Download - Appendix 4 - Detailed new growth and savings proposals ... · Staffing costs contribution 433 433 433 433 433 2,165 Budget transfer from HRE to ACS Growth 29 51 51 73 95 299 Service

Appendix 4 - Detailed new growth and savings proposals 2010/11 to 2012/13 Adults’ and Community Services

Title of Proposal: Police Community Support Officers (ASC(CS) G3)

Proposal to meet the increased costs of match funding twenty two PCSOs under an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Authority for a further 5 years to 2013-14.

Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: George Marshman BU Manager: Ann Corbett

Full Description of Proposal

Making Communities Safer is a key priority for the Council and concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour are residents’ top priority.

The Council agreed to enter into a two year arrangement with the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) from 2007-8 to match fund 22 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) at a cost of £440,000 per annum. Originally funding was allocated from Neighbourhood Renewal Funds with growth being agreed from 2008-9. Currently this funding is within Public Realm but there is agreement to transfer this budget to Community Safety in the current financial year.

The Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Committee (31.3.09) considered an Evaluation and Options report on the Council funded PCSOs. Key benefits identified were:

§ Increased visibility working with the PCSOs increasing the strength of Safer Neighbourhood Teams in the North and South of the Borough to tackle local crime and anti-social behaviour issues

§ Increased engagement with communities and greater intelligence on crime and anti-social behaviour as a result

§ Additional resources Brixton Town Centre Team providing reassurance and also intelligence on criminal activity

§ Assisting with Local Authority enviro-crime initiatives, including Freshview and Community Freshview

§ Issue of Fixed Penalty Notices including FPNs for cycling on the pavement § Targeted public reassurance patrols § Detention of suspects in a range of offences including robbery, theft, disorderly

behaviour and drug-related offences § Working with Lambeth’s Trading Standards department in a alcohol and knife test

purchase operation along Streatham High Road § Working with Lambeth parking and the DVLA to remove untaxed vehicles § Introducing weekly drop-in surgery at Elm Green School § Providing a Single-point of contact for Brighton Terrace residents’ as part of the

ongoing support for the treatment centre and Lorraine Hewitt House

The Council was invited to extend this arrangement for a further two or five year basis by the MPA. Strategic Leadership Board (in early June) recommended that the arrangement should be extended for a five year term as this provided better value. Formal agreement to extend the Section 92 Agreement was sent to the MPA on 4 June 2009 from the Executive Director of Adults’ and Community Services.

Cost implications are set out below and are based on confirmed costs per annum as set out in correspondence from Assistant Deputy Chief Superintendent Guy Ferguson on 21 November 2008.

Value for Money

The arrangement achieved value for money as Lambeth contributed £20,000 of a £33,327 annual salary per officer with the remaining costs met by the Home Office.

The report presented to Cabinet in January 2007 outlined that replacing the Wardens’ Service with PCSOs was the clear value for money option. Provision of 22 PCSOs was at a cost of about £440,000 per year. Comparing the costs of PCSOs with Wardens (unit cost 0f £40,000) this equates to significant value for money at a 50% saving.

PCSOs receive 6 weeks police-based training before they join the borough. All salary costs during this period of training are met by the Metropolitan Police Service. Each PCSO is line managed by a Police Sergeant. There are no additional supervisory costs for the local authority.

Sickness and abstraction levels (i.e. the re-deployment of PCSOs on other duties outside the borough) are extremely low. Long-term sickness costs are met by the MPS. In addition, there are no recruitment or replacement costs to the local authority.

In addition, it is proposed to give the PCSOs more enforcement powers. If issuing Fixed Penalty Notices for littering, urinating Etc have a positive affect this may result in reduced contract cleansing costs in the future.

Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities

A Safer Lambeth with strong communities is a corporate priority. Council funded PCSOs have provided increased resources to local Safer Neighbourhood Policing Teams to address local crime and anti-social behaviour problems. They have also significantly boosted capacity of the Brixton Town Centre Team which is the borough’s biggest crime hotspot.

In addition, PCSOs provide a reassurance through increased visibility in town centre; estates and neighbourhoods. They also support the Police to engage with different communities which results in increased intelligence about crime and anti-social behaviour.

The recent Budget Consultation Survey 2009-10 (November 2008) with residents indicated that:

§ Drug dealing, street drinking and vandalism are top concerns after knife and gun crime

§ Four in ten (27%) residents agreed that crime had affected their life to some extent and one in eight (13%) stated their life had been affected to a great extent.

§ That the Council should invest more money to tackle crime § The most popular action for the Council and its partners to take to reduce crime and

disorder were: more activities for youth (40%), more visible policing (33%), better use of CCTV (31%)

Residents Survey 2009 showed that: § 50% of residents’ rate policing as good to excellent (an increase on 43% in 2007)

and over the lifetime of the survey it has gone up by 15% § No. of residents mentioning crime as one of their concerns is now less that half

(49%) which is a 12% drop since 2007 Residents Survey and concern about crime in Lambeth is less than the inner London Boroughs average (56%) for the first time

The latest quarterly MPS Public Attitude Survey 2008/9 (January – March 2009) indicated that:

§ 82% of residents had seen Police Community Support Officers working in their local area a rise from 53% on 2007-8.

§ 81% of residents indicated that if they were walking alone and saw a PCSO it made them feel safer (this rate has remained relatively constant since 2007-8)

Equalities impact

This proposal will have a positive equalities impact.

Financial Implications

This contract does not raise any capital expenditure implications for the Council. The revenue budget financial implication of approving the proposal in this report is the commitment to extend the existing contract for a further five years effective from 30 May 2009 to 29 May 2014.

The revenue budget has been transferred from the department of Housing, Regeneration and Environment – Public Realm Division to the department of Adults and Community Services’ – Community Safety Division with an inherent shortfall. In addition, the Metropolitan Police Service 5 year contract offer amounts to an effective 12 percent increase over the 5 year period as outlined in the table below:

Five Year Summary of Financial (Growth) Implications (£’000) Years 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Expenditure 30/05/09

-29/05/10

30/05/10 -

29/05/11

30/05/11 -

29/05/12

30/05/12 -

29/05/13

30/15/13 -

29/15/14

Total at end

Year 5

Source of Funding

Staffing costs contribution

433 433 433 433 433 2,165 Budget transfer from HRE to ACS

Growth 29 51 51 73 95 299 Service and Financial Planning process

Total 462 484 484 506 528 2,464 For 2009/10, the Chief Executive has agreed to fund £15,400, while the remaining shortfall of £13,600 is being found within the overall ACS budget. This proposal seeks the balance of growth required under the 5 year plan. Should the shortfall remain, it will have to be met from existing resources by way of Budget virement.

Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure): 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) 51 0 22 TOTAL 51 0 22

Title of Proposal: New funding for tackling anti-social behaviour (ASC(CS) G2) An operational budget to facilitate administrative, legal and enforcement work by the ASB Team. This budget will support effective partnership action to tackle persistent ASB and offending.



The ASB Team currently have funding for four case workers who case manage a significant workload (on average 25 cases a month for each officer and growing). In order to facilitate the effective operation of the ASB team it is vital that an on-going operational budget is established to facilitate administrative, legal and enforcement work by the Team. This budget will support effective partnership action to tackle persistent ASB and offending.

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is identified as a key priority by 16 of the 21 Safer Neighbourhoods Panels in the borough, and has emerged as a key theme in the findings from the recent Lambeth Residents’ Survey.

Despite falling crime rates: § Lambeth residents feel less safe both in the day and after dark. § Our residents are more concerned about ASB in comparison to other boroughs in

inner London. Our performance against National Indicator 17 – the percentage of people who feel anti-social behaviour is a problem in their area – is 29.7% compared with 26% across inner London as measured through the Place survey. Findings also showed that younger residents and Black residents are more likely to see ASB as a problem.

§ Lambeth residents are far less likely to think that parents take enough responsibility for their children. NI 22 (23 vs 30).

§ The Place survey also identifies the extent to which local people think local police teams and other local public sector agencies are successfully dealing with and consulting on ASB and crime issues (NI 21). On both these counts Lambeth falls behind other inner London Boroughs.

The ASB Team, working in partnership with other services in the Council has introduced as ASB Reporting Line (February 2009) to assist residents report a range of ASB related concerns to a single number. The reporting line has been gradually introduced during 2009 to enable the new system to “bed in” and any teething problems to be resolved. However, there is clear expectation that the service should be widely publicised and this is very likely to increase demand for services in 2010.

The Council is now equipped with a wide range of ASB-related powers, which not only includes the power to serve ASBOs, but also other powers such as Closure Orders. However, there are significant overheads involved in the practical use of these powers, not least the legal and case work required. For example, recently the cost of applying to the courts for an ASBO has increased to £500 with an extra £100 if the application succeeds.

The lack of an operational budget has hampered the ability of the ASB Team to expand its work to meet public and councillor expectations. Currently the team is provided with £46.5k annually, funded by area based grants, to meet all of its overheads in respect of legal costs, ASBO applications etc. Neither the source of funding nor the amount is sustainable if the Team is to expand its enforcement activities in line with expectations.

Risks if growth is not funded

Key risks include: § Not meeting member expectations – it is a Manifesto priority of the current

Administration that the Council makes full and effective use of the full spectrum of its anti-social behaviour powers, including the serving of ASBOs, premises closure orders etc.

§ Not meeting public/resident expectations – we are currently promoting the ASB Reporting Line and actively encouraging residents to bring casework to the ASB team for assistance and resolution. Concerns about localised ASB remain high on residents’ list of priorities for which they look to the Council for support.

§ Not meeting partner expectations – MPS, in particular, has made a significant investment in the ‘Safer Neighbourhoods’ initiative with dedicated police teams in every ward and a focus on addressing localised anti-social behaviour. They are looking for reciprocation and support from LBL, including the effective management of ASB casework to which they have assigned dedicated police officers to work with our ASB team.

§ Significant reputational risks if we do not deliver on reducing public concerns about ASB. NI 21 has now been adopted by the Safer Lambeth Partnership as its overarching Single Confidence Target and is included in our Local Area Agreement. A challenging 6 percentage point increase in this target has been set for 2010-11 and reducing concerns about ASB will be a key element of our efforts to bolster public confidence and achieve the target. N1 17 (perceptions of ASB) in Lambeth performs below average when compared to similar boroughs and therefore there is a need to invest in ASB activity to improve performance in this critical area.


Effectively preventing and tackling ASB is a key element of the Safer and Stronger Communities corporate priority. Providing the ASB Team with a stable and adequate operational budget will ensure that increased demand from residents is met and that there is more resilience to drive forward effective partnership working and make best use of available partnership resources.

As stated above, N21 is a key confident target for Safer Lambeth within the Local Area Agreement and the borough is currently is underperforming in comparison to other inner London boroughs. Investment in the ASB Team will ensure that the raised expectations of residents can be met once the ASB Reporting Line is launched and that more focus can be given to preventing ASB.

While there is strong need for increased staffing, the new ASB Case Management system will support more efficient working and will also enable a much greater degree of analysis to drive an intelligence led partnership response to ASB hotspots and the prioritisation of issues.

Equalities impact

There is significant evidence that crime and ASB disproportionately impact on already socially excluded communities including residents living in areas of social housing and in the more deprived areas of the borough. ASB is also proven to attract more serious crime and lead to increased fear of crime.

Implications for the Local Authority under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Section 17 requires local authorities, when discharging their functions, to have regard to the implications for crime and disorder. ASB is a key concern of residents and combating this is a priority for the Safer Lambeth Partnership and the Council. Establishing an operational

budget for the ASB Team will enable an expansion of its activities to meet increased reporting of ASB by the public via the new Reporting Line.


Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Tackling Anti-Social behaviour 60 0 0 TOTAL 60 0 0

Title of Proposals: Cultural Services revenue and capital implications from physical regeneration projects (CS G1-G4 – Clapham Leisure Centre; Norwood Hall; Streatham Leisure Centre)

The physical regeneration projects in Clapham, Streatham and Norwood have capital and revenue implications for Cultural Services, both on scheme completions and as a result of delays

Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: Peter Jones BU Managers: Derek Prentice / Sandra Goodwin


1. Financial implications of delays to physical regeneration programme:

Streatham: Leisure

NB All information below may need to be revisited in the light of the current closure of the pool for health and safety reasons and the ensuing structural inspection and evaluation.

Issue: § The decision by Tesco to retender for the Streatham Hub development delays the

project by at least 5-7 months, which pushes the “closure” date of the existing centre from October 2010 to April – June 2011. There is no evidence that Tesco would keep to this timeline, or accept the new retender

§ The current centre is closed as outlined above

Current position: § GLL are operating the existing centre on an open book contract. The cost of this will

be calculated on income less actual costs, overheads and profit margin. The estimate for 2009/10 is a £500k deficit.

§ Income has been gradually declining. Each pound of lost income is a pound of revenue pressure for Cultural Services.

§ Cultural Services are responsible for all maintenance at Streatham. There has been limited planned and preventative maintenance for the last 2 years, and maintenance is unbudgeted. Full condition surveys have been completed for the centre

Management fee estimate (revenue): § £500k 2009/10 § £550k 2010/11 (pressure £50k) § £600k 2011/12 (pressure £100k) § £650k 2012/13 (pressure £150k)

2. Financial implications arising on completion of physical regeneration projects:

Clapham: Leisure

§ Most management fees for the new Leisure Centre are currently unbudgeted. Financial modelling undertaken by consultants estimates this to be £80,000 annum.

§ The scheme provides for £800,000 for operational fit out of both the Leisure Centre and new Library. Fit out is modelled at £800,000 for the Library and at £600,000 for the Leisure Centre, leaving a funding gap of £600,000 (capital).

Clapham: Library

§ The new Clapham library is planned to open in late 2011. Work is in hand to assess the impact of the increased size and design of the new library building on operating costs. It should be noted that no additional revenue costs have been budgeted for, therefore there could potentially be a growth bid required for 2011/12.

Norwood JSC: Leisure

§ Annual revenue contributions to the PFI sink fund and service charges for the new centre have been addressed in a separate corporate growth bid (leisure contributions: sinking fund contribution £195,000, service charge £105,000). ICT service charges referenced in the Cabinet report are covered in this proposal.

§ Although further financially modelling will be completed once the scheme is finalised, and exclusions from the PFI hard and soft facilities management are elucidated, operation management of the leisure element is estimated at £0, but this needs proper evaluation in the light of the management plan for the facility.

§ Operational fit out of the centre is currently unbudgeted, and modelled at a capital requirement of £300,000 (capital) in 2011/12.

§ The design of the new building was intended to make possible a range of income generation options. Significantly more work is needed to test out the viability of this potential.

Streatham: Leisure

§ Both fit out costs and revenue costs for management of the centre have been included in the existing leisure management contact, and do not need to be considered in this proposal.


§ Local people enjoy a good quality of life in a safe, clean and green environment § Inequalities and social exclusion in the community are reducing § Adults, children and young people and older people have improved health and

emotional wellbeing § Adults, children and young people and older people have an improved quality of life,

choice and control § Our services represent value for money § Customer satisfaction is improving

Equalities impact

EIAs relating to the new development have been completed by Physical Regeneration.


Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure): 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Clapham Leisure Additional cost of new service over current management fee 80 0 0 Norwood ICT service charges 0 11 0 Cost of new service (management fee) to be confirmed following full financial appraisal Streatham Additional costs 50 50 50 Cost of new service not yet quantified, this will depend on the type of services delivered TOTAL 130 61 50 Capital impact (one-off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Clapham Leisure Centre / Library, new estate fit out 600 0 0 Norwood Hall, new estate fit out 0 300 0 TOTAL 600 300 0

Title of Proposal:- Community Safety – CCTV strategy and implementation ASC(CS) G1)

A major review of CCTV is currently underway to meet the challenge and a CCTV Development Plan was agreed by Cabinet (23 March 2009). This proposal will ensure the availability of resources critical to the implementation of the programme of actions agreed from the review.



Over the past 15 years council departments have installed a number of CCTV networks to protect individual housing estates and the town centres across the borough. This lack of a strategic framework has resulted in the creation of a disjointed and fragmented resource.

Nationally over the past five years crime reduction and prevention of crime has increasingly followed an intelligence-led, problem solving approach. In line with Home Office guidance for effective partnership working Delivering Safer Communities (September 2007) this approach was adopted by the Safer Lambeth Partnership in October 2007 and the creation of a Partnership Intelligence Unit has begun over the past year.

Public pressure continues across the borough for more CCTV - a key reassurance tool. CCTV is widely regarded as a ‘panacea’ community safety solution. It is costly to provide and national research has found that to be effective it needs to be developed within a strategic framework.

The challenge is to integrate CCTV in Lambeth into the mainstream of public protection/community safety activity.

In future the deployment and targeting of cameras will be based on need, available intelligence and evidence. This approach offers opportunities to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of CCTV and measure its impact and value for money compared with other community safety solutions. Such an approach requires robust strategic vision and direction.

A major review of CCTV is currently underway to meet the challenge and a CCTV Development Plan was agreed by Cabinet (23 March 2009) which sets out five key priorities:

§ PRIORITY 1 – Integrate CCTV Development and Commissioning into Community Safety/Public Protection Services – the integration of CCTV into the activities of Safer Lambeth, introducing models for needs based commissioning and extending inter-agency collaboration.

§ PRIORITY 2 – CCTV to Support Neighbourhood Problem Solving – The development of a flexible CCTV solution that can be moved around different areas to address public concerns and solve problems in specific neighbourhoods as needs dictate.

§ PRIORITY 3 – CCTV Needs Assessment – the potential of CCTV to support the delivery of the crime and ASB priorities identified in the Safer Lambeth Strategic Assessment, mapping current geographical crime and ASB ‘hot spots’ and relating to coverage and capacity of current systems to ‘hot spot’ areas.

§ PRIORITY 4 – Accountability and Governance – adapting current organisation of CCTV strategic overview, commissioning and operations and integrating into the governance structure of the Safer Lambeth Partnership

§ PRIORITY 5 – Standardisation of Performance Measures – developing measures and simple processes that provide indication of the effectiveness and impact of

CCTV that relate to and support the evaluation of service impact on community feelings of safety and broader performance indicators included in the Safer Lambeth Plan and the Local Area Agreement.

Funding arrangements – the main stages of the CCTV review will be completed by December to inform the production of a programme of action to begin in April 2010 spanning 3 to 5 years, dependant on resource availability. The feasibility of the options selected for action will be heavily dependent on funding and resource arrangements, the financial implications are being assessed as part of the review including the scope for pooling resources across the SL Partnership, exploring opportunities for attracting revenue and charging mechanisms.

Critical to success is the availability of the resources to ensure the strategic leadership and direction is in place to implement the programme of actions agreed from the review.

Risk Assessment

Concern about crime is the number one priority of Lambeth residents and CCTV is seen by many as the solution. As a consequence CCTV modernisation has become a major priority in Lambeth.

Without the adequate strategic direction the keys risks are: § Increased public dissatisfaction with current arrangements and increased fear of

crime § The continuation of the current fragmented, disjointed and costly operation of existing

systems that are of questionable effectiveness § The selection of costly, incompatible and uncoordinated CCTV solutions by council

service teams that remain detached from the evidence led, problem solving needs approach being developed by the Safer Lambeth Partnership

§ The programme of action resulting from the CCTV review will not be implemented to best effect without strong strategic direction and linkage to mainstream activity and project work to make Lambeth an even safer place.


The development and modernisation of the borough’s CCTV provision directly contributes to achieving the outcome under Corporate Priority 1 of “Local communities are safe and the fear of crime is falling.” CCTV in particular has a contribution to make to public reassurance and may improve public confidence as reflected in NI 21, the new Single Confidence Target that features in Lambeth’s Local Area Agreement.

Equalities impact

Assisting in the detection and reporting of crime, CCTV has an important role to play in reassuring the public and reducing fear of crime. As crime and fear of crime have differential impacts on different communities (for example, the incidence of hate crime), so CCTV can have a beneficial impact on equality and diversity in the borough.

Implications for the Local Authority under S17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Section 17 requires local authorities, when discharging their functions, to have regard to the implications for crime and disorder. CCTV is a key element of the council’s, and Safer Lambeth’s, approach to reducing crime in Lambeth and reassuring the public. The need to develop and modernise our CCTV provision is a critical element of this.

Relevant legislation in relation to CCTV has been taken into account in the formulation of Lambeth’s CCTV Development Plan, including:

§ Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 § Human Rights Act 1998 § Data Protection Act 1998

This has required specialised expertise provided by the 0.5 post for which funding is sought through this resources proposal.


Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 CCTV Strategy & Implementation 31 0 0 TOTAL 31 0 0

Title of Proposal - Lambeth Sports Festival (ACTIVATE) 2010/11 (CS G5)

The “Activate” Sports Festival is an annual borough-wide sport and cultural festival to engage young people in healthy, positive activity which was established to take place for the first time this year on 5 September 2009 in Kennington Park. It is the central component of the ‘Lambeth Fit for 2012’ programme. Growth funding is requested to enable it to be staged as a two-day event on an annual basis over a 3 year period covering the summers of 2010, 2011 and 2012. In 2009 funding was identified from Lambeth Council’s existing resources. However to deliver the commitment a sustainable solution is required, hence the submission of this growth bid.

Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: Peter Jones BU Manager: Jon Armstrong


The ‘Lambeth Fit for 2012’ programme anticipates the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and includes an annual borough-wide sport and cultural festival to engage young people in healthy, positive activity. In 2009 we put in place the first major elements of this – the ‘Cultivate’ programme which was delivered through a programme of engagement including the new culture zone at the Lambeth Country Show and the new ‘Activate’ Sports Festival held on 5 September 2009.

The 2012 team at Lambeth has a draft work programme covering a wide range of work streams, one of which is the festival proposal. In partnership with the Sports & Recreation and Events teams within Cultural Services, it was proposed that a Sports Festival should take place annually during the summer period for local residents to engage with both sport and the Council through the hook of the 2012 Games.

The Activate Sports Festival acts as a profile raising event combining sport, healthy living and cultural activities. It offers residents and visitors the opportunity to ‘have a go…’ at Olympic and Paralympic sports and find out where they can continue them in a club setting in a sustainable way delivering a legacy for the event.

The aim for the event has always been to start in 2009 with a smaller but highly professional and deliverable event designed to be built up year on year, including and beyond the year of the 2012 Games, into a month long festival of sport linked with the Holiday Activity Programme led by Children & Young People’s Services.

The proposal also provided for a creation of a Lambeth associated brand, allowing us to maximise access to 2012 related branding such as the “Inspire” mark or “Host Borough for the 2012 Games”. Therefore the “Activate” brand has been developed in close partnership with the Council’s Communications Team.

There are no legal or VAT implications, and in terms of HR issues a project manager would need to be hired for the duration of the project on a temporary contract to create the necessary resource within the Events Team, this is accounted for in the budget.

Consultations occurred at the 2009 Festival to find out what residents want for future festivals if the bid is successful. These thoughts and ideas will be fed into successive years’ festival planning so that the event is user and partner lead rather than council lead.

The implications for procurement are as follows: § In this financial year (not covered by this growth bid), ACS procurement and legal

colleagues have assisted in satisfying the procurement process. § We would recommend that we would procure for all three annual events (2010 –

2012) via one procurement process. This would be above the EU threshold, so we would recommend that if this growth bid is successful, resource in each team (Events / 2012 / ACS procurement) is identified to begin the OJEU procurement process immediately to minimise risk.

§ There is a risk that elements of the budget would shift, given future pressures e.g. on procuring specialised services in the run-up to the 2012 Games.


The proposed project fits well strategically within the Council’s, Adults & Community Services’ and Cultural Services’ existing business priorities and objectives. The Sustainable Community Strategy sets out the Council’s priorities to realise its long term vision and this project will contribute to a number of priorities:

§ Improved health and wellbeing of people which enables them to live active and independent lives

§ Safe and cohesive places where people are empowered and have the confidence to play active roles in their communities

as well as many targets in the Local Area Agreements.

Key Risks for the delivery of this event in future years 1. Failure to secure balance of funding required 2. Failure to agree early enough on funding / proposals would :

§ Not allow sufficient planning time § Lead to a risk of inflated costs when procuring at last minute § Not allow close partnership working with partners such as CSPAN / CYPS

3. Lack of support across council could lead to failure to maximise the event’s outcomes 4. Local organisations/sports groups will not be available on the day to provide stalls 5. The Festival will have objections put up against its licensing request. 6. The police are unavailable and are not in support of the event 7. Residents will not have the will and interest to come along to the festival 8. Park is being used for another event and the courts are not free of bookings. 9. Exposes the Council to reputational risk if manifesto promise is not kept.

Equalities impact

The EIA impact level has been assessed as low and no adverse impact on any equality group has been identified.

Key internal and external stakeholders have been consulted in this project from the outset and have remained well engaged. The Disability Sport and Physical Activity Network were consulted early on in the project on how the event can be made more accessible to young people with disabilities.

A consultation exercise was carried out at the 2009 Lambeth Sports Festival and any relevant findings will be implemented from 2010.


No provision was made in the Cultural Services budget for this project. In addition, circa £200k in the 2012 budget had been taken as savings in earlier years. The Events/Sport/2012 Teams developed a detailed budget for the event for 2009. This budget was structured using the detailed expertise of the Events Team in delivering large-scale events e.g. Lambeth Country Show, and by taking best practice examples and budgets from similar events in other London boroughs (including the successful Pro-Active Islington Festival at the Emirates Stadium).

The budget is representative of the quality expected and therefore is not easily scalable. Future development of the programme would be in line with the budget submitted. Any expansion of the programme will be predicated on securing sponsorship or other income to cover increased costs. It was not possible in the time-scale for this year’s project to deliver sponsorship, and sponsorship is a risk given the constraints around 2012 marketing and the current financial climate.

Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Lambeth Sports Festival two-day event 69* 0 0 TOTAL 69* 0 0

* This assumes an additional £20,000 of alternative funding to be raised by the team as matched funds.

The projected budget for 2009 was £86,740. This can be compared to the actual spend of £86,545. The main variations are due to extra infrastructure and security costs incurred due to late agreement of budget. It should be noted that the awards ceremony section of the event was funded directly from the Sports & Recreation budget and will continue to do so as match funding to the growth bid.

We have taken the experience of delivering the 2009 event to inform a stronger more robust budget for this growth bid. On that basis, the budget in Appendix A sets out the costs for delivering a two-day event, taking advantage of efficiencies and being able to book goods and services in advance, at a budget level very similar to the one day event in 2009.

We have also investigated opportunities to generate alternative sources of funding for the project to minimise the call on council resources. To support this we have also benchmarked against similar events (Brighton & Hove and Islington):

§ Islington runs a similar event (£60,658) however they use the Emirates Stadium as the venue, thereby making significant savings on infrastructure, as well as generating huge interest by marketing the opportunity to tour the stadium and meet players. They do not generate any sponsorship; however the PCT provides £34,850 in support.

§ Brighton and Hove run a much larger festival (£97,336) which is well-established and stable. They generate a total of £10,000 in sponsorship, which we understand comes from roughly five different sponsors. The PCT provide £8,500 in support.

Avenues for alternative funding include: Sponsorship – in the current climate, accessing sponsorship funding will be extremely difficult. There is also an impact on control of the project when a sponsor comes on board. In addition, as the Activate Festival is our flagship 2012 activity, a whole range of branding and sponsorship restrictions (Olympic Act 2005) further reduce the opportunity to raise funding through this route. For example, as Adidas are the sole sportswear sponsors of the Games, we could not accept any support from Nike. DCMS current guidance (Arts & Business survey, November 2008) suggests that private investment in / sponsorship of

cultural activities, including sport has fallen by 35%. However we do feel that we may be able to generate a limited amount of sponsorship/commercial support if we are able to approach potential organisations with a minimum of six months lead in time. The budget for communications and marketing reflects the need to activate any sponsorship deal.

PCT / other public body support – other similar events have received significant support from their PCT. However, if we recognise the current level of investment the PCT is able to make in healthy lifestyles partnership programmes, and the broader pressures on their budget going forward, it is highly unlikely we would be able to raise significant financial support from this source.

Pro-Active / CSPAN – The Community Sport and Physical Activity network (CSPAN, who have now been branded the Activate Board) may be able, through the membership of Pro-Active Central, to allocate some limited funding to sports specific activities. We will be discussing financial and broader support for the Activate Festival at the Activate Board meeting in November.

Cross-funding by other Council Departments – whilst we clearly recognise that all council departments are under significant pressure, it may be possible to explore limited funding streams being applied against outcomes for young people’s participation in sport, engagement through Active Communities, or the involvement of older people in physical activity. This is unlikely to generate significant funds but should not be discounted.

Appendix A: Projected Budget 2010

1 day event 2009

£

2 day event 2010

£ Tannoy & PA 3,143 3,000 Catering 500 1,000 Litter 503 1,200 Security 7,335 5,000

Marquees & Infrastructure 28,338 15,000 Communication 9,251 13,000 Sports 9,217 10,000 Production 7,500 7,000 H&S 4,000 4,000 First Aid 720 1,500 PA & staging 1,700 2,000 Other (licence add) 569 500 Staff costs 13,769 18,000 Contingency (10%) * 8,120 TOTAL 86,545 89,320 Incl contingency (10%)

* Off set against infrastructure

Title of Proposal – Personalising services/Adult social care: - Safeguarding Adults 2010/11 (PS G1) This paper provides the background to Adults’ and Community Services case for growth in mainstream resources for both Safeguarding Adults Operational and Strategic functions for the financial year 2010/11 and the detailed rationale and associated risks.

Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Directors: Susan Harrison (Strategic) / George Marshman (Operational) BU Managers: Neena Khosla (Strategic) / Visva Sathasivam (Operational)


Adults and Community Services have previously not had a dedicated Safeguarding Adults Service. Over the past two years the national profile of Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults has increased, both in the Government’s policy agenda and through publicity about cases of vulnerable adults who have been seriously injured or killed through abuse or neglect. Increased numbers of referrals of vulnerable adults who are abused or neglected has mirrored the growth in Child Protection referrals over recent years.

It is critical that the Council has services in place to deal with this growing demand, and its duties and responsibilities set out under new legislation and guidance in the Mental Capacity Act and amendments to the Mental Health Act.

Background

In 2008/09 ACS commissioned an independent evaluation of current Safeguarding Adults arrangements. The review highlighted the need for increased investment and a comprehensive overhaul of governance, inter-agency working, policy and practice. The review identified priorities for urgent action in order to deal with the ever increasing volume and complexity in this key area of work. A key priority identified the specific need for specialist managerial and operational support to front line staff as previously the whole workload had been managed by one specialist coordinator for whom the workload had become unmanageable and had led to the inability to manage the increased and complex workload and to protect vulnerable adults adequately.

The critical needs of the service have intensified in the last 18 months due to the following pressures:

§ Adult social care services lead Safeguarding Adults work on behalf of the Council. Effective safeguarding requires a strong multi-agency approach where each agency and profession has a specific contribution to make in understanding the vulnerable adult’s health and wellbeing and assessing actual and potential risk, therefore it is vital we get our partners engaged in this agenda.

§ Safeguarding referrals continue to increase significantly year on year both in number and complexity both nationally and locally. Handling of cases is subject to strict timescales under the Government’s No Secrets guidance, which are monitored by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on a monthly basis.

Lambeth Safeguarding Adults Referrals: Year Referrals 2005/06 126 2006/07 189 2007/08 306 2008/09 412 2009/10 (to date) 373 (projected 700+)

§ The requirement for adult social care services to operate within a Quality Assurance framework that supports continual review and improvement.

§ The new Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) framework, for which the borough will be assessed from 2010 onwards, incorporates a much more robust consideration of the role and value of partnership working than the previous system of Comprehensive Performance Assessment. Judgements will now be made about the effectiveness of service user outcomes delivered through partnership working in the borough, particularly for statutory partnerships. A key outcome includes the safeguarding of vulnerable adults.

§ In 20010/11 the Council and its partners will be subject to an inspection by CQC using a methodology which evaluates the implementation of the Independence, Wellbeing and Choice agenda. One of the aims of the inspection will be to evaluate how well adults are safeguarded in Lambeth. The inspection will contribute significantly to the CAA.

Growth Proposal

Currently an enhanced interim Safeguarding service structure is in place and is funded from surpluses across the department; however this cannot be sustained in the long term either financially or through current limited staff resources.

The key functions of the Strategic Safeguarding team are to review safeguarding policies, procedures and protocols across the partnership and support the full implementation of the multi agency Safeguarding Adults procedures. To support and monitor the business plan of the Lambeth Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board. To monitor the quality and consistency of decision making and adherence to safeguarding timescales. To provide a comprehensive safeguarding training programme to staff in ACS and all our partner agencies.

The key role of the Operational team is to ensure the No Secrets guidance and the Lambeth multi agency policy and procedures are fully implemented in practice. This team provides on going advice and assistance to all frontline staff and mangers in both internal and external agencies to ensure safeguarding adults policies and procedures are followed. This team also scrutinise and authorise all safeguarding process via FWi and chair strategy meetings and conferences.

Mainstreaming these functions in both Operational and Strategic Safeguarding remains critical to the needs of the service. Therefore growth is sought in order to regularise the position of this function and to stabilise the provision they make to the service.

The table below summarises the cost of “bronze”, “silver” and “gold” standard service levels in both Strategic and Operational Safeguarding. Details of the posts included and their costs are contained in the appendix.

Summary of options: Bronze Standard Silver Standard Gold Standard FTE £’000 FTE £’000 FTE £’000 Strategic 7 378 10 482 10 533 Operational 10* 392 12* 513 13* 513 TOTAL 17 770 22 995 23 1,046

* 1 FTE in total funded by NHS Lambeth

Risks if Growth is Not Funded

The growth will ensure that both the Council meets its statutory and regulatory requirements and protect vulnerable adults from abuse. This will also help the council to sustain partnership arrangements to coordinate adult protection work in the borough. If the growth is not funded, levels of support particularly to the partnership and governance will be difficult to maintain. Lack of infrastructure and capacity in the Operational function will put the council at serious risk of failing to protect vulnerable adults. This will also have a negative impact on the multi-agency Safeguarding Adults work and ultimately the Council’s CAA rating.

Last year, councils that did not perform well on Safeguarding Adults in their CQC inspections dropped star ratings, e.g. in Hillingdon inspectors quoted “the delivery of adult safeguarding arrangements in Hillingdon had not been sufficiently rigorous”. The Department needed improvements to arrangements in relation to auditing, training and the future development of a dedicated safeguarding team all of which would impact positively on improved practice. In addition, Hillingdon’s Adult Safeguarding Committee were not operating as an effective strategic driver setting a challenging improvement agenda for safeguarding work couched within a comprehensive performance management and quality assurance framework. “The focus of safeguarding leadership was not clear to stakeholders across multi agency adult services”.

In both Richmond and Hillingdon Councils they were criticised for their lack of Quality Assurance frameworks (Richmond) …“that there was no quality assurance processes in place regarding the practice, case work and training. Management oversight of quality of case work and compliance with basic risk management requirements was insufficient”. (Hillingdon)…“no clear quality framework was in place and management oversight of practice and outcomes was not sufficiently evidenced … did not include effective monitoring of timescales or outcomes”.

In Richmond, inspectors concluded that “adult safeguarding has had a low priority within the department and the council as a whole”, this was attributed to a lack of capacity. Both these councils are responding by strengthening their structures post-inspection, and most London boroughs are reviewing their structures with a view to increasing capacity. We are currently trying to obtain more detailed information from neighbouring councils about their Safeguarding Adults structures.

No Secrets guidance has imposed strict practice timescales for responding and investigating Safeguarding Adults referrals. We are required to report on the compliance with meeting these timescales.

These timescales include:

Safeguarding Stage Timescales Alert Immediate Referral to relevant team Within 24 hours of Alert Duty worker or allocated worker to discuss with Practitioner Manager (PM) or Team Manager (TM) and record alert on Framework Decision making on allocation and any initial protection plan agreed and recorded Safeguarding Adults Team formally informed of case and of actions taken/initial protection plan

Within 24 hours of receiving alert or end of next working day

Strategy Discussion Within 48 hours Strategy Meeting chaired by TM/PM or Safeguarding Team in complex cases

Within 5 working days of receiving the Alert

Safeguarding Assessment & Plan Within 28 days of Strategy discussion or last strategy meeting

Report to Case Conference and protection plan to be authorised by TM/PM

Safeguarding Stage Timescales Safeguarding Case Conference Within 28days of Strategy agreed at

Strategy meeting Initial Safeguarding Review Case Conference Within 6 weeks of case conference or

implementation of Safeguarding Plan (or sooner if required)

Subsequent Review Case Conferences if ongoing Safeguarding issues

6 or 12 monthly (or sooner if required) until closure of Plan or as determined by Chair.

Failure to meet these timescales not only impacts on our performance but more importantly on vulnerable people’s lives.

Increased referrals and complexity of cases requires experienced, competent, skilled staff and managers. It has taken two recruitment campaigns to secure good calibre candidates. We currently still have vacancies for safeguarding Practitioner Managers. Recruitment to safeguarding adults has proved to be difficult due to the high profile nature of safeguarding adults work and we are experiencing similar recruitment difficulties as child protection work in children’s services nationally.


A key role of the Quality Assurance function within the Strategic Safeguarding service is to scrutinise practice, performance and operational compliance with procedures through regular auditing of cases, analysis of complaints, and feedback from service users, carers and partners.

Equalities impact

This proposal will have a positive equalities impact through improved safeguarding of vulnerable adults.


Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) – minimum growth 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Strategic Safeguarding Adults and Quality Assurance 378 0 0 Operational Safeguarding 392 0 0 TOTAL 770 0 0

Appendix

Strategic Function

The following are the service critical posts/functions for which growth is sought in the Strategic Safeguarding and Quality Assurance core budget in order to regularise the current situation with respect to provision of the service:

Post/Grade Anticipated Cost £ Head of Strategic Safeguarding and Quality Assurance (PO9) 71,975 Quality Assurance Manager (PO7) 59,754 Quality Assurance Officer x3 (PO3) 132,621 Safeguarding Adults Policy and Development Manager (PO7) 59,754 Senior Administrator (PO1) Servicing Safeguarding Board, sub groups and training

39,051

Supplies, Services and Publications 15,000 TOTAL 378,155 While the Strategic Safeguarding is less directly sensitive to the increasing volumes of referrals, increased volume of referrals represents a challenge for both the council and its partner organisations. However, the Strategic Safeguarding function includes a dedicated Quality Assurance Team; the department previously had no specific quality assurance function. As quoted previously in this report both Hillingdon and Richmond Councils were heavily criticised for not having a quality assurance framework and function to monitor quality of practice, timescales and improved practice outcomes for service users. The role of the interim Quality Assurance Team has provided a comprehensive programme of safeguarding case file audits to identify gaps in practice and have developed an improvement programme linking with training, policy and practice development. The Quality Assurance Team is also leading on working with people who use services and their carers in shaping and evaluating safeguarding arrangements. The Strategic Safeguarding Adults function proposed is similar to that operating currently in CYPS, the team in CYPS have an additional development manager position and a trainer.

It would be possible to strengthen the function by increasing the number of Quality Assurance Officer posts from three to five and adding a junior administrator post at Sc6 to support training. The additional cost of this would be £120,430.

Operational Function

The following are the service critical posts/functions for which we growth is sought in the Operational Safeguarding budget in order to regularise the current situation with respect to provision of the service:

Post/Grade Anticipated Cost £ Head of Safeguarding Operations and Professional Practice PO9 71,975 Senior Safeguarding Coordinator Practice PO7 59,754 Practitioner Manager PO5 x2 (0.5 FTE funded by NHS Lambeth) 77,766 Senior Safeguarding Man. Info Officer PO1 39,793 Administrator SC6 (50% funded by NHS Lambeth) 16,008 Deprivation of Liberties (DOLs) Officer PO5 (part time) 30,899 Minute Taker SC6 x3 96,048

TOTAL 392,243

This provides the minimum structure necessary (bronze standard) to deal with the current level of referrals. The Operational function is under pressure and this structure would be stretched by a significant increase in referrals.

The proposal includes funding for specific minute takers; this has been identified for the following reasons:

§ Increased numbers of referrals § The safeguarding process requires a number of complex meetings that require

detailed minutes and actions within required timescales § The complexity of cases requires increased technical/medical details § Minutes of strategy meetings and case conferences maybe required in cases going

to court or for serious case reviews as evidence

Therefore this requires expertise to take accurate minutes all of which requires a skilled and trained workforce. In order to achieve best value the employment of minute taking staff is more cost effective than care managers/case managers taking these minutes.

Increasing the number of Practitioner Managers from 2 to 5, one for each client group (Older Persons, Learning Disability, Physical and Sensory Impairment, Mental Health, and Substance Misuse / Domestic Violence), would strengthen the structure considerably in anticipation of a continued increase in referrals. (Although the number of referrals varies by client group, the complexity of cases involving older persons is generally less than with other client groups.) That would represent a gold standard of service, at an additional cost of £155,532.

A less costly option (silver standard) would increase from 2 to 4 Practitioner Managers, for Older Persons, Learning Disability, Physical and Sensory Impairment, and one post covering Mental Health, Substance Misuse and Domestic Violence. The additional cost of this option would be £103,688.

In comparison CYPS (in Lambeth) have the following structure: a Head of Service, Service manager, six independent reviewing officers (chairs of conferences/advisors) seven minute takers and two administrators.

Title of proposal: - Strategy and Commissioning – Preventative Services: (SC G1) Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: Helen Charlesworth-May BU Manager: Alex McTeare

Background

A growing population of older people and the increasing cost of acute interventions have focused policy makers on ways of reducing needs. There has not been a tradition of evidence based service provision within social care; this has made it difficult to make the case for investment in prevention services in particular. As a result budget reductions in Lambeth and in many other places have focused on reducing low level services and being very tight in focusing services generally on those most in need. Whilst this was an understandable response to constrained resources and increasing demand it appears to have been counter-productive in terms of meeting the long-term needs of older people. Research by the Personal Social Services Research Unit at the LSE has analysed the impact of some prevention services that aim to shift resources and culture away from the focus on institutionalised and hospital-based crisis care towards earlier and better targeted interventions within community settings. Initial findings indicate that there are reductions in hospital costs, users report improved quality of life and greater satisfaction with services, greater community involvement in the delivery of services, increased volunteering and better relationships between health and social care partners. Similarly research findings for re-enablement and stroke rehabilitation services show real opportunities for savings across the health and social care economy.

Preventative services are also key to the implementation of the personalisation agenda in Lambeth. The need for preventative services has been highlighted by people in Lambeth through the consultation processes for the Adults with Learning Disability and Older People’s strategies, and the pre-consultation phase of the Adult Physical and Sensory Impairment strategy.

The development of preventative services in Lambeth has been poor compared to other authorities in London. There are three particular areas where Lambeth is not as advanced as other areas:

§ Assistive technology § Community equipment § Enhanced Handyperson Scheme

In authority areas where the service is more mature, considerable benefits have been achieved for people by reducing the level of unnecessary hospital admissions, and supporting people to remain in their own homes for longer, rather than having to be as admitted to care home settings.

Lambeth has a relatively low level of community equipment issued, compared to similar authorities. By being part of the Department of Health ‘Transforming Community Equipment Programme” we are aiming to ensure that community equipment is more widely available in Lambeth, through the issuing of small items of equipment (typically of a value <£100), in retail outlets across Lambeth. This will ensure that community equipment is more accessible to more people, and will help to develop the market for community equipment.


AT and Community Equipment We need to develop the range and accessibility of AT and CE for all care groups in Lambeth. Currently, these services have focused on the needs of older people, particularly those with dementia. However, AT and CE have many applications, for example for people with

physical and sensory impairment. We have growing numbers of people aged 50+ who have physical and sensory impairment, due to long term conditions and accidents (particularly related to the use of drugs and alcohol). The voluntary sector organisation Action For Blind People, estimate that Lambeth has the highest level of blindness in comparison to other London boroughs, for example.

We need to embed AT in mainstream services such as the Occupational Therapy service and Home Improvement Agency. There needs to be greater awareness of AT and CE, their uses and applications in the care management and community health teams such as district nurses and GPs. We need to develop the breadth of AT applications available in Lambeth, for example implementing solutions for people with sensory impairment, and use of predictive and interventionist tools. We need to increase the range and availability of community equipment available to people.

Benefits for people who use services: § increased choice, safety, independence and sense of control § improved quality of life § maintenance of ability to remain at home § reduced burden placed on carers § improved support for people with long-term health conditions § reduction in accidents and falls in the home.

Estimated annual breakdown of costs (AT and CE): Description Annual costs £ 2010/2011 Change Manager (2010/11 – 2011/12) 50,000 Additional equipment (AT and CE) 150,000 Additional maintenance and monitoring costs 25,000 IT equipment, workshop and meeting costs (2010/11 – 2011/12) 10,000 Training costs (2010/11 – 2011/12) 30,000 TOTAL 265,000 Estimated total number of additional people (Across care groups) to receive AT/ CE

200 Ongoing cost per person £875

Handyperson Service We wish to develop an enhanced Handyperson service through a social enterprise model. The aim is for the service to become 75% self-funding following a 2-year period of ‘pump-priming’ support from ACS. It would be expected that the social enterprise would afford an opportunity for work experience, volunteering and paid employment for key vulnerable groups such as adults with learning disability and mental impairment in Lambeth. This would contribute to key performance indicators for the Council. Development of social enterprise is also viewed positively by the Care Quality Commission.

Estimated annual breakdown of costs (Handyperson Social Enterprise): Description Annual costs £ 2010/2011 Change Manager (2010/11 – 2011/12) 40,000 Supervisors/ Team Leaders X2 60,000 Staff X 4 50,000 IT equipment, etc 13,000 TOTAL 163,000 Estimated total number of people (Across care groups) to receive enhanced Handyperson service 2010-2012

200 Ongoing cost per person £615

The revenue costs have been estimated using a review of costs of a range of AT solutions and handyperson services, and likely numbers of people across care groups to additionally benefit from the service. Costs will be incurred from 2010/2011 onwards.

Findings from consultations In the consultations for the Older People’s and Physical and Sensory Impairment strategies, people have told us that they would like to see increased use of AT and access to a broader range of equipment. They have also told us the impact that not being able to carry out basic repairs to their properties has on their sense of well-being.


§ Adults and older people have improved health and emotional wellbeing § Adults and older people are safe from discrimination or harassment and can enjoy

personal dignity and respect § Adults and older people have an improved quality of life, choice and control § skilled and well-led staff who understand their community § Inequalities and social exclusion in the community are reducing § Our services represent value for money § Local people enjoy a good quality of life in a safe, clean and green environment § Services are supported by effective and efficient processes § Customer satisfaction is improving

Equalities impact

It is expected that this proposal will positively impact on equalities, by making equipment AT and CE available to greater numbers of people.


Both the AT/CE and Handyperson proposals are for universal, preventative services. Funding options have been set at levels that should meet demand, thus meeting the criteria for universality and generate the benefits of prevention. The risk of reducing volumes is that the service does not meet demand undermining the aims of prevention and damaging expectations of universality. As each of the proposals is independent of the other it would be preferable to decide on implementation or non-implementation rather than attempting to scale the individual proposals to offer different levels of service.

Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 AT/CE Service 265 0 (90) Handyperson Service 163 (81) (41) TOTAL 428 (81) (131)

Title of proposal – Cultural Services - Park Service improvements and efficiencies (CS S2)

Improvements and efficiencies in the Parks Services through new contract specifications for grounds maintenance and specialist parks services

Executive Director: Jo Cleary Divisional Director: Peter Jones Head of Service: Byron Miller (interim)


The current Grounds Maintenance Service was tendered and the contract won by Veolia in 2004. During the five years of the contract, performance has been adequate and the contractor has worked with the Council to achieve the main KPI of six Green Flags.

However, as the Council has become more experienced in managing and monitoring the contract, benchmarked with other London authorities and taken more soundings from staff, parks users and stakeholders, it is increasing apparent that the contract should provide both a higher specified service and greater value for money.

Analysis suggests that the grounds maintenance contract specification is no longer fit for purpose and includes rates that are above the London average. Efficiency savings could be made that will result in a higher quality and more effective service in parks and open spaces. In line with the developing commissioning strategy it is proposed that a number of specialist contracts will be developed, rather than a single general Grounds Maintenance contract as currently. New specifications for grounds maintenance and specialist parks services are currently being developed, and it is expected to let or renew contracts in October 2010. This will result in efficiencies in the region of £1.5m (11% over the lifetime of the contract) or up to £300k per year. The timing means that the full benefits and savings from the proposal will not be realised in the first year. The balance of savings in 2010/11 will be found within the overall ACS budget.

Improving the contract specification The specification will address include the following areas of quality improvement (not an exhaustive list):

§ More staff that dedicated to single parks or parks groups through a reduction in mobile teams

§ Uniformed and recognisable staff § Staff that provide a presence throughout the day, particularly during summer evening

when young children are playing in paddling pools – currently there is no presence during late summer evenings, which is a potential child safety issue

§ Localised staff that provide an evening presence will also ensure: § A greater level of recognition by uses and stakeholders § Greater commitment to ‘their’ park § A locking up service for parks that needs to be locked providing savings on the

current expensive gates locking service § Increase in specialist horticultural staff § More work with community and Friends groups:

§ Activity and planting days § Increased volunteering in ecology and events § Increased input into ecology and environment days

Creating efficiencies Efficiencies can be gained in the following areas:

§ Contracting out specialised jobs rather than sub-contracting e.g. sports pitch maintenance, pond maintenance, specialist grounds and infrastructure improvement. This potentially gives the Council greater control over quality and saves on the sub-contracting fee (est. 10%)

§ Removal of potential areas of duplication with other contracts e.g. the Parks Improvement Team (PIT) function and contract either with a specialist provider or with a corporate contract

§ Having the contractor focus more on low value basic items such as grass cutting and litter picking; these items are current over valued in the contract compared with London averages

§ Reduction in high cost low impact but over specified areas including: infrastructure improvements, fly tipping clearance, water body or pond maintenance

As part of the overall effort to improve the service to parks users and stakeholders, officers will also analyse internal services where continuing efficiencies can be gained whilst improving value and quality.

Community Impact Although much of the Parks Services is non-statutory, it is highly visible with a high profile in the awareness of members and the community. This proposal will deliver a higher specified service alongside improved value for money.


It is considered that this proposal will have a positive impact upon both performance and corporate priorities; particularly in the following areas:

§ 8 Green Flags will be achieved by 2012 § Parks will be safer than they currently are with stronger community involvement

through dog walkers and new Parks Watch initiative § In partnership with the Friends, Sports Team and the improvements being carried out

by the Cultural Development/Environmental Improvement Team; this proposal will ensure there are more and safer opportunities for young people and children

§ This proposal will help the council to better protect the environment; particularly the parks environment that we have been recently working so hard to improve; this includes protection from dangerous dogs and anti-social behaviour

§ It will finally demonstrate that we are listening to the needs and wants of our customers and beginning to serve them effectively

Equalities impact

This proposal will have a positive equalities impact.


Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £’000 £’000 £’000 Estimated gross savings (300) 0 0 TOTAL (300) 0 0

The current Grounds Maintenance contract is valued at around £14m including contract variations. This will result in efficiencies in the region of £1.5m (11% over the lifetime of the contract) or up to £300k per year. The timing means that the full benefits and savings from the proposal will not be realised in the first year. The balance of savings in 2010/11 will be found within the overall ACS budget.

Children and Young People’s Services

Revenue Growth 1.1 Title of Proposal: Implementing Laming report recommendations Executive Director: Phyllis Dunipace Divisional Director: Ade Adetosoye, Social Care BU Manager: Ade Adetosoye

Background

1.1 Following the tragic death of Baby Peter in Haringey, the Right Honourable Ed Balls MP commissioned Lord Laming to report urgently on the progress being made across the country to implement effective arrangements for safeguarding children. The kernel of the task was to evaluate the good practice that has been developed since the publication of the report of the independent enquiry following the death of Victoria Climbié in 2003, to identify the barriers that are now preventing good practice from becoming standard practice and to recommend actions to be taken to make systematic improvements in safeguarding children across the country. As part of his investigations Lord Laming’s team visited Lambeth to hear about the work of front line practitioners in safeguarding Lambeth’s children and the work of the Lambeth Safeguarding Children Board. The team were impressed with progress being made in Lambeth and the resulting report contains a good practice example from Lambeth.

1.2 Lord Laming’s report The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report was

published in March 2009. Lord Laming reports that the last five years were a particularly intense time of change and that a great deal of progress has already been made in respect of nurturing and protecting every child. However, despite an encouraging start, he acknowledges that real challenges in safeguarding and child protection still need to be addressed.

1.3 Lord Laming made 58 recommendations for change covering;

Leadership and accountability Support for children Interagency working Children’s workforce Improvement and challenge Organisation and finance Legal

2. Full description of proposal: 2.1 The Government Action Plan contains requirements for action to be completed from

May 2009 through to 2011. There are broadly three types of actions contained in the Plan: Those required of Government or National bodies; those under local discretion that can be implemented straight away; those anticipated changes that can be planned for and implemented locally that will bring about improvements to local practice and outcomes for children, but have not yet been required of local areas.

2.2 This paper sets out the financial requirements needed to fully implement key aspects

of the Laming report that can be implemented locally. Recommendations that are led by central government are difficult to estimate at this stage and are not included in this report.

Delivery of local recommendations from The Lord Laming Report

3.1 Children’s Workforce

3.1.1 Lambeth has made significant improvement in recruiting permanent social work staff and rates of locum staff are on course to reduce to 5% when currently recruited staff have completed the administrative processes and are in post. Newly recruited social workers places additional demands on managers for supervising work and requires additional supports such as mentoring and training to support the development of practice.

3.1.2 CYPS has taken steps to review the caseloads of all staff so that no social worker carries more than 7 child protection cases and no social worker with less than 12 months experience is required to hold a child protection case, and will receive a protected workload. The skill mix of all teams has been reviewed and a workload measurement scheme introduced to ensure reasonable and equitable workloads. This has required an increase of 13 temporary social work posts and 2 temporary team manager posts to ensure that minimum standards are in place and to meet current demand.

Proposed Solution

3.1.3 While recent initiatives to recruit permanent staff have been successful, most of these recruits are new graduates who will have considerable professional development needs over the coming years. It is essential that they receive adequate supervision and support as well as a controlled workload if they are to mature into effective experienced practitioners and to remain with Lambeth. A Mentoring Scheme has now been established as well as a mandatory in - service training scheme. However, to be successful these initiatives will require a staffing level which can manage the proposed caseload of 12 children per social worker while still permitting the release of ‘trainees’ and more experienced staff as mentors and trainers.

3.1.4 To achieve this, the service will require additional qualified senior social workers to

ensure that the caseload ratio of 12 children to each social worker is achieved. The costing for these additional staff based on Matrix agency rate is set out in the table below:

Staff Additional

Staff Cost Social Workers 13 £840,166.60 Team Managers 2 £186,295.20 £1,026,461.80 Managerial & Admin Support £76,000.00 £1,102,461.80

3.2 Integrated Children System (ICS)

3.2.1 Lord Laming recommends that the Integrated Children System (ICS) (an electronic system for recording social work records) is reviewed to reduce the burden on social workers for unnecessary administrative work. The Social Work Task Force has been commissioned to consider the remodelling of Social Work to ensure that Social Workers have more time to spend with children by reducing these administrative burdens.

Proposed Solution

3.2.2 A project group has been in place for some time in Lambeth to develop and refine the ICS system although, to date, there has been little flexibility to deviate from the national system. There is likely to be more flexibility to refine the system to meet local needs following Laming.

3.2.3 Laming recommends the co-location of police and health staff and this is currently under consideration; there is currently a health visitor, adult mental health and substance misuse worker co-located. The LSCB and social care training programmes have been reviewed in accordance with the Laming recommendations and 2 additional staff have been appointed to increase the capacity of the training programme.

3.2.4 To achieve this, the service will require additional funding to ensure that ICS is re-configured locally. There is a central government grant of £64,000 which would be used towards this. However, the government has not set aside any additional funding to facilitate the co-location agenda with the police and health staff. To this effect, a sum of £100,000 is required for this purpose.

4. Leadership and Accountability

4.1 The Executive Director CYPS currently chairs the LSCB. Lord Laming encouraged local authorities to have an independent chair of the LSCB.

Proposed Solution

4.2 The LSCB have agreed that an independent Chair should be appointed for the Board and for the Serious Case Review Sub Committee. To achieve this, the service will require additional funding to ensure that independent officers are recruited to chair both the board and the sub committee. A sum of £50,000 is required for this purpose.

5. Support for Children (Contact Point)

5.1 The Council places a high priority on providing a range of excellent child centred early intervention services so that needs are addressed before problems become intractable. The partnership have a clear strategic priority to further improve prevention and early intervention and have already made significant progress in implementing the Common Assessment Framework, Lead Professional and Team Around the Child (TAC), which are well embedded. This approach will be further strengthened with the introduction of Contact Point. Contact Point is a key element of the Department of Children, Schools and Families’ (DCSF) Every Child Matters programme to transform children’s services by supporting more effective prevention and early intervention. DCSF has used the Children Act 2004 to legally create ContactPoint, and has mandated the use of ContactPoint by every authority in England

5.2 ContactPoint will contribute to earlier intervention of support to vulnerable children through facilitating improved information sharing amongst practitioners. This will contribute to improving the safeguarding of vulnerable children. The aim is for ContactPoint to ‘go live’ in Lambeth in spring/summer 2010. ContactPoint is currently funded via a grant from DCSF. Funding is unlikely to be more than the level of grant (£158,719) received this year and may be reduced as local authorities are expected to fund the maintenance and support of ContactPoint once it has ‘gone live’.

Proposed Solution 5.3 Currently the Contact Point team is configured as a project delivery team. The

requirements to administer and maintain ContactPoint once it goes live in Lambeth will require a different team with new roles. Funding for 2010-11 will need to cover the mainstreaming phase of the project – maintaining and managing Contact Point post launch, completing organisational accreditation of schools, ongoing training of users, and auditing data. It is estimated that ContactPoint will require funding of up to £215k in 2010-11.

What resource is required

When is Resource required?

Resources Costs expected

ContactPoint Manager

April 2010-March 2011

New role to manage CP for LBL

£62k

ContactPoint Data Administrator (1 post)


New roles £19k for 6 months

ContactPoint User Administrators (2 posts)


New roles £34k for 6 months

Helpdesk Costs Jan 2010 – ongoing

1 Helpdesk administrator may be required

£25k (TBC)

ContactPoint Business Transformation Officer (PO3 – (required for accreditation of schools)

April-July 2010

£15k for 4 months

Training resources (2 posts) and training venues


Training analysis and delivery across all relevant agencies working with children

£50k

ContactPoint Tokens for local practitioners


Approx 2400 users from partner agencies will need tokens for secure access

£5k

Comms – Production of leaflets and awareness across Lambeth and its agencies


£5k

Total funding required for 20010/11 financial year £215k Current funding secured (awaiting announcement of DCSF maintenance grant)

£0

Total funding deficit £215k

6. Benefits

This proposal will allow the local authority to comply with the Laming recommendations on caseload, ICS, and also ensure that vulnerable children in Lambeth are adequately safeguarded.

7. Risks

If the provision is not made, Lambeth may not be able to implement the Laming recommendations as there is no current capacity to fund this new Government led initiative in the base budget.

8. Equalities Impact

Child protection work is a statutory duty. This provision will have a major positive impact on the lives of all vulnerable children in Lambeth. Children with Disabilities are particularly vulnerable and BME children are over represented in the cohort of vulnerable children with whom we are working. This provision will improve the services they receive. There is no adverse impact on any particular groups of children and young people based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or faith.

9. Financial Implications

Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Children’s Workforce (Additional qualified senior social workers) 1,102 0 0 Integrated Children System (additional staff) 100 0 0 Leadership and accountability (LSCB) 50 0 0 Contact Point funding gap 215 0 0 TOTAL 1,467 0 0

Revenue Saving 1.2 Strategic Review of Service Delivery Models, Partnership Working and Grant Maximisation Title of proposal: Strategic Review of Service Delivery Models and Grant Maximisation Executive Director: Phyllis Dunipace 1. Service and Function review The department is undertaking a strategic review of how it delivers its services and support functions in order to identify further efficiencies by:

• Launching a project to develop alternative service/ organisational options to allow CYPS to continue to deliver sustainable services more cost effectively. The review is to focus on identifying areas of duplication, economies of scale and aligning/ merging functions where synergies are possible.

• The number of agency workers has already been reduced across the department in a phased way

2. Joint working with partners Working in partnership can also release efficiencies, as already seen in 2007, when the Council pooled budgets with schools to deliver a number of successful programmes eg. the management of the Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). This allowed essential partnership priorities to be delivered by the use of pooled budgets, ensuring better outcomes for children. To ensure that partnership resources are used even more efficiently, the department is seeking to identify areas where shared objectives allow the streamlining of resources to meet joint priorities, identify further areas for joint projects, funding of posts, co-locating services and making use of economies of scale. The CYPSP are currently developing an Interagency Resources group, which will consist of the key finance representatives from CYPS, CAMHS, the Metropolitan Police Service and NHS Lambeth. This group will work to map how resources across the partnership are being spent to help Children and Young People and their families in Lambeth and identify areas where budgets could be further aligned or pooled to meet joint priorities. 3. Review of grant utilisation Nearly 80% of CYPS expenditure is grant funded. CYPS aims to extend its strategic review of how services are being funded and delivered to grant funded activities as well. Apart from looking at new areas that could attract grant funding and thereby potentially reduce financial burden on the Council own funding, but also methodically reviewing the use of each existing major CYPS grant. This review would assess the staffing and activities the grants currently support and explore whether there is scope for more effective use of these funds Although the majority of grants are ring-fenced for a specific purpose there is considerable overlap between certain grant-funded services. This overlap can provide opportunities for joint working, synergies, and more effective overall use of funds, which can be translated into efficiencies. Undertaking such a strategic review of grants will identify areas where there are overlaps in objectives and priorities across various grants and Council’s own funding and identify areas where more effective use can be re-directed to cover costs currently funded by departmental cash limit.

The review of grants will also take account of the types of employment contracts associated with grant-funded staff. If a grant is specified for a particular period, the staff in that area should be linked to a fixed term contract. The main grants in CYPS are:

• Dedicated Schools Grant • Standards Fund • Early Years Sure Start Grant • Area Based Grant • Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Grant • Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers Grant • Young Person’s Substance Misuse Project • Leaving Care Grant

Risks Any major change in how services are being delivered organisationally need to consider the potential adverse impact on staff morale, retention and productivity. Reliance on grants to fund further staff and/or services can be a risky strategy in the current economic climate. If a grant were to be removed or significantly reduced, there would be an impact on staffing levels across the department, therefore sustainability of funding needs to be considered when making any decisions involving grant funding. Achieving the full proposed saving within one year carries risk of reduction in the volume or quality of some services provided by the department. Equality Impact Assessments Equality Impact Assessments will need to be carried out on each specific proposal when more detailed information will become available. Financial implications 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Savings through strategic review of service delivery models, partnership working and review of the use of grants (1,050) 0 0 Strategic Review of Service Delivery Models, Partnership Working and Grant Maximisation is expected to allow CYPS to release £1,050k from its cash limit in 2010/11

PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS NOT A NEW PROPOSAL BUT ONE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2009 AND AMENDED. 2.1 Title of proposal: Young and Safe in Lambeth: Youth Violent Crime Action Plan (revised profile, original bid approved in 2009) Executive Director: Phyllis Dunipace Divisional Director: John Readman 1. Background Information 1.1 The Young and Safe programme provides multi-agency support to young people at

risk of violent offending. It aims to reduce serious youth violence, such as gun and knife crime

Reduction of Youth Offending is a key priority of the Council and the Lambeth Strategic Partnership.

2. Full description of proposal 2.1 Young and Safe started in April 2009 and after commissioning services and

beginning to identify young people has started very active work since the late summer and this has already led to a reduction in youth violence and serious youth violence. However, serious youth violence still remains high, and according to residents’ surveys it is still the number one concern for residents.

The overall aim of Young and Safe is to achieve:

• Significant reductions in the incidence of serious violent offending committed by

young people as evidenced both by crime rates and the involvement of young people in the criminal justice system.

• An end to the ‘escalator’ factors that are leading young people from low level

non-violent offending, into violent offending in general and gang related violent offending in particular.

• Successful diversion of young people at risk of involvement in gang related

criminal activity onto pathways that lead to educational success, secure employment and career progression.

Currently the £550k LBL base budget and Community Safety ABG funding of £45K are committed in 2009/10 as follows: Programme Management Costs * 296,785.00 Operations Team 43,892.00 LIFE project 15,000.00 Youth Scene Kartz 8,700.00 Mentivation services 6,623.00 Youth Empowerment Solutions 36,000.00 2XL 95,000.00 Youth Scene into Adulthood 5,000.00 Parentline + 53,000.00 Small Grants 35,000.00

Total 595,000.00

* Programme management costs include recurring staff and on costs and programme management costs such as commissioning advertising, recruitment costs, events and room bookings and non-recurring staff costs for programme set up. 2.2 The original growth bid was for funding the core Young and Safe activities indicated

in the Strategic Action Plan. In addition to those the following gaps have been identified in the first year of operation:

• Work with victims of youth violence • Work with young women affected by youth violence • Integrated services delivered in a locality – school or estate- experiencing peaks

in youth violence / anti-social behaviour • Extension of services to an older age of either 21 or 25 (services currently stop at

19). This is a key transition to probation for young people and is identified as a trigger point for re-offending, this is currently being piloted.

The subsequent reduction in the growth funding will mean that budgets will have to be reviewed in order to maximise the impact of this investment. The programme team is currently working with partners on the exact allocation and specifications for commissioning for the provision of services in 2010/11

3 Equalities impact

The project aims to decrease violent offending and protect against the risk of involvement in violent offending. Evidence shows that this disproportionally affects young black men.

4 Risks

There is a risk that the programme will not be as extensive as previously envisaged. 5 Financial implications

Revenue impact (budget baseline- annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 £k £k Revised Revenue Growth for Young and Safe Programme 300 (100) Total Baseline budget for Young and Safe 850 750

Capital Growth Title of proposal: BSF Affordability gap Executive Director: Phyllis Dunipace Divisional Director: Mike Pocock BU Manager: Mike Pocock Full Description of Proposal The PfS funding for the overall Phase 1 of the Lambeth BSF programme was established on the basis of a formulaic approach which left an affordability gap. Much work was done in 2005 and early 2006 to address this and an identified possibility was the release of funds from the sale of the Shelley site in Kennington, once the Michael Tippett School, who occupied the site at that time, was relocated. It was envisaged that CYPS would be given £2.5m from the council from the capital receipt of the sale of the Shelley site. PfS, by special dispensation, agreed that 100% of this may be used by Lambeth to offset the affordability gap (normally we would have to give back to them about 50%). This is allocated against the Phase 1 Programme under which Michael Tippett is re-provided. It was therefore always the intention that funding to meet this affordability gap would be provided by the council to allow Lambeth to commit to BSF wave 2. Reconciliation of Funding (£m)

PfS funding for Phase 1 78.427 Basic Needs Funding 2.718 Approved/exceptional abnormals 4.729 Council funding to meet affordability gap 2.500 Total Capital Funding 88.374

Affordability Gap 0.000

In 2006 there was member concern regarding the disposal of such a site and its loss to the community. Indeed in approving the Outline Business Case for the first phase of BSF in June 2006, Cabinet added a resolution that alternative sources of funding be explored so that the Shelley site could be retained for community use. It was therefore decided that it should be used, initially temporarily, to address a major issue for the Authority where young people do not have places in a mainstream school. The OLIVE school, which was set up to meet this need, was inspected by Ofsted in January 2008 and the report stated that its previous accommodation was not fit for purpose. As a result, the local authority informed Ofsted that the provision would be moved to more suitable accommodation as soon as possible. The Shelley site was identified as a suitable solution and has been used by the OLIVE School since September 2008. This provision, which is registered as a Pupil Referral Unit, is for Key Stage 3 and 4 young people who do not have places in mainstream secondary schools. During the academic year 2008-9 the roll reached 92. Its maximum capacity is 128. The OLIVE School supports a large number of students with English as an additional language, including a significant number of refugee and asylum seekers. Historically, because of Lambeth’s high mobility and insufficient secondary school places, OLIVE School has provided educational facilities for young people arriving in the borough during the academic year. It has always been difficult to place Year 10 and Year 11 students in particular, which was why this provision was originally set up in September 2005.

Since 2005 the roll at Olive School has indicated a need for such provision to continue in order for the borough to meet its statutory responsibilities in relation to secondary school places. Although the BSF programme will be increasing the number of secondary school places, the context of high mobility and challenging need means that the facilities offered at Olive School will continue to be needed in the short term at least. As the BSF programme creates additional places and new schools, it is envisaged that all the provision delivered at the OLIVE will gradually move to mainstream Secondary Schools. CYPS finance and the BSF team have tried to identify other sources of funding without success. Partnerships for Schools are clear that they will not provide funding to address such a change in approach, and there is no grant available for such issues. Such funding as might have been available from within the council has been directed by cabinet members to acquisitions at Stockwell and Clapham Manor, to facilitate the much needed expansion of those schools. We are now within a year of the time when the funding will begin to be required to meet our contractual commitments under the BSF programme. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The authority has a duty to ensure all children from 5 – 16 years old receive full time education. The essence of the OLIVE is to ensure Lambeth offers education provision to any child without a school place. Should the site be sold before alternative arrangements are made for the provision delivered at the OLIVE, the authority may not be able to provide education for the 92+ pupils within the OLIVE which may result in legal action against the authority. Equalities impact As previously stated the Olive School supports a large number of students with English as an additional language, including a significant number of refugee and asylum seekers. In addition the OLIVE caters for children who may be disadvantaged in other ways. Clearly these are all children who require particular educational input. If the funding gap is not met, then the site will have to be disposed of and this would have an even greater negative impact from an EIA perspective. Financial Implications Since initiating the BSF Phase 1 programme, Lambeth have been committed to a full scope of work, most of which is now complete. BSF therefore is unable to reduce scope on this project. It is therefore important that the authority meets the affordability gap of £2.5m, if the school is not to close. Capital impact (one-off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A 2,375 125 Service B TOTAL 2,375 125

Finance and Resources Title of Proposal: Clapham Library Executive Director: Mike Suarez Divisional Director: Allan Drew BU Manager: John Austin Full Description of Proposal The creation of a new Customer Centre on the proposed Clapham Library site will provide the full range of Council services on a scale similar to the existing centre at Streatham. Existing Customer Service resources in the area amount to 3 full time staff providing a housing service at the Clapham Housing Office. The new centre will provide services mainly for benefits, council tax, parking and housing management. On a much smaller scale streetcare and other environmental services are provided typically via on line or by telephony from the centre. Kiosk services, internet access and telephony (to contact the Lambeth Service Centre) will also be provided in line with the Council’s policy to migrate simple transactions away from the face to face channel. This bid requests growth to provide-

• Revenue costs for staff over and above existing staffing (3 housing staff) to provide the additional services of a Customer Centre. Opening hours of the centre will be in line with other Customer Centres (late opening 1 night each week, limited Saturday opening) and will require sufficient staff to operate a rota system. However some de-centralisation of benefits staff from Brixton is expected since Clapham benefits customers will use this local centre rather than travel to Brixton. It is expected that an additional 4 staff plus an element of management will be required.

• Revenue costs to provide for maintenance of Customer Services infrastructure. • Capital to provide the necessary IT infrastructure (telephony, internet access,

Lambeth network connections and associated PCs, plasma screens for information display, queue management system, payment kiosks).

• Capital to fit out the Customer Service area (desks, reception area, waiting chairs etc).

Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities Serving Our Customers Well Equalities impact This service will provide access to all parts of the community in accordance with the current standards of disability access. Interpretation services will be available and assistance for visual and hearing impairment will be provided Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Staff costs 0 0 150 Maintenance 0 0 20 TOTAL 0 0 170

Capital impact (one-off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Technology 0 50 0 Accommodation 0 20 0 TOTAL 0 70 0

Title or Proposal: Norwood Hall Executive Director: Mike Suarez Divisional Director: Allan Drew BU Manager: John Austin Full Description of Proposal The creation of a new Customer Centre on the Norwood Hall site will provide the full range of Council services on a scale similar to the existing centre at Streatham. Existing Customer Service resources in the area amount to 3 full time staff providing a housing service at the West Norwood Housing Office. The new centre will provide services mainly for benefits, council tax, parking and housing management. On a much smaller scale streetcare and other environmental services are provided typically via on line or by telephony from the centre. Kiosk services, internet access and telephony (to contact the Lambeth Service Centre) will also be provided in line with the Council’s policy to migrate simple transactions away from the face to face channel. This bid requests growth to provide-

• Revenue costs for staff over and above existing staffing (3 housing staff) to provide the additional services of a Customer Centre. Opening hours of the centre will be in line with other Customer Centres (late opening 1 night each week, limited Saturday opening) and will require sufficient staff to operate a rota system. It is expected that an additional 5 staff plus an element of management will be required.

• Revenue costs to provide for maintenance of Customer Services infrastructure • Capital to provide the necessary IT infrastructure (telephony, internet access,

Lambeth network connections and associated PCs, plasma screens for information display, queue management system, payment kiosks)

• Capital to fit out the Customer Service area (desks, reception area, waiting chairs etc)

Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities Serving Our Customers Well Equalities impact This service will provide access to all parts of the community in accordance with the current standards of disability access. Interpretation services will be available and assistance for visual and hearing impairment will be provided Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Staff costs 0 0 185 Maintenance 0 0 20 TOTAL 0 0 205 Capital Impact (one off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Technology 0 50 0 Accommodation 0 20 0 TOTAL 0 70 0

Customer Services (Facilities Management) Growth bid for capital funding for 2011/12 and for the following two years (CAPITAL ONLY) Executive Director: Mike Suarez Divisional Director: Allan Drew BU Manager: Martyn Walker Full Description of Proposal Context Facilities Management is responsible for the maintenance of the Councils core office accommodation and for the capital programme to ensure capital projects and works funded under the capital programme are done. It is now essential that sufficient capital funding is approved for future years to ensure funding is available for essential projects that require capital funding, building compliance issues, health and safety issues, DDA issues and backlog of maintenance. Condition surveys have been done for the core buildings that have identified a backlog of repairs amounting to over £10million for just essential works that must be done over the next few years. Other works have been identified that could more than double this figure. It is essential that we have the funding to do the priority one works as we cannot risk closure of any buildings. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities Serving Our Customers Well Equalities impact This is very low impact and is considered low priority. The proposals will impact generally across all customers without biasing any one or more groups. Financial Implications Capital impact (one-off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k Capital funding for core office buildings 737 1000 1000 TOTAL 737 1000 1000 Where any works to buildings improve a department’s service delivery, opportunities for FM to receive some contributions to expenditure should be explored.

Title of Proposal: Corporate Procurement Matrix rebate To re-tender the Managed Service Provision (MSP) for agency staff which will lapse in April 2011. Executive Director: Mike Suarez Divisional Director: Sally Leigh BU Manager: Sally Leigh Full Description of Proposal The existing Managed Service Provision with Matrix for agency staff will come to an end in April 2011. It is estimated based on the current climate that agency mark-ups and fees will as a result of market pressure either reduce from existing levels or be re-structured from a percentage to a fixed fee. This will result in additional savings being realised. A likely saving of 3.1% or £100,000 against existing spend levels is forecast. However, it should be noted that this forecast is based on current forecast turnover for 2009/10 and may reduce in line with the HR commitment to reduce Lambeth’s dependency on agency staff. There will be no additional cost implications Savings will be realised through the existing rebate structure Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities None Equalities impact There will be no equalities impact in relation to this proposal but there will be one done for the retendering exercise.

Financial Implications The savings will be funded through increased rebate. This will be as a result of reduced agency mark-ups and not as a result of increased contract turnover. Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k CPT (155) 0 (100) 0 TOTAL 0 (100) 0

Title of Proposal: Customer Services – improvement of Parking Services; introducing appointments system A number of savings opportunities can be developed over the next 3 years: • Improvement of parking services within the LSC such that call volumes are reduced

through automation or process change. • Implementation of appointments within the Customer Centre Executive Director: Mike Suarez Divisional Director: Allan Drew BU Manager: David Couldridge Full Description of Proposal Service A Improvement of parking services within the LSC The LSC receives 85,000 calls/year on parking issues. Analytics shows that calls to parking in the LSC are not very productive because of the legal basis of the chargeand often do not resolve issues the customer is calling about. In many cases this is because parking is a statutory process and the scope of the LSC is minimal. It is clear there are opportunities to provide more information on the web and to further automate processes such as permit renewal. Service B: Introduce appointments in the Customer Centre and reduce avoidable calls Currently customers can come to the Customer Centres to discuss any issue during normal opening times. On busy days this leads to quite long customer waits, mounting dissatisfaction and costs of greeting and queue management. By moving to an appointment system (which is increasingly prevalent in all service operations) efficiencies can be gained through not managing a room full of customers, plus the opportunity to resolve the customer’s problem through other means (e.g phone or e-mail) so making a visit unnecessary. Additionally, we will be able to use data analysis to reduce calls, largely through back-office improvements. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities Both proposals will improve value for money through the elimination of wasteful activity. As importantly improvements in customer satisfaction will be realised as residents receive faster, better services without as much personal intervention. Channel migration will be helped by the appointment scheme leading to improvement in the cost to serve.

Equalities impact

Both proposals will have some equalities impact. With increasing automation certain groups within the community will still need traditional access such as face to face and voice due to language, hearing or vision difficulties. The proposals do not assume that services will be totally appointed or automated but that the balance will increasingly shift away from traditional methods. Vulnerable residents will be offered the same types of access as present and it has been assumed that a realistic allowance for such activity is 20%.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A Improvement of parking services within the LSC 0 (300) (50) Service B Introduce appointments in the Customer Centre and reducing call volumes 0 (150) (100) TOTAL 0 (450) (150)

Title of Proposal: Market testing the post room

The postal and courier services run by FM can be market tested with savings realised. Executive Director: Mike Suarez Divisional Director: Allan Drew BU Manager: Martyn Walker Full Description of Proposal The Council runs its own internal postal services. The main part of these services is managed by FM from the Town Hall and consists of 10 staff providing post sorting and courier services. Approximately another 6 staff in other Departments are also involved. Following centralisation it is expected that the re-tendered document and print management contract could provide a more cost effective service through the supplier who would win that contract. At this stage the proposal is outline only since the contract has not yet been re-let. The terms on which a supplier would be prepared to take over the provision of these services are not known but past council market testing (e.g. cleaning & security) has delivered substantial savings. Issues such as TUPE and the ongoing penetration of electronic document management will effect the detailed proposals, but potential suppliers have all indicated this is an area where they have capability and at least in principle would be keen to provide proposals. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The proposal will deliver improved value for money. Equalities impact Legislation exists to protect the interests of council employees. Equalities impacts are assessed as low for this proposal.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Market testing the post room 0 (100) 0 TOTAL 0 (100) 0

Title of Proposal: Internal Audit – Amending PwC and KPMG contracts Two outsourced contracts with PwC (£553,000) and KPMG (£150,000) expire in June 2010. They can be renewed for a further 2 years based on reductions in coverage and/or bringing back certain elements to in house provision. Executive Director: M Suarez Divisional Director: M Khan BU Manager: D Hughes Full Description of Proposal 1. Contract with PwC is for 1,300 contact days @ £553,000 annually. If we renew this

contract, then we could reduce coverage on the basis that the audit needs analysis shows improvements in the council’s risk and control environment.

A case could be made for a reduction of 200 days annually, thus saving £85,000 each in 2010/11 and 2011/12. The saving will be made from 2010/11 onwards. Implications:

• Internal Audit is a statutory function and required to provide a certain level of assurance coverage of the council’s universe.

• Reduction will have to meet external auditor’s assessment and, also, will impact on ‘value added’ reviews carried out under the contract.

• Renewal to be agreed by Procurement process and only for a maximum of two years. Therefore, options for future provision will need to be considered and put in place by 2012/13.

• Potential to explore “skills transfer” opportunities with contractor to build in-house capacity and progressively reduce costs or improve efficiency of in house resources.

• Need to build in more capacity (in house) to follow up on audit recommendations agreed, particularly on low assurance audits by using some of the savings on recruitment of trainee auditor posts.

2. Contract with KPMG is for 230 contact days @ £150,000 annually. The counter fraud

work going forward will be delivered cheaper and reactive investigations will be strengthened by recruiting suitable staff and getting more productive days per annum compared to the 230 total days provided by KPMG (which equates to around 160 days when “meetings” and engagement management are deducted). Implications: • Members feel more assured if a top firm is involved in major cases. • We can explore using a ‘call off’ arrangement with PwC or KPMG with departments

paying. • Fraud awareness training will need to be delivered in house. • We will explore linking in to an existing contract at another LB on a “call off” basis.

Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The services provided by Internal Audit and Anti Fraud are the cornerstone of the council’s governance. Reduced coverage will certainly impact on the breadth of scrutiny and increase exposure to losses through waste and fraud. Further, reduced coverage is not a good response to a downturn, which could last for the next 5 years. Therefore, increasing and developing the in house capacity would mitigate the ending of this contract.

However, the council is improving in many ways, in particular, using audit reports to improve performance and compliance. Notwithstanding, we would need more resources in house to undertake follow up/implementation spot checks. Departments are strengthening their in house internal checking capacity and co-working with these teams will mitigate the risks of reduced coverage. With regard to Anti Fraud, we may not be able to recruit the expertise to undertake the complex reactive investigations and the follow through activities around sanctions and recovery of losses. Equalities impact

No major implications.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k IA reduced coverage by PwC (60) (60) (60) Counter fraud bring back elements of work (9) (9) (9) TOTAL (69) (69) (69)

Title of Proposal: Legal & Democratic Services Administrative Support To merge the administrative support provided across the division leading to a reduction in the number of administrative support officers. Executive Director: Mike Suarez Divisional Director: Mark Hynes BU Manager: Dave Burn/Mike Dickens Full Description of Proposal With the introduction of NWW and closer working between Legal and Democratic Services, the administrative support for the division is currently being reviewed. It is proposed that closer working and merger of the administrative function across the division will improve efficiency, output and reduce costs. Both Legal and Democratic Services are high output and high profile areas. Any revision to structures will need to ensure that the teams within the divisions continue to receive good quality support. Pooling the resources will enable flexibility to cover leave and demands of the teams. It will mean a consistency in approach for financial and staff support and performance management. As well as providing a saving in staffing, pooling some resources would ensure savings on stationery and other associated support costs. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities This proposal has been put forward as it is felt that it will enhance performance and ensure that we are able to serve our customers well. That said, however, there is an ongoing project of reviewing the external legal services contracts to ascertain whether better VFM can be established by bringing further work back in-house. If significant amounts of work (such as general litigation) are brought back-in house, there will also be a need to ensure that there is an adequate level of admin/back-office support. However, work is in progress within Corporate Finance to establish across all Council departments the principle that they should not only fund established fee-earning posts but also all associated operational costs, including admin support. Equalities impact There is currently a vacancy within the Legal Admin team. One post reduction is currently envisaged although, subject to the comments above, more may be able to be achieved depending on the success of the reconfiguration. Every effort will be made to minimise redundancies. It should be noted that estimated savings do not take account of potential redundancy costs. Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A (45) 0 0 TOTAL (45) 0 0

Title of Proposal: SLA for Building Control/Planning To reduce administrative support for land charges. Executive Director: Mike Suarez Divisional Director: Mark Hynes BU Manager: Mike Dickens Full Description of Proposal There has been a historic recharge from Building Control and Highways to Legal Services for funding of administrative posts in relation to land charges. A new piece of software (Total Land Charges) has been deployed by Legal Services. The software in conjunction with a business process re-engineering undertaken in Land Charges, Planning, Building Control, Highways and Housing, has made it possible for all data required to answer a search (being the by product of business as usual conducted by the case workers) to be obtained electronically and automatically populated as an answer in the search. In view of this automation, the recharge is no longer required and means that Legal Services are able to make a saving on its staffing budget. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities No negative impact is envisaged as the new software enables the process to be undertaking electronically, thus negating the need for support. Equalities impact There are no major implications. Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A (90) 0 0 TOTAL (90) 0 0

Title of Proposal: Performance & Business Development restructure Re-structuring the current Performance & Business Development division to incorporate the recently devolved human resources and workforce development function and streamlining the remaining business activities within the division. Executive Director: Mike Suarez Divisional Director: Mark Nicolson

BU Manager: n/a Full Description of Proposal There have been many changes within the division over the past 18 months such as the devolvement of human resources, addition of the resources section from the former Strategy & Corporate Services, and the movement of the existing Divisional Director to Corporate Finance. The division provides a number of services, which support either, the department and/or the council as a whole. The division now needs to be re-structured to ensure that these services are best positioned to support and meet the future needs of the department. This re-structure will release savings of £140,000 through the streamlining of services and the reduction of duplication of individual functions. In order to achieve this it is necessary for the deletion of some existing posts within the division. The full re-structure proposals are still being finalised and may be subject to further change before final sign off and staff consultation. For this reason specific details relating to individual posts are not included within this proposal. It is expected that even with these final changes being made, the total savings of £140,000 are still realistic. This proposal will also be subject to following the council’s formal staff consultation process. Following completion of the re-structure it is anticipated that the new structure will come into effect in January 2010. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities There will be no impact on the performance of either the department or the council as a result of this proposal. The new structure should ensure that the department is best placed to improve and maximise its performance by having a performance service that is better aligned. Equalities impact

This proposal will have a low impact on equalities.

Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A (150) (100) 0 TOTAL (150) (100) 0

Title of Proposal: Audit Fee A risk-based assessment of the audit fee charge has identified savings which can be implemented in 20010/11 Executive Director: Mike Suarez Divisional Director: Jon Williams BU Manager: Frank Higgins Full Description of Proposal The current budget of £1,170k takes into account additional fees payable in respect of audit work on the Accounts, which were signed off very late in the process for both 2006/07 and 2007/08. The processes have been thoroughly overhauled for 2008/09 closedown and additional fee payments are extremely unlikely. The base also allows for grant claim audits based on the position before the Area Based Grants regime was implemented. This has resulted in fewer grant claims requiring audit. The Council’s performance in this area has also improved. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities None Equalities impact There will be no impact on implementing this savings proposal.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Audit fee (200) (130) 0 TOTAL (200) (130) 0

Title of Proposal: Recovery of Overpayments A review of the Accounts Payable function has identified an opportunity for active management and recovery of overpayments and outstanding credits Executive Director: Mike Suarez Divisional Director: Jon Williams BU Manager: Frank Higgins Full Description of Proposal The identification of overpaid invoices and credits due to the Council is an important and necessary function for an organisation as large and complex as Lambeth. Sums recovered by the Overpayment Recovery Officer in 2007/08 (£302k) and 2008/09 (£389k) show the value of undertaking this activity. Since the inception of Financial Shared Services the responsibility for such work has fallen on Accounts Payable Team Leaders. The recovery of overpayments has slowed as training in this area has been rolled out only recently with £36k recovered to date this year. However, with training provided and the use of an external consultant it is expected that a significant proportion of outstanding overpayments, currently standing at £525k, and credits for collection from former suppliers (£785k) can be recovered. Previously the recovery has not been budgeted for as it was used to cover the cost of the former Overpayment Recovery Officer post (very successfully as it transpired). In an ideal world the overpayments and credit balances would not occur, but the reality is that they do. Budgeting £270k in the base over two years recognises this conclusion and is reasonably prudent in the light of experience. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities None. Equalities impact There will be no impact on implementing this savings proposal.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Overpayments recovery (135) (135) 0 TOTAL (135) (135) 0

Housing, Regeneration and Environment Title of Proposal: Enforcement Proposed growth to fund planning enforcement prosecutions There is no existing fund for planning enforcement prosecutions and this could lead to difficulties in enforcing where it would be expedient to do so. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Les Brown BU Manager: Jim Smith Full Description of Proposal There is currently no designated funding for planning enforcement prosecutions, with some existing prosecutions picked up by the Lambeth legal team and the remainder led by external providers and funded in an ad-hoc manner. Case law holds that it is maladministration not to enforce where expedient to do so and therefore the authority has a duty to make sufficient financial provision to take effective enforcement action. Without a separate fund for enforcement prosecutions there is a danger that planning enforcement activity could be sidetracked by the need to identify funding for each prosecution. A detailed assessment of the cost of enforcement prosecution is underway: in order to estimate the likely annual budget required for legal enforcement costs, taking account of the in-house staff that we have. Year on year costs will be difficult to estimate due to the non-cyclical nature of enforcement prosecutions. It is proposed that the budget for prosecutions/ legal costs would be held within Planning, which acts as client and flags any performance concerns arising. We would propose that this budget would be ring-fenced with any money unspent on enforcement prosecutions to be returned. Successful prosecutions only occasionally result in a costs award. When costs are awarded then it is usually only a small percentage of the councils costs that are recovered (c. 25%). When a decision goes against the council and costs are awarded against us, then the award is often full costs (100%). Discussions between the Planning Division and Legal & Democratic Services have commenced and the description outlined above represents the agreed path forward on this matter. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities This proposal relates to the funding of a statutory duty of the authority and therefore is clearly linked to the corporate priority of serving our customers well. The provision of funds for prosecutions would simply and shorten the process for enforcement of breaches of planning control.

Equalities impact

The equalities implications on this are deemed as low. However, it is expected that enhanced monitoring by equalities groups should take place within this service. Planning violation can be caused by a misunderstanding of written English and should certain groups be more prevalent, then improved communications may be necessary.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Planning Enforcement prosecution fund 75 0 0 TOTAL 75 0 0 The proposed growth represents the best current estimate of additional required funding. As mentioned above, a detailed of analysis of the cost of enforcement prosecutions is underway and this will inform our developing bid for additional funding. During the years 2006-09 an average of ten planning enforcement prosecutions per year were undertaken.

Title of Proposal: Statutory Revaluations IFRS Valuation For Balance Sheet Reporting As a result of changes to the SORP annual valuations of all Council assets, the Council is required to re-value all its assets in accordance with the new IFRS guidelines. Executive Director: Dorian Leathman Divisional Director: Uzo Nwanze BU Manager: Tunde Ogbe Over the last 3yrs Corporate Finance within F&R acts as the instructing department and as such meet all associated costs of undertaking these valuations. Over the same period the costs have ranged between £60 - £80k p.a. However, the valuation methodology under the new IFRS has significantly changed and now requires a more complex valuation. Furthermore, in view of the changes it will be necessary to revalue the whole estate in the first year and approximately 20% p.a. in subsequent years. It is estimated that for the former the costs would be in the region of £100k and for subsequent rolling annual valuations £75k. It is intended that the Council’s external Valuation & Estate Management contractor – Lambert Smith Hampton should continue to undertake the valuations as at present. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities Should these valuations not be undertaken it is likely that the Council’s accounts will be qualified thereby adversely impacting on the Council’s CAA Rating. Equalities impact The equalities impact is deemed as low. However, as part of the current procurement regulations, an EIA will have to be carried out if the contract is valued at £100K or more. Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A 100 (25) 0 Service B TOTAL 100 (25) 0

Title of Proposal: Empty Rates – Units 11 & 13 Camberwell Estate Following the expiration of the Council’s Lease on the 24 March 2008, CAPITA on behalf of the Valuation Office (VO) has invoiced the Council for empty rates covering the period 2006/07 and 2007/08. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Uzo Nwanze BU Manager: Tunde Ogbe Full Description of Proposal The Council occupied the above property on the basis of a Lease from March 1988 to March 2008. Following the expiration of the Lease in 2008 all associated budgets (rents and rates of £75k) were offered up as savings in 2008/09) on the assumptions that the Council no longer had the liability of the Lease. 12 months after the expiration of the Lease, CAPITA on behalf of the VO billed the Council £40k for empty rates over 2006/07 and 2007/8. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The payment of Empty Rates is a legal obligation. Equalities impact

The equalities impact of this is deemed as low.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A 40 (40) 0 TOTAL 40 (40) 0

Title of Proposal: Disposals Programme £60k Capital funding was allocated to the Service for the 2009/10 financial year. The Division has been advised by the Departmental Capital Accountant that costs for facilitating disposals (security costs prior to disposal, etc) are considered as revenue and as such should not be charged to the capital fund. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Uzo Nwanze BU Manager: Tunde Ogbe Full Description of Proposal £60k Capital funding was allocated to the Service for the 2009/10 financial year. The Division has been advised by the Departmental Capital Accountant that costs for facilitating disposals (security costs prior to disposal, etc) are considered as revenue and as such should not be charged to the capital fund. Approximately £40k has already been committed towards security costs associated with Hereford and Roslyn Mansions disposals. The capital receipts generated from disposal go to the Single Capital Pot. There is no alternative revenue budget that this and similar necessary expenses that these costs could be charged to. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities Receipts from the disposal of surplus assets is a principal source of generating funds to augment the capital programme and as such Non realisation of capital receipts (a core departmental objective) will adversely affect the generation of capital receipts. A shortfall in the programmed receipts can not be alleviated from any other source of capital funds. Equalities impact

The equalities impact will be deemed as low. Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Disposals Programme 60 0 0 TOTAL 60 0 0

Title of Proposal: Recharges HRA to GF Allocation of Support Costs between the HRA and the General Fund. Background The allocation of support costs between the HRA and general fund has been based on historical budgets and has not been reviewed for a number of years. The current allocation reflects the process that was established when the HRE Department was a Housing focused department and therefore charged almost all support costs to the Housing Revenue Account. Over the past few years there have been a number of reorganisations that have changed the focus of the department to the current split between Housing, Regeneration and Environment. Given this change it is necessary to review the allocation of support costs between the general fund and the HRA in order to better reflect the actual costs incurred in supporting the different elements of the Department from the support services. The direct costs of the delivery of services have been charged correctly either to the general fund or the HRA. This reflects that the coding structure links the appropriate cost centres into the appropriate area of the accounts that identify either general fund or Housing expenditure. This reflects the coding structure introduced in 2008/09 that allocated HRA costs against 800 codes and general fund costs against 900 codes. When these changes were made during 2008/09 no adjustments were made to those costs held within the support service Divisions of Resources or Strategy and Partnerships. Proposal A review has been undertaken of the support costs held within the Resources and Strategy & Partnership Divisions. This has identified a number of areas where costs should be more accurately charged to the general fund, rather than into the HRA. An analysis of the approach taken would show that a potential shift in charge of £3 million could be applied that would move costs from the HRA into the general fund. This is summarised in the table below. DLT Costs 429,192Resources Division - finance 416,757Resources Division - project support 148,552Resources Division - business dev 183,723SX3 support costs 31,047IT Support Service 863,835Performance and Strategy 873,935

Total 2,947,041 The proposed changes have been calculated by reviewing the time and support given by each of these teams to the relevant areas within the general fund and within Housing services. Equalities Impact The equalities impact of the above review has been deemed as low. Financial Implications 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A 1,800 600 600 TOTAL 1,800 600 600

Title of Proposal – Neighbourhood Employment Centre – Coldharbour Lane

Revenue funding for a Neighbourhood Employment Support Centre inthe borough providing a comprehensive range of co-ordinated, partner-delivered support services for unemployed residents. Centre targeted to be opened in:

§ Coldharbour in 2010/11 (opening in Aug/Sep-09, in the Green Man)

Executive Director: Dorian Leatham

Divisional Director: Jo Negrini

Head of Service / Business Unit Manager: Bernard Corless

Full Description

The fundamental purpose of the proposal is to address the council’s (and partnership’s) worklessness objectives by tackling multiple barriers to employment and supporting people to find and sustain employment.

The proposal provides for revenue funding for the set up and continued operation of a Neighbourhood Employment Support Centre in a ward with one of the highest levels of deprivation. This growth proposal will ensure that the investment already made to develop the Green Man pub as an employment and skills centre (due to open in Aug/Sep-09), does not go to waste and provides benefits to local people beyond March 2010.

Detailed feasibility work has already taken place to confirm premises requirements / options, partnership involvement and service mix for the Centre at Coldharbour, which was completed by the Employment, Learning and Skills team (within Regeneration and Enterprise).

The centre will be neighbourhood based and will bring together relevant statutory and third sector providers to deliver targeted, bespoke support and services to those most in need.

Location

In making the choice of location of the proposed centre, consideration has been given to trends in employment figures and opportunities to maximise the benefits of the implementation of the programme.

The JSA claimant figures (May 2008) and Census 2001 unemployment rates identify Coldharbour, as having the highest counts / rates.

JSA Claimants: May 2008 Census 2001 unemployment rates

Ward No. % Ward No. % 1Coldharbour 648 6.4 1 Coldharbour 984 14.5

2 Tulse Hill 490 5.2 2 Vassall 805 12.9 3 Vassall 471 5.1 3 Stockwell 786 11.8 4 Herne Hill 362 4.2 4 Tulse Hill 803 11.8

Provision

The range of service provision will include:

- Information, advice and guidance services

- Employability support

- Learning and skills development

- JCP Employment advisers on site

- Basic skills (IT)

- Next Steps vocational guidance

- Advice on debt management, benefits, housing and health

The programme will offer a one-stop shop to address the many barriers faced by people who may have been long-term unemployed or economically inactive. There will be an improved package of services and better targeting of provision (both council and partner-delivered) to provide improved outcomes for people addressing their individual needs. The anticipated increased impact and effectiveness of this offer will provide good value for this investment.

The primary focus will be employment and skills support (seeking to address the key employment indicators identified in Section C). However, the centre will provide a wider package of support services to address a broader range of customer needs.

Capacity building and wider engagement

In developing this Centre the Council is working with external partners and frontline council services. There will be dedicated marketing of the Centre as part of the Lambeth Working campaign. We will ensure that publicity of this neighbourhood provision links well with the neighbourhood working programme (supported through Working Neighbourhoods Fund), with Housing Options, Job Centre Plus and the Communities and Neighbourhoods team to provide estates based/neighbourhood outreach work as a referral route for residents to access services.

Corporate Plan Priority/Priorities

Establishment of the Neighbourhood Employment Support Centre will support the council’s priorities with regards to:

- A safer Lambeth with strong communities

- More opportunities for children and young people

- Better housing and a flourishing economy

- Serving our customers well

In addition, the programme will contribute to the Sustainable Community Strategy outcomes (see below) and the key focus re worklessness.

Value for Money

It is anticipated that there will be a minimum of 5,000 visits to the centre per year, with up to 10-12,000 not considered unrealistic once the centre is established. While it may be argued that a different mode of delivery could produce these volumes, this project is trying to reach those for whom centralised approaches have not worked in the past (the failed school leaver, the long-term unemployed who feel the system has failed them etc.) and helping those clients is actually very expensive and the establishment of the Neighbourhood Employment Support Centres is considered to be a very cost effective option.

This development will assist the council in levering in additional funding through alignment with other funding sources and in addressing identified priorities/outcomes. The council’s investment in staff and premises will be matched by complementary services from service providers through co-location and referral.

Financial Implications (Revenue)

Business Unit Code

Business Unit Name

Baseline Revenue Budget

Revenue implications General Fund

2010/11 £k

2011/12 £k

2012/13 £k

980* Employment, Learning and Skills

0 (net)** 225

Employment, Learning and Skills is almost totally grant funded by the Learning and Skills Council. This proposal will not qualify for funding within the terms of the grant.

People Implications

Business Unit Code

Business Unit Name

Current FTE

FTE Y1

FTE Y2

FTE Y3

BU Manager Comments

980* Employment Learning & Skills

20* 23 Staff numbers are based on the assumption that each centre’s core staffing (3 officers) will be council officers.

Total Net FTE Implications

+3

* The ‘Current FTE’ figure relates to the structure of the new Employment, Learning and Skills team.

Equalities & Diversity Implications

A Stage 1 assessment has been completed as part of the feasibility works for the Coldharbour Hub (which is due to open in Aug/Sep 09) to develop the detailed pilot programme.

The Neighbourhood Employment Support Centre is being targeted at areas of multiple deprivation demonstrating high need.

Due to its fundamental nature, the programme is targeting improved access to services and addressing the particular needs of traditionally excluded groups within the community.

Title of Proposal: Local Development Framework The Planning Division will incur substantial costs in relation to the submission and examination of the Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy, and subsequent associated development plan documents (site allocations and development management); the preparation and consultation costs on development brief Supplementary Planning Documents for Waterloo Station and Brixton Town Centre during the 2009/10 - 2010/11 financial years. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Les Brown BU Manager: Zbig Blonski Full Description of Proposal The preparation of the Lambeth core strategy is a key Council priority as well as other associated documents which will make up the Lambeth Local Development Framework (site allocations and development management development plan documents). Preparation of the LDF has to be carried out in accordance with prescribed statutory procedures. This includes consultation, publication of statutory advertisements, carrying out of sustainability appraisals and examination by the Planning Inspectorate. This together with the costs associated with the preparation of the SPDs which also have to be subject to sustainability appraisal and public consultation and statutory advertisement will total it is estimated to be in the region of £450,000. The Planning Inspectorate charges a standard daily amount of £993 per day which will be charged for each day following submission through to the completion of the binding report. In addition there is a charge of £150 for every overnight stay. The Inspectorate provides guidance for the likely duration of the examination of the different documents based on their experience and the resultant overall total length of time needed by the Inspector. Based on this it is expected that the core strategy, site allocations and development management Development Plan Documents (DPD) will each require 70 days of the Inspector’s time with the accompanying travel and subsistence costs. The examination process for the LDF Core Strategy, site allocations DPD and development management DPD are therefore expected to each cost £70,000. In addition to this the Council is also obliged to employ a programme officer for each examination from a list of approved officers provided by the Inspectorate. This is estimated to cost an additional £50,000 per examination. The Planning Inspectorate advises that their charges are subject to increase. The costs associated with the preparation of the Waterloo Station and Brixton Town Centre development brief Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD’s) are estimated to cost together around £70,000. The cost assessment is based on the experience of previous consultation by the Planning Division in Waterloo as well as those incurred by the Council in its work on the Brixton masterplan and also the importance and need the Council attaches to ensuring that an appropriate level of community engagement is carried out in both of these areas. The Planning Division will require assistance in order to defray the one-off costs outlined above. Cabinet noted in 2 reports in 08/09, that the LDF programme after April 2009 needed to be budgeted for in order to deliver a new core strategy in the lifetime of this administration.

Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The adoption of the LDF Core Strategy is crucial to all corporate priorities as it will play a lead role in shaping development in the borough over the coming 15-20 years. The core strategy will not only be the means of delivering the spatial aspects of community needs but also the means to deliver regeneration as well as safeguarding and improving the borough’s built heritage and environmental assets. The other DPD’s are required to support and carry through the objectives of the core strategy. Equalities impact The equalities impact has been deemed as medium. The process of the preparation of the LDF Core Strategy has included an equalities impact assessment (EIA) as part of the sustainability process which has been an ongoing part of the process of preparation associated with the various stages. It has also been subject to the Council’s own EIA process. Financial Implications Please note that these are one-off cost to occur in the years shown only. The revenue impact on the annual budget baseline is as follows 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Year 1 435 (435) 0 Year 2 0 185 (185) TOTAL 435 (250) (185)

In addition to the above, there is a degree of uncertainty in relation to the need for specific development brief SPD’s to be prepared for major site developments where existing developments may not proceed in accordance with the existing planning permission. In these circumstances, there would be a strong priority to produce planning guidance to promote alternative development on these sites (e.g. Streatham Hub, Megabowl / Caesars Palace). There is also likely to be a need for guidance to be provided on a number of sites, potentially to support housing estate regeneration and other priority sites key to the Council’s future regeneration programme.

Title of Proposal: Noise Nuisance Team Proposal – growth required to meet additional staffing costs to extend operational hours Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Carolyn Dwyer BU Manager: David Bright Full Description of Proposal Additional funding of £260K from the Adjustment A settlement was allocated to the Noise Control Service in October 2008 to extend operational hours. Staff have been consulted on changes to shift patterns and working arrangements and four new posts created. Interviews have taken place and successful candidates offered positions. It is planned to introduce extended operational hours as soon as the new staff are in post which is expected to be November/December 2009. The bulk of the cost of extending the service is salary costs. Costings had been based on paying staff in accordance with terms and conditions as set out in the National Joint Council National Agreement on Pay and Conditions of Services Handbook (referred to as the “Green Book”). Advice from Human Resources has recently changed following intervention from the Trades Unions. Advice is now that it is the NJC guidance contained within the “Purple Book” that is applicable. This has the effect of increasing the allowances paid to staff for working outside normal hours. The full year effect of this is to add £94K to salary costs if the extension to the service is to be implemented as planned . Current operational hours for the responsive service are (service target is to respond to 90% of calls within one hour): Monday to Friday 09.00 to 17.00 Sunday to Thursday nights 22.00 to 03.00 next day Friday and Saturday nights 22.00 to 05.00 next day Operational hours for the extended service would be: Monday to Thursday 09.00 to 03.00 next day Friday 09.00 to 05.00 next day Saturday 14.00 to 05.00 next day Sunday 14.00 to 03.00 next day Reduction in the proposed operational hours at this stage to achieve cost reduction of £94K would require complete revision to shift patterns and working arrangements and would delay implementation until 2010. Gaps in service would remain significant and remain as a barrier to improving customer satisfaction. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities If implemented this proposal would impact on the corporate priorities of creating a safer Lambeth with strong communities, respect for the environment and serving our customers well. Over 5000 complaints about noise are received annually. Customer satisfaction surveys show that gaps in service for responding to complaints and time taken to respond are barriers to improving customer satisfaction with the service which despite improvement remains at below 50%. The planned extension to the operational hours for the service would significantly improve the availability of officers to witness noise nuisance and deal effectively with complaints.

Equalities impact The equalities implications of improved noise nuisance service can be deemed as having a medium positive impact. The equalities implications of the services Public Realm carry out is part of the Departmental programme for 2009/10/11. Financial Implications The additional revenue cost as a result of the increased staffing costs is as follows: Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Noise Service 70 0 0 TOTAL 70 0 0

Title of Proposal: Springfield Centre Executive Director: Dorian Leatham - EDHRE Divisional Director: Rachael Sharpe – Strategy and Partnership BU Manager: Paul Cooper Executive Summary The Springfield Centre opened in 2007 as a community, health and education centre provision with nursery, crèche and facilities for local residents and older persons. The users of the building; the crèche, nursery are required to pay a rent for the space occupied together with service charges as a contribution towards the costs of running the building. The cost of the Centre Manager (PO4) has not been included in service charge to users. The Centre Manager is currently off work following a planned operation, and is unlikely to return to work until January 2010. This leaves a Community Centre that is managed and operated by LB Lambeth without a Manager and without the resources to cover this cost. This creates a budget pressure of £50k. Full Description of Proposal

1. Context

1.1 The Community Centre at 110 Union Road was completed in July 2007. The building was conceived and constructed as a partnership project with Family Mosaic taking the lead for the development. The Centre was to be occupied by a Doctors group practice, Pharmacy, Community café, Nursery and Crèche, with further facilities and accommodation for Local groups, Residents and Older persons. Since the building was commissioned both Lambeth Living and a local school are also making use of the facilities.

2. Proposals and reasons

2.1 It was always envisaged that the Springfield Centre would be self funding with no concession or subsidy from the Council. In accordance with Council policy all the occupiers would pay modest rents for the space occupied together with a service charge to cover the costs of maintaining the building so that the building remains fit for purpose throughout its life.

2.2 Following the initial estimation of the rent and service charges there was considerable consternation by some of the occupiers of the building that they would be unable to afford the charges and provide their services.

2.3 In the initial period (up to 31 March 2009) various supporting departments of the council of some of the occupiers accepted responsibility for the payment of rent and service charge (e.g the nursery and creche) with the intention that all the occupiers would then be self supporting. This initial period also allowed for the level of costs to be determined with some accuracy from experience rather than estimates for the new building. Also the building is now outside the defects liability period under the construction contract.

2.4 The cost of the Centre Manager (PO4) has not been included in service charge to users. The Centre Manager is currently off work following a planned operation, and is unlikely to return to work until January 2010. This leaves a Community Centre that is managed and operated by LB Lambeth without a Manager and without the resources to cover this cost. This creates a budget pressure of £50k.

2.5 It was always the intention that the centre would be self funding including Centre manager and reception costs. So far these costs have been paid by the council but eventually it is proper that the service charge will include these costs too.

Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The Centre fits into the Council Priorities of creating a “safer Lambeth with strong communities” and “serving our customers well”. The model implemented at the Centre combines a building where Council services operates from the same site as community facilities, as well as a GP surgery and pharmacy. Equalities impact On the one hand the equalities implications can be deemed as medium impact as when the centre was first developed as it served members of one of our most deprived communities. If the lack of a Centre Manager meant the building were to close then this will impact community services that operate from it (eg crèche, nursery, ICT training, job skills development, older persons club and community hall) directly effecting local residents. The GP surgery and pharmacy would also close, with potential litigation to the Council. Recent addition to services operating from the Centre is a Portuguese community service. A 1st stage EIA will be completed to support this bid.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service Manager 50 0 0 TOTAL 50 0 0

Title of Proposal: Parking Service Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Carolyn Dwyer BU Manager: Raj Mistry The Parking service has identified significant financial pressures within the current delivery of a “firm but fair” operation. These financial pressures have been reported within the monthly finance monitor and reflect under recovery of income streams relating primarily to reductions in PCN issuance as well as underlying problems with the income collection targets. The Parking service faces further pressures in 2010/11 due to underlying budgetary pressures. The Council agreed the release of £1.5m for 2009/10 from the PPRA surplus which was to be delivered through enhanced income collection. This has been offset by other budgets during 2009/10 but will be required to be delivered in 2010/11. Furthermore, legislation changes have impacted upon the number of PCNs that can be issued from 1st April 2009. This has resulted in a reduction in income from PCN’s during 2009/10 with this trend continuing into 2010/11. Full Description of Proposal The underlying budget pressure is for the following reasons:

• Change in parking enforcement contractor (reduced issuance) • PCNs written off due to legislative changes • Introduction of the Traffic Management Act (TMA) • System issues • Reduction in removals • Inflation on parking income • PPRA Surplus • Undeliverable inflationary targets from previous years

Change in Parking Enforcement Contractor In July 2008 the Parking Enforcement contract was awarded to NSL Services Ltd. The transition was problematic which resulted in a reduction in PCN issuance between July and October 2008 and an additional 7,324 items of unanswered correspondence which have yet to be written off. This amounts to £264,500 with the current collection rate of 53% remaining unaltered. The calculation used to forecast PCN issuance is based on historical issuance data. There was a reduction in PCN issuance between the period July 2007 to October 2007 and July 2007 to October 2008 which amounted to 38,653 PCNs which equates to a loss of income of £968,039 in 2009/10 although this will not be a pressure on an ongoing basis. PCNs Written Off due to Legislative changes In November 2006 the parking adjudicator made a ruling to cancel all unpaid PCNs issued with only one time stamp on the actual face of the ticket. As this was a new requirement all parking authorities in the country had to write off all PCNs which were unpaid and issued over the months of September 2004 and February 2006 which amounted to a loss of £570,822 in 2009/10. Introduction of the Traffic Management Act In July 2008 the Traffic Management Act (TMA) was implemented across the country. This legislation dictates how a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is issued and how it is processed to

payment or cancellation. The underlying principles of the legislation are to improve the quality of PCNs being issued by carrying out additional checks during and after enforcement. The effect of the TMA has had an impact on every parking authority in the country and has resulted in a reduction of PCNs being issued. The table below demonstrates the decline in the number of PCNs issued since the introduction of the TMA and the calculation used to determine the growth for future years. Effect of the TMA Period Normal PCNs CCTV PCNs Total PCNs Actual Income Growth Bid July 2007 to June 2008 191,247 103,150 294,397 12,652,791 July 2008 to June 2009 142,292 86,733 229,025 10,958,612 1,694,179 System Issues In 2008/9 and 2009/10 there were system related issued which disabled the warrant registration process. The warrants produced after this were aged and reduced the recovery rate at this stage in the PCN process as the bailiff companies were prioritising newer debt. The costs relating to this is £100,000. Reduction in Removals Earlier this year a policy decision was made to reduce the number of vehicles being removed to the Car Pound. The number of forecasted removals for 2009/10 before the policy was implemented was approximately 6,000, however after the implementation the service is expected to only remove a maximum of 4,800 vehicles per annum. The implementation of the new parking legislation (TMA) also had an impact on the number of removals being carried out as a minimum observation time of 30 minutes was introduced for all contraventions. Previously, there was no time limit between a PCN being issued and the vehicle being removed. The table below demonstrates the reduction in the number of removals since the implementation of the TMA and the changes to the policy in June 2009. Removals Growth Bid

Year

Number of Removals

Value of Removal

Projected Income

Reduction in Income

Previous Growth Bid

Additional Growth Required

2008/09 7,650 200 1,530,000 2009/10 5,600 200 1,120,000 410,000 290,000 120,000 2010/11 4,800 200 960,000 160,000 160,000 Inflation on Parking Income In line with the Councils budget setting policy it is expected that the Parking income budget will be uplifted by inflation, therefore placing a target of additional income on the PPRA account. This will take the current income budget from £25,584k to £25,840k. A high proportion of parking income is generated through activity (penalty charge notice issue, removals and pound storage) for which the charges are set by London Councils and therefore outside of the Councils control. The treatment of inflation (by increasing income budgets) therefore places pressure on the PPRA. .

The service has submitted growth bids previously to cover unachievable inflationary pressures but these have been rejected. The underlying pressures across the service now mean that this is not sustainable on an ongoing basis and that this has contributed to the level of pressures across the service. Growth of £256k in 2010/11 is sought to cover the budgetary adjustment. Parking Inflation 2010/11 Type of Income Activity Budget (2009/10) Inflation (1%) Meters and P&D N/A 3,502,125 35,021 Permits N/A 3,916,105 39,161 PCN's 229,025 15,566,852 155,669 Removals 4,800 1,691,187 16,912 Suspensions N/A 423,316 4,233 TOTAL (Growth Bid) 25,584,316 250,966 PPRA Surplus The decision was taken during 2008/09 to release £1.5m of the PPRA surplus in order to achieve savings targets within Public Realm.This decision has been mitigated during 2009/10 with an accounting adjustment (Adjustment A - £1.5m for 1 year only) to manage the impact. The ongoing issues within the Parking Service and difficulties regarding income recovery levels will mean that this will lead to ongoing service delivery reductions across Public Realm in future years as we will be unable to achieve this increase in the income target working within the existing legislation and policies. The amount of £1.5m has now been embedded into the Public Realm budget. Equalities impact A full EIA on Parking Services is programmed in for 2009/10/11. Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £,000 £,000 £,000 Introduction of new legislation 1,694 Unfunded inflationary pressures from previous years 870 Reduction in removals 160 Underlying income collection pressures 720 Inflation in parking income 256 PPRA Surplus 1,500 Efficiencies to be identified across Public Realm’s budgets (2,000) TOTAL 3,200 0 0 Savings to be found across Public Realm The parking service is being reviewed to improve customer service, reduce costs and improve revenue collection. This will yield savings commencing in 2009/10 and continuing, although it is difficult to quantify these until measures have been in place for several months.

All managers in Public Realm are continuing to find innovative savings whilst delivering the same level of service. Therefore, the savings of £2million are challenging and carry some risk, and will continue to be reported in the finance monitor.

Title of Proposal: Additional Works Waste Services Contract This proposal outlines the request for revenue growth to cover the costs of the winter maintenance service and capital growth for 2 years to cover the purchase of receptacles while negotiation are undertaken to absorb the costs within the current budget. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Carolyn Dwyer BU Manager: Doug Perry Background The new Waste and Street Cleansing contract commenced in April 2007 and through the tender process made £1.8 million in savings when compared to the previous contract. Streetcare received the budgets outlined in the table below to cover the core contract costs and additional works. Since the commencement of the contract the WPEG capital funding has ceased and contract costs have increased at a higher rate than Lambeth’s budgets due to the application of different indexation models (Rpi v RPIx). The current Veolia contract specifies inflationary increases are taken at the March RPIx value. The following tables outline the Contract budget position: Table 1: Lambeth vs Veolia Annual Inflation Increases:

Year Veolia RPIX

Increase

Lambeth Budget Increase

2008/09 3.5% 2.5%

2009/10 2.2% 1.5% Table 2: Core Contract Budget

Year

Lambeth Revenue Budget £'000

Veolia Core

Contract Costs £'000

Deficit £'000

2007/08 16,603 16,603 0

2008/09 17,018 17,184 166

2009/10 17,273 17,562 289 Table 3: Additional Works Budget

Year

Lambeth Revenue Budget £'000

Capital Budget £'000

Total additional Works Budget

Forecast Annual Spend Deficit

2007/08 296 325 621

2008/09 303 325 628

2009/10 308 0 308 592 284

The combined deficit on the Veolia account for core and additional works is currently £573k. Additional Works costs for 2010/11 will be made up of the following:

• Winter Maintenance (road gritting) – £100k Call out costs, salt purchase and additional standby are not covered under the core contract and are paid out of additional works

• Unscheduled work - £55k

e.g. special events cleansing, gully searches, leaf recycling • Bin Purchase - £350

Due to the loss of the Capital Budget for bin purchase there is no budget in place to cover the costs currently.

• Recycling bag purchase - £145

Additional bags must be paid for by Lambeth, demand has increased due to scheduled garden waste service and introduction of the food waste trial.

In total the additional works costs are £650k Winter Maintenance 100 Unscheduled Works 55 Bin Purchase 350 Bag Purchase 145 Total Cost 650 Proposal

We are proposing growth of £100k to provide a budget for the winter maintenance service and £700k capital over two years for the purchase of refuse containers. This will enable Streetcare to manage any other overspends within the contract through their existing budgets and provide time to negotiate and review services to absorb future costs within existing budget 2012/13 . Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The authority has a statutory duty to provide refuse and recycling collections as well as clean the streets. Failure to provide this budget would result in a failure to pay Veolia for providing the service which could put the authority in breech of contract. A consequence of this could result in Veolia retracting from providing the service. The waste and street cleansing services play a key role in improving environmental quality and ensuring that residents, business and visitors to Lambeth are satisfied with their local environment. A reduction in the recycling bags and bins could reduce the percentage of waste recycled. Equalities impact

This proposal has no impact on equalities. A full EqIA is in place for the waste and street cleansing contract.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A 100 0 0 TOTAL 100 0 0 Capital impact (one-off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A 325 0 0 TOTAL 325 0 0 Appendix 1: Bin Purchase

2008/09 £'000

2009/10 £'000

20010/11 £'000

Wheelie Bins 52 54 56 Bulk Bins 180 230 185 Recycling Bins 60 110 80 Food Waste Bins 0 43 30 Trial to end in July 10 Total 292 437 351

Title of Proposal: Norwood Hall Joint Service Centre Revenue implications associated with a new Joint Service Centre in West Norwood. These implications are associated with the PFI affordability gap and common area service charges. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham (Exec. Dir: HRE) Divisional Director: Jo Negrini (Div. Dir: Enterprise and Regeneration) BU Manager: Allison Young (Head of Physical Regeneration) Full Description of Proposal On the 28 July 2008, Cabinet endorsed the redevelopment of the Norwood Hall site for a new Joint Service Centre (JSC), subject to the availability of PFI funding. CLG, the sponsoring department has also endorsed the project and Treasury approval is imminent. The Norwood Hall Joint Service Centre (JSC) scheme is to be located on a parcel of land known as Norwood Hall, off Knights Hill in close proximity to West Norwood Station and adjacent to the Hainthorpe Estate. The accommodation comprises a gross internal floor area of c. 5,761 sq.m consisting of: • Wellness centre (100 station gym, dance studio, 25m x 6 lane pool) • Primary Care Trust (PCT) neighbourhood resource centre (GP surgeries, dental services

health services, diagnostics, community health services and out of hospital care) • Customer service centre (with staff touch-down points for surgeries) • Community meeting venue space The scheme also includes improvements to the open space and the creation of a pedestrian/cycle route from Knights Hill to Canterbury Grove. Construction on site is envisaged to take place in May 2010 and centre opening is expected early 2012. From 2012, there will be revenue implications associated with the following areas: • PFI Affordability Funding Gap: The project is to be brought forward with the use

£14.2million Private Finance Initiative credits. Under the PFI arrangement, the Council’s annual unitary payment will be £985.4k. This will be funded by applying the PFI credits with the remainder consisting of a Council contribution to a sinking fund of c.£250k p.a.. Effectively this covers the cost of construction plus capitalised design and finance charges, lifecycle costs and hard facilities management costs.

• Common Area Service Charges: In addition, the Council will need to contribute to the

provision of soft facilities management services for the common areas of the centre. These are estimated at about 50% of £250k p.a.

Key Risk Factors are: • The Council needs to demonstrate its commitment to meeting the affordability gap and

common area service charge costs. If this is not demonstrated, then HM-Treasury will not endorse the use of PFI Credits totalling £14.2m. This is the last opportunity that the Council has to use the PFI credits and will subsequently lose £14.2m of funding.

• The loss of PFI Credits would constitute not only a loss of funding, but would remove the

opportunity for the Council to develop a £15m Joint Health, Leisure and Customer Service Centre in line with its service objectives.

• There are also costs associated with the delivery of services by Leisure and Customer

Services. It is understood that these costs can be borne through efficiency and redeployment savings. However, the respective service areas will need to define this.

Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The scheme is consistent with the strategic, local and service priorities of the Council and its partners. The scheme provides a vehicle to: • Transform the West Norwood town centre through regeneration, modernisation of

estates and a focus on health and fitness that will contribute to local residents’ well-being and pride within the community. The scheme is central to the implementation of the West Norwood masterplan, approved by Cabinet in June 2009;

• Serve West Norwood better through improved access arrangements for customers and

improved services and efficiency resulting from closer joint working arrangements between the Council and partners;

• Support local people by providing intergenerational services that meet local priorities for

children, young people, vulnerable adults and older people with emphasis on health and fitness and social inclusion, to address anti-social behaviour and health inequalities.

The leisure element of the scheme brings much needed wet and dry leisure facilities to a part of London and Lambeth, which has a deficit in facilities. As such the provision of leisure is in line with the Council’s Leisure Delivery Plan Plan. The proposed Joint Service Centre also delivers a number of the Councils Corporate Priorities, including:

• creating great places where people want to live, work and enjoy; • reducing worklessness; • supporting business and enterprise, and • providing value for money

Equalities Impact An Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) is being completed in partnership with Professor Richard Tomlins, Professor of Race and Diversity, Coventry University. The Norwood Hall JSC scheme will improve “face to face” customer contacts with the Council. In accordance with the Customer Services Strategy, the centre will provide improved access to public services for all customers by delivering a wide range of services all from a single point of access providing fully accessible facilities. The training and performance management of the JSC initiative will also be linked to the Equality and Diversity Agenda. The scheme will be designed to capture DDA requirements, as well as incorporating sustainability principles to minimise negative impacts on the surrounding environment. The proposal has been developed in consultation with key stakeholders and as such has regard to local needs and priorities. It is envisaged that the local community will continue to be actively engaged in developing the proposal further, with the opportunities to refine the need, design and service provision of the JSC, which we also take into account equalities issues. The scheme is also designed to reach so called “hard-to-reach groups”. Financial Implications Revenue Impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k PFI Affordability 0 63 187 Service Charge 0 31 94 TOTAL 0 94 281

Title of Proposal: Planned Maintenance Programme Funding for a Corporate Planned Maintenance Programme This arises as a necessity to ensure that all required Statutory Health & Safety Compliance inspections of the corporate estate are undertaken. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Uzo Nwanze BU Manager: Full Description of Proposal For many years the Council has adopted a reactive approach to the maintenance of its assets. Essentially there are 3 key elements to a planned maintenance programme (PMP:

• Non-Discretionary Health & Safety Compliance/Statutory Maintenance, e.g. inspections regarding asbestos, gas safety, Legionella, passenger lifts, etc;

• Part-Discretionary Preventative Service Maintenance, e.g. planned replacement of various structural elements on a rolling programme basis;

• Discretionary Condition Based Maintenance e.g. corrective maintenance work performed as a result of significant deterioration or failure. This is usually informed by an annual rolling programme of condition surveys.

At the moment, if at all, each department formulates its planned maintenance programme. The conclusion from a recent survey of department is that most are failing to meet their responsibility particularly regarding the non-discretionary aspects. This poses significant legal risks to the Council especially that of legal sanctioning from failure of a property. This growth bid is for the purposes of undertaking the following: Ref. Maintenance Activity Building

Category Estimated Annual Cost

Statutory Compliance Maintenance management staffing costs (maintenance planning and delivery including contract management and computerised maintenance management systems).

All £90k

Statutory Inspections Planned Annual Statutory Inspections: Fire Alarms, Security Alarms, Portable Appliances, Electrical Installation, Lightning Protection Testing, Emergency Generators, Car Parkers Barriers, Gas Safety Checks, Lift Inspections, Legionella, Asbestos.

All Operational Direct Properties (Libraries, Day Centres, etc)

£300k

Condition Surveys Rolling annual programme of condition surveys (20% of the stock) thereby ensuring the continued relevance of the condition data.

Operational Direct and Indirect Properties

£60k

Condition Survey Works

Planned works programme costs (condition based – Priority1 to Priority 4)

All Operational Direct and Indirect Properties

£1,000k

Planned Preventative Works

Planned preventative maintenance work programme costs arising from PMP/SI, Leased Properties and Sustainability related measures.

All Operational Direct Properties

£100k

Totals £1,550k There may be opportunities to recharge some costs to departments where works to a building will directly benefit a department specifically. The budget being provided in this

proposal is to ensure there is a core corporate budget to meet key actions, of both a revenue and capital nature. In ascertaining the required level of funding for maintenance factors such as the Council’s overall asset management strategy, the current state and age profile of its building assets, operational requirements and deferred maintenance have been considered, thereby mitigating against the risks highlighted earlier. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities Enhance the Council’s CAA – Use of Resources Score Equalities impact

A first stage screening should be completed for this project. Effective DDA compliance / failings need to be fully documented and become a part of the Planned Maintenance programme. Such a programme will also contribute to the achievement of the Council’s Sustainable outcomes.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A 200 0 0 TOTAL 200 0 0 Capital impact (one-off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A 550 550 550 TOTAL 550 550 550

Title of Proposal: Private Sector Housing Growth bid for recruitment of additional staff resources within PSH Environmental Health and enforcement services. (GF Revenue) Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Rachel Sharpe BU Manager: Christine Jacobs Full Description of Proposal This proposal seeks growth to mitigate shortfall in income from fees that were forecasted in respect to Houses in multiple occupation (HMO) Licensing fees. The projected fee income level set in April 2006 was based on an estimate of 2000 potential licensable HMOs over the 5 year period. However, the number of license applications received is significantly below this target (324 to-date), which means the original estimate was either too high, or there are more properties to be identified? The current budgeted annual income is £127,504 (see table below). The total income received to-date is £249,308 which is approximately 51% of the budgeted annual income since licensing was implemented in April 2006. Table 1. HMO licensing income

HMO Licensing

2006-07 Year 1

2007-08 Year 2 2008-09 Year 3

2009-10 Year 4

2010-11 Year 5

Applications 252 23 25 15 40**

Budgeted Full Year income

£118,400 £121,360 £124,394 £127,504

Actual Income

£192,542 £20,820 £23,130 £12,816* £38,000**

£74,142 -£100,540 -£101,264 -£114,688

*HMO licensing fees received as at 30.09.09 **Target for new HMO licences 2010-11 In order to mitigate the shortfall in fee income and deliver the current expected savings the BU has not recruited to a number established vacant posts. This has significantly reduced the resources available within the Environmental Health service area for the proactive surveys and outreach work to identify unlicensed HMOs; which has implications for the safety of tenants and the level of fee income.

This proposal seeks growth to provide additional staff resources to undertake pro-active actions to improve the identification and assessment of licensable HMOs in the borough. The priority is to clear the backlog and ensure timely enforcement is taken in respect of those operating unlicensed HMOs. It will also allow the local authority to build a composite picture of the current HMO stock and adjust the base information in relation to potential licensing fee income. The additional resources will be used to support a tougher regime which is expected to encourage reluctant landlords to comply. At the same time, others may also decide to exit the market.

The proposal does have ongoing implications for the overall revenue costs and will require a more fundamental review of all PSH cost centres including the re- alignment of all posts/grades to meet the needs of future priorities and workloads once the base income levels has been agreed.

The growth in estimated revenue costs calculated to allow recruitment to two vacant posts in 2009/10 and carried forward to 2010/11 and 2011/12. It takes into account the current and anticipated savings target (£94k) for 2010-11. There are no additional set up costs required to implement this growth. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities

Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 introduces a mandatory scheme to licence particular categories of HMOs outlined in the supporting regulations. Licensing is intended to apply only to larger higher risk HMOs of 3 or more storeys occupied by 5 or more people initially.

The term HMO applies to a wide range of housing types, mainly in the private rented sector, that young lower-income single people, including some particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, typically occupy. The physical and management standards in HMOs are often low.

Risk assessment carried out on fire safety in HMOs concluded that the annual risk of death per person is 1 in 50,000 (six times higher than in comparable single occupancy houses). In the case of bedsit houses comprising three or more storeys the risk is 1 in 18,600 (16 times higher).

The identification and licensing of all high risk HMOs is essential to help minimise safety risks in what is also consider to be a more affordable area of the private rented sector and contributes to the corporate priorities for improving supply and ‘Better Housing….’

Analysis of current productivity suggests that additional resources would allow the backlog to be cleared and address the following areas:

• the identification of additional properties and landlords to be licensed

• the production and distribution of adequate information and publicity for compliance with licensing requirements

• the development of a risk-based property inspection programme procedures

• the development of partnerships with registered social landlords (RSLs) and other departments to assist with the management of un-licensable properties

• Any additional fee income generated would be used to deliver the improved enforcement programme, and improve the fee income collection to support the work in this service area.

• All licensable HMOs will be inspected to identify disrepair, fire safety, amenity or other safety concerns. Landlords will be required to bring their property up to standard within a fixed period of time.

Equalities impact

The proposal does not does not target or exclude any specific equality groups. Any future reductions in staff will be supported by the Councils redeployment process. A full EIA will also clarify the selection criteria used for determining the reductions. All services delivered by the Private Sector housing Business Unit are currently undergoing EIA as part of the Dept EIA programme for 2009/10/11.

Financial Implications The impact of the 5 year licence renewal programme means there is a fluctuating income and the figures below reflect the bulk of renewals occurring in 2011/12. This means there is a growth requirement of £200k in 2010/11 to maintain the service with no backlog then a neutral position based on current budgets in 2011/12 (effectively a saving of £98k should the 2010/11 growth bid be agreed). However in 2012/13 fee income will again drop, but is predicted to be marginally higher than in the current year – resulting in a possible growth requirement of £80k? As the licence is valid for five years, in theory the fee charge/ income should be split over the five years. The figures below are based on current best estimates and will require review in the next 12 months.

Table 2. Projected HMO licensing fee income Year Number of Units

Renewal Fee income* Number of New HMOs** Total

Projected annual income



2009-10 (yr 4) 0 £ - 86 £ 12,816.00 £ 12,816.00

2010-11 (yr 5) 0 £ - 200 £ 38,000.00 £ 38,000.00

2011-12 (yr 6) 596 £ 89,400.00 50 £ 9,500.00 £ 98,900.00

2012-13 (yr 7) 61 £ 9,150.00 50 £ 9,500.00 £ 18,650.00

2013-14 (yr 8) 301 £ 45,150.00 *** £ - £ 45,150.00

2014-15 (yr 9) 567 £ 85,050.00 *** £ - £ 85,050.00

2015-16 (yr 10) 382 £ 57,300.00 *** £ - £ 57,300.00

Total 1907 £ 286,050.00 386 £ 69,816.00 £ 355,866.00

*Income related renewal of licences issued since April 2006 * * Income related to new HMO licences - a target of 400 units to be licensed over next 3 years

*** Target to be determined following review of 2010-13 activity outcomes

. Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k HMO inspection staff 100 0 (94) HMO licence shortfall 100 0 80 TOTAL 200 0 (14)

PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A NEW PROPOSAL. 31. Vacant Buildings Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Jo Negrini BU Manager: Allison Young Full Description of Proposal The council has a large portfolio of land and buildings many of which are awaiting development or disposal. This growth bid is for a revenue budget to support the vacant building costs. These costs include items such as security and maintenance of buildings. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities These costs are incurred in order that the council can safeguard its assets and fulfil health and safety obligations. Equalities impact The equalities impact can be deemed as low. Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Vacant building costs 290 0 0 TOTAL 290 0 0

Title of Proposal: Support Services

Savings 2009/10 – 2012/13

Prioritisation of resources for outcome focused programme delivery, with phased rationalisation of support functions (while seeking to ensure the Divisional infrastructure remains fit for purpose) and major service redesign considering options for externalisation, synergies with functions across the department, and investment in developing income generation opportunities.

Executive Director: Dorian Leatham (Exec. Dir: HRE)

Divisional Director: Jo Negrini (Div. Dir: Enterprise and Regeneration)

BU Manager: Various


While work will continue to identify additional income / funding opportunities to mitigate the requirement for reductions in service levels, the target for 2010/11 (£101,758) will be addressed through the commencement of phased rationalisation of support functions, while seeking to ensure the Divisional infrastructure remains fit for purpose. This will consider:

§ Communications and engagement

§ Administration

§ Project / performance management, policy and partnership support

Savings proposals will include reductions in operating / project budgets in addition to consideration of reductions in posts.

While savings in 2010/11 are anticipated to be sought through Divisional Support and Communities and Neighbourhoods, the Divisional Leadership Team has yet to confirm detailed allocations.

Savings will require the Division to reduce communications and outreach activity, affecting engagement with the partnership’s regeneration programmes and take up of employment and enterprise opportunities, while also affecting the Division’s ability to respond to departmental and corporate requirements in relation to performance and project management and procedures.


The focus (for 2010/11) will be upon the rationalisation of support functions, seeking to ensure the prioritisation of resources for outcome focused programme delivery.

However, savings in the areas of communications and engagement, administration, and project / performance management, policy and partnership support may impact upon the efficiency and effectiveness of the service, and the council’s ability to continue to support the priorities of delivering a flourishing local economy and tackle worklessness in the same manner as currently.

The communications and outreach functions make an essential contribution to the regeneration programmes by ensuring schemes are appropriately specified (to address local views and meet local needs) and attract high levels of interest, enhancing future value and effectiveness.

Experience has shown that a lack of adequate consultation and communications can lead to abortive work and problems in identifying and delivering an acceptable scheme.

Effective support functions enable other teams within the Division to focus on delivery of the various programmes, while ensuring consistency in financial and programme / performance management, and providing a Divisional resource with regards to project / programme communications and partner engagement.

These functions help to improve efficiency in the provision of business support functions by removing duplication across the Division and providing specialist resources, while addressing capacity and skills gaps in some areas.

Equalities impact

With the savings proposal focusing upon the rationalisation of support services, including communications and engagement across the regeneration programme, there is likely to be reduced opportunities for pro-active engagement and targeted outreach work with local residents, voluntary organisations and community groups to help people access initiatives designed to support them into training and employment, and ensure employment, enterprise and physical regeneration schemes meet local needs. This will be managed through the overall development of the proposals


Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure)

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Regeneration and Enterprise*

(102) 0 0

TOTAL (102) 0 0

* The figure above represent the savings targets the Division has been set. The broad approach is outlined in the previous sections. However, while identifying the intention to prioritise resources for outcome focused programme delivery, with savings in 2010/11 largely to be sought through Divisional Support and Communities and Neighbourhoods, the Divisional Leadership Team has yet to confirm the detailed allocation of savings.

Title of Proposal: PSL Budgets Withdrawal from Temporary Accommodation PSL Scheme Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Rachel Sharpe BU Manager: Mandy Green Full Description of Proposal The council has a statutory duty under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 to assist homeless households with the provision of temporary accommodation. The Private Sector Leasing Scheme (PSL) forms part of the Councils TA portfolio and is a legacy of a contractual agreement between the council and Amicus Group Limited which was affected in early 2003 and all operational functions and service delivery were undertaken by Avenue Lettings (a subsidiary of Amicus Horizon). The partnership ceased as of 29th February 2008 after which the properties have been managed by the Council. At that time the Council took over approximately 450 properties, 180 of which were void. Previous poor management of the scheme has meant that the Council has been committed to rental payments for the full duration of any voids, as well as incurring a loss of full rental income and subsidy. As the Council is now making significant strides in reducing the numbers of households in temporary accommodation to meet the Government’s 2010 temporary accommodation target much of our TA is becoming surplus to demand. Given the high cost of the PSL scheme, in January 2009 DLT approved the planned withdrawal from the private leasing scheme and to return of properties to owners. Only 50 properties presently remain in management. The scheme employs a total of 6 of staff, 3 of whom are agency workers. Once the scheme has been wound down, there would be no further associated staff costs as the three permanent staff will become part of the Council’s redeployment pool. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The PSL scheme is an expensive legacy scheme with high maintenance costs. Winding down the scheme to January 2010 will significantly reduce the council’s financial liability for voids and disrepair and mitigates further financial risk. All current leases are being negotiated to ensure an earlier hand-back of properties as part of the lease break clause so as not incur any added costs. Withdrawing from the scheme has now removed a significant financial burden for the council associated with the scheme’s high maintenance costs. Any future upturn in homelessness demand can be met from more flexible and inexpensive leasing schemes available in the local lettings market. A large number of households are presently being moved out of PSL properties by accelerating priority and promoting applicants to level 3 under the Council’s allocations scheme as well as a close working partnership with Lettings First as part of our qualifying offer scheme this removing the need to procure any additional TA stock.

Equalities impact The equalities impact has been assessed as low. The Private Sector Leasing Scheme, which is winding down, employs 6 staff, 3 are agency workers. Once the scheme has been wound down, there would be no further associated staff costs as the three permanent staff will become part of the Council’s redeployment pool and will be treated according to those rulings. Three of the staff involved in the restructure are agency staff, therefore, their contracts with us are time limited and we have no responsibility for providing on going employment, redeployment or redundancy Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Repairs and Maintenance 0 (150) 0 PSL Staffing (153) 0 0 TOTAL (153) (150) 0

Title of Proposal: Waste Management Restructure Re-structure of the Business Unit to improve service provision. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Carolyn Dwyer BU Manager: Doug Perry Full Description of Proposal Changes to the existing structure have been identified to reduce costs while improving service delivery within the teams. The changes affect 12 posts within the current structure with either generic reductions, removal of posts or changes to job descriptions. It is expected that consultation on this will commence shortly with changes taking effect before the end of the current financial year. £40k has already been offered in 2008/09 and this proposal outlines additional savings for 2010/11 There will be initial set up costs from HR support and recruitment which will be met within the existing budget. There will be HR implications due to the number of posts that have identified for change and we will be seeking support from the HR change team on this. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities There will be no negative impacts on performance and corporate priorities as the structural changes are being made to strength the back office and ensure that any current weaknesses with in the structure are addressed. Equalities impact The equalities impact has been assessed as low. A further EIA need to be completed by HR at the time of managing any restructure. The equalities implications of service delivery will also need to be discussed at the same time. A stage one is deemed sufficient. Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A (60) 0 0 TOTAL (60) 0 0

Title of Proposal: Revised provision for food waste collection Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Carolyn Dwyer BU Manager: Doug Perry Full Description of Proposal Aardvark Recycling Ltd is a registered charity and a not for profit organisation. From October 2006 Aardvark was contracted to provide a variety of door-to-door recycling services on estates in the Stockwell Urban 2 Project Area, as well as a range of other linked activities. Initially these projects were provided through a variety of external funding sources, including Central government ISB.

With their initial funding coming to an end, a contract review found it to be high cost and low performing. Continuation of the existing contract could not be justified. Negotiations with Veolia have secured a continuity of service whereby residents who had the door to door collection will have the opportunity to continue to recycle food waste in bulk bins. This is at no additional cost and therefore makes a significant saving while still providing the service to residents.

The new method of collection will also allow valuable collection of performance data to inform the waste strategy. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities Current service contribution to NI192 equates to 0.1 % performance and saves disposal costs of approximately £10,000 per annum. Equalities impact The equalities impact on this has been assessed as low. EIA across this service has been programmed into the Department’s EIA work plan for work 2009/10. Financial Implications 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Reprovision of food waste service (120) 0 0 TOTAL (120) 0 0

Title of Proposal: Review of school crossing provision This service is non- statutory and is provided at the discretion of the local authority. Lambeth is one of many local authorities delivering this service. Delivery of this service is well received by both parents and schools and is highly valued by the community. It is complementary to other sustainable initiatives delivered by the local authority such as “Walk to School”. This service provides confidence to parents and encourages walking to school. The service provides assistance to primary school children on roads where there is perceived danger. This service operates during school term time and during the morning and afternoon school opening and closing times i.e. 4 hours per day. Executive Director: Dorian Letham Divisional Director:Carolyn Dwyer BU Manager: Abu Barkatolah Full Description of Proposal The proposal is to reduce the budget provision to reflect historical and current staffing levels. This is only a reduced budget and does not reduce the actual numbers of staff therefore there is no reduction of service. Additionally, a reduction in supplies and services revenue cost has been identified and this amounts to approximately £10k. The total savings identified within the Road Safety Education budget are detailed in the financial implications below. Another review will be undertaken for potential savings in the future years. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities There are no performance indicators for this service. Equalities impact The equalities impact has been assessed as low. No adverse impact on equalities as the same level of service will be maintained. EIA across this service has been programmed into the Department’s EIA work plan for work 2009/10.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k School Crossing provision (30) 0 0 TOTAL (30) 0 0

Title of Proposal: Capitalisation of Salaries on TfL Projects This proposal is raising the threshold for income fee generation from TfL capital projects for 2010/11 on capital allocations so as to enable the capitalisation of permanent staff who deliver these capital projects thereby releasing LBL core budgets. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Carolyn Dwyer BU Manager: Abu Barkatoolah Full Description of Proposal The proposal is to consider raising the threshold for income fee generation for 2010/11 capital allocation from TfL so as to enable the capitalisation of permanent staff who deliver those capital projects. Not all their salary will be capitalised because they manage delivery therefore only a proportion of their time can be capitalised. The total savings to revenue through this process are detailed in the table Financial Implications table. A large scheme is also in the pipeline. This is expected to be funded by TfL to a value of £2m outside the normal capital allocation and through this the service will be able to secure more income fee to support other FTC staff. The level of capitalisation can be increased depending on how involved the staff detailed above are with capital projects. This proposal is for 2010/11 only and the capitalisation process is dependent upon the capital allocation from TfL which varies from year to year. Hence, this will be reviewed in future years. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities It is envisaged that this reduction is for one year only subject to review of TfL capital allocations in each of the future years. There are no performance indicators for this service. The reduction is not likely to have significant impact on the service delivery provided redeployment of funds is made. Equalities impact The equalities impact has been assessed as low. No adverse impact on equalities as the same level of service will be maintained. EIA across this service has been programmed into the Department’s EIA work plan for work 2009/10/11 Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Capitalisation (84) 84 0 TOTAL (84) 84 0

Title of Proposal: Textiles and Small WEEE collection service Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Carolyn Dwyer BU Manager: Doug Perry Full Description of Proposal This proposal outlines the introduction of an on-demand collection service of textiles, unwanted clothing and shoes; as well as small WEEE (toasters, kettles, VCRs, electrical toys) for all 84,000 low-rise properties. Textiles collection would also be offered to local businesses free of charge. Collections would be booked through the LSC in a similar manner to the current bulky waste service. Bags awaiting collection would be identified with small stickers provided to residents. There are no capital costs to implementing this project. Ongoing revenue costs: £75,000 caged tipper lease, driver and operative £7,000 publicity materials and stickers for residents to place on bags needing collection. Set-up costs: £5,000 production of initial publicity materials and delivery to all low-rise properties. Estimated revenue costs based on quote from Veolia and experience from other projects. A waste composition analysis carried out in 2003 revealed that 2,967 tonnes of textiles went to landfill annually from Lambeth homes. It is likely that the tonnage of discarded clothing & textiles has increased substantially since 2003 as sales of very cheap clothing have significantly increased their market share. However the majority of this additional material may have already been captures by other recycling organisations due to the high value of the material. We are estimating that a 30% capture rate would divert 600 tonnes from landfill into reuse and recycling. Any tonnage from businesses would be additional but the potential quantities are unknown.. Textiles delivered to Western Riverside Waste Authority (WRWA) will generate an income of £183/tonne. 600 tonnes will yield approximately £110,000, giving a net income of £25,000 in 2010/11 and subsequent years. It is proposed that 10% of this net income is donated to local charities chosen by residents to provide an incentive for residents who are faced with a number of organisations keen to collect unwanted textiles. The same composition analysis revealed that 466 tonnes of small WEEE was being thrown away annually from Lambeth homes. A 30% capture rate would divert 140 tonnes from landfill into recycling processes. The gate fee for electricals delivered to WRWA is £42.66. Diverting this waste from landfill will save £6,600 in disposal costs. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities Diverting 1,356 tonnes into recycling would add approximately 1.44% to NI192 over a year.

Equalities impact The equalities impact has been assessed as low. The new service will be provided to all residents in low-rise properties providing a recycling option for residents unable to use centralised facilities. Residents on estates will be provided with a collection option through the citing of collection banks on all estates where a suitable location can be identified. An EIA will be carried out at the time of implementation, given the implications for older and disabled tenants.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Collection Service (25) 0 0 TOTAL (25) 0 0

Title of Proposal: Suspend R & R Suspension of the existing Recruitment and Retention bonus paid to qualifying Planning staff. Current market conditions mean that the conditions that existed at the adoption of the Recruitment and Retention scheme are not present. It is therefore proposed to suspend the scheme until such time as market conditions warrant its reintroduction. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Les Brown BU Manager: Zbig Blonski and Jim Smith Full Description of Proposal The Planning Division has historically suffered from severe recruitment and retention difficulties directly related to the highly competitive market for experienced Planning Officers. In 2005 a Planning Recruitment and Retention scheme was introduced that paid those in qualifying posts an additional 5% of basic salary. The payment is made after completion of each complete financial year, with new staff appointed after 1 April receiving payments on the anniversary of their start date. Payment is only made where the service manager has certified that the last performance appraisal within the year or up to the point of calculation was satisfactory and the employee “met target”. The economic downturn has led to a widespread decrease in the number of submitted planning applications, consequent fee income and workload. Many authorities, including Lambeth, have addressed these issues by reducing the number of professional planning staff employed. This has resulted in a significant shift in the perceived market for planners, with recently released planners finding difficulty in obtaining new jobs. This temporarily reduces the need for additional incentives for professional planners, at least until the economic outlook improves. It is proposed to suspend the existing recruitment and retention package, until the market improves to the extent that its reintroduction is justified. This bid assumes a return to normal market conditions by 2012/13 and therefore includes a reintroduction of the scheme in 2012/13. There may be contract issues related to the suspension of the scheme and these are currently being investigated with the Human Resources team in HRE. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities As and when the economic outlook improves, the market for professional planning staff would also be anticipated to tighten, potentially leading to a return to the serious recruitment and retention problems previously experienced. To mitigate against this risk, the proposal is only to suspend the scheme so that it may be swiftly re-introduced when conditions warrant this. There is also the possibility that the suspension of the retention payments could affect staff morale in a negative manner, in turn leading to a fall in performance. Careful monitoring of morale and appropriate mitigating actions would need to be introduced to manage this.

Equalities impact The outline below is that given in the original report at the time of approval of the scheme in 2005: Nationally, the planning profession only has a quarter of the minority ethnic staff needed to reflect the communities it serves; this situation is further compounded by a national shortage of BME planners. Considering the demographics of the Lambeth population the Service needs to carefully address equality issues. The table below illustrates the national and local situation.

Exhibit 2: The representation of BME Planners

BME Planners are under-represented in Lambeth’s Planning Service, when compared to London as a whole…

UK population RTPI members

Members of BME groups 7.9% 1.7%

London population London planners

Members of BME groups 28.9% 6.6%

Source: University of Westminster

Lambeth population

Lambeth Planners - establishment staff

Members of BME groups 38% 2.7%

Source: KPMG analysis

Nationally, the PATH scheme has been established to match individuals from a BME background that have a relevant qualification with potential employers. The scheme provides funding and support to both employer and employee, aimed at increasing the proportion of BME staff in key public sector functions.

Proposals

In order to promote the employment of staff from a BME background, it is proposed that the Service should:

Recommendation 8: consider using the PATH scheme to assist in the recruitment of graduates to the Service; and

Recommendation 9: investigate using the professional qualifications scheme launched by the Council as an alternative route to encourage BME’s to pursue a career in planning.

As of July 2009, the Planning Division has supported, or is currently supporting, seven support staff with professional planning or management training over the last five years, of which six were BME. The equalities impact of suspension of R & R has been deemed as low. An EIA has been drafted on this proposal by Toby Hamilton together with support from the Dept’s equalities unit. The suspension is financially driven and will affect all members of the Planning Department. If the suspension of R & R results in an increase in the number of staff leaving the organisation, loss of morale, then the Department will need to re-assess its position.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Suspension of recruitment and retention scheme (130) 0 140 TOTAL (130) 0 140 The £130k is calculated directly from the budget set aside for provision in the current financial year. A full assessment of possible future recruitment and retention payment scenarios would be undertaken to confirm future savings, following on from confirmation of the plausibility of suspension and potential timetables.

Title of Proposal: Add income from fees Predicted additional income from Planning Application fees and an extended pre-application advice charging regime. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Les Brown BU Manager: Jim Smith Full Description of Proposal The recent economic downturn has significantly reduced the number of planning applications received and resultant fee income. This proposal seeks to estimate the future increases in income from planning applications fees and an extended pre-application advice charging regime. Additional income from planning application fees Planning fee income has steadily risen over the years alongside the number of applications received and statutory fee increases; however the current economic downturn has slowed applications and receipts. It is anticipated that as the economy recovers receipts from planning application fees will increase too. The predictions made in this document are based on the assumption of a slow recovery in the number of planning applications received, beginning in 2010/11, together with an increase in statutory planning application fees by the beginning of the 2012/13 financial year. The proposed increase in statutory fees is due to commence its consultation stage later this year. It should be noted that fee income is heavily slanted toward ‘major’ applications. Although these applications constitute around 5% of applications received, they represent around 50% of fee income. Therefore, though fee income is hard to predict for a given year, there is evidence of a steadily rising trend over longer periods (see graph at end of report). Additional income from extension of pre-application advice charging The Council has power to make charges for pre-planning advice by virtue of section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 that allows charging for discretionary services. We have been charging for pre-application advice for ‘major’ applications since January 2008 and in the 2008/09 year this generated approximately £80,000. We are now planning to widen the scope of our charging regime to include a new ‘large major’ category, together with other categories covering smaller developments. Using figures from Southwark, who introduced a full range of charges with a similar structure and fee level, we estimate an annual income of £60,000 in 2010/11 from the pre-applications covered by the charging extension. We anticipate that there will be a slow rise in income in following years. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities Additional income from planning application fees Planning application fees form a key part of planning income and hence much of the work undertaken in the division is reliant on these fees.

By ‘giving up’ planning application fee income as savings there is a real possibility of a negative impact on performance, as the money would not be available for recruitment of additional planning officers to meet increasing demand. Additional income from extension of pre-application advice charging The extension of pre-application charging will be accompanied by a clearly defined process and will include guidance to our customers on what they will receive from us, inline with good customer service principles. This proposal will seek to achieve cost recovery for pre-application advice offered for a wide range of applications and hence improve the value for money offered by the service. Equalities impact The equalities impact has been assessed as low. There are no identified equalities impacts related to this proposal.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Planning application fee income increase (50) (50) (150) Pre-application fee income increase (30) (5) (5) TOTAL (80) (55) (155) Numbers above represent a cumulative increase to the existing budget baseline of a predicted £1.15m for planning application fees in 2009/10. Therefore the expected total budget in 2012/13 would be £1.4m for planning application fees.

Title of Proposal: Increase s106 income Assumes a gradual return to pre-recession market conditions over the coming years. Expected Increase in statutory fee baseline anticipated by Apr 2012/13. Equalities impact The equalities impact has been assessed as low. There are no identified equalities impacts related to this proposal.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Section 106 increase (5) (5) (5) TOTAL (5) (5) (5)

Title of Proposal: Customer Service Review Re-assessment of service provision. Follows an 85% fall in phone demand for the advice centre, following migration of general call handling to the LSC. Equalities impact Outcomes of an Equalities Impact Assessment are yet to be fully determined. Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Customer Service Provision (40) 0 0 TOTAL (40) 0 0

Title of Proposal: Consultation in applications Assumes reducing neighbour consultation letters sent from c.150k to 100k, along with further progression of electronic consultation methods. Equalities Impact Given an EIA was carried out on the Statement of Community Involvement in 2006 and this savings bid is focussing on reducing costs on neighbour consultation letters, the equalities impact is deemed as low. It is taken as standard that any electronic consultation methods will follow Council guidance on accessibility and that consultations letters will continue to at the very least offer a translation and interpretation strapline, in line with the Council’s translation and interpretation policy. Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Reduction in consultation (30) 0 0 TOTAL (30) 0 0

Title of Proposal: Controlled reduction in Street Cleansing Services Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Carolyn Dwyer BU Manager: Doug Perry Full Description of Proposal Currently as part of the Waste & Street Cleansing contract, we provide extensive cleansing services seven days per week 24 hours per day. The cleansing shifts are broken down into five categories

• AM Service Monday to Friday covering duty hours • PM Service Mon- Fri part covering duty hours • Night Service Mon-Sun covering non duty hours • PM service Sat-Sun covering non duty hours • AM service Sat-Sun covering non duty hours.

The AM service Monday to Friday provides the majority of cleansing services resource which operate between 6am and 3pm with a focus on our side streets, residential roads and Town Centres with a dedicated resource working on a scheduled basis. The PM service Mon-Fri operates between 2pm and 10pm where dedicated resources focus on continual sweeping of our town centre areas and zone 1 roads. Night Service Mon-Sun provides a 6 dedicated cleansing teams to undertake scheduled cleansing focusing on high footfall areas, Zone 1 roads and social and leisure destinations. PM Service Sat-Sun Provides a combination of 17 scheduled beat sweeping with 6 EPA crews covering high footfall areas, Shopping areas, Zone 1 roads and social and leisure destinations AM Service Sat-Sun Provides a combination of 32 scheduled beat sweeping with 6 EPA crews covering high footfall areas, Shopping areas, Zone 1 roads and social and leisure destinations We are proposing to reduce cleansing resources across all out of hour services, but with an intelligence led approach to seasonal variations and subsequent footfall. As the majority of this activity is focused on major thoroughfares to achieve productivity savings that allow current frequencies to be maintained we will shift where appropriate the focus of the service from a street sweeping to street litter picking service during all out of duty hours shifts. This will allow the operative to cover more ground resulting in a reduced number of staff required to undertake the work. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The adjustment in service priority will have minimal environmental impact during duty hours (Monday to Friday 8am to 4pm) but could result in litter scores falling by 1-2%, however outside of duty hours impact on standards achieved will see a higher reduction in satisfactory standards. It is difficult to judge the long term impact on residents perception; however if pressed, we would estimate we could lose the ground made during the past survey of 9 % increase in satisfaction.

Equalities impact The equalities implications of this savings bid could be deemed as medium. As a universal service the vast majority of our communities will be affected. The leisure and social industry that operates primarily outside of NI195 duty hours will suffer from drops in cleansing standard. This has the potential to reduce the appeal of some of the borough tourist and leisure destinations, reducing community cohesion around an increased fear of crime. The focus of the cleansing service will shift from detritus and litter clearance to a more litter only removal services. . Financial Implications Staff reductions will be achieved through natural wastage. Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Option B (100) 0 0 TOTAL (100) 0 0

Title of Proposals: Apply a Vacancy Factor of 6% Across all Salaries. Apply a 10% Reduction on Supplies and Services and Review Income and Charging Within the Department Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Christina Thompson BU Manager: Full Description of Proposal The exercise of finding further savings in HRE has resulted in two areas within which managers will be required to manage down their expenditure and one in which there will need to be work done to achieve additional income. The reductions to budgets will require the overall budgets for HRE to be managed at risk and puts responsibility on all divisions to deliver this within the year. The reduction is equivalent to 10% of the overall net budget. Vacancy Factor - 6% of salary budgets £1,800k The pressure on budgets in the current financial year has meant that managers have been controlling their budgets by a number of factors one of which has been retaining vacancies. This saving essentially formalises the position that is already being practised. Managers will have the reduction built into their budgets from the beginning of the year. The figure of £1.8m applies to the whole of the Housing Regeneration and Environment department

the amount apportioned to Public Realm is £1,228k the amount apportioned to Housing is £415k the amount apportioned to Regeneration and Enterprise is £157k

Supplies and Services – 10% of budgets £1,800k The supplies and services budgets cover the range of office equipment and supplies, printing and stationery, telephones, IT expenses, legal fees as well as hired and contracted services. In addition these budgets contain the consultancy and project budgets for Physical Regeneration and will therefore have a direct impact on the programmes. The figure of £1.8m applies to the whole of the Housing Regeneration and Environment department

the amount of this saving apportioned to Public Realm is £1,228k the amount apportioned to Housing is £415k the amount apportioned to Regeneration and Enterprise is £157k

Review of Income and Charging - £500k The review will in the first instance cover two areas. Charges will be reviewed to ensure that they still reflect the current policies of the Council. In addition charges will be benchmarked with other authorities. Income budgets will be reviewed to ensure that they are set at levels that reflect the actual income expectation with challenging targets. The figure of £1.8m applies to the whole of the Housing Regeneration and Environment department

the amount of this saving apportioned to Public Realm is £341k the amount apportioned to Housing is £115k the amount apportioned to Regeneration and Enterprise is £44k

It will not be sufficient to set budgets for 2010/11 with this level of savings without further examination of the basis of budgets in HRE. Therefore DLT has agreed to a zero base exercise of all budgets in the general fund. This is planned to begin at the end of this month and be concluded by February. It will be essential that this exercise identifies the areas of potential savings for years two and three of the budgets setting process. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities TBC Equalities impact The full nature of the equalities impact will be assessed in the zero based budget exercise being undertaken across the department. This will be reviewed with the impact minimised to ensure that financial resource follows priorities including equalities. Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Vacancy Factor – 6% (1,800) 0 0 Supplies and Services – 10% of Budgets (1,800) 0 0 Review of Income and Charging (500) 0 0 TOTAL (4,100) 0 0

31CAP. - Physical Regen. Operational and Project Costs The proposal is for a capital budget to support the projects delivered by, the Physical Regeneration team. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham (Exec. Dir: HRE) Divisional Director: Jo Negrini (Div. Dir: Enterprise and Regeneration) BU Manager: Colm Lacey (Head of Physical Regeneration) Full Description of Proposal Operational and Project Costs (Capital) There are capital budgets in place to support the team’s work to end 2009/10 but none from 2010/11. Therefore, there is a requirement for a capital budget to support the projects delivered by the Physical Regeneration team. Work in 2010/11 will be funded in part from planned carry forward from 2009/10. The team is responsible for delivering a number of projects as part of the Future Lambeth programme. This includes developments of community hubs, provision of new leisure centres and development and improvement of town centres. Furthermore, the Council benefits from the team having some flexibility to respond to short term demands for, for example, site acquisition to facilitate service delivery or bidding opportunities. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The Physical Regeneration team is responsible for delivering the Future Lambeth Programme. The Future Lambeth Programme forms part of the Regeneration Delivery Plan which is a delivery plan of the Economic Development Strategy, both approved by Lambeth First. Specifically, successful achievement of all the projects in the team’s portfolio would realise the following benefits within the next three years: • Three new leisure centres, one new library and a health centre (complete or almost

complete) – total value of new facilities at over £50m • 200 new housing units in Clapham – inward investment of c. £35m • Two exemplar asset transfer schemes to deliver community-led services and

regeneration in Clapham and Kennington • Construction underway for a new permanent depot site – saving over £1m pa revenue

on waste contract • Over £6m receipts from various sites. • Inward investment of over £8m in Brixton Central Square • Improved town centres and neighbourhoods through localised projects • A regeneration delivery vehicle in place to deliver medium to long term regeneration

benefits in the borough

Equalities impact The team has a particularly robust approach to equalities having invested in capacity building in this respect in 2008/09 to support the numerous EQIAs underway in the team (10 headline EQIAs, 28 individual project EQIAs). The team has adopted an iterative approach to equalities impact assessment to ensure issues are considered at the beginning and during a project’s cycle as well as at the end. The team has its own regular equalities forum to ensure momentum is maintained and share learning and experiences. The equalities process is supported by the communications team to ensure consultation and on-the-ground knowledge supports the conclusions. Financial Implications Fit out and running costs would be funded from the budgets of the respective departments. Capital impact (one-off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Operational and Project Costs 0 1,000 1,000 TOTAL 0 1,000 1,000

45CAP - Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Rachel Sharpe BU Manager: Christine Jacobs Full Description of Proposal This proposal seeks growth in addition to the ring–fenced CLG funding of £510,000. To continue the rolling programme for providing adaptations to enable disabled people to live as comfortably and independently as possible in their homes. The eligible work is wide-ranging, and can be for providing access to the home and basic facilities within it, for example: providing ramps, door widening, stair lifts and level access showers. Applicants for disabled facilities grants are referred by the council’s occupational therapy service or the Primary Care Trust. The grant is subject to an assessment of need and a financial means test. The current maximum limit for the grant is £30,000. In addition to expenditure to be incurred for mandatory DFG the Council will also use its discretionary powers to provide financial assistance for home improvement, adaptations or a moving grant. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities To complete adaptations to ensure that the Council fulfills its duty to ensure that a person with a disability has a home that is adapted to their own needs. Supporting preventative impact on other budgets, such as social care and other support services, including hospital discharge - adaptations often enable a person or household to live at home and giving greater independence and or access to employment. Corporate priorities:

• Better housing and a flourishing economy • Serving our customers well • Developing personalised care services

Outcomes: • Better housing is in place and great neighbourhoods exist - ensuring homes are warm, watertight and safe • Adults and older people have an improved quality of life, choice and control • Our services represent value for money

Equalities impact The proposal does not exclude any specific equality groups. Financial Implications There are currently 113 DFG Occupational Therapist referrals/enquiries with an estimated value of £886,977. 90 of these cases relate to enquiries/applications that have been waiting for over 12 months with 6 cases awaiting grant approval.

The Government and the HCA have removed the separate Social Housing funding for Housing Associations and have redistributed this through the central DFG fund. This has led to increasing numbers of HA tenants, placing extra demand on the DFG budget. Contingency is continual review against Private Sector Housing resources if necessary and establish panels to agree approvals on monthly basis. Also to ensure that HA landlord’s accepts an appropriate financial responsibility for the provision of housing adaptations. If no additional funding is provided for the remainder of 2009/10 this will have knock on effect for subsequent years and even greater need for funds going forward in 2010/11 and 2011/12 and the likelihood of increased costs where works have been delayed. The proposal has ongoing implications for the Service overall revenue cost. Of the total funding, 15% fees are used in to support staff resources for the programme. The local authority also has discretion to impose a limited charge on the property, where the cost of the DFG exceeds £5,000, limited to a maximum charge of £10,000 if the adapted property it is sold within ten years. Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) There are no additional set ups costs required to implement this growth. Capital impact (one-off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k 490 0 0 TOTAL 490* 0 0 * Assumes that the needs assessed CLG funding will be made available in addition to local authority funding

46CAP - Private Sector Renewal Grant Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Rachel Sharpe BU Manager: Christine Jacobs Full Description of Proposal This proposal seeks growth to continue our ongoing private sector renewal programme, providing assistance to vulnerable groups inc. elderly, disabled and persons in receipt of Income Related benefits. Includes essential repairs to the home affecting health and safety of occupants such as:

• main structural work (including roof and windows) • disrepair to a bathrooms and kitchens, • repair water supply/waste pipes/drains • make electrical hazards safe • rising and/or penetrating dampness • insulation work not covered by Coldbusters or Warmfront schemes • home safety security measures • Work which will enable eligible residents either to return home from hospital or to

prevent them from going into hospital

To provide support to landlords for repairs to property for renting to the private sector, assisting landlords in keeping HMO’s to the required statutory. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The overall aim of the strategy is to improve housing conditions in the private sector. The Council has a duty under the Housing Act 2004 to enforce Housing Standards in the borough which includes ensuring that 70% of private homes occupied by vulnerable households are decent. Corporate Priorities: - Better housing and a flourishing economy - Serving our customers well Outcomes: - Better housing is in place and great neighbourhoods exist - ensuring homes are warm, watertight and safe - Our services represent value for money - Services are supported by efficient and effective processes Equalities impact

The proposal does not exclude any specific equality groups.

Financial Implications It is expected that through the introduction of a Property Appreciation Loan scheme the local authority will be able to recycle these funds in the PSR programme when the property is sold. The Council already places a charge against a property for some grants, but currently this only recovered if it is sold within ten years. The proposal has ongoing implications for the Service overall revenue cost. Of the total funding, 15% fees are used in to support staff resources for the programme.

Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) There are no additional set ups costs required to implement this growth. Capital impact (one-off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k 750 0 TBC TOTAL 750 0 TBC

HRA CAPITAL BID

Refurbishment of Rushcroft Road blocks This report seeks to confirm the allocation of capital receipt from the disposal of three blocks in Rushcroft Road, Hereford, Rosslyn and Clifton Houses as agreed in the delegated authority report of September 2007 for the refurbishment of the remaining six blocks. Executive Director: Dorian Leatham Divisional Director: Rachel Sharpe BU Manager: Graeme Russell Full Description of Proposal Not accounted for in the original paper were the eviction and security costs related to this project. A number of these properties are occupied by illegal occupants and there will be additional court cases to gain possession orders against a number of units where the Council does not hold a valid possession order. It is anticipated that the associated legal, eviction and security costs could be in the region of £500,000. • The revenue costs identified will be for the legal, eviction and security costs. • The estimate for the revenue cost is based on the costs for the evictions and security for

Hereford and Rosslyn Houses. • The costs be incurred in FY 2009 to 2012 Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The refurbishment of these six blocks in Rushcroft Road will bring back into use 52 units in general needs letting. Equalities impact The properties coming into general needs letting will contribute to reducing the numbers of disadvantaged families in temporary accommodation. Financial Implications Capital impact (one-off expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Service A 2,500 2,500 0 TOTAL 2,500 2,500 0

Office of the Chief Executive Title of Proposal: Communications staff The proposal is to increase income within the communications budget by the promotion of advertising opportunities in Lambeth Life and the promotion of online print to external users. The fallback option if this is not achievable is to reduce staff levels Chief Executive: Derrick Anderson Divisional Director: Julian Ellerby BU Manager: Full Description of Proposal Lambeth Life income target for this year is £250k. There is an opportunity to increase the revenue by focusing on classified adverts as well. The target above costs is currently set at £50k. It will be monitored to see if it can offset all the 2010-11 savings target. The other income opportunity is around the online print system. This is currently under review as ‘an invest to save’ bid in order to secure future development and to make it commercially marketable. The potential income from making this service available to partners and other councils could offset part of the savings target. If either of these options are not considered viable then the proposal is to reduce staffing numbers from within the communications division in 2010-11 by two FTE. The decision on the staff reduction will be taken in conjunction with relevant officers and senior managers in order to understand the business requirements and to ensure that they continue to be met. The division is made up of 3 teams. The media team includes the press function and the Lambeth Life team. The Publishing team includes the Design team and Web Content team. The Campaigns and Marketing Team covers the marketing and communications staff within departments. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The generation of income will mean that the team does not have more to invest in the promotion of priorities but it will mean that the overall team remains stable and able to deliver to a high level. The impact of staff reductions is going to have a greater impact and will require that projects are prioritised at a corporate and departmental level. In order to understand the consequences of making changes there is a brief summary of the impact set out below. The management of reputation is important for the communications division. This includes proactive and reactive management of reputation. The role of the press team, Lambeth Life and the web team are all important for reputation management therefore reductions in this area need to be monitored closely. Supporting service delivery and efficiencies is another important element of the communications division. Lambeth Life allows us to promote services, advertise cheaper than the local media and host issues that would statutorily need promoting still if Lambeth Life did not exist. The advertising income this year is expected to exceed £250k. The web team provide the opportunity to promote services and importantly transactions through the web. Investment in the web is the way to deliver further savings. Making cuts to some of these functions will have an impact on performance and if we reduce our ability to promote

services then we will impact on the success of the services. The management of corporate priorities and departmental priorities means that we seek to have a balance of central and departmental capacity. The impact of altering one element of this will affect the team’s ability to support one aspect. Equalities impact The additional income will be generated primarily through advertising. The ability to use this as a means of engaging different communities has not been explored as yet. The consequences of taking advertising from the Portuguese community will have a positive impact on the relationship that we have with this community because it create a sense of mutual endorsement.

If the staff are reduced then the ability to communicate with specific communities or respond to the varying requirements of our audiences may be weakened. Dependent on the reductions made there may be particular elements of the division that are weakened.

The mitigating factors will be the judgement about where the posts will be deleted, what work will be picked up elsewhere and being clear about the business objectives of the division.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k SERVICE A (62) 0 0 TOTAL (62) 0 0

Title of Proposal: Human Resources Division Budget Savings 2010-11 This document identifies the savings proposals from the Human Resources Revenue budget for 2010-2011. Chief Executive: Derrick Anderson Divisional Director: Nana Amoa-Buahin BU Manager: Emily Brown, Steve Sherman, Kyron Peters-Bean, Shida Ashrafi Full Description of Proposal Following the devolution of operational HR services to departments, the HR Division is realigning its structure to meet organisational needs. The following savings proposals have therefore been compiled in the spirit of the ‘can do’ attitude and the impact of these savings is described below. This proposal must also be considered alongside the unrecoverable savings proposal in respect of the HR service. Proposals:

• The deletion of two posts equating to a full year saving of £100,578. This includes on costs, inflation @ 1.0% and redundancy costs have been subtracted.

• The deletion of a further post equating to a full year saving of £53,613. The savings including on costs and inflation @ 1%.

Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities These proposals will impact on the council’s ability to deliver against all its corporate priorities. The range of projects which it is proposed to discontinue cut across all service areas and have significant impact in relation to all 6 of our strategic priorities. The explicit impact is described below: A safer Lambeth with strong communities Key HR enablement through the development and implementation of the Employer of Choice programme to reduce worklessness in the borough through facilitating apprenticeship schemes and placement opportunities for Lambeth residents. The risk of losing a post in Emergency Planning and Business Continuity is a reduced ability to respond to civil emergencies. Our partnership working would be slower and would become more reactive rather than proactive. Business continuity for the borough and the community would similarly suffer. More opportunities for children and young people HR is supporting the delivery of this priority through various schemes with young people including the establishment of work placements, graduate trainees, interns and apprenticeships. The aim is to provide opportunities, as the biggest employer in the borough, to local young people through these schemes and promote careers in our hard to fill areas such as social care, planning and benefits services. Our ability to drive these initiatives and support business unit managers across the council will be adversely impacted. Serving our customers well This is the priority where HR has the biggest impact through the implementation of a range of key projects to enable better people management performance which will in turn provide better services for our customers. The projects that support the organisations key people management priorities are: • Implementing a programme of cultural change • Improving middle manager capability and capacity • Improving customer service • Improving absence management • Leadership Network and other forums

The change in focus from the current L&D team model, which is a mixed economy approach of in house delivery and some external provision, to a commissioning model leaves a small core team to deliver; the learning plans for the council, evaluation and reporting, induction, Future Jobs Fund induction and mentoring, the council’s mentoring programme, PQS and the management of room bookings and recharges. This means that the council has less flexibility to adapt its L&D provision to meet emerging needs and less capacity to support IiP and co-ordinate cross council L&D initiatives. This means that performance reporting, members enquiries, freedom of information requests and project management will need to be absorbed by the HR Division thus reducing the time that they have to spend on their assigned objectives. The Leadership Network has already been moved out of expensive venues and into the assembly hall with minimal catering and materials. The cost of running this event will need to be recharged to the departments, following the shift in the L&D team model as there will no longer be sufficient budget or HR staff resource to deliver these events. These proposals will impact particularly on our ability to deliver the corporate priority ‘serving our customers well’. The most significant impact will be felt on the following outcomes and indicators: Strategic Outcomes:

• Our services represent value for money • Services are supported by effective and efficient processes • The council has skilled and well-led staff who understand their community • Customer satisfaction improving

Corporate KPIs directly impacted on these proposals include: • People management performance indicators around the themes of Workforce

Planning (24 indicators), Employee Relations (11 indicators) and Workforce Development (7 indicators)

• Specifically Key Corporate Plan Indictors impacted: o No. of days lost due to sickness absence o NI 146: Adults with learning disabilities in employment o NI 151: Increase the overall employment rate o BVPI 11a Top 5% earners: women o BVPI 11b Top 5% earners: ethnic minorities o BVPI 11c Top 5% earners: people with a disability o BVPI 16a, 17a Percentage of employees with a disability/from an ethnic

minority Local Performance Indicators: HR Service Standards Equalities impact Considering the current HR staffing profile, the majority of staff affected may be female and from BME backgrounds. There will be full staff consultation process to manage this and an EIA conducted. The shift in the L&D focus from a mixed economy of delivery in house with support from external providers to a commissioning model will have to be carefully monitored. This will ensure that it does not impact adversely on the development of middle managers in respect of BVPI indicators 11a b and c.


E1. Financial Implications (Revenue) Business Unit Code

Business Unit Name

Baseline Revenue Budget

Revenue implications General Fund

Growth Y1 Growth Y2 Growth Y3 0 0 0 Savings Y1 Savings Y2 Savings Y3 125 HR 3,309,187

2010-11 inflation to be added

(154,191) TBC TBC

Total Net Revenue Growth / Saving E2. Financial Implications (Capital) Business Unit Code

Business Unit Name

Current Capital Allocation

Capital Budget Required

Capital Cost Y1 Capital Cost Y2

Capital Cost Y3

0 0 0 E3. People Implications Business Unit Code

Business Unit Name

Current FTE

FTE Y1

FTE Y2

FTE Y3

BU Manager Comments

125 HR Teams 18.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 Total Net FTE Implications

Title of Proposal: Programme Management Office savings Executive Director: Derrick Anderson Divisional Director: Sophia Looney BU Manager: Sophie Ellis Full Description of Proposal It is proposed to reduce the Programme Management Office revenue budget by £87k from by reducing spend areas such as:

§ Reduction in administrative support by reducing capacity § By removing all honorariums in place § Restricting access to external training and development, including

conferences to an exception basis § Office Equipment and stationary purchase to be restricted § Catering not to be provided except for external visitors; and then only by

exception and approved by the head of service § IT equipment purchases to be minimised § Subscriptions, including the London Connects subscription

Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities While these changes will not impact on the delivery of corporate priorities directly, there is the possibility that they will reduce the impact of the newly created PMO function. The removal of the London Connects subscription forms approximately 25% of the proposal. Its impact will reach beyond the council and will impact on the ability the council has to connect with other authorities that are working to find and deliver savings drawn from technology. However, the risk is minimised as it is possible that these connections can be made directly via other parts of the London Council’s subscription which offer greater value for money, including the Capital Ambition programme and London Collaborative which is engaged in innovative thinking and developments across the borough. There are potential interdependancies with potential corporate initiatives in relation to the terms and conditions with the removal of honorarium budget. Equalities impact The first stage EIA is yet to be completed; however, given the nature of the reduction, there will be full EIA process completed in order to assess the equalities impact particularly where we are reducing capacity.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Programme Management Office CC1035 (87) 0 0 TOTAL (87) 0 0

Title of Proposal: PEP equalities savings The proposal is to make savings against the PEP budget by reducing spending levels in equalities and in performance Chief Executive: Derrick Anderson Divisional Director: Sophia Looney BU Manager: TBC Full Description of Proposal The proposal is to reduce spending in relation to the corporate equalities initiatives budget, reducing the level of expenditure which has been historically provided to a range of initiatives and activities and the corporate performance assessment budget, which has been used to support preparation for and the implementation of external performance frameworks. Expected Impact on Performance and Corporate Priorities The reduction will reduce our ability to support further development of equalities forums externally and will reduce our flexibility to support external organisations. We have recently provided support for a diverse range of initiatives, both internally in the council and externally for a range of activities and events. While we will endeavour to continue these to a lower level, we will reduce the spend on internal initiatives, including reducing the expenditure on staff forums and any learning and development initiatives. This will impact on our ability to achieve “excellence” in the new equalities standard for local government in line with our target date, which in turn may impact on our ability to maintain positive outcomes in relation to the Comprehensive Area Assessment. The reduction in the corporate assessment budget will impact directly on our ability to manage and deliver specific external inspection and regulation frameworks to the degree we currently support them, by reducing our capacity to produce materials, undertake and deliver “tours” or equivalent for appropriate stakeholders and reducing our ability to commission external support such as that used for the CA inspection in 2008 from SOLACE. This will have a impact on our ability to manage the outcome of the external regulation and will inevitably put increased pressure on other parts of the divisional budget; however, without detailed understanding of how the national performance framework will operate and change beyond the end of 2009 and the inevitability of change following a general election in 2010, it is not clear precisely what the impact on performance will be. Equalities impact The ability to support specific communities or respond to the varying requirements of our staff may be weakened, and at this stage the equalities impact assessment has not been undertaken. However, where adverse impact is anticipated, we will put into place a series of mitigating factors. These will be to focus and target support, identify what areas work will be picked up elsewhere by way of alternative, non-cash support and being clear about the business objectives of the division. Where possible, the focus will be on rationalising the internal support and development, rather than reducing the external support, however, this is to be undertaken in light of a complete review of the potential impact and the ability of the council to manage the

interdependencies with other departments, most notably the active communities team within ACS.

Financial Implications Revenue impact (budget baseline – annual expenditure) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 £k £k £k Equalities (40) 0 0 Performance (27) 0 0 TOTAL (67) 0 0