, planning, regeneration); on primary
prevention, & on behavioural change with commissioners, communities
& providers
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213009/Public-health-role-
of-local-authorities-factsheet.pdf 2http://www.fph.org.uk/uploads/Functions%20of%20the%20local%20PH%20system%20FINAL%2020051
4.pdf
Page 54
HEALTH AND
CARE
SERVICES
Providing advice & support to health & social care service
commissioners and providers on needs, evidence, service redesign etc.
to promote equity, efficiency and effectiveness of services
HEALTH
INTELLIGENCE
‘Turning information into knowledge’; promoting an intelligent approach
to analysing, interpreting and using information (qualitative and
quantitative) so commissioners, planners, providers & community and
voluntary sector can prioritise effectively and make better informed
decisions
The Lambeth Specialist Public Health Team
2.5 The new public health teams will support Lambeth Council and the CCG to operate in the
challenging environment of changing population needs and financial pressures. It will
ensure we realise our responsibilities for the health and wellbeing of the population, to
address the objectives of the Care Act 2014, and to work with CCGs on the integration of
health and social care in the light of the Five Year Forward View. The new team will build
on the established relationships between the existing public health team and Lambeth,
including providing expert technical support to strategy and all aspects of commissioning. It
will also be critical to develop new relationships within the council.
2.6 In developing the new structures for the Lambeth team a number of factors have been
considered, which include:
the health and wellbeing needs of the populations of Lambeth;
the nationally recognised purposes of a local specialist public health service; health
and care public health (including direct support to commissioners in CCGs and
Councils), knowledge management and health intelligence, addressing the wider
determinants of health, and health protection;
the local history of a high and expert standard of specialist public advice and support
to the health and social care economy;
the benefits of expert public health advice to improving the health of the population,
reducing health inequality and enabling partners to maximise value across sectors
and the track record of local public health in achieving this for partners;
the necessity of building and developing strong and visible public health system
leadership and advocacy within a department and across the system; enabling others
to confidently pursue, advocate for, and uphold population health approaches;
how to develop and strengthen the role of the public health teams to collaborate
effectively and influentially with colleagues and partners on the role of ‘place’ in
primary prevention, promoting wellbeing and addressing health inequalities; and,
the necessity of ensuring a Lambeth specialist Public Health Team is known for
excellence and is able to train and develop public health specialists for the future.
Proposed structures of the new public health teams
2.7 The Lambeth specialist public health service will be led by a Director of Public Health (DPH),
who will report to the Strategic Director, Children, Adults and Health. The DPH will be
Page 55
supported by three public health consultants, who will broadly seek to respond to the
priorities of the council and the CCG as outlined below:
Environment, Housing and Regeneration (Placed Based)
2.8 The wider determinants of health, including: planning; housing and regeneration; the urban
environment, including parks; leisure and the arts; communities; partnerships, and primary
prevention. This team will:
work closely with partners on maximising the health and wellbeing benefits of a range
of strategies and actions across the Council and partnerships including undertaking
activities such as health and wellbeing impact assessment, and contributing to
licensing decisions;
have a strong relationship to the Health and Wellbeing Board;
have a role in supporting and enabling the wider Council and partners to contribute to
the Health and Wellbeing Strategy;
provide leadership and coordination on public mental health and other strategic
preventive and health promoting action.
Health and Care Commissioning for Children and Adults (People Based)
2.9 Who will support the Council and CCG’s approach to a more integrated approach to
commissioning using pathways of care for populations and working increasingly in localities:
integrated support to commissioning of health and social care (CYP, adults and older
people, mental health and what is currently known as ‘public health commissioning
e.g. tobacco, alcohol services, sexual health, health checks, healthy weight);
other health protection functions including emergency preparedness, and a
negotiable level of infection prevention and control;
support to the local care networks and GP Federations.
Knowledge & Health Intelligence
2.10 Which will encompass:
health intelligence, information analysis;
evaluation;
production of the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) and Annual Public Health
Report (APHR);
development of the Health & Wellbeing Strategy;
research (including F2 doctors and Specialist Trainee placements) Teaching, and
training.
3 Finance
3.1 The budget for the joint specialist team is £1.6m and is held within the overall ring fenced
Public Health grant for the council which for 2016/17 is £33,053m. For 2017/18 it will be
reduced to £32,238m. This reflects the cuts already announced by the Department of Health
which include an in-year cut of 6.2% and a further 3.9% year on year cut as an average
over the next four years, as announced in the recent Comprehensive Spending Review.
Page 56
3.2 The investment will continue within the specialist team when it is transferred to the Council.
Any costs associated with the reconfiguration and transfer of the service will be met 50/50
in line with our current contractual agreement with Southwark. A financial review of the
activities undertaken by the joint team is currently taking place in order to inform
negotiations on the final allocation of costs between the two councils.
4. Legal and Democracy
4.1 The Director of Public Health is a statutory post responsible for carrying out public health
functions, under the National Health Act 2006 and subsequent regulations.
4.2 Appointment of Deputy Chief Officers is the responsibility of the Chief Executive or his
nominee. An offer of employment as a Deputy Chief Officer shall only be made where no
well-founded objection from any member of the Cabinet has been received.
4.3 Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment ) Regulations 2006 (as
amended by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of
Employment)(Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“TUPE”), employees who are assigned to an
undertaking which transfers to another organisation or who are wholly or mainly engaged
in an activity which transfers to another organisation, will transfer under their existing terms
and conditions of employment and with continuity of service. They also receive certain
protections around dismissal and redundancy.
4.4 This proposed key decision was entered in the Forward Plan on 19 February 2016, and the
necessary 28 clear days’ notice has been given. In addition, the Council’s Constitution
requires the report to be published on the website for five clear days before the proposed
decision is approved by the Cabinet Member. Any representations received during this
period must be considered by the decision-maker before the decision is taken. 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
Consultation Framework – Stakeholders
5.1 The proposals on the structures and outline functions of the two new borough based teams
are the subject of consultation thus the summary of how the responsibilities will be managed
as set out in 4.1 is provisional. Stakeholders (CCGs and senior managers and elected
members from both Councils) have been asked to comment on the extent to which the
proposals are suitable to meet their needs for expert public health leadership and technical
support.
5.2 Consultation closed on Friday 4th March 2016 but there will be further opportunity to
participate in the development of the scope and priorities of the new Lambeth team over
coming months.
Page 57
Consultation Framework – staff
5.3 To implement the change from one public health team to two distinct borough based teams
the Southwark Council Reorganisation, Redeployment & Redundancy procedure is being
used.
5.4 As part of the consultation to establish two public health teams, Southwark Council’s
recognised Trades Unions are involved via special Divisional Liaison Meetings (S/DLCs).
In individual meetings staff will have the right to be supported by either a work colleague or
an accredited trade union representative, including from a Trades Union not recognised for
collective consultation within the Council.
5.5 Following the establishment of two separate teams, a second process will start. This will
manage the transfer of the Lambeth Public Health team from Southwark Council to
employment and a base in Lambeth. To effect this transfer a further consultation will be
needed for the Lambeth team only.
5.6 The consultation framework to divide into two teams and transfer the Lambeth team to
Lambeth has been agreed by both Councils.
6. Risk management
6.1 To ensure business continuity during the transition process staff are reviewing all their work
and preparing hand over documentation. The joint department’s risk register continues to
be updated and identified risks are being actively managed by the Public Health
Management Team.
7. Equalities impact assessment
7.1 An equalities impact assessment is not relevant at this stage. Once the final reorganisation
of the two teams has taken place a full staff equalities impact assessment will be
undertaken.
8. Community safety
8.1 In considering the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 (Section 17) there are no implications from
this report or proposal.
9 Organisational implications
9.1 Environmental
None.
9.2 Staffing and accommodation
There will be an impact to the council organisation on the transfer of the specialist public
health team to the council. The Director of Public Health will report to the Strategic Director
Children, Adults and Health.
Page 58
20 posts will be transferred to the council at stage two of the process in July. These posts
will require office accommodation and supporting IT.
9.3 Procurement
None.
9.4 Health
None.
10. Timetable for implementation
Timetable
10.1 As described there are two parts to the move towards separate public health teams, one of
which will subsequently move to Lambeth. This proposal covers Consultation 1, which is
the formation of two separate teams. The timetable is set out in the table:
22nd Feb – 4th March
Consultation 1: Reorganisation into 2 teams
Meetings between staff & HR and with unions
Submissions of responses to proposals
5th 13th March Consultation review
Finalisation of proposal
14th – 31st March
Implementation – Stage 1
Meetings with staff
Decisions on staffing
Decision on acting director arrangements
Infrastructure (for Lambeth team)
1st April 2 new teams
April Consultation 2: Re: transfer of Lambeth Public Health Team to LB
Lambeth
July Completion of transfer process (to Lambeth Council) including new
memorandum of understanding with Lambeth CCG
Page 59
Audit trail
Consultation
Name/Position
Lambeth cluster/division
or partner
Date Sent Date
Received
Comments
in para:
Helen Charlesworth-May Strategic Director,
Chidlren Adults and Health
07/03/2016 07/03/2016
Pete Hesketh, Finance Business Partnering 07/03/2016 07/03/2016
Sara Corlett Acting Director Public
Health
01/03/2016 04/03/2016 throughout
Alison McKane, Legal
Services
Enabling: Integrated
Support
07/03/2016 08/03/2016
David Rose, Democratic
Services
Enabling: Corporate
Affairs
07/03/2016 07/03/2016 Throughout
Councillor Jim Dickson Cabinet Member: 07/03/2016 10/03/2016
Councillor Ward Councillor
Internal Officer Board Date of meeting
External
Report history
Original discussion with Cabinet Member 11.02.16
Report deadline 09.03.16
Date final report sent 11.03.16
Report no. 190/15-16
Part II Exempt from Disclosure/confidential
accompanying report?
No
Key decision report Yes
Date first appeared on forward plan 19.02.16
Key decision reasons
2. Expenditure, income or savings in excess
of £500,000
Background information Health and Social Care Act 2012
Appendices None.
Page 60
Cabinet
Date of Meeting: 21 March 2016
Report title: Healthier High Streets Scrutiny Commission Report
Wards: All
Report Authorised by: Strategic Director for Corporate Resources: Jackie Belton; and,
Strategic Director for Neighbourhoods & Growth: Sue Foster
Portfolio: Deputy Leader (Finance and Resources), Councillor Paul McGlone; Cabinet Member for
Neighbourhoods, Councillor Jane Edbrooke; and, Cabinet Member for Jobs & Growth: Councillor Jack
Hopkins
Contact for enquiries: Gary O’Key, Lead Scrutiny Officer, Corporate Resources, 020 7926 2183,
Report summary
The report sets out the findings from the Healthier High Streets Scrutiny Commission, which was set up
at the request of the (now defunct) Health and Adults’ Services Scrutiny Sub-Committee. The
Commission’s focus is on improving the lifestyle choices available on the borough’s high streets and the
report contains recommendations regarding off licences, fast food outlets, payday loan shops and
bookmakers to encourage businesses to offer healthier choices while also calling for tougher regulation
where it’s needed.
The Commission has sought to liaise with and influence policy makers throughout the course of its work
and as a result of this successful engagement a number of the recommendations have been adopted
as council policy prior to this report being finalised. Cabinet is asked to note this and approve the action
plan which sets out the response to the commission’s recommendations.
Finance summary
It is intended that recommendations will be met from existing budgets and work programmes. The
Council’s financial position is however worsening, so these proposals need to be considered as to their
deliverability within a reducing financial envelope in future years.
Recommendations
(1) To receive the report and recommendations of the Healthier High Streets Scrutiny
Commission (Appendix 1).
(2) To note the successful engagement between the commission and policy makers which has
resulted in a number of the report’s recommendations already having been adopted.
(3) To approve the action plan prepared in response to the Commission’s recommendations
(Appendix 2).
Page 61 Agenda Item 6
1. Context
1.1 In 2013 the (now defunct) Health and Adults’ Services Scrutiny Sub-Committee began looking at
the prevalence and influence of businesses and business practices on the borough’s high streets
which presented unhealthy choices that disproportionately affected the most vulnerable residents.
These included off licences, payday loan shops, betting shops and fast food takeaways.
1.2 The Commission has produced a report and a number of recommendations aimed at encouraging
such businesses to promote healthier options and urging greater regulation where necessary. The
associated action plan outlines how the recommendations will be taken forward.
1.3 Usual practice has historically been for scrutiny commission reports to be considered by the
relevant scrutiny committee prior to submission to Cabinet. However, under the new scrutiny
structure introduced in 2014, under which the number of committees has been significantly
reduced and commissions play an enhanced role, it is not always possible for this to happen. In
this instance therefore, the Commission is reporting straight to Cabinet following agreement of the
report by the Scrutiny Chairs.
2. Proposal and Reasons
2.1 The Commission presents a wide range of recommendations principally related to enforcement.
2.2 In responding to the recommendations a comprehensive action plan has been drawn up
addressing each specific recommendation. Whilst it has not been possible to implement every
recommendation, due to legal barriers or financial restrictions, a number have already been
implemented and the majority are underway as outlined in the action plan.
3. Finance
3.1 All of the recommended actions within the report will need to be met through existing budgets and
work programmes taking into account the reduced level of resources that will be available going
forward following the February Budget.
3.2 The proposal to give a business rates discount to off licences as a reward where existing licence
holders adopt the new policy will have an impact on the Council’s funding, therefore increasing
the total savings that need to be found. This would need to be offset by additional savings, income
or business rates. As such, a thorough assessment of the impact of the proposed change would
need to be undertaken before progressing further.
3.3 The introduction of a late night levy would generate additional income for the service. This income
would need to be quantified to assess whether it would offset the additional costs raised elsewhere
or could be used to contributre towards future required savings.
4. Legal and Democracy
4.1 There are no direct legal implications arising from the recommendations in this report. The legal
implications associated with the Commission’s recommendations have been considered and
Page 62
addressed within the Action Plan. Lead departments and Officers will need to obtain legal
clearance in respect of future actions to ensure compliance with the relevant legislative framework.
4.2 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.’
4.3 This proposed key decision was entered in the Forward Plan on 25 November 2015 and the
necessary 28 clear days’ notice has been given. In addition, the Council’s Constitution requires
the report to be published on the website for five clear days before the proposed decision is
approved by the Cabinet Member. Any representations received during this period must be
considered by the decision-maker before the decision is taken. 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 During the course of 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
contained within the main body of the Commission’s report (Appendix 1).
6. Risk management
6.1 Risks associated with the recommendations are detailed in the action plan responses (see
Appendix 2).
7. Equalities impact assessment
7.1 The issues outlined in the report affect all our communities but have a disproportionate impact on
our most deprived residents. The proposals within the recommendations and action plan will help
mitigate the impact of unhealthy lifestyle choices by encouraging more responsible business
practices and regulation to reduce harmful impacts on health where needed.
8. Community safety
8.1 Several of the proposals within the action plan, such as greater scrutiny on single can sales and
restrictions on 24 hour off-licences, will have a positive impact on crime and disorder in Lambeth.
Alcohol related violence and crime remains extremely high in Lambeth compared to national and
London-wide statistics, and measures that restrict the sale of alcohol will help reduce these crimes.
9. Organisational implications
9.1 Environmental
None.
Page 63
9.2 Staffing and accommodation
None.
9.3 Procurement
None.
9.4 Health
This commission seeks to reduce the prevalence and influence of unhealthy lifestyle choices on
Lambeth’s high streets and therefore contribute to positive health outcomes.
10. Timetable for implementation
10.1 Any timescales for actions where appropriate are contained within the action plan accompanying
the report.
10.2 It is also anticipated that updates on the progress of the action plan will be requested at six months
and 12 months, though this may be done outside the formal meeting schedule.
Page 64
Audit trail
Consultation
Name/Position
Lambeth division or
partner
Date Sent Date
Received
Comments in
para:
Jackie Belton Strategic Director,
Corporate Resources
14.12.15 &
07.03.16
15.12.15 &
09.03.16
Sue Foster Strategic Director,
Neighbourhoods &
Growth
11.12.15 &
07.03.16
15.12.15
Kristian Aspinall Lead Commissioner,
Neighbourhoods &
Growth
04.12.15 &
07.03.16
08.12.15 &
23.02.16
Sections 2 & 8
and Appendix
2
Ann Corbett Programme Director;
Neighbourhoods &
Growth
08.12.15 &
07.03.16
09.12.15
David Joyce Programme Director;
Neighbourhoods &
Growth
08.12.15 &
07.03.16
09.12.15 &
11.03.16
Sandra Roebuck Programme Director;
Neighbourhoods &
Growth
11.12.15 &
07.03.16
11.12.15
Andrew Ramsden, Finance Business Partnering 08.12.15 &
07.03.16
16.12.15 &
09.03.16
Finance
Summary and
Section 3
Jean Marc Moocarme,
Legal Services
Corporate Affairs 08.12.15 &
07.03.16
15.12.15 &
08.03.16
Section 4 /
Appendix 2
David Rose, Democratic
Services
Enabling: Corporate
Affairs
08.12.15 &
07.03.16
08.12.15 &
07.03.16
Section 4
Councillor Paul McGlone Deputy Leader,
Finance & Investment
08.12.15 &
26.02.16
07.03.16 Appendix 2
Councillor Jane Edbrooke Cabinet Member for
Neighbourhoods
08.12.15 &
26.02.16
07.03.16 Appendix 2
Councillor Jack Hopkins Cabinet Member for
Jobs & Growth
11.12.15 &
26.02.16
07.03.16 Appendix 2
Councillor Ed Davie Chair, Overview and
Scrutiny Committee
08.12.15 &
07.03.16
Appendix 2
Councillor Lib Peck Leader of the Council 03.03.16 06.03.16 Appendix 2
Report History
Original discussion with Cabinet Member 24.11.15
Report deadline 09.03.16
Date final report sent 11.03.15
Report no. 150/15-16
Part II Exempt from Disclosure/confidential
accompanying report?
No
Page 65
Key decision report Yes
Date first appeared on forward plan 25.11.15
Key decision reasons 3. Meets community impact test
Background information
Background documents are cited/listed in the
main Commission report (Appendix 1)
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Healthier High Streets
Commission Final Report
Appendix 2 – Action Plan
Page 66
Cabinet
Date of Cabinet: 21 March 2016
Report title: Community Plan
Wards: All
Report Authorised by: Chief Executive, Sean Harriss
Portfolio: Leader of the Council, Councillor Lib Peck
Contact for enquiries: Hannah Jameson, Head of Policy & Insight, 020 7926 6918,
Report summary
This is a report outlining Lambeth Council and partners’ vision and priorities for the borough over
the next four years. It constitutes Lambeth Council’s key strategic document. The proposals set out
in this report are the basis on which we will consult and engage people and organisations in the
borough with the aim of developing our priorities into a detailed plan for the borough to be agreed
by cabinet and Council and published later in the year.
Finance summary
The Community Plan will set the priorities for the organisation, which will need to have regard to
the medium term financial strategy of the council. Lambeth Council is facing a budgetary challenge
of unprecedented scale over the coming years as it seeks to balance rising demand for services
with a significant reduction in funding from central government. The council has recently set a
budget that has identified the need to find savings of £40m in 2016/17 in order to balance the
budget. Further savings of £55m will be needed by 2019/20 with the majority of £30m required
within 2017/18. The Council will have less funding, fewer staff and will have to focus on fewer
priorities.
Recommendations
(1) To agree the priorities set out in this report as set out in 2.3.
(2) To note the equalities analysis informing this report in the accompanying Cumulative
Equalities Impact Analysis 2016.
(3) To agree the approach to consultation and engagement proposed in order to develop the
Community Plan before it is brought back to cabinet for approval.
(4) To agree the approach to renewing partnership arrangements in Lambeth.
Page 67 Agenda Item 7
1. History and Context
Context
1.1 In 2016, we will publish a new Community Plan for Lambeth. The Community Plan is our
vision for the borough, and its place within London. The political leadership of the Council
was elected in 2014 with a mandate to increase ‘ambition and fairness for all’. Since then,
the Council has worked with partners to make this a reality, by building more affordable
housing, supporting people into work, driving up standards in our schools and nurseries, and
regenerating parts of the borough to bring in new businesses and jobs.
1.2 However, time moves quickly. The economy, the borough’s population, and the funding
available to public services have all changed since 2014. As a borough, we need to review
our progress, and look ahead to 2020, to refocus our goals in order to continue to deliver on
our commitments to the people of Lambeth.
1.3 Over the last two years, we have had many conversations with people living, working and
visiting the borough, whether through our residents and business surveys, the Lambeth Big
Health Debate, our consultations on local economic development, or neighbourhood forums.
People have told us what is important to them, and about their ambitions for their families
and their neighbourhoods. We have drawn on this here, and we will actively engage local
people over the next few months in the choices we have set out in this report, in order to
develop the Community Plan further.
2. Proposal and Reasons
Our vision for Lambeth
2.1 Our vision for Lambeth in 2020 is for a borough of opportunity, where new and old
communities live shared lives and have equal chances to realise their potential and improve
their lives. We want to use the once-in-a-generation regeneration and investment to build on
our strengths – as the cultural and artistic heart of London, as an internationally recognised
hub for health innovation, as a place renowned for its diversity and creativity, and cohesive
communities.
2.2 Our challenge over the next four years is to drive and shape economic growth so that it
benefits our communities, creating the investment that will sustain our mixed communities,
and tackling entrenched inequalities so that growth narrows, rather than widens, the gap.
2.3 We are setting three strategic objectives for partners in the borough to work towards in order
to achieve our vision:
1. Drive economic growth;
2. Maintain and invest in good neighbourhoods; and,
3. Narrow the gap.
Driving economic growth
2.4 Lambeth is a borough that is changing - and growing - fast, as more and more people
choose to come here to live, work and study. As the capital’s economic growth continues, its
centre of gravity has shifted and Lambeth is now at the heart of central London. We are
home to world-class universities and teaching hospitals, major arts and cultural institutions,
and global businesses. We are known throughout London for our creativity and diversity.
Page 68
2.5 The huge opportunities that Lambeth offers are increasingly being recognised, attracting
investment and development. People want to come here to start new businesses, build
homes and workplaces, and open new galleries and museums.
2.6 We are ambitious for Lambeth and we want to use this once-in-a-generation opportunity to
change the borough, and the lives of the people living here, for the better. We have worked
hard to regenerate Lambeth, to bring in new jobs and affordable homes to ease the housing
crisis, and we are committed to continuing these improvements across the borough in the
years ahead.
2.7 Lambeth succeeds when London succeeds. We recognise the vital role Lambeth plays in
London’s economy, and are committed to doing all we can to support growth. We believe
Lambeth has far more potential, particularly in the centre and south, but to unlock this we
need long-term investment in transport. We will work with the London Mayor, Transport for
London (TfL) and neighbouring boroughs to develop these plans.
Good neighbourhoods
2.8 Lambeth is not just recognised for its geography and infrastructure; its history, culture and
communities are equally valuable. In a global city, Lambeth offers communities and places to
which people can belong, prosper, and have a stake in the future. Every year, people come
to Lambeth to make their home and improve the opportunities for themselves and their
families: Lambeth’s population is projected to grow from 303,100 in 2011 to 357,000 in 2030.
The new arrivals join long-established communities that have shaped the five distinctive town
centres of Lambeth, creating rich and vibrant cultural scenes.
2.9 Our task over the next five years is to work with businesses and residents to ensure our
neighbourhoods remain attractive places where people want to live and do business. But
neighbourhoods are more than pieces of the economic puzzle; they are also communities,
and our aim must also be to protect and enhance their resilience. This means ensuring we
have great schools and nurseries that drive further improvements in educational attainment,
further reductions in crime so we have safe and clean streets, attractive high streets, and
places for the community to come together, such as libraries and parks.
Narrowing the gap
2.10 We are facing a period of unprecedented opportunity, and many have benefited from the
economic recovery through rising asset prices and a strong labour market. However, others
have seen living standards stagnate or decline as wages and benefits have failed to keep
pace with the cost of living. The latest data places Lambeth as the 8th most deprived borough
in London and 22nd most deprived in England. The ratio of Lambeth house prices to average
(median) earnings rose from 6.4 in 2000 to 9.7 in 2013, making property ownership in
Lambeth unaffordable to all but a few. One in 5 of our residents earn less than the London
Living Wage; 1 in 3 children in Lambeth live in poverty.
2.11 Inequality manifests itself in many ways; in children’s life chances, the cohesion of
communities and levels of crime, but it is particularly visible in the health and wellbeing of the
population. Although many people in Lambeth say they have good health, higher proportions
are experiencing poor health and wellbeing than nationally. Our success in helping people
improve their lives rests to a large extent on how they can maintain or attain good physical
Page 69
and mental health and wellbeing. We need to make progress on improving the social,
environmental and economic conditions that affect our health, as well as directly addressing
existing inequalities.
2.12 Our challenge is to shape the investment and development taking place to ensure it leads to
lasting change for all parts of our local economy and communities. We will focus on using the
proceeds of growth to improve the prospects of those who most need our support: we want
to reduce the number of people in long-term unemployment, improve opportunities for people
in long-term low pay, and improve the life chances of children living in poverty and those
living with complex needs. We will continue to work to reduce health inequalities, recognising
the benefits this has for individuals and for the whole community.
2.13 We expect to see 17,000 new jobs created in Lambeth over the next 15 years. However,
there will always be those in our community who are not able to work, through age, ill-health
or disability. It is everyone’s responsibility to ensure they can live with dignity, security and as
much independence as possible.
2.14 We are also committed to ensuring the best outcomes for our children and young people in
terms of their safety, health, education and employment. We will do this by working with
families to prevent problems from escalating and intervening early to keep families together
wherever possible.
Our priorities
2.15 In this report, we are setting out our three strategic priorities for the next five years. They are:
Driving economic growth, Investing and maintaining good neighbourhoods & Narrowing the
gap
2.16 These three priorities emerge from our analysis of resident and business priorities and
population change, our assessment of national policy, and equalities analysis. They reflect
our conversations with partners and draw on the many consultations and conversations
we’ve had with people over the last few years. They are confirmed in the vision of the
political leadership of the organisation.
2.17 We are publishing the research and evidence we’ve drawn on to date alongside this report.
They include:
a report on inequality in Lambeth;
a report on citizen insight, including the residents’ survey 2015 and business survey
2015;
a report on demographic change in Lambeth; and,
The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment.
2.18 In some areas, we have already agreed our goals for the next four years, and these are
restated here. But in other areas, there are choices to be made. We have set out these
choices in this report, and they will form the basis for the engagement and consultation we
hold over the next few months, before we publish our final community plan.
Page 70
Driving economic growth – aims and questions
2.19 Lambeth has some of the best opportunities for economic growth in the country. We are not
pursuing growth for growth’s sake, but because it is by strengthening the local economy, and
contributing to the success of the wider London economy, that we will create the
opportunities for people in Lambeth to improve their lives. By 2020 we will have significantly
increased the number of new homes, built on our economic strengths to attract more
businesses to the borough, and worked with partners to improve our transport infrastructure
to make Lambeth one of the best places for businesses to locate in London.
2.20 Lambeth is already seeing businesses move to the borough, particularly the north, taking
advantage of the central London location, good commuter links and regeneration taking
place there. We need more business to start, move into or grow within the borough; and this
means Lambeth needs to be able to offer flexible space, even better transport, and access to
a highly skilled workforce.
2.21 Although we are clear that we want to drive economic growth in Lambeth, there will be
choices about how we can best do that, and where we focus our efforts. As regeneration and
development opportunities arise, we will need to decide the extent to which we prioritise
employment space. We already have strengths in the arts and health, but are there other
sectors we should encourage, for example technology, green industries and hospitality, and
if so, how can we best support their development?
2.22 Access to good quality, affordable housing is important for all Londoners. But housing is also
a driver of economic growth, and brings investment and revenue that can improve
neighbourhoods. Lambeth has historically offered lower cost housing than other inner-
London boroughs, and was seen as an ‘escalator’ borough, where people could make their
homes and get jobs, improving their lives before moving on elsewhere. However, a
combination of market forces and national policy means that owning a home in Lambeth is
now out of reach of average earners, good quality rental housing is similarly unaffordable in
many parts of the borough, and social housing is only available to the very few. This leaves
the vast majority of average earners – including teachers, police and nurses – unable to
afford to live in Lambeth.
2.23 Increasing the supply of housing is a national priority. In Lambeth we are committed to
playing our part in this, and have set out in our Local Plan how we will meet the London
Mayor’s target of building 40,000 homes over the next 10 years. The political administration
of the Council has already committed to building 1000 homes by 2018 that will be available
at Council levels of rent, and is investing unprecedented sums in improving the quality of
council homes.
2.24 However, there are still choices to be made about what sort of housing is built, and where, in
order to meet the target. Should Lambeth continue to focus on building council housing, or
start to look at what housing we can develop for the growing number of people who will not
qualify for council housing, and are unlikely to be able to privately rent or own?
2.25 Lambeth is already a densely populated borough, and there are limited choices as to where
new homes can be built. In many cases, the best chances of increasing the number of
homes will be to build on land already owned by the public sector, and by building more
homes in places that have relatively low density at the moment. But building more homes will
Page 71
entail compromises for existing communities, and therefore choices for the whole borough
about its relative importance.
2.26 Lambeth has benefited from a stronger labour market in recent years, and the employment
rate is among the highest in London. Work is essential to maintaining a decent standard of
living, and good health and wellbeing. However, for some people finding appropriate work
and sustaining that work is more difficult. Lambeth has relatively high rates of long-term
unemployment, particularly for older people. We also have concerns about the number of
people who may have been out of the labour market for some time due to poor health and
younger people who struggle to find higher skilled work.
2.27 It is clear the majority of people can find work themselves, but structural unemployment has
serious consequences, and so the question remains what, if anything, we as a partnership of
public, private and third sector agencies, can do to change this; and, if we can provide more
effective support, where this support should be focused.
Good neighbourhoods – aims and questions
2.28 Lambeth’s five distinctive town centres make the borough the place it is. Beyond that there
are many more small neighbourhoods that provide homes and communities for our 300,000
residents. Good neighbourhoods that are safe and clean, with good schools and community,
sports, leisure and cultural facilities make a tangible difference to peoples’ quality of life. We
recognise that these are some of the things that bring people together and help build
cohesive and resilient communities along with the many voluntary and community sector
organisations and businesses. Over the next five years, we will use the proceeds of growth
to improve our neighbourhoods.
2.29 Clean and safe streets are a priority for our residents and businesses. Even with diminishing
resources, we believe we can keep our streets clean. However, this will mean closer working
with our residents and businesses to prevent litter, dispose of waste efficiently, and increase
recycling.
2.30 Lambeth has benefitted from falling levels of crime over the last 10 years, and it is essential
that this continues. The close partnership between the police, council, health services,
residents and community groups has made Lambeth a safer place to live. The police will
continue to lead this work in the borough.
2.31 Lambeth has seen nothing short of an education revolution over the last 10 years. 92% of
our schools and 100% of our children’s centres are recognised by OFSTED as being ‘good’
or ‘outstanding’. Our schools are acknowledged as among the best in the country for
teaching poorer children and enabling them to succeed at school, improving their life
chances. But just as importantly, schools are the heart of communities.
2.32 We want to see this continue, with further improvement in attainment at every key stage,
more children starting school ready to learn, and a narrowing gap in attainment between
different groups of children. Crucially, we want to make sure more of Lambeth’s young
people have the skills and support to get good quality jobs, and so our task will be to
strengthen the partnership between schools, colleges, universities, employers and families to
make young peoples’ success not just possible, but probable.
Page 72
Narrowing the gap – aims and questions
2.33 Inequality blights all our lives, fracturing communities and preventing people from fulfilling
their potential. The opportunities and revenues generated by growth are our best means of
tackling inequality. Our challenge over the next five years is to narrow the gap between our
poorest and most vulnerable residents and the rest of the borough. We will work to connect
local people with the opportunities being created in the borough.
2.34 We have looked carefully at the population of the borough, and how it is changing. All
partners acknowledge that many peoples’ lives are improving, but that there are also signs
that inequalities in some areas are growing.
2.35 These are huge challenges, and as part of a global city, we are subject to global economic
forces. No public agency, charity or business can tackle inequality alone. For public agencies
in particular, limited public spending means that we must focus our efforts, working toward
the same goals.
2.36 Our research so far, published alongside this report, has shown that Lambeth still has
significant pockets of deprivation, and that there are some groups for whom things seem to
be either getting worse, or not improving. These include people who have been unemployed
for long periods of time, people who have been in low pay for over 10 years, people with
complex needs, and particular groups of children living in poverty, including those in
temporary accommodation, those with a disability, or with parents with a disability, and
children subject to a child protection plan.
2.37 Improving the outcomes and opportunities for these groups will require new thinking, new
ways of working, and sustained effort. We want to use the next few months to discuss with
residents and partners where we need to focus our efforts, the goals we’ll set ourselves, and
how we will achieve them.
2.38 Much of our focus over the next few years will be to support and enable people to take
advantage of the opportunities being created in Lambeth. However, the Council in particular
has a set of responsibilities to protect and care for a small number of older and disabled
people, and children. Our work here is to ensure older and disabled people to live with dignity
and with as much independence as possible. Though the Council has statutory
responsibilities here, we recognise that there are a multitude of carers, voluntary and
community organisations and public agencies that play a vital role in keeping people safe
and living independently. This will be increasingly important over the coming years as the
number of older people increases, outpacing increases in funding available.
2.39 Every year a small number of children and families require support and protection. Our aim
over the next four years is to ensure that more families are kept together wherever possible
so that fewer children require the highest levels of support from children’s social services.
For those children who are in our care, we will make sure they have stability in their lives as
quickly as possible.
Lambeth’s partnerships, devolution and public sector reform
2.40 Lambeth is fortunate in having within its boundaries organisations that are leaders in their
field, be that in education, health, the arts, or media. Our public services have strengths that
are recognised throughout London, and as well as having national charities based in the
Page 73
borough, our local voluntary and community sector is embedded in each and every
neighbourhood.
2.41 The relationships between many of these organisations are excellent, but the challenges we
face require collective action, and collective relationships. The Community Plan will set out
our shared vision and goals for the borough, but the task will then be to develop plans
together for how we will achieve them, and ongoing partnerships to implement this.
2.42 We have been working with partners over the last six months to develop this plan. As we
publish this report, we also want to put in place more permanent governance arrangements
to ensure the implementation of this plan is led, and overseen by the partnership. We will
establish some smaller working groups to develop the Community Plan, with the aim of
formalising these to provide the ongoing leadership and governance.
2.43 Lambeth’s partnerships stretch beyond the boundaries of the borough; we are part of the
grouping of central London boroughs, and the south east London health economy. Our
experience in recent years has shown that for public services to be effective, they need to be
tailored, responsive, and accountable to their local populations. We have made significant
progress in integrating health and social care services, and bringing statutory and voluntary
sectors together to develop services that work for the individual. Our collaborations with
neighbouring boroughs have allowed us to start to shape and influence the local economy,
skills and labour market more effectively, and support those who need the greatest support
into work.
2.44 We want to go further and faster to reshape public services to meet the needs of local people
and support the local economy. There has already been welcome progress on health
devolution. We look forward to working with the government, new Mayor and London
boroughs to progress devolution and to make the case for London having greater control
over the things that will determine its success as a global city.
The cooperative council
2.45 In 2010 we became a Cooperative Council. In the Community Plan we will reaffirm our
commitment to being a Cooperative Council, and set out how we will build on the progress
we have made so far.
2.46 By becoming a Cooperative Council we were pursuing an ambitious agenda to transform the
relationship between the Council and citizens. We recognised that people in Lambeth are
often best placed to understand how to improve their lives and their communities and that, as
a Cooperative Council, our task would be to support them to do this, rather than doing it for
them. By working together, we would achieve more than we could alone.
2.47 There are many examples of the Council and local people working more closely together; for
example, we have supported communities who want to take action in their area, we have
involved people in designing and commissioning the services that they use, and we have
worked with local people who are willing to share their time and skills with others who can
benefit from them. More significantly, we have changed the culture and outlook of the
Council. We are more outward looking, collaborative and focused on the skills and strengths
of our communities, not just need.
Page 74
2.48 A lot has changed since 2010. A new government was elected in 2015 with a clear deficit
reduction strategy, and agenda for housing, welfare reform, and education. We face
unprecedented financial challenges, with reductions in our funding set to continue and the
end of grant funding for local government on the horizon. The Council will have fewer staff,
less funding, and will have to focus on fewer priorities. We remain a Cooperative Council,
because we believe that, in challenging times, working together is more, not less, important.
We need to continue to encourage people to take more responsibility and to participate in
their community.
2.49 However, we acknowledge that we can no longer afford to provide some of the support we
used to, or continue to trial and test alternative service models. We must draw on what we’ve
learned, and apply those aspects that will help us achieve our goals.
2.50 The original cooperative vision for Lambeth made clear that a new relationship between local
people and the Council would require a change on both sides. We were clear that the
Council needed to become more transparent, collaborative, and responsive. But we were
less clear on how citizens needed to change too.
2.51 In this plan, we will make clear the social contract between the Council and its residents and
businesses. We will set out what the Council and partners will do, and what residents will
need to do if we are to achieve our goals.
2.52 In this plan, we are setting out our goals and priorities. These are the areas in which we will
seek to work with people in order to find the best solutions. Being cooperative is not an end
goal, it is a way of working, a culture, and an attitude which we will apply and adopt to
achieve our goals.
3. Finance
3.1 The Community Plan sets the priorities for the organisation, and will be reflected in the
budget setting process. There are no specific capital or revenue implications arising as a
direct result of this report.
4. Legal and Democracy
4.1 There are no legal implications arising directly from this report.
4.2 This proposed key decision was entered in the Forward Plan on 23 October 2015 and the
necessary 28 clear days’ notice has been given. In addition, the Council’s Constitution
requires the report to be published on the website for five clear days before the proposed
decision is approved by the Cabinet Member. Any representations received during this
period must be considered by the decision-maker before the decision is taken. 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.
Page 75
5. Consultation and co-production
5.1 This report sets out our thinking so far, and the key choices we face. This has drawn on the
available evidence we have on resident priorities, taken from the residents and business
surveys, and analysis of recent consultations. Over the next three months, we will work with
partners, stakeholders and residents to test, refine and develop the goals and plans laid out
here.
5.2 We need far greater detail about the goals we will pursue, how to achieve them, and how to
judge success. On health and wellbeing, housing, business, growth, crime, employment,
education and the environment, we want to set out what we will achieve over the next four
years. This will help to focus our work with communities and partners and enable people to
hold us accountable for our progress.
5.3 The choices for Lambeth are not easy. Pursuing growth will change the borough, and impact
existing communities. We believe our best chances of reducing inequality are by focusing
more support on a few small groups. However, this will mean providing more help and
support to some, rather than others.
5.4 We plan to hold a number of different engagement and consultation events over the next few
months. The aim of these is to:
share the evidence and information we have gathered on Lambeth and how it is
changing;
share our vision for Lambeth and key aims;
discuss the choices facing the borough; and,
discuss the goals we’ll work towards and develop the targets.
5.5 This will include a stakeholder conference in April, and a number of partnership workshops
as described above. The changes we have described in this report will affect different parts
of the borough differently. In recognition of this, we want to bring people together to discuss
the community plan and what it means for each of our neighbourhoods.
5.6 We hope the conversations we have over the next few months will not only help develop the
detail of the plan, but also build the coalition to achieve the goals we set ourselves.
6. Risk management
6.1 There are no direct risks arising from this report. The risks associated with the Community
Plan will be identified and analysed as the detailed outcomes and targets are developed,
alongside implementation plans. This will be in accordance with Lambeth’s risk management
policy.
7. Equalities impact assessment
7.1 Equality, and a commitment to narrow the gap, is at the heart of this plan. This reflects the
vision of the political leadership of the borough to achieve ‘ambition and fairness for all’, and
a commitment across the partnership.
7.2 We see real strength in the diverse and changing nature of our population and in February
2015 we were one of only a few councils to be judged as ‘Excellent’ in our equalities practice
Page 76
by the Local Government Association. Our determination to become a Council that works
together with citizens in all we do is in part driven by our recognition that we can all benefit
from the different skills, strengths, ambitions and needs within our borough. Indeed, our
citizens consistently say that diversity is one of the top things that they value about living,
working and studying in Lambeth.
7.3 Our work to develop the Community Plan has started with our assessment of inequality in
Lambeth, and this is published alongside the report. This report provides the equalities
analysis to inform the development of the Community Plan to date, and sets out how we
have considered equality in developing our vision and strategic objectives so far, and how
this work will continue.
7.4 As a public body, we publish a set of equalities objectives that guide the work of the
organisation and partnership. Because reducing inequality is central to this Community Plan,
we intend for our equalities objectives to be one and the same as our community plan
objectives or goals.
7.5 We will develop these objectives and measurable targets over the next three months with
partners and residents, publish them within the Community Plan, and monitor progress
against them.
8. Community safety
8.1 There are no community safety implications arising from this report.
9. Social value
9.1 Like many local authorities, Lambeth Council is facing a budgetary challenge of
unprecedented scale over the coming years as it seeks to balance rising demand for
services with a significant reduction in funding from central government. Lambeth has
already made a series of difficult decisions to make significant savings; The Council will have
achieved savings between 2011/12 and 2017/18 totalling some £182m. The Council faces a
combination of an estimated 56% reduction from core Government funding between 2010
and 2018, additional burdens and continued demand led pressures.
9.2 As we face increasing pressure on services and on our financial resources, we must achieve
the maximum possible value and impact from every pound we spend.
9.3 The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires authorities to endeavour to add social
value (economic, social or environmental benefits) to their local area via its service contracts
valued above the relevant EU procurement threshold.
9.4 As a matter of best practice the Council seeks to go beyond the requirements of the Social
Value Act (or the general duty of Best Value) and achieve maximum value - in terms of
impact on our outcomes - in all that we do.
9.5 As we consider how the Council can continue to achieve high quality outcomes for local
people with less financial resource, social value could become a key element of our strategy,
for example by enabling the Council to achieve wider social outcomes through leveraging
Page 77
resources that are being spent on other priorities, helping to capture and demonstrate the
benefits of growth for local people and potentially mitigating the impact of reductions in
spending in some areas of the council’s business.
9.6 In very simple terms, social value in Lambeth should be about how we achieve maximum
impact across our community outcomes through all commissioning activity across the
council.
9.7 Lambeth’s Community Plan 2016-20 will set out the organisation’s priorities and strategic
objectives for the next four years and these will be underpinned by a refreshed community
outcomes framework. It is important that the organisation’s social value ambitions align with
the strategic priorities outlined in the Community Plan and it is proposed that a social value
policy and guidance document is developed once the council’s refreshed priorities and
outcomes framework has been agreed, and published alongside the Community Plan.
10. Organisational implications
10.1 Environmental
None.
10.2 Staffing and accommodation
None.
10.3 Procurement
None.
10.4 Health
The ambition to grow Lambeth’s economy, have good neighbourhoods and increase
opportunity depend on the health and wellbeing of the population. Lambeth’s Health and
Wellbeing Strategy is being updated in 2016, but there is a clear relationship between this
and the Community Plan. We recognise that many of the social determinants of health and
wellbeing will be affected by the priorities set out in the Community Plan, and that they will
both set out the work of partners, stakeholders and residents to reduce health inequalities.
10.5 We have drawn on the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment in the development of this report,
and in the accompanying equalities analysis.
11. Timetable for implementation
Date Action
March 2016 Community Plan cabinet report published
March – June 2016 Resident and stakeholder consultation on the Community Plan
June 2016 Community Plan published
Late 2016 Delivery plan published
April 2017 Implementation of Community Plan
Page 78
Audit Trail
Consultation
Name/Position
Lambeth
directorate/department
or partner
Date Sent Date
Received
Comments in
para:
Jackie Belton Strategic Director for
Corporate Resources
05.03.16 08.03.16
Sean Harriss Chief Executive 05.03.16 08.03.16
Helen Charlesworth-May Strategic Director for
Children, Adults and
Health
05.03.16 08.03.16
Sue Foster Strategic Director for
Neighbourhoods and
Growth
05.03.16 08.03.16
Martin Crump Corporate Resources –
Financial Planning &
Management
10.03.16 10.03.16 3
Christina Thompson Director of Finance 10.0316 10.03.16
Alison McKane, Legal
Services
Corporate Resources:
Corporate Affairs
10.03.16 10.03.16
David Rose, Democratic
Services
Corporate Resources:
Corporate Affairs
03.03.16 04.03.16 Throughout
Councillor Lib Peck Leader of the Council 05.03.16 05.03.16
Imogen Walker Deputy Leader of the
Council, Policy
05.03.16 05.03.16
Corporate Management
Team
08.03.2016
Report History
Original discussion with Cabinet Member July 2015
Report deadline 09.03.16
Date final report sent 10.03.16
Report no. 189/15-16
Part II Exempt from Disclosure/confidential
accompanying report?
Yes / No
Key decision report Yes
Date first appeared on forward plan 23.10.15
Key decision reasons
1. Will amend Community Plan Outcomes
Framework or Budget and Policy Framework
3. Meets community impact test
Background information MANDATORY State of the Borough 2015
Lambeth Residents Survey 2015
Lambeth Business Survey 2015
Lambeth’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment
Lambeth’s Cumulative Equalities Impact
Assessment
Page 79
Appendices
Key facts about Lambeth: State of Borough
Report 2015
Local determinants of inequality Report
Inequality in Lambeth Report
Page 80
