London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
Agenda
MONDAY 3 DECEMBER 2007 7:00 P.M. COURTYARD ROOM HAMMERSMITH TOWN HALL KING STREET W6 9JU Membership Leader Councillor Stephen Greenhalgh Deputy Leader (+ Environment) Councillor Nicholas Botterill Cabinet Member for Crime & Anti-Social Behaviour Councillor Greg Smith Cabinet Member for Residents Services Councillor Paul Bristow Cabinet Member for Community & Childrens Services Councillor Antony Lillis Cabinet Member for Housing Councillor Mrs Adronie Alford Cabinet Member for Strategy Councillor Mark Loveday Cabinet Member for Culture & Heritage Councillor Frances Stainton If you require further information relating to this agenda please contact: David Viles, Room 203 Hammersmith Town Hall, King Street, Hammersmith W6 9JU. Tel: 020 8753 2063 or email: david.viles@lbhf.gov.uk DEPUTATIONS Members of the public may submit a written request for a deputation to the Cabinet on non-exempt item numbers 4 11 on this agenda. The request, to be sent to Kayode Adewumi at the above address, must be signed by at least ten registered electors of the Borough and will be subject to the Councils procedures on the receipt of deputations. Deadline for receipt of deputation requests: Monday 26 November 2007. COUNCILLORS CALL-IN TO SCRUTINY COMMITTEES A decision list regarding items on this agenda will be published by Wednesday 5 December 2007. Items on the agenda may be called in to the relevant Scrutiny Committee. The deadline for receipt of call-in requests is: Monday 10 December 2007 at 3.00pm. Items not called in will then be deemed approved, and a confirmed decision list will be published on Wednesday 12 December 2007. Members of the Public are welcome to attend. A loop system for hearing impairment is provided, together with disabled access to the building.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
Agenda
3 DECEMBER 2007 Item 1. MINUTES OF THE CABINET MEETING HELD ON 5 NOVEMBER 2007 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE DECLARATION OF INTERESTS If a Councillor has any prejudicial or personal interest in a particular report he/she should declare an interest. A Councillor should not take part in the discussion or vote on a matter in which he/she has a prejudicial interest. The Councillor should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration unless the disability to participate has been removed by the Standards Committee or unless a relevant exemption applies under the Councils Code of Conduct. 4. THE GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND 2007/08 REVENUE BUDGET MONTH 5 AMENDMENTS MARKET TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AWARD REPORT GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CLIENT SIDE STRUCTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND STREET CLEANSING CLIENT SIDE STRUCTURE SUPPORTING PEOPLE AWARD OF CONTRACTS - SINGLE HOMELESS FLOATING SUPPORT AND TEENAGE PARENT SERVICE BLOEMFONTEIN ROAD/ SOUTH AFRICA ROAD LOCAL SAFETY SCHEME PROBATIONARY TENANCY SCHEME 79 Pages 16

2. 3. 3.1

3.2

5.

10 19

6. 7.

20 29 30 41

8.

42 52

9.

53 59

10.

60 68

11.

AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL HOME BUY SCHEME AND PROPOSAL FOR A RENT FREE PERIOD FOR COUNCIL TENANTS TAKING UP HOUSING ASSOCIATION SHARED OWNERSHIP FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS SUMMARY OF OPEN DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE LEADER AND CABINET MEMBERS EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS The Cabinet is invited to resolve, under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, that the public and press be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items of business, on the grounds that they contain the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the said Act, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption currently outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

69 85

12. 13.

86 92 93 94

14.

15.

EXEMPT MINUTES OF THE CABINET MEETING HELD ON 5 NOVEMBER 2007 MARKET TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AWARD REPORT (E) PHOENIX HIGH SCHOOL REFURBISHMENT OF THE REDWAY BUILDING (E) REGENERATION OF 248 HAMMERSMITH GROVE (E) SUMMARY OF EXEMPT DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE LEADER AND CABINET MEMBERS

95

16.

96 100

17.

101 106

18. 19.

107 115 116 117

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
Minutes
5 NOVEMBER 2007 PRESENT: Councillor Stephen Greenhalgh Councillor Nicholas Botterill Councillor Mrs Adronie Alford Councillor Paul Bristow Councillor Antony Lillis Councillor Mark Loveday Councillor Greg Smith Councillor Frances Stainton IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Colin Aherne Councillor Michael Cartwright

(Leader) (Deputy Leader + Environment) (Cabinet Member for Housing) (Cabinet Member for Residents Services). (Cabinet Member for Community & Childrens Services) (Cabinet Member for Strategy) (Cabinet Member for Crime & Anti-Social Behaviour) (Cabinet Member for Culture & Heritage)

1. 1.1

MINUTES OF THE CABINET MEETING HELD ON 8 OCTOBER 2007 RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 8 October 2007 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

2. 2.1

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence.

3. 3.1

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Councillor Cartwright declared a personal interest as a Trustee of the St Pauls Chirch Hall Trust in relation to item 16 on the agenda. Councillor Lillis declared a personal interest as the Chairman of the River House Trust in item 16 on the agenda.

4.

THE GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND 2007/08 REVENUE BUDGET MONTH 4 AMENDMENTS RESOLVED: To approve the changes to the capital programme as set out in Appendix 1 to the report. Reason for decision: As outlined in the report. Alternative options considered and rejected: None. Record of any conflict of interest: None. Note of dispensation in respect of any declared conflict of interest: None.

4.1.

5. 5.1

IT STRATEGY 2007 RESOLVED: To approve the IT strategy report 2007. Reason for decision: As outlined in the report. Alternative options considered and rejected: As outlined in the report. Record of any conflict of interest: None. Note of dispensation in respect of any declared conflict of interest: None.

6.

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS (SPDs) FOR (1) STORAGE OF REFUSE AND RECYCLABLES AND (2) SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION AND RECYCLING OF BUILDING MATERIALS RESOLVED: 1. To approve the proposed responses and revisions, where necessary, to the SPDs on the storage of refuse and recyclables and the sustainable

6.1

construction and recycling of building materials as set out in the schedules in Appendix 1 to the report. 2. To approve the revised SPDs on the storage of refuse and recyclables and the sustainable construction and recycling of building materials included in Appendix 2 to the report, and their adoption as local development documents to be included in the Councils local development framework. To authorise the Director of the Environment to make any minor amendments or technical clarifications to the responses, and to the SPDs before their publication.

3.

Reason for decision: As outlined in the report. Alternative options considered and rejected: None. Record of any conflict of interest: None. Note of dispensation in respect of any declared conflict of interest: None.

7.

CLEAN NEIGHBOURHOODS AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 2005: CONTROLLING THE DISTRIBUTION OF FREE LITERATURE DESIGNATION OF LAND RESOLVED: 1. That Members are satisfied that the land (specified or shown dged red on the plans attached to the report) is being defaced by the discarding of free printed matter which has been distributed there. That an Order be made designating the land outlined in 1 above in accordance with Schedule 3A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 preventing the distribution of any printed matter without the consent of the local authority. That officers be given authority and powers to take all necessary appropriate action to implement and enforce the Order. That the Head of Public Protection & Safety be given the authority to appoint any appropriate officer to issue Fixed Penalty Notices where it appears to that officer that a person has committed an offence under Schedule 3A of the Act. That the Environmental Co-ordinator be authorised to review and recommend applications for consent and that the Head of Public Protection & Safety be given the delegated authority to approve consents.

7.1

2.

3.

4.

5.

Reason for decision: As outlined in the report. Alternative options considered and rejected: None. Record of any conflict of interest: None. Note of dispensation in respect of any declared conflict of interest: None.

8. 8.1

JOINT AREA REVIEW OF CHILDRENS SERVICES AND ACTION PLAN RESOLVED: To note the findings and to approve the recommended action plans. Reason for decision: As outlined in the report. Alternative options considered and rejected: None. Record of any conflict of interest: None. Note of dispensation in respect of any declared conflict of interest: None.

9.

AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL HOMEBUY SCHEME AND PROPOSAL FOR A RENT FREE PERIOD FOR COUNCIL TENANTS TAKING UP HOUSING ASSOCIATION SHARED OWNERSHIP With permission of the Leader, Councillors Aherne and Cartwright addressed the meeting. They endorsed the proposal to reduce the service charge liability of social homebuy leaseholders in proportion to share owned, but questioned the effect on the schemes viability of the as yet unquantified Decent Homes costs. Concern was expressed about what would happen after the rent free/reduced rent periods were over if leaseholders found they could not afford the fulll financial implications of social homebuy. Councillor Alford pointed out that the ALMO would be obliged to provide a breakdown of the elements of the service charge, including those attributable to Decent Homes. Leaseholders would be given very full financial projections of the costs before committing themsleves to social homebuy and the Council would have to be satisfied about the affordability of the scheme for each participating leaseholder.

The leader concluded that there was still some additional information required to satisfy the concerns expressed, and moved the deferring of the report. 9.1 RESOLVED: That a decision be deferred pending further information, to be submitted to the Cabinet at its meeting on 3 December 2007, regarding: a) why rent free and partial rent free periods of three and two years respectively are recommended; the position of social homebuy leaseholders whose circumstances change to the extent that they experience difficulties when the rent free periods end; how equity release would operate in cases where the total of rental and mortgage payments by a social homebuy easeholder become unaffordable; what can be done to clarify the implications of Decent Homes costs on the service charges which would be levied on social homebuy leaseholders; the likely range of service charge costs around the average of 600 referred to in para. 3.5 of the report.

b)

c)

d)

e)

Reason for decision: As outlined in the report and in discussion at the meeting. Alternative options considered and rejected: None. Record of any conflict of interest: None. Note of dispensation in respect of any declared conflict of interest: None.

10. 10.1.

FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS Noted.

11.

SUMMARY OF OPEN DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE LEADER & CABINET MEMBERS

11.1. Noted.

12. 12.1

SUMMARY OF OPEN URGENT DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE LEADER Noted.

13. 15.1

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS RESOLVED: That under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the remaining items of business on the grounds that they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of a person (including the authority) as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption currently outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

[The following is a public summary of the exempt information under S.100C (2) of the Local Government Act 1972. Exempt minutes exist as a separate document.]

14. 14.1.

EXEMPT MINUTES OF THE CABINET MEETING HELD ON 8 OCTOBER 2007 Agreed. In response to Councillor Ahernes question as to why the Civic Catering Function Review report had been listed as an exempt item at the 8 October meeting, the Head of Councillor Services apologised for the error which had occurred in classifying this report.

15.

SUMMARY OF EXEMPT DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE LEADER & CABINET MEMBERS Noted.

15.1

16.

SUMMARY OF EXEMPT DECISION TAKEN BY THE LEADER

16.1. Noted

Meeting started: 7.00 pm Meeting ended: 7.35 pm

Chairman ..

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
3 DECEMBER 2007 LEADER Councillor Stephen Grenhalgh THE GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND REVENUE BUDGET 2007/08 MONTH 5 AMENDMENTS The purpose of this report is to seek approval for changes to the Capital Programme and the Revenue Budget.

4
Wards All

CONTRIBUTORS All Departments HAS A PEIA BEEN COMPLETED? YES

Recommendation: To approve the changes to the Capital Programme as set out in Appendix 1.

1. 1.1

SUMMARY This report sets out the amendments to both the 2007/08 Capital Programme and Revenue Budget as at month 5. GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME The following table summarises the proposed amendments to the 2007/08 capital programme. 000 Mainstream 000 Scheme Specific 27,540 (1) (483) (7) 27,049 000 Overall 40,996 (1,481) (483) (7) 39,025

2. 2.1

Current Budget (month 4) Additions/(Reductions) Slippage to future years Other adjustments Updated Budget (Month 5) 2.2

13,456 (1,480)

11,976

The proposed changes are listed in Appendix 1 and the Cabinet is requested to approve such amendments. The net reduction of 1.480m in the mainstream capital programme relates to the reduction of 2m in respect of the revised budget for the potential capitalisation of equal pay back pay that is no longer required. In month 4 a forecast underspend of 0.566m was reported. This is offset by the addition of 0.520m for the development of a community resources centre at Imperial Wharf, as approved by Cabinet on 14 May 2007. The slippage of 0.483m on specific funded schemes relates to section 106 and NDC funded schemes within Environment Services. These are detailed in appendix 1. REVENUE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS. Cabinet is required to approve all budget virements that exceed 100,000. At month 5, there are no virement requests. Virements below 50,000 are subject to approval by the Director of Finance whilst virements from 50,000 to 100,000 require a Cabinet Member decision. There are no virements in month 5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

2.3

2.4

3 3.1

3.2

No. 1. 2.

Brief Description of Background Papers Revenue Monitoring Documents Capital Monitoring Documents

Name/Ext. of holder of file/copy James Arthur Ext. 2531 Isaac Egberedu Ext. 2503 8

Department Corporate Finance 2nd floor , HTH Extension Corporate Finance 2nd floor , HTH Extension

APPENDIX 1 1. MAINSTREAM

'000

Additions Community Resources Centre Reduction Capitalisation of equal pay

520 (2,000) (1,480)

2. SCHEME SPECIFIC Additions Grant Allocations

Transport For London Safer Routes to Schools Bridge Strengthening Revenue Contributions Footways (RCCO) Fulham Palace Phase 1 Stage 3 (RCCO)
Total Additions

28 50 78 1 2 3 81

Deductions

Revenue Contributions Carriageways Efficiency Reserve Account

Hammersmith Library Single Desking Penalty Charge Notice E- payment upgrade

(2) (2) (8) (70) (2) (80) (82) (1)

Total Deductions Net Deduction

Slippage

S106 Normand Park Development NDC Normand Park Development Total Slippage

(377) (106) (483)

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
3 DECEMBER 2007 LEADER Councillor Stephen Greenhalgh DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT) Councillor Nicholas Botterill MARKET TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AWARD REPORT This report seeks approval to award a contract for grounds maintenance to Quadron Services Ltd, to commence on 3rd March 2008 for a period of 7 years with an option to extend for a further 7 years. It also recommends officers arrange mobilisation meetings with Quadron to ensure a smooth transition. This report also has annexes which are currently exempt from disclosure on the grounds that they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person (including the authority holding that information) under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Recommendations: (1) To approve the award of a contract on behalf of the Council and the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust for grounds maintenance to Quadron Services Ltd to commence on 3rd March 2008 for a period of seven years with an option to extend for a further seven years. ((2) That officers arrange contract mobilisation meetings with Quadron Services Ltd to ensure a smooth implementation and compliance with workforce arrangements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). Wards All

HAS A PEIA BEEN COMPLETED? Yes

CONTRIBUTORS DRS DE DF (P&P) HLS

10

1 1.1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The market testing of grounds maintenance services has reached the point where the Council is now able to award the contract following a detailed and comprehensive tender evaluation. This report recommends that the contract is awarded to Quadron Services Ltd who submitted the most economically advantageous tender in terms of the approved price/quality evaluation model. It also recommends that officers meet with Quadron to agree contract mobilisation. The bid is compliant with the TUPE regulations and pension requirements. Quadron have agreed to seek admitted body status to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). The recommendation is that the contract will commence on 3rd March 2008 and will be for a period of seven years with an option to extend for another seven years, subject to satisfactory performance and agreement by Members. The contract is designed to enhance value for money and improve service quality. BACKGROUND In March 2007, Members approved the Market Testing Programme which included its Waste Collection, Recycling and Street Cleansing Services and Grounds Maintenance services. All of these services are currently provided by the Councils Direct Services Organisation (DSO). Members agreed that these services should be market tested via two separate contracts with an in house bid. The first for Waste Collection, Recycling and Street Cleansing, and the second for Grounds Maintenance of parks and open spaces, including the maintenance of Wormwood Scrubs, separately managed through a Charitable Trust. The Councils housing estates managed by H&F Homes were also included as part of the Grounds Maintenance tender. Both these contracts were for a minimum period of 7 years. The ALMO Board have reserved the right to terminate this arrangement before year 7, if they feel it is in tenants best interests to do so. It was agreed that both contracts should be for 7 years with a fundamental review after 5 years to help Members determine whether to extend for a further 7 years. Tenderers were invited to submit possible price reductions for a straight 14 year contract and a reduction for managing both contracts where organisations were submitting tenders for both contracts Members approved consultancy support for both the client side and in house DSO for both contracts. White Young Green Environmental (WYG) supported the Council in preparing the specification, offering technical advice and guidance and evaluating the tenders. Indecon Ltd assisted the DSO in preparing its in house bid.

1.2

1.3

1.4 2 2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

11

3 3.1

EVALUATION OF TENDERS In April 2007, contract notices for both contracts were published inviting expressions of interest. Following this, in June 2007, Members approved a short list of organisations for each contract that would be invited to tender. Members also approved a detailed Evaluation Tender Model which is attached as Appendix 1. This required tenders to be evaluated through a staged approach with those having passed through the earlier stages being evaluated on the basis of a 60/40 Price/Quality Model. For the Grounds Maintenance Contract, 12 organisations were invited to tender including the in house DSO. During the tender period, two organisations advised they would not be submitting tenders. In addition, one organisation did not submit a tender on the basis that they have a policy of not tendering for contracts that include references to the Code on Workforce Matters. The nine remaining organisations all submitted tenders by the closing date (4th October). The nine organisations were evaluated in accordance with the agreed Tender Evaluation Model and six eliminated by stage 3. All eliminations were approved by the Joint Tender Appraisal Panel following detailed discussion. The remaining three organisations were invited to attend presentations to the Grounds Maintenance Tender Evaluation Panel which was chaired by the Director of Resident Services and included representatives from the Client side, H&F Homes and Finance. These were designed to gain a greater understanding of tenderers proposals and enable panellists to ask questions and seek clarifications on both technical and general aspects of the submissions. The Panel also considered report backs from site visits, written references, relevant BVPI performance data achieved by the organisations concerned and technical guidance provided from White Young Green (WYG) consultants. Each of the organisations were then scored on quality against the criteria in the evaluation model. Scores against price and quality were then fed into the evaluation model. Quadron Services Ltd scored higher than the other tenderers with regard to the price/quality score. This indicated that Quadron Services Ltd offered the most economically advantageous tender and was selected unanimously by the Tender Evaluation Panel. The Tender Evaluation Panel did consider whether a potential joint contract award (Waste and Grounds Maintenance) would offer the Council over-riding benefits because of potential discounts on offer, but decided that Quadron (which had not tendered for the waste contract) offered a far superior offering to the Council. This was subsequently discussed and agreed by the Joint Tender Appraisal Panel. KEY BENEFITS OF THE QUADRON TENDER Quadron scored highest across all the quality criteria identified. They are specialist Grounds Maintenance providers with inner London delivery experience. They have a proven track record in delivering improvements to Parks and Open spaces and Housing areas. They have achieved Green Flag status in a number of London and

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

4 4.1

12

South East Parks and have produced site specific management plans to deliver these improvements. 4.2 Quadron have an excellent record in resident engagement and have provided examples of pro-active working with the Client and other key partner agencies to deliver sustainable solutions to reduce the boroughs carbon footprint. They are experienced in managing TUPE transfers and have a clear understanding of what is expected of them for the successful implementation and delivery of this challenging contract. They have a well balanced and proven performance management system, that contains a self monitoring model based on a balanced scorecard approach. Their method statements are of excellent quality and will ensure the delivery of the stepped change required to bring our flagship parks to green flag standards, and general improvements to the rest of our parks, open spaces, and housing sites. Officers consider that accepting the Quadron bid is also in the best interests of the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust for the same reasons. The submissions by the other Tenderers did not convince the Tender Evaluation Panel that they could bring about the necessary step change as effectively as Quadron and their track record, performance and management arrangements were not as good.

4.3

4.4

4.5

5 5.1

COMMENTS HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES Legal Services has advised throughout the process and the Head of Legal Services is satisfied that the process has complied with Contract Standing Orders and the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. In terms of the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust, the Council is under a duty to act in the best interestd of the Trust and in pursuance of its charitable purpose which is the exercise and recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis. Cabinet exercises the Council's powers as trustee. As explained in the body of the report, officers are of the view that the award of the grounds maintenance contract to Quadron is in the best interests of both the Council and the Trust. COMMENTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE The financial assessment of the contract award is dealt with in the corresponding exempt report on this agenda. The award of the contract is affordable within the current grounds maintenance budgets for the Councils General Fund and Wormwood Scrubs. It will contribute 141,522 towards the achievement of the Councils Medium Term Financial Strategy target of 200,000 for savings in grounds maintenance costs. Other contributions are expected to this savings target, eg by refining the client side arrangements for the new contract and through the use of alternative funding sources such as capital and Section 106 payments. Further proposals to deliver these savings will be reported to Members as part of the Council Tax Setting report in February 2008. 13

5.2

6 6.1

6.2

6.3

The contract will require an increase of 39,761 in the grounds maintenance budget for H&F Homes but this can be accommodated in the Housing Revenue Account Medium Term Financial Strategy. COMMENTS OF PROCUREMENT THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PERFORMANCE AND

7 7.1

The Performance and Procurement Unit has been fully involved in the tender process, and the Assistant Director (Performance & Procurement) agrees with the reports recommendations. The EU and UK Procurement Regulations requires that unsuccessful tenderers are notified of the Councils intention to award the contract and are given an opportunity to challenge the decision, this is known as the Alcatel Ruling. This provides for a standstill period of 10 days before the Council can award the contract and places requirements on the Council to provide detailed feedback to Tenderers. Following award, a contract award notice will need to be placed in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) within 48 days. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS No. 1. Description of Background Papers All background papers, including: Contract advert; Contract specifications; Tender evaluation models; Contract brief and contract award report for White, Young Green; Reports to Cleaner, Greener Scrutiny Committee; Letter and tendering instructions to short-listed organisations. Tender submissions Written Clarifications Report on evaluation of tenders by WYG Notes of TAP meetings Name/Ext. of Holder of File/Copy Nicholas Austin Interim - Head of Public Protection and Safety 020 8753 3904 Department/ Location Environment Services 5th Floor, Hammersmith Town Hall Extension, King Street,W6 9JU

14

Appendix 1 TENDER EVALUATION MODEL Introduction The Council is committed to providing high quality, value for money services and will evaluate each Tender according to seven successive stages, as set out below. The Council will award the contract fairly on the basis of quality and cost. The Tender Appraisal Panel (TAP) will evaluate the quality of tenders using a weighted model. Quality will account for 40% of the overall evaluation process and price 60%. The Councils approach to evaluation will be equitable, auditable, robust and transparent, and will allow contractors to tender on the basis of quality at an affordable price. It allows the TAP to recommend the selection of a tender that meets the key quality requirements and therefore represents best value for money, i.e. the economically most advantageous tender. Provision of Additional Information If at any time during its examination of a Tender the TAP forms the view that any matter requires clarification, it may require the same from the Tenderer concerned. The provision of further information to clarify matters may be by interview with later confirmation in writing Stages There will be a seven-stage evaluation of returned Tenders:Stage 1 - Checking for Validity & Completeness Validity: A valid Tender shall be received in accordance with the Instructions to Tenderers. Validity will involve checking against the various criteria set down in the Instructions to Tenderers and in the Councils Standing Orders and Financial Regulations. Tenders that do not satisfy this requirement will be eliminated and not considered further. Completeness: A complete Tender shall include all documents etc required in accordance with the Instructions to Tenderers. Completeness will be established by checking against the checklist of all the financial and non financial submissions required in the documentation. Tenders that do not satisfy this requirement will be eliminated and not considered further except, at the Councils sole discretion, in the case of minor omissions that can be rectified in accordance with any reasonable request of the Council. Stage 2 - Checking for Compliance in relation to HR matters, including TUPE and pension provision The Council will require written evidence of protocols and procedures/processes that will be followed, to comply with all TUPE and pensions issues including the Code of 15

Practice on Workforce Matters, the Pensions Act and including consultation requirements. Each Tenderer will be required to specify explicitly in its Tender that its Tender submission is compliant with all relevant Legislation that may affect staff by reference to any transfer under TUPE and related Legislation. With regard to pension provision, Tenderers will be expected to provide written confirmation that they will be taking up the offer of admitted pension status and if not, give full details of comparable schemes, which will be submitted to an actuary to confirm if the scheme is comparable. Non compliance with Stage 2 in any way may render Tenders non compliant and thus the Council may decide to reject the Tender. This includes a pension scheme which is deemed by the actuary to be insufficient and thus non comparable. This clause shall be absolutely determined by the Council in its discretion. Stage 3 - Consideration of Financial and Non-financial Submissions At this stage headline assessments will be made of each Tender which satisfies the requirements of Stages 1 and 2. Tenders which, after clarification with the Tenderer, are deemed to be abnormally low will be rejected. Tenders which clearly do not offer the expected quality bid; or are too expensive; or are believed not to be sustainable throughout the term of the Contract; will be rejected. The TAP will consider when evaluating Tenders whether in its opinion: Each Tenderer has allowed what the Council considers to be sufficient resources within its tendered rates and prices to perform the Contract to the standard required. The tendered rates and prices submitted by each Tenderer are sufficient to support the levels of service, manpower etc proposed by the Tenderer in the information submitted with its Tender. The TAP will also undertake a check on the financial standing of the Tenderers and Tenders may be rejected on this basis. Stage 4 - Detailed Consideration of Tenders Tenders reaching this stage will be ranked in order of merit taking account, amongst other criteria, quality, cost and innovation. Tenderers reaching this stage may be invited to attend an interview at which they will be required to make a presentation. A list of further details required in relation to Tenders will be produced to be taken up at interview/presentation or as part of a reference process. The taking up of references may be by taking up by written references and / or by visits to reference sites. The TAP reserves the right to select referees / reference sites for this purpose.

16

Stage 5 - Consideration of the Tender which offers the Council the overall most economical advantageous Tender taking into account Best Value principles in line with the evaluation method as herein described. Consideration will be given to each individual Tender reaching this stage. Further interviews may be needed to conclude this stage together with possible site visits at the TAPs discretion. Following this stage, all Tenders reaching this stage will be awarded points in relation to Price and Quality; and in relation to the interview / presentation. In terms of Price, each Tender will be awarded points based on its relationship with the lowest Tender. The Tender with the lowest annual equivalent sum (AES) will be awarded 60 Points; each of the remaining Tenders will be awarded points on a pro rata basis in accordance with the following calculation (rounded to two decimal places):Lowest AES / AES x 60 For example, based upon a notional figure of 1.00 million:Tender A B C D AES M 1.00 1.05 1.07 1.10 Points Awarded 60.00 57.14 56.07 54.55

Please note that the figures are merely examples and are in no way an indication of the contract value. In terms of Quality, a maximum of 40 points can be awarded at the initial evaluation stage. In order to assist in evaluating the relative merit of various Tenders with regard to quality, a weighting model will be used to compare the various criteria by means of a points system. The key criteria on which the quality of the Tender will be assessed in respect of ability to provide the services required, including the weighting to be applied to reflect importance, are as follows: Demonstration of understanding of the Councils objectives, needs and priorities and understanding the Contract as a means to deliver these 0.8 Demonstration of relevant experience and successful performance for similar contracts, including provisions of references, track record, site visits (sites to be selected by the Council) - 0.7 Resource management proposals, including consideration of detailed operational plans for the deployment of labour, terms and conditions, training, line supervision, vehicles and machinery including health & safety arrangements 1.0 Management arrangements, including understanding Best Value, continuous improvement and the ability to introduce technical innovation including Management training, supervision, IT and communication systems, added value, flexibility and vision statements 0.8 17

 Putting Residents First and customer care / customer satisfaction, including working with the community, responding to local circumstances, image and branding - 0.7 The TAP will assess the Tenderers responses to the above to determine the degree to which the quality criteria have been met and award a score out of 10 as defined below:
Excellent - Meets all criteria in a very full and comprehensive manner and exceeds some requirements: Score 9 - 10 points. Good - Generally satisfactory and meets the requirements of the criteria to the satisfaction of the TAP: Score 7 - 8 points. Adequate - Satisfactory but with aspects which cause the TAP concern because either the response is incomplete, or differs from the professional / technical judgement of the TAP on the requirements necessary to meet the criteria: Score 4 - 6 points. Inadequate - Indications that the response meets some of the requirements but either the TAP has serious doubts about aspects of the response, or inadequate information has been provided: Score 1 - 3 points. Unacceptable - Little or none of the response is satisfactory, or little or no information has been provided: Score 0 points. The minimum quality standard will be an overall weighted score of 25 points with no single criteria awarded a score lower than adequate.

The Council will use the results of the interview/presentation to inform the scoring for Quality. The weighted Price / Quality / Presentation scores will be combined to obtain the total weighted score. The Tender with the highest total weighted score is that which is perceived to offer the most economically advantageous Tender for this Contract under the terms of this model. In the event that the Tenders received are in excess of the available budget, the Council will discuss with all Tenderers who have been considered at Stage 4, changes in the proposed Services so as to balance the proposed service level and budget. Tenderers should therefore be as realistic as possible in the pricing of individual rates so that these decisions can be taken on a sensible basis: the Council would expect any deletions of service to be in line with the tendered rates. Stage 6 - Consideration of the Contracts where organisations have been shortlisted for both contracts The Council is, in parallel with this Waste & Cleansing/Grounds Maintenance procurement exercise (whichever the organisation has applied for), tendering for a Grounds Maintenance Contract and is aware that some Tenderers for this Contract will also be submitting tenders for the other contract. A parallel evaluation process will be used for that contract. The Council will consider the results of both evaluations, in particular any discounts arising, created by the award of both contracts to the same Contractor. A decision

18

will then be made as to the most economically advantageous arrangement for both contracts. Any financial discounts offered will be considered in relation to the points available for Price. For the avoidance of doubt, the Council is seeking to secure the economically most advantageous arrangement, whether this is through the appointment of separate contractors for each contract or the appointment of the contractor to both contracts. Stage 7 - Contract Award Following approval by the Council, the Contract will be awarded to the Tenderer who produces the most economically advantageous Tender according to the criteria set out above.

19

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
3 DECEMBER 2007 LEADER Councillor Stephen Greenhalgh CABINET MEMBER RESIDENTS SERVICES Councillor Paul Bristow CONTRIBUTORS DRS DF HLS Housing GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CLIENT SIDE STRUCTURE This report details the proposals for the formation of the client side for Grounds Maintenance and highlights other functions that will be managed within the Grounds Maintenance Client structure.

6
Wards All

Recommendations: 1. That Cabinet agrees the proposed organisational structure for the Grounds Maintenance Client function. 2. That Cabinet authorises the Director of Resident Services to recruit the necessary staff to form the structure.

HAS A PEIA BEEN COMPLETED? YES

3. That Cabinet notes the proposals to transfer functions, staff and budget from Environment to Resident Services.

20

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Council has invested a significant amount of time and resources in market testing its grounds maintenance services. Development of a robust and effective client side is critical to ensure that the anticipated performance improvements and financial savings are delivered through the new contract. 1.2. The preparation for market testing of the grounds maintenance services and letting the contract has been led by the Environment Services Department with, since April 2007, input from the newly formed Resident Services Department. 1.3. The process has been supported by White Young Green, the Councils consultants, who have been involved in producing the attached structure and advise that it is the minimum required to match the need for a strong and effective client without jeopardising the operation of the contract. The formation of this structure would require an additional 285K of revenue expenditure, (50k one-off and 235k on-going), which through the MTFS is planned to be offset against savings in the cost of the grounds maintenance operation, (subject to the outcome of the current tendering exercise) less any contribution from H&F Homes, currently being negotiated as a % of contract value. 1.4. The new staffing element proposed is for the establishment of a Parks and Recreation Client Management unit to oversee the monitoring of the Grounds Maintenance contract and manage other functions to be transferred to Resident Services from Environment as laid out in the staffing structure contained in Appendix 1 of this report. The staff transferring are outside the TUPE arrangements for the operation of the Grounds Maintenance contract, with their staffing and operational costs transferring across from Environment to Resident Services. 1.5. The total staffing cost of the proposed Parks & Recreation client structure is 213k, to manage a contract with an estimated annual expenditure of 3million, as well as undertaking direct operations not included in the contract (e.g. paddling pools, maintenance etc) to a value in the region of 650K, and overseeing the existing leisure management contracts to a total value of 440K. 1.6. The Senior Liaison Officer role, and that of Parks Officers and Handypersons, responsible for the transferring functions, will be reviewed following the set up of this unit and commencement of the GM contract. 1.7. Whilst the maintenance and monitoring of grounds maintenance activities in cemeteries are included, there is a separate team within Environment Services that are responsible for the day to day management of cemetery services supervising funerals, upkeep of records, and carrying out of general administration. It is envisaged that a review of these functions will be undertaken on transfer of Client responsibilities to Resident Services to enable the achievement of further synergies in operational delivery.

21

1.8. White Young Green uses a benchmark figure of 9% -10% of the contract value as being the cost for clienting contracts of this nature. The proposed structure for contract monitoring is therefore significantly less than their benchmark, taken the total value of the contracts that will be overseen by this unit. 2. ORGANISATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.1. The grounds maintenance function is integral to the effective management and development of the Boroughs parks and open spaces and recognising this Cabinet has previously agreed that the Client function for the contact should be located in the Resident Services Department. 2.2. The contract specification and conditions are written in a manner that will require detailed specialist knowledge to be held by the client side tasked with managing the services. The understanding of processes, indicators and the specific means of driving through improvement will therefore be crucial. Members of the client team will be required to spend significant proportions of their working day in the field monitoring contract performance. For these reasons a small but highly, skilled and specialist client team will be needed. 2.3. It has been agreed that the grounds maintenance contractor will provide a service to Hammersmith and Fulham Homes, but given the latters need to be immediately responsive to tenants concerns it is proposed that the day-to-day monitoring of that area of work will be undertaken by officers of the ALMO as part of their overall inspection duties. This will enable issues to be resolved locally with the Contractor in the first instance and enable a local dialogue to be established with the provider. A H&F Homes officer will be designated as Authorised for the purpose of clienting their portion of the overall contract, ensuring H&FHomes will be represented at regular contractor meetings etc. However, it is proposed that continuing areas of concern or serious breaches on performance be communicated to the Parks & Recreation Operations team for further action to be taken through the issuing of rectification and default notices as required, ensuring that poor performance is identified across the scope of the contract. It is also proposed that all administration of the CONFIRM system, which will be used to record contract performance, be integrated within the Parks & Recreation Operations team in Resident Services to ensure synergy of performance is maintained. A dedicated resource will be allocated to deal with this aspect of contract monitoring within the unit, which will be proportionally recharged back to H&F Homes. 2.4. There will be a further Interface required with other internal and external providers of services not provided through the Grounds Maintenance contract or small works team that is currently overseen by Environmental Services. These existing arrangements are currently being discussed, with any shift in responsibility being transferred to the Parks and Recreation unit. 2.5. In terms of the contract management it is essential for a structure of this level to exist before the contract start date of 3 March 2008. Staff need to be fully trained and equipped to manage contractor performance strictly from day one

22

to ensure that the savings through the contract arrangements are delivered commensurate with improved quality. 2.6. Presently the Grounds Maintenance monitoring and performance is carried out through the employment of a stand alone IT system ( COMPOSER) which will need to be discontinued for the new contract and replaced by the CONFIRM system currently operational in other areas of the Council. A Grounds Maintenance module will be added to the existing system, together with additional hand held devices to enable improved performance monitoring and enable quicker response times. These set up costs including installation and training need to be added and are in the region of 50K 3. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

3.1. A detailed structure chart is attached as Appendix 1. This also demonstrates how the grounds maintenance client function will be integrated with the wider structure within the Parks & Culture Division of Resident Services, and in particular with the arrangements for managing and developing leisure, parks and open spaces. 3.2. Appendix 2 gives a summary of the role of the main job roles 3.3. Appendix 3 gives a breakdown of the main job roles and anticipated costs. 3.4. It is anticipated that the Parks & Recreation Operations Team, including the grounds maintenance client unit, is located in Hammersmith Town Hall, along with the other officers in the Parks & Recreation Section. 4. 4.1 HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES COMMENTS An effective client side will be required for the proper administration of the contractual arrangements. COMMENTS OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

5.

5.1 This report seeks approval for the establishment of the client monitoring function within Resident Services and related staffing and other one-off and ongoing costs. The on-going costs consist of five new posts and related IT and other running costs at current prices as follows: 000 Five Posts (as detailed in Appendix 3) IT Running Costs Other Running Costs 213 15 7 -----235 ------

23

5.2

As stated above the current grounds maintenance operation is maintained by a stand alone IT system, COMPOSER, which is an old works ordering system with no contract management, performance or work monitoring facility. It is proposed to replace this with a grounds maintenance module that integrates with CONFIRM, a system in use in other areas of the Council (eg. Highways and shortly in waste management). The estimated costs for implementing this are 50k including software, hardware, training etc. in addition it is estimated that annual running costs will be 15k as stated in Paragraph 5.1 Thus, the total costs for establishing the grounds maintenance client function are estimated at 285k using current prices as follows: 000 One-Off IT & related costs 50 Annual salary & running costs 235 -----285 There is no current budgetary provision to meet these costs and it has previously been intended that these be met from the expected savings generated by the outcome of the market testing exercise. It had been presumed through pre tendering analysis that these savings will be in the region of 500K. A potential saving of 200k per annum is currently provided within the Councils Medium Strategy from 2008/09 onwards with regard to grounds maintenance. The ability for this saving to be delivered, as well as the identification of funding for the client role, is subject to the outcome of the current market testing and tendering process and the outcome of negotiations with H&F Homes as indicated below. If the outcome of the tendering process does not provide the level of savings envisaged, then consideration will be required of how the funding shortfall can be addressed. The annual costs of 235k will be reduced by a charge to be made to H&F Homes as they have agreed to their grounds maintenance responsibilities being carried out as part of the overall contract and will therefore, contribute to the client costs. This is subject to current negotiations that have not yet been finalised. It should be noted that the H&F Homes element of the overall contract amounts to some 20%. As stated above, the client posts will also be responsible for the management and delivery of additional work and staff being transferred from Environment. The finalisation of these transfers will not impact on the above figures as the relevant budgets will be subject to a virement between the two departments. COMMENTS DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES The Director of Environment concurs with this report. H&F HOUSING COMMENTS These have been received and incorporated into report

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

6. 6.1 7. 7.1

24

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS No. Description of Background Papers 1 All Background Papers Name/ Ext. of Holder of File/Copy Nicholas Austin Department/Location EnvD PPS Division 5th Floor HTHX Ext 3904 2 Refuse and Street Cleansing Specification David Newman EnvD PPS Division 4th Flr, Riverview House, Ext 1191 3 Contract Advert, specifications, tender evaluation model, letter and tendering instructions to short listed bidders Reports to Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Committee and PEIA documentation. David Newman EnvD PPS Division 4th Flr, Riverview House, Ext 1191 David Newman EnvD PPS Division 4th Flr, Riverview House, Ext 1191

25

Appendix 1 PARKS AND CULTURE Proposed Parks & Recreation Client structure, in the context of the wider structure for the division

AD Parks & Culture SMG2

Head of Libraries & Archives PO9

Head of Arts & Events PO9

Head of Parks & Recreation PO9

Sports Development Manager PO4

Parks Development Manager PO6

Parks & Recreation Operations Manager PO6

LEISURE CONTRACTORS GLL/Virgin Active

SPORTS DEVELOPMENT TEAM LINFORD CHRISTIE STADIUM

Parks Project Officers 1x PO2 + project- funded as required

Senior Parks Liaison Officer PO1

Contract Administrator PO1

Contract Supervisors X3 PO1/2

Bold - new client posts to be created (to be evaluated)

Parks Liaison Officers Parks Officers Handypersons X5fte

Admin Officer Sc5/6

26

Appendix 2 Proposed Parks & Recreation Client structure: main job roles Parks & Recreation Operations Manager

To manage a team of three Monitoring Officers, Senior Parks Liaison Officer, Small works team, and Administration staff to ensure standards of provision and service delivery are maintained and enhanced in our flagship and regional group of Tier 2 parks in co-operation with staff, contractors, park users and other stakeholders. Implement and maintain systems and procedures to effectively monitor and control service delivery. Responsibility for the overseeing of the existing leisure management contracts operated through GLL/Virgin Active. Agree plans for the implementation of a programme of events and activities designed to encourage greater use and enjoyment of the boroughs parks and open spaces. Develop effective working relationships with contractors, managers and community groups to enhance service provision. Attend client or community meetings to consult, provide information, resolve queries and agree improved ways of working. Investigate queries and complaints and respond appropriately, including the preparation of reports if required. Undertake customer surveys and analyse results. Produce regular and ad hoc statistical information, analyses and reports on usage of sites within area of responsibility, taking necessary remedial action as required.

Contract Monitoring Officers

The monitoring team structure is the minimum structure that White Young Green consider appropriate to monitor a contract of this value. The monitoring team is predominately park based and responsible for monitoring the contractors performance against the requirements of the specification and ensuring that required standards are being adhered to. These officers would also be responsible for raising works orders through SBS Confirm (the agreed contract monitoring and ordering

27

system) where necessary. The team will use the same handheld device that have been developed for some existing Environment staff. The team will be working on a flexible system to cover weekend, evening and early morning activities, all of which are incorporated into the specification. IT systems will be shared with and developed with Waste and Street Cleansing client section. The monitoring team will issue rectification notices to the contractor and Housing Monitoring Officers will act as the Eyes and Ears for the Housing element and liaise directly with the Contractor and Parks Client Officers as necessary. These Officers will also have a good working relationship with the Parks Constabulary and other areas within Parks and Recreation. Parks Liaison Team This team will work with Councillors, Friends of groups, and a range of stakeholders to ensure an effective dialogue takes place to identify and resolve areas of concern together with taking on board and investigating suggestions for improvements to local parks and amenities across the borough. The team will also be responsible for the minor works budget for activities not included in the Grounds Maintenance contract. Administrative Team

The administrative team will complete all of the complaint handling and monitoring for the section. The senior administrator role is crucial in ensuring invoicing is properly controlled and the contractor is operating within the pricing structure. An effective administrator saving less than 2% on a 3m contract will pay for itself. The administrative team will be responsible for running performance monitoring reports, completing necessary statutory returns and general support. Additionally the administration team will be providing the administrative function for H&F Homes, works and activities outside of contract, and provide interface with GLL/Virgin active.

28

Appendix 3 Estimated Client Side structure costs for grounds maintenance

Post No. 1 2 3 4 5 Post Title Parks & Recreation Client Mgr GM Monitoring Officer GM Monitoring Officer GM Monitoring Officer Admin Officer Grade SCP Top Grade 49 38 38 38 25 Actual hrs 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Salary Oncost Total Cost

New Post New Post New Post New Post New Post

P06 PO1/2 PO1/2 PO1/2 SC5/6

49 38 38 38 25

43,077 11,695 33,620 8,775 33,620 8,775 33,620 8,775 23,803 6,070 Sub total Pay Award Adjustment 0.5%

Grades subject to full evaluation

54,772 42,395 42,396 42,395 29,873 211,830 1,060 212,890

29

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
3 DECEMBER 2007 LEADER Councillor Stephen Greenhalgh DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT) Councillor Nicholas Botterill CABINET MEMBER RESIDENTS SERVICES Councillor Paul Bristow WASTE MANAGEMENT AND STREET CLEANSING CLIENT SIDE STRUCTURE This report details the proposals for the formation of the waste management structure client side for Refuse & Street Cleansing, Recycling and Trade Waste Services.

7
Wards All

CONTRIBUTORS DENV DF HLS DRS HAS A PEIA BEEN COMPLETED? YES

Recommendations: To agree 1. That the client side for refuse, street cleansing and recycling is located initially within the Environment Services Department. 2. The proposed organisational structure. 3. To authorise the Director of Environment to recruit the necessary staff to form the structure. 4. That a Member panel be established, including the Cabinet Member for Residents Services and Deputy Leader (+ Environment) , to oversee the management of the contract and the public interface plus associated customer/Member led local environmental quality initiatives and to monitor satisfaction of all street scene services.

30

5. That consideration be given to combining this panel with the Local Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Committee overseeing the grot spot campaign. 6. That the arrangements are reviewed 12 months after the operation of the new refuse and street cleansing contracts begins.

31

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Council has invested a significant amount of time and resources in market testing its refuse and street cleansing services. The key ingredients to delivering an optimum value for money contract of this nature are getting the specification right, having a good tender, evaluation and selection process (to attract and select the best contractor) and having a strong client monitoring function in place after award to deliver improved services. Development of a robust and effective client side is therefore critical to ensure that the anticipated performance improvements and financial savings are delivered through the new contracts. 1.2 As part of the information gathering process, senior Environment Services officers visited their counterparts in Wandsworth, RBKC, and Camden to understand how these boroughs client their externalised refuse and street cleansing contracts. White Young Green, the Councils expert consultants, have also been involved in producing the attached structure and rationale and advise that it is the minimum required in the early stages of the contract to match the need for a strong and effective client without jeopardising the operation of the contract. The formation of this structure would require an additional 333K which has been scrutinised as part of the MTFS process. This compares with the anticipated potential savings of over 1m per annum delivered by the tendering of the service, despite significant increases in the level of service specified in the contract. 1.3 The proposed client structure amalgamates a number of existing services, including promotion, administration and enforcement of recycling and trade waste agreements, with the new contract monitoring client role; the aim being to develop a fully integrated client function for the waste service to reduce costs and drive improvement. 1.4 The client side structure will manage a contract with an estimated annual expenditure of at least 10.5 million. The direct contract monitoring element of the proposed structure would cost approximately 330K. White Young Green uses a benchmark figure of 9% -10% of the contract value as being the cost for effective full clienting of a contract of this nature, particularly in year one. The proposed overall structure is considerably less than their benchmark and represents the minimum client side structure that can be expected to deliver the required performance from the contract. 2. ORGANISATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS SYNERGIES WITH OTHER RELATED SERVICES AND SERVICES IMPACTING ON THE STREETSCENE

2.1 It is clear from meetings with comparable neighbouring boroughs that the waste management client side is but one element of local environmental management that includes overseeing improvements to streetscape and open spaces, street scene enforcement, commercial waste & recycling collection, highways maintenance, licensing and strategic waste management. As a result, the client side needs to be closely integrated with these functions and must include

32

strategic waste and recycling management and commercial waste within its remit in order to ensure that current and future waste strategy and policy is reflected in the Councils operational functions and that the trade waste portfolio is managed in such a way that the street scene is improved and income generation is maximised. In this context there are compelling arguments for management arrangements to be aligned within the Environment Services Department. 2.2 Local Environmental Quality relies upon Education, Engineering and Enforcement. The strategic co-ordination, operation and performance management of local environmental management now resides in Environment Services. The client side has major synergies with all these functions and in officers considered opinion will not deliver effectively in isolation. The advice received from consultants, White Young Green, on this matter reflects this view and is based on experience gained from working with a wide range of other local authorities countrywide. 2.3 The waste management client side must work closely alongside the Street Scene Enforcement Team to be effective. Street Scene Enforcement are responsible for dealing with fly tipping, littering, dog fouling and graffiti. In view of the close operational links between management of the Councils waste and street cleansing contract and management of the street scene, the two teams must co-ordinate activity and to be effective should run co-ordinated campaigns. If either team fails to perform or to cooperate with its counterpart, then street cleanliness will suffer, which ultimately will be reflected in the Councils performance against BVPI 199. At RBKC, monitoring officers (client) and Street Scene enforcement officers have generic job descriptions to allow transfers between these functions, which helps build experience and effectiveness. 2.4 The contract specification and conditions are written in a manner that will require detailed specialist knowledge to be held by the client side tasked with managing the services. The understanding of processes, indicators and the specific means of driving through improvement will therefore be crucial. It will also be essential for client officers to cover the 24/7 period of time during which at least some of the new services (e.g. street cleansing in the higher profile areas of the borough) will operate. They will therefore be required to spend significant proportions of their working day in the field using the remote access equipment already widely adopted within Environment Services. 2.5 It is envisaged that future savings may be possible once the contract has settled down and there is also significant potential for income generation from increasing the number of trade waste & recycling collections that we provide, through more active promotion of the service. These savings are more likely to occur if these services are tightly aligned. 2.6 Trade waste current income is in excess of 2 million per annum but with a market share worth around 33%. If, through an effective client side team, market share could be expanded to over 50% (still much lower than that achieved by RBKC) the additional income would be around 1million.

33

2.7 In terms of the contract management it is essential for a structure of this level to exist before the contract start date of 28 March 2008. It needs to be fully trained and equipped to strictly manage contractor performance from day one, to ensure that the savings through the contract arrangements are delivered commensurate with improved service quality. 2.8 The recycling team will, if successful, save money through diverting waste from landfill. This function has added importance as landfill costs are due to rise by 5 per tonne from April 1st 2008. 2.9 This collection of services also have a critical impact on resident satisfaction with the Council. In particular, residents are more likely to be satisfied if they feel some ownership of their local environment. While this is clearly a function of service quality it is also a function of how we enable residents to influence our approach and policy. It is in this context that these services are closely aligned with the mission of Resident Services to maximise the satisfaction of the majority of service users who otherwise have little to do with the Council. 2.10 It is recommended that a Member led panel attended by the Cabinet Member for Resident First and Deputy Leader (+Environment) is also established that has performance management oversight of contract management and the corresponding public interface, plus associated (customer/member - led) local environment quality initiatives. The panel would be tasked to monitor performance of the contract, the related in-house services and customer satisfaction. This panel could also usefully incorporate oversight of the grot spot campaign, with the Chairman of the Local Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Committee sitting on the panel. 2.11 It would appear that the best environmental outcomes, in the first instance, will be secured by aligning the client side within Environment Services (Public Protection & Safety Division) but with a mechanism put in place to ensure that customer insight drives improvement. This would allow for the development of a client function that fully integrates the client side contract monitoring role with recycling, disposal, trade waste and enforcement functions. 2.12 The benefits of this approach are that it will ensure the least disruption to service delivery at a time of substantial change for both departments, deliver alignment with relevant Environment Services functions and test the validity of the anticipated synergies. This will allow each department to play to their respective strengths so that benefits for the customer are maximised and will allow customer insight and member involvement to inform and steer the management of the services. The terms of reference of the proposed Member panel would also recognise that customer satisfaction with street scene services reflect how well all of the Councils activities in the street scene are performing customers are not interested in which activities are dependent on the contractor and which activities are provided by the back office, the contact centre or various in house enforcement teams. It is collective performance of these activities that will drive customer satisfaction.

34

2.13 The situation could then be reviewed in one years time and consideration is given then to transferring the service to the Resident Services Department. This approach is fully supported by the corporate management team. However, if the service is to be moved to Residents Services in the future, consideration will need to be given to moving the other environment services listed above at the same time, in order to maintain the close integration and optimum performance and efficiency of all the related services impacting on the cleanliness of our streets. Transferring Street Scene enforcement could have a negative impact on coordination with other enforcement services undertaken by the Environment Services Department such as highways, skip licensing, parking bay suspensions and pollution control. A future review of how these services are managed and where they sit in the organisational structure will therefore need to carefully evaluate the benefits and disadvantages of any transfer to Residents Services. 3. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

3.1 A detailed structure chart for the proposed integrated client side organisation is attached as appendix 1, with a breakdown of the main job roles and anticipated costs. Appendix 2 outlines the team functions. It is envisaged that future savings will be realised once the contract has settled down, and there is also significant potential for income generation from increasing the number of trade waste & recycling collections that we provide, through more active promotion of the service. The effectiveness of the recycling teams efforts are essential to minimise our future waste disposal costs. 3.2 If the contract is awarded to an external contractor and not the incumbent DSO organisation then it is felt crucial to retain a waste and street cleansing advisor with specialist local knowledge for a maximum period of six months to ensure the smooth transition of services and audited handover over of equipment etc. This role is shown with a dotted line on the structure chart and would incur an additional start up cost of up to 30K in year one only. Additionally, resources will have to be allocated to deal with TUPE-related transfer costs and a high level of Human Resources support that would be required during the handover period. 3.3 The Transport function is currently provided by a small in-house maintenance team and fits naturally within the waste management client structure. This service is subject to full review in 2008. Regardless of how the vehicle maintenance function is ultimately provided, there will be a need for proper oversight of the Councils corporate transport provision and maintenance. The management of this function could potentially be provided for within the waste management client group and is therefore shown indicatively on the structure plan. 4. LOCATION

4.1 Although it may be useful to have a client presence there at least some of the time, it is not intended to co-locate the waste management client side within Bagleys Lane Depot full time. It will be necessary to ensure officers transferring

35

from the former Direct Services into the new client side understand their new role and its separation from the contractor. If the client side is located within Environment Services then some members of the team will be accommodated alongside the Pollution Control section in Hammersmith Town Hall Extension. 5. HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES COMMENTS

5.1 Whilst there are no direct legal implications, a properly resourced client side will be essential if the contracts are to be properly and effectively managed 6. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE COMMENTS

6.1 The cost of the proposed integrated Waste Management structure (including functions already provided in Environment Services which are to be integrated within the new client side structure) is estimated to be 773,625. Whilst funding already exists within existing Recycling & Waste Management budgets and services currently delivered within the Waste, Street & Grounds Maintenance division that do not form part of the contract, there is a shortfall of approximately 453,000. 6.2 In order to meet the shortfall there are two separate growth bids contained within the Medium Term Financial Strategy. The first is for the establishment of the new core client monitoring function for 333,000. The second is to specifically supplement the recycling function and is costed at 120,000. 6.3 In addition to the base cost, should the refuse and cleansing service be outsourced, there is a further one-off cost of up to 30,000 that will be contained within Environment Services revenue budget. 6.4 The report establishes the base cost for the integrated Waste Management and Street Cleansing Client Side Structure. It is essential that the client is operational prior to the commencement of the contract in order to deal with transfer issues and to be in place to monitor and enforce the contract from the outset. However, there are two factors that generate a significant amount of risk in terms of achieving this objective. The first is the ability to complete the recruitment process in order to establish the team. The second is that, leading on from experience in the transfer of the Hammersmith Repairs contract from Borough Construction to Kiers, it is probable that there will be significant HR issues relating to the transfer, should the service be outsourced. In order to deal with these issues the service may need to respond by being able to quickly deploy resources into these areas. In particular, consideration will be given to extending the consultancy of White Young Green in order to deal with these specific issues. It is anticipated that in the event of this happening, the additional cost will be borne by the Departments market testing reserve. 6.5 The scale, structure and cost of the integrated waste management structure will be reviewed as part of the next two years MTFS to see if the client monitoring function can be safely scaled back once the new contract has bedded in and the initial drive to deliver higher service standards has been addressed. The

36

extent to which inroads can be made into the Councils market share of trade waste activity will also impact on future income and budget requirements. 7. 7.1 COMMENTS OF DIRECTOR RESIDENTS FIRST The director of Residents Services concurs with the report.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS No. Description of Background Papers 1 All Background Papers Name/ Ext. of Holder of File/Copy Nicholas Austin Department/Location EnvD PPS Division 5th Floor HTHX Ext 3904 2 Refuse and Street Cleansing Specification David Newman EnvD PPS Division 4th Flr, Riverview House, Ext 1191 3 Contract Advert, specifications, tender evaluation model, letter and tendering instructions to short listed bidders Reports to Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Committee and PEIA documentation. David Newman EnvD PPS Division 4th Flr, Riverview House, Ext 1191 David Newman EnvD PPS Division 4th Flr, Riverview House, Ext 1191

37

Appendix 1

Proposed Waste Management Structure April 2008

Head of Waste Management Transport Team

Senior administrator Performance and Systems Officer Administrative Support Officer x 2 Waste and Street Cleansing Advisor Temp. Post Max 6 months (if non DSO contract awarded)

Recycling Manager

Area Waste Supervisor North

Area Waste Supervisor South

Recycling Officer x 3

Recycling Assistant x 2

Monitoring Officers x 2

Commercial Waste Officer x1

Commercial Waste Officer x1

Monitoring Officers x 2

38

Estimated Client Side Waste Management structure costs for refuse, street cleansing, recycling and trade waste
Post No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Post Title Head of Waste Management Recycling Manager Recycling Officer Recycling Officer Recycling Officer Recycling Assistant Recycling Assistant Area Waste Supervisor Area Waste Supervisor Monitoring Officer Monitoring Officer Monitoring Officer Monitoring Officer Senior Administrator Performance & Systems Officer Administration Officer Administration Officer Trade Waste Officer Trade Waste Officer Grade SCP Top Grade 54 47 41 41 41 21 21 41 41 31 31 31 31 34 28 28 28 34 34 Actual hrs 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 36.00 Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Full time Salary 51,003 New Post Existing Comparable Post Existing Comparable Post New Post New Post New Post New Post New Post New Post New Post New Post New Post New Post Existing Comparable Post Existing Comparable Post Existing Comparable Post Existing Comparable Post Existing Comparable Post New Post P10 PO5 PO3 PO3 PO3 SC 4 SC 4 PO3 PO3 SO1 SO1 SO1 SO1 S02 SC6 SC6 SC6 SO1 SO1 54 47 41 41 41 21 21 41 41 34 34 34 34 34 28 28 28 34 34 40,578 35,592 35,592 35,592 20,451 20,451 35,592 35,592 27,807 27,807 27,807 27,807 30,030 25,395 Oncost % 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% 29.00% On-Cost 14,791 11,768 10,322 10,322 10,322 5,931 5,931 10,322 10,322 8,064 8,064 8,064 8,064 8,709 7,365 7,365 7,365 8,709 8,709 180,826 Total Cost 65,794 52,346 45,914 45,914 45,914 26,382 26,382 45,914 45,914 35,871 35,871 35,871 35,871 38,739 32,760 32,760 32,760 38,739 38,739 758,456 773,625 151,000

Grades subject to full evaluation

25,395 29.00% 25,395 29.00% 30,030 29.00% 30,030 29.00% Sub total Adjusted with 2% Inflation Existing Recycling & Waste Management Budget Waste and Street Cleansing budget transfer (to be confirmed) MTFS Recycling Growth

Sum existing, transfers & growth Remaining Budget Requirement + 30K one off if non DSO contractor appointed

169,625 120,000 440,625 333,000

39

Appendix 2 Monitoring Team The monitoring team structure is the minimum structure that White Young Green consider appropriate to monitor a contract of this value. The monitoring team is predominately street based and responsible for monitoring the contractors performance against the requirements of the specification and ensuring that BVPI 199 standards are being adhered to. These officers would also be responsible for raising works orders through SBS Confirm (the agreed contract monitoring and ordering system) where necessary. The team will use the same handheld devices that have been developed for street scene enforcement. The team will be working on a shift system to cover weekend, late night and early morning cleansing, all of which are incorporated into the specification. IT systems will be shared with and developed with Street Scene Enforcement. The monitoring team will issue rectification notices to the contractor and act as the Eyes and Ears for the recycling team. The monitoring officers job description will be similar to those of the street scene officers allowing possible further integration once both teams have properly bedded in. Trade Waste The council currently controls 33% of the commercial waste portfolio within H&F. This contrasts poorly with RBKC (80 %+) and Westminster (70 %+). A detailed review of the trade waste function was completed by White Young Green as part of the market testing process. This recommended retention of the sales, promotion and management elements of trade waste, stating also that the service could be significantly improved to generate considerably higher levels of income. White Young Green are currently reviewing our current pricing structures with instructions to determine a competitive pricing model. This will initially need to be sold to businesses by two trade waste officers and administered by the administration team. The trade waste officers should be on sales related PRP; they will also need to co-ordinate closely with Street Scene Enforcement. These officers will also ensure that our commercial contacts are monitored to ensure that the specified waste volumes are not exceeded. Recycling Team Waste Disposal costs are set to increase dramatically in coming years and there is a real danger that they will derail any future council tax cuts. The Governments newly published National Waste Strategy has set tough targets for diversion of municipal waste disposal away from Landfill. As part of the Western Riverside Waste Authority we are tied into the opportunities to be provided by the proposed Energy from Waste plant at Belvedere. Post 2012 this will alleviate financial pressures arising from the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme and Landfill Tax. However there are growing signs that a carbon tax will be imposed,

40

which has the potential to wipe out any savings on disposal costs that Belvedere will bring. Increased waste minimisation, re-use and recycling will be essential to offset this possibility and several pilot schemes are built into the specification. The councils current recycling level has reached a plateau at 23% and significant resource is needed to drive forward compulsory recycling, segregated kitchen organics collections and potentially variable direct charging. An MTFS growth bid of 120K has been made, which is built into the proposed waste management client side structure. Administrative Team The administrative team will complete all of the complaint handling and monitoring for the section. The senior administrator role is crucial in ensuring invoicing is properly controlled and the contractor is operating within the pricing structure. An effective administrator saving less than 1/2% on a 10m contract will pay for itself. The administrative team will be responsible for running performance monitoring reports, completing necessary statutory returns and general support. Additionally the administration team will be providing the administrative function (maintaining customer records, production of work schedules, duty of care processes and debtor activities) for the councils commercial waste services with a current turnover in excess of 2 million per annum. Transport This function is currently provided by a small in-house maintenance team and fits naturally within the waste management client structure. There remains a residual need for the maintenance of all vehicles being operated by or on behalf of the council outside of the waste, street and grounds maintenance contracts, (the contractors for which will be responsible for the supply and maintenance of their own equipment). This service is subject to full review during 2008. Regardless of how the vehicle maintenance function is ultimately provided (i.e. through inhouse provision or via an external supplier); there will be a need for proper oversight of the councils corporate transport provision and maintenance. Adequate resourcing of this therefore needs to be provided for within the waste management client group.

41

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
3 DECEMBER 2007 LEADER Councillor Stephen Greenhalgh CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING Councillor Mrs Adronie Alford CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDRENS SERVICES Councillor Antony Lillis SUPPORTING PEOPLE AWARD OF CONTRACTS - SINGLE HOMELESS FLOATING SUPPORT AND TEENAGE PARENT SERVICE This report seeks Cabinet approval for the award of two Supporting People contracts - a Teenage Parent Accommodation Based Support Service for young mothers and their babies and a Floating Support Service for Single Homeless People - from the Value Improvement Programme Preferred Provider Framework Agreement. These contracts are funded by the Department of Communities and Local Government Supporting People Grant for the provision of housing-related support. The Report recommends the retrospective waiver of the requirement contained in Contract Standing Orders to advertise for a Teenage Parent Accommodation Based Service on the basis that emergency cover is required until a joint framework agreement with other London boroughs is put into place after February 2008. Recommendations: To agree: 1. To waive retrospectively the Councils Contracts Standing Orders (Part 7) in relation to advertising for the provision of the Teenage Parent Accommodation Based 12 month contract. The rationale for waiving this area of the Contracts Standing Orders is: need for emergency housing and support provision for vulnerable mothers and babies who are currently unsupported in Council temporary accommodation;

8
Wards All

HAS A PEIA BEEN COMPLETED? YES

CONTRIBUTORS DCS DChS HLS DF

42

the contract is for an interim position of up to 12 months while the development of a Joint Framework Agreement with RBKC is concluded, which includes a category for teenage parent services, which has been nationally advertised and will procure the long term contract for this service; an interim position to allow time to identify a suitable long term building that is accessible by all groups of teenage parents, not only those with a housing duty, therefore avoiding the need to make a homeless application; and ensuring that unmet need and use of Temporary Accommodation and bed and breakfast accommodation is reduced for teenage parents quickly.

2.

To award the Teenage Parent Accommodation Based Service Contract to London Cyrenians Housing Limited, to be delivered at Spring Cottage, Landor Walk, W12, a Councilowned building of eight units. The contract value is 137,052 per annum (17.34 per hour) for a one year contract. This service is a new commitment and has agreed funding by the Commissioning Body from existing Supporting People grant. To award the Single Homeless Floating Support Contract to Thames Reach from the Value Improvement Programme Framework Agreement, to be delivered to single vulnerable people across tenure who may be homeless, at risk of homelessness or require assistance to move on from supported housing. The contract value is 281,658 per annum. The contract term will be three years with two further possible 12 month extensions. The total possible contract value is 1,408,290 for the lifetime of the contract. This contract value includes 43

3.

TUPE costs. This service creates savings of 224k per annum by bringing together existing contracts and decommissioning of services. This saving will be reinvested to a new service commitment next financial year.

44

1. 1.1

INTRODUCTION This report recommends the award of contracts for two Supporting People services for the provision of housing-related support. The report sets out the background to the Supporting People commissioning rationale, procurement method and outcome of the tenders. The awards of contracts have been approved by the Supporting People Commissioning Body, the Programmes Governance Board. Supporting People is a working partnership of local government, service users, Health, Probation, Childrens Services and providers of the voluntary sector. The Commissioning Body, a joint committee, is made up of Chief Officers from these partners. BACKGROUND The Supporting People (SP) Programme is a national programme to commission the provision of housing related support services for vulnerable people to help gain, increase or maintain their independence. Supporting People funds the provision of floating support services (support to service users in their own home) and accommodation based services (support tied to accommodation). The services commissioned and recommended for award of contract referred to in this report are one floating support service that is tenure neutral and one accommodation-based service to be delivered at specified address (Spring Cottage, Landor Walk, W12). The Supporting People Programme commenced in April 2003. The programme brings together a number of legacy funding streams and inherited service provision. The first three years of the programme focused on comprehensively reviewing all services in relation to need, demand, quality, strategic relevance and value for money. The programme grant has been reduced year on year, with the current year allocation of 128m. The Supporting People Strategy (2005-10), following needs mapping and gap analysis, stated the following requirements that apply to floating support services: Develop an emphasis on medium level support and provide more targeted interventions; services are to demonstrate, via positive outcomes, the greatest change in service users ability to live independently; Improve the efficiency of floating and visiting support (accommodationbased service with no office on site) through more co-ordinated commissioning of these services; and Ensure that support services are able to float i.e. follow the individual and identified needs , breaking ties with accommodation.

1.2

2. 2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

At the time of writing the strategy there were 47 different Floating/Visiting Support contracts provided across a range of client groups (excluding older people) for over 800 people at a total cost of c3.2m per annum. The individual service reviews found the services to be providing some good 45

quality at varying cost, they also identified that a number of service gaps remained: The provision did not cover all user groups and therefore some people were being excluded from services; Services were tenure specific in that they only provided support for people in certain types of accommodation; Services are tied to permanent accommodation and do not have the flexibility to float away when a person no longer requires support. This wastes resources and does not promote independence; and There was a wide range of floating support services in the borough the largest to 100 people and the smallest to three people. The majority of services are small, supporting less than 15 people. Each contract has overhead costs and sharing of resource, such as management for contracts, was not possible and did not offer economies of scale. 2.5 The following definition of floating support was developed: 2.6 A service that supports people to begin/continue to live independently in their own accommodation; A service that supports people in temporary accommodation to gain independent living skills and gain access to permanent accommodation Someone that comes into their home and gives certain support in order to allow them to live independently; The support is attached to the individual, not the property; It is flexible in length and level according to need; and Should be able to float.

From this definition, it was agreed through consultation and needs mapping to reconfigure floating support by client group to reduce the number of contracts from 47 to between ten and 12. SINGLE HOMELESS FLOATING SUPPORT MINI-TENDER The reconfiguration of single homeless floating support and visiting support (services attached to specific buildings where staff visit rather than being based on site) has facilitated the above strategic objectives to be met. A West London preferred provider list for Single Homeless Floating Support was developed through the Value Improvement Programme (VIP) tender. This programme was a Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) national funded project to improve value in Supporting People services, commissioning and procurement. Hammersmith and Fulham Supporting People led the London VIP by jointly procuring a floating support service across seven West London boroughs (to be jointly funded and contracted) to test joint procurement potential and process). The programme expanded to create a West London preferred provider list for single homeless floating support services. This tender selected nine preferred providers and signed them up to a Framework Agreement holding a non-TUPE price and core service specification. This service recommended for award here, procured through the preferred provider list, brings together a number of single homeless floating support 46

3. 3.1

3.2

contracts, which increases efficiencies and economies of scale and reconfigures the service to be more needs-led and strategically relevant. The new service will operate across tenure and will not be tied to properties. This improves efficiency in that the service is able to float to another person when the individual receiving support no longer requires it. Previously, services could not float due to being tied to particular units of accommodation that were required to have support connected to them. This configuration improves access and throughput in services and allows the market to be tested and competitive process entered into to increase efficiencies. 3.3 The revenue for this service was generated from decommissioning 16 services across five provider organisations. These services consisted of a combination of small visiting support services that were inflexible and poor value for money, one Council-managed Floating Support Service for single homeless people planned to be entered into a larger floating support service and a supported accommodation service for single homeless men with poor outcomes and poor quality accommodation. The total contract value of these contracts is 505,566 per annum. The contract value of the newly commissioned Single Homeless floating support recommended for award here is 281,658. This is a total efficiency saving of 223,908 per annum. The mini-tender for the award of contract requested in this report was carried out between the nine preferred providers on the Framework Agreement. All nine preferred providers were invited to tender. Five preferred providers submitted a tender on 5 September 2007 and the tenders were assessed by the Tender Appraisal Panel on 10 September 2007. The tender assessment methodology was set prior to the appraisal and weighting of 20% of the original preferred provider tender submission (as the price and quality score already held under the Framework Agreement), 32% TUPE price and 48% mini-tender quality submission. Tenderers were notified of the weighting at invitation to tender stage. Tenders were returned to the Mayors office and prices recorded. One tender from Look Ahead Housing and Care provided two prices and the Commissioning team requested a clarification of which of the prices they were submitting, with the Mayors permission. This clarification was received within the 24 hour deadline given and scored according to the weighting. TENDER APPRAISAL PANEL (TAP) RECOMMENDATION The Tender Appraisal Panel shortlisted three tenders for interview
Provider Name Thames Reach Family Mosaic Broadway Lookahead StepF Preferred Provider Score 82.6 80.4 81.6 82.3 78.3 Preferred Provider scale 20 19.47 19.76 19.93 18.96 TUPE price () 281,658.00 256,246.00 299,956.00 257,582.00 291,106.00 TUPE Price scale 29.11 32 27.34 31.83 28.17 Quality Score 19 16 17 14 14 Quality scale 48 40.42 42.95 35.37 35.37

3.4

3.5

4. 4.1

Grand Total
97.11 91.89 90.04 87.13 82.50

47

The scores prior to interview are above. The TAP invited those organisations scoring over 90/100. The interview methodology was set with a presentation scoring 10 marks and follow-up structured questions scoring 15 marks. The interview scores were aggregated with the tender submission to make an overall score out of 100. The interview score provided 25% of the overall mark and the tender submission 75%. 4.2 The scoring of the three shortlisted organisations for interview is:
Provider Name Thames Reach Family Mosaic Broadway Interview out of 25 19.50 17.00 17.50 Score

4.3

The overall scoring for the tender submission (75%) and the interview (25%) is:
Provider Name Thames Reach Family Mosaic Broadway

Grand Total 92.33 85.92 85.03

4.4

The TAP recommends the award of the contract to Thames Reach, with acombined quality and price score of 92.33/100 and an annual contract value of 281,658. The TAP requests Cabinet approval to award the contract accordingly, utilising the VIP Framework Agreement. The Framework Agreement will continue to be in operation at the end of the contract term to re-procure this service. TEENAGE PARENT ACCOMMODATION BASED SERVICE TENDER The Supporting People Strategy 2005-10 highlighted the following key issues and priorities for teenage parents. The Social Exclusion Unit Report on Teenage Pregnancy states that Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Western Europe. The objective of Governments Teenage Pregnancy Strategy is to halve the rate of under 18 conceptions in England by 2010 and prevent the risk of social exclusion for teenage parents and their children. Where teenage pregnancy does occur, the Government want teenage fathers to be targeted to be encouraged to play a full role in their childrens upbringing. National patterns suggests that the younger a girl becomes pregnant, the quicker she will become pregnant again if she does not receive the right advice and support. This report recommended that by 2003, all under-18 teenage lone parents who cannot live with family or partner should be placed in supervised semiindependent housing with support, not in an independent tenancy. While 48

4.5

5. 5.1

5.2

5.3

good quality accommodation should be provided, the intention was also that independent tenancy would no longer be an option. Teenage parents have often found it hard to access social housing other than via the homelessness route, which involved temporary and often poor quality accommodation, and sometimes social isolation. Some teenage mothers are already homeless before becoming pregnant. 5.4 In early 2007 there were over 20 pregnant teenagers living in temporary accommodation in Hammersmith and Fulham without support. The target by 2010 is to ensure no-one, including 16 and 17 year olds, are placed in temporary accommodation. Applying as homeless was also seen as a route for some young people to access social housing. However, the outcomes for young mothers being placed in social housing at 18 years of age are not positive; the aim of the borough is to prevent homeless applications and placing of young mothers in temporary accommodation and alone in social housing with limited links to support and provide assistance with gaining access to education, training and employment opportunities. Thus Supporting People plays an important role in fulfilling the aims of Governments programme for social inclusion for teenage parents. The overall aim of the Teenage Pregnancy strategy is to reduce the pregnancy rate by 15% by 2004 and by 50% by 2010. This has been achieved in Hammersmith and Fulham, with the conception rate for under 18s falling 46.7% between 1998 and 2005 from 139 in 1998 and 156 in 1999 to 91 in 2005, which is the third lowest of the inner London boroughs. There remained a service gap, in that pregnant teenagers and young mothers and fathers were still being placed in temporary accommodation with no, or limited, support. The borough has a ten unit capacity floating support service for teenage parents, funded by Supporting People, which is able to offer some support. Many of the pregnant teenagers have increasing and more complex needs and the management of complex relationships is key. The service was requested and approved by the SP Commissioning Body, to be commissioned swiftly to meet this need as there was an identified building which could be used temporarily while a long term suitable building could be identified and the service tendered through the Joint Framework Agreement with RBKC. The borough researched successful use of services in neighbouring and other London boroughs to provide supervised supported accommodation and to act as a deterrent from leaving the family home and entering temporary and social housing. Teenage Parent units exist in boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea and have positive outcomes for mothers, fathers and their children and are successful in referring families onto the private sector and permanent housing, increasing opportunities for social inclusion and employment. 5.8 A Council property which required minor works to achieve suitable accommodation for mothers/fathers and their babies, at Spring Cottage, Landor Walk, W12, was agreed for this purpose. Capital works have commenced and funding has been committed and will be complete in November 2007. 49

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.9

In order to swiftly commence a service and meet unmet need, three existing providers of similar accommodation-based teenage parent services in Kensington and Chelsea were invited to tender for the Hammersmith and Fulham service on a temporary contract. The contract for this service in Spring Cottage will be awarded on a 12 month contract as this is an interim service provision while longer term contract arrangements are made. The aim is to review the positive outcomes of the service and identify a non-Council building for the future of the service provision. The service would be delivered in a non-Housing Revenue Account building in future, to allow access for children leaving care and those not presenting as statutory homeless. This will further alleviate the need to approach as homeless and assist other vulnerable teenagers in the borough. The predominant need currently relates to homeless teenage parents and therefore this approach is most suitable. Two organisations submitted a tender and these tenders were assessed by the tender appraisal panel on 20 September 2007. One organisation, London Cyrenians Housing, was shortlisted for interview on 17 October 2007. The scores from the tender submission are as follows:
Provider Name LCH Field Lane Quality Score (out of 25) 12.5 19 Out of 60% 30.00 45.60 price () 137,052.00 224,919.00 Out of 40% 40.00 22.43

5.10

5.11

Grand Total
70.00 68.03

5.12

The interview scores are as follows:

Provider Name London Cyrenians Housing Interview Score out of 25

19

5.13

The tender appraisal panel recommend the award of contract to London Cyrenians Housing with an annual contract value of 137,052 at an hourly rate of 17.34. The TAP requests Cabinet approval to award the contract accordingly. COMMENTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE The award of a new Teenage Parent Accommodation Based Service contract of 137,052 is to be funded through underspend within the Supporting People grant programme .This service is a new commitment and has been approved by the SP Commissioning Body. The award of the newly commissioned Single Homeless Floating Support contract of 281,658 to Thames Reach, is funded through the decommissioning of 16 services across 5 providers. The total contract value of these services was 505,566, resulting in an efficiency saving of 223,908, as 50

6. 6.1

6.2

detailed in section 3.3. This saving will be reinvested to a new service commitment in the next financial year. 7. 7.1 COMMENTS OF THE HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES Single Homeless Floating Support Contract The Head of Legal Services agrees with the recommendation to award the Single Homeless Floating Support Contract to Thames Reach under the Value Improvement Programme Framework Agreement. The Head of Legal Services will continue to advise with respect to the application or otherwise of TUPE for the contract for the provision of Single Homeless Floating Support. The Head of Legal Services is satisfied that the Contracts Standing Orders and the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 have been complied with. Teenage Parent Accommodation Based Service The Client Department has advised that the proposed Contract is an interim measure to ensure that the essential service is provided until a joint procurement with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for, inter alia, homeless families are concluded. The proposed contract to provide a Teenage Parent Accommodation Based Service is likely to be considered to be a Part B Service pursuant to the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (Regulations) and as such the tender process is not confined by the strict regime of the EU procurement rules. Notwithstanding, to ensure transparency, non-discrimination and fairness the proposed contract is required to be more widely advertised. The Client Department has not widely advertised the Teenage Parent AccommodationBased Service and now seeks a retrospective waiver of the Contract Standing Orders in respect of the requirement to advertise tenders. This report states that the contract value for one year is 137,052. A contract for one year will fall below the EU threshold (circa 144,000) for services contracts under the Regulations 2006. The requirement to advertise a tender applies to Part B Services under the Regulations irrespective of the total contract value. Failure to advertise more widely may result in a legal challenge by other interested parties. 8. 8.1 COMMENTS OF HEAD OF PROCUREMENT The AD Performance & Procurement concurs with the comments from the Head of Legal Services. In terms of Teenage Parent Accommodation-Based Service, no expressions were sought in accordance with Contract Standing Orders (through a public advertisement). The report recommends that the Cabinet apply retrospective approval on the basis that tenders were sought from known providers for a

8.2

51

limited period of 1 year as an interim measure, whilst long term arrangements are put in hand. 8.3 Both services are not subject to the full requirements of the Public Contract Regulations 2006. However the Regulations will require the Council to place contract award notices in the Official Journal of the European Union once the contracts have been awarded.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS No Description of Background Papers Tender Documentation Name Ext of holder of file/copy Rachel Snoad x 1723 Rachel Snoad x 1723 Department/Location

1.

CSD 145 King St

2.

Mapping of West London Single Homeless Floating Support (Civis Consultants) Floating Support Reconfiguration Discussion Paper II Supporting People Strategy (2005-10) Teenage Pregnancy Strategy

CSD 145 King Street

3.

Rachel Snoad x 1723

CSD 145 King Street

4.

Rachel Snoad x 1723 Marie Trueman x 2151

CSD 145 King Street

5.

Childrens Services HTH

52

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
3 DECEMBER 2007 DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT) Councillor Nicholas Botterill BLOEMFONTEIN ROAD/ SOUTH AFRICA ROAD LOCAL SAFETY SCHEME This report details the traffic management measures proposed on Bloemfontein Road in order to improve road safety as part of the Local Safety Scheme Programme for 2007/08. We propose to remove the mini roundabout at the junction of Bloemfontein Road and South Africa Road and replace it with a raised table; construct kerb build-outs at the junction of Bloemfontein Road and Commonwealth Avenue; increase the visibility for drivers exiting Joslings Close; and remove the concrete bollards at the entrance to Creighton Close.

9
Wards Wormholt & White City Shepherds Bush Green

CONTRIBUTORS DENV DF HAS A PEIA BEEN COMPLETED? YES

Recommendation: To approve, subject to consultation, the proposed implementation of the traffic management measures on Bloemfontein Road, from the junction with South Africa Road to the junction with the Westway.

53

1. 1.1

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES The proposals detailed in this report relate to UDP policy TN16 traffic management/traffic calming. The Council will seek in all instances to reduce the possibility of conflict between pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, such as cyclists, people with a disability, etc. and motorised vehicles, particularly through traffic and heavy goods vehicles, through the implementation of traffic management schemes. BACKGROUND Bloemfontein Road is classified as a Borough Distributor Road providing an important link between the busy strategic route networks of Uxbridge Road and the Westway (A40). It also forms part of the 283 bus route. The section of Bloemfontein Road, from the junction with South Africa Road to the junction with the Westway, has been identified for inclusion in the 2007/08, Local Safety Scheme programme, because of the number of personal injury accidents occurring along this route. Local Safety Schemes are part of the Councils policy for creating a safer environment and improving the quality of life for local residents by reducing the speed and amount of traffic in residential areas. Between 2004 and 2006 there were 20 personal injury accidents (PIAs) on this section of road. Four of these accidents resulted in serious injuries and 12 were involving vulnerable road users, as shown in Table 1. The majority of accidents occurred during daylight hours in dry conditions. Seven of the accidents occurred at the junction of Bloemfontein Road and South Africa Road. Table 1: Vulnerable Road User Casualties Vulnerable Road User Pedestrians Cyclists Motorcycles Casualties No. 7 3 2

2. 2.1

2.2

2.3

3. 3.1

SURVEYS Pedestrian surveys were carried out at the junction of South Africa Road and Bloemfontein Road to establish the preferred crossing points at this junction. These surveys were used to identify pedestrian flows and movement at this junction to ensure the proposed design caters for the desired pedestrian routes. Traffic speed surveys were conducted at three locations on Bloemfontein Road in September 2007. They show that the 85th percentile of drivers travel at speeds of 25-29mph.

3.2

54

3.3

Topographical surveys were completed on both junctions to identify levels, existing kerb lines and street furniture. These surveys will be used to complete the final design and to provide accurate cost estimates. PROPOSALS The proposed measures are shown on the attached drawing. The proposal involves the following: Removing the mini roundabout at the junction of Bloemfontein Road and South Africa Road and installing a raised table with a priority junction in its place. There have been seven personal injury accidents at this junction, one of which was serious, in the last three years. The reasons for replacing the roundabout with a raised table are: o Research has shown that three-arm roundabouts perform poorly in safety assessments, particularly those with no deflection such as the one at this junction; Raised tables slow vehicles down and have proven to reduce casualties by up to 50%; and Raised tables provide an improved crossing place for vulnerable road users, such as disabled users or those with pushchairs, as the road sits flush with the kerb.

4. 4.1 4.2

o o

Installing kerb build outs at the southern entrance to the Phoenix Fitness Centre and Janet Adegoke swimming pool. A refuge island that acted as an informal crossing point was removed at this location to facilitate the new entrance. There have been two personal injury accidents at this location, one of which was serious, in the last two years. Speed surveys have shown that the average speed for the 85th percentile of vehicles is 25mph in this location. The reasons for constructing kerb build-outs at this site are: o They provide an improved crossing point for all road users, particularly children, who travel from the White City Estate to the Fitness Centre and Phoenix School; They will slow traffic down, as they act as road narrowing features; and There are currently no crossing points on this section of Bloemfontein Road.

o o

Increasing the visibility for vehicles exiting Joslings Close. The entrance and exit point to Joslings Close is directly opposite a bus stop which, combined with cars parking on either side of Joslings Close, results in poor visibility for vehicles exiting onto Bloemfontein Road. There have been five personal injury accidents in this particular area. Increasing visibility for drivers will require the reduction of parking bays by five metres on either side of Joslings Close. While parking stress is relatively low in this area, it is not ideal to lose parking bays. For this reason, the parking

55

bay outside 110 Bloemfontein Road and the parking bay at the northern end of Auckland House on Australia Road will each be increased by 5 metres to offset the loss by Joslings Close. Two large concrete bollards will be removed from either side of Creighton Close on Bloemfontein Road as they create a road safety hazard and do not conform to our current streetscape standards. There is an existing zebra crossing at the junction of Bryony Road. This is to be upgraded as part of a separate scheme in 2008/09, subject to consultation and approval.

5. 5.1

CONSULTATION Residents, businesses and ward Councillors will be consulted on the proposals. The results of the consultation will inform the final detailed design of the scheme and as part of our statutory process the emergency services, London Buses, road users groups and mobility groups will be consulted on the final detailed design of the scheme. COSTS AND PROGRAMME The estimated cost of implementing the improvements along Bloemfontein Road is 200,000 and has been awarded from Transport for London. Subject to a positive response being received to the public consultation, the implementation of the scheme is programmed to commence in February/March 2008. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE COMMENTS Transport for London (TfL) have approved funding of 200,000 to implement the scheme from the Local Safety Scheme Programme in 2007-08. At present, the costs are based on an estimate. This is subject to change once the detail of the scheme has been costed. The funding however is limited to the amount approved by the TfL board plus a contingency. Any variation in costs in excess of the contingency cannot be assumed to be funded by TfL unless this is approved in advance. Alternatively, officers may need to manage the workload to ensure that expenditure is contained within the approved provision. HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES COMMENTS There are no legal implications.

5.2

6. 6.1

6.2

7. 7.1 7.2

8. 8.1

56

9.

COMMENTS OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PERFORMANCE & PROCUREMENT) There are no performance and procurement implications.

9.1

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS No. 1. Description of Background Papers Project Documents Name/Ext. of Department/ Holder of File/Copy Location Angela Marriott Ext 2374 EnvD 4th Floor HTHX

57

245

52

23 3
22 1
20 9

19 5

19 7

20 3

20 7
C lin ic

17 5

18 5

WESTW

AY
El le nb or
Pl ay

8 33 to 4

6 1 to 2 se e H ou B ri sb an

48 25 to

1 to 15

41 35 to

34 29 to

28 23 to

2 15 to 2

9 to 14
RB

REDUCE PARKING BAYS BY 5m

TON CREIGH CLOSE
1 to 16
RB

EXISTING BUS STOP

9 1 to 3

JO S L IN

SE GS CLO
5
48

BS

12 4

EXTEND EXISTING PARKING BAYS BY 5m

114

5 1 to 12
El Sub Sta

106

Christopher Wren School For Boys

IB B B BB IB

B B

Phoenix High SchooI

Blaxland House

CREATE KERB BUILDOUT TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITIES & TRAFFIC CALMING

0 1 to 3

94

82

COMMO

NWEALT

U H AVEN

Schoolkeeper's Cottage

80

El Fatima Sub Sta Commu nity Centre

Presby

Hammersmith Secondary School

24

The General Smuts (PH)

Hall
1 to 23

COMMO
68

NW

E AVENU EALTH

Malaba

t r Cour

Pope John RC Primary School

58

IB

Community Centre

ntre Day Ce

81
59
41

BRYONY

5 1 to 5

51
2

ROAD
93 65 to
6 1 to 3

5 1 to 5

63

67

BB IB

Adventure Playground

Playground

Playground

PO

IB BB IB

AUSTR

Tennis Court

Wormholt Park

pe oo lk ee S chou se H

r's ry Nurse stone Schoo l

Living

White City Estate

5 1 to 5

Wormholt Park

5 1 to 5

5 1 to 5

Council Offices

El Sub Sta

121

52

El Sub Sta
108

REMOVE EXISTING ROUNDABOUT AND CONSTRUCT RAISED TABLE PRIORITY JUNCTION (BLOEMFONTEIN ROAD TO HAVE PRIORITY)
ta S u b

Campbell House

Mitchell House Denham House

Play Area

Mackay House

White City Estate

54

SOUTH

A F R IC A

ROAD

REMOVE CENTRAL PEDESTRIAN REFUGE

18
12
10

1 to 12

111

23

Sitarey Court

DUNRAVEN ROAD
AVEN ROAD

HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM COUNCIL

Director of Environment Town Hall Extension, King Street London W6 9JU Tel. 020 8748 3020
Drawn Checked Approved

PROJECT

NOTES

BLOEMFONTEIN ROAD LOCAL SAFETY SCHEME

Crown copyright Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. L. B. HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM Licence No.LA100019223 2007

Scale

Original Sheet Size

N.T.S
DWG No.

A3
Revision Date

STER

Drawing Status:

80213/37/1

OCT'07

58

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Produced by Highways & Engineering on the Land Survey Mapping System. This drawing is Copyright.

FS 32265

KOL

HOR

MM

The Ordnance Survey mapping included within this publication is provided by Hammersmith & Fulham Council under licence from the Ordnance Survey in order to fulfill its public function to publicise local public services.

GI

1 to 90

SA WL EY RO AD
1

REPOSITION CENTRAL PEDESTRIAN REFUGES

55 1 to

Play Area

7 1 to 4

77 31 to

53 16 to

GS JO S LI N
1

C LO S E

LA W RE

OS E NC E CL

AUSTR

AD A L IA R O
1 to 125

Hargra
Playground

8 1 to 7 H ou se ves

8 1 to 3

1 t o 78

11

23

29

39

49

45

24 7

WESTW

HEATH STAN ROAD

14 3

ou se ou gh H

Calver

1 t o 26 e t Hous

gr

ou

nd

REMOVE 2 ROAD BOLLARDS

Carter

53 39 to

9 1 to 3

se et Hou

El Su b Sta

P la

B en tin

ygr oun

Bathur

se ck H ou

MA CK EN

E ZI E CL OS

9 1 to 3 se st Hou

1 to 39 e bi e Ho us Ab er cr om

42

Phipps House

77 48 to

BLOEM FONTE D IN ROA

Hudson Close

HAVEL

A uc kl an

8 1 to 5 se d H ou

CLO OCK S E

E
CANADA

Day Centre

f ady o Our L rc h a Chu F a ti m

WAY

IN D IA WAY

ET ER IC A ST RE
51

12

Ca nn in

C or nw al

C ha rn se oc k H ou

e g Ho us

se lis H ou

Pa vi lio n
60

OAD A L IA R

Ev

Health Centre

M itc he

Ca m pb e el l Ho us

De nh am

se ll H ou
5 1 to 5

Ho us e

M ac ka

y H ou se

55 1 to

Stand

98

50

Date

Rev

Init

BSI
RE

Colourcodingby SEVERITY

. Serious (4) . Slight (16)

Fatal

(0)

. Other (0)
l---H\ \ 11-+!\ I, HI \ III ]\ i III ,.-J! ':=J .-\W \11 "

Jl'i 11\ Q I J
Licence No. 2007

"'1

.J Cop,",h' SCALE DATE DRAWiNG No.

11

H M,jt)I, 00" io)c-

, Crown copyright. All rights reserved

1 : 2500 22/10/2007

BUCHANAN
COMPUTING

Selected

map area

Bloemfontein

Road,

personal

injury accidents

DRAWN BY

for period between 01/01/04

59

31(12/06

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
3 DECEMBER 2007 CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING Councillor Mrs Adronie Alford PROBATIONARY TENANCY SCHEME This report proposes the introduction of a Probationary Tenancy Scheme.

10
Wards All

CONTRIBUTORS DRS DF HLS Housing

Recommendations: 1. To adopt an Introductory Tenancy Regime, to be known in Hammersmith & Fulham as a Probationary Tenancy Scheme, in accordance with Section 124 of the Housing Act 1996 from 7 January 2008; That probationary tenants should only be granted the statutory rights allowed by the Housing Act 1996 as outlined in paragraph 5 of this report; That a combined tenancy agreement be used to avoid the need to issue a new tenancy agreement at the end of the probationary tenancy period; That Council Officers and H&F Homes be authorised to take all necessary steps to implement and operate the Probationary Tenancy Scheme; and That 61k of funds be released from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to cover a Co-ordinator post and other running costs including legal fees, printing and publicity.

2.

3. HAS A PEIA BEEN COMPLETED? YES 4.

5.

60

1. 1.1

INTRODUCTION This report proposes the implementation of an introductory tenancy scheme for all new customers accepting a secure tenancy in a property managed by Hammersmith & Fulham Homes (H&F Homes). The scheme will form part of the early intervention strategy for dealing with anti-social behaviour and rent arrears by the Council and H&F Homes. Under these arrangements all new tenants will have to go through a trial period of twelve months and if there are tenancy breaches possession is mandatory as long as H&F Homes have correctly followed procedure. It is proposed to use the term Probationary Tenancy in Hammersmith & Fulham. For purposes of this report the scheme will be referred to a Probationary Tenancy Scheme (PTS). It is proposed to introduce the scheme with effect from 7 January 2008; after this date, all new tenants will be granted a Probationary Tenancy. However, because of the need to ensure all relevant staff are fully conversant with the scheme and understand the legal implications, effective action in terms of dealing with breaches will commence in February 2008. BACKGROUND The new Audit Commission KLOE 6 (Key Line of Enquiry) including tenancy management, which has been subject recently to consultation by Audit Commission, and the Respect Agenda create an expectation that local authorities would to be using probationary tenancies. Indeed, the KLOE states that an organisation delivering excellent services adopts probationary or starter tenancy schemes for new residents and can clearly demonstrate their effectiveness The Respect Agenda further reinforces the need to introduce such a scheme as in commitment 3 the emphasis is on prevention and early intervention of nuisance and anti-social behaviour. Within the building blocks of this commitment, a number of other issues are highlighted: Ensuring tenancy agreements contain clear prohibitions on anti-social conduct, linked where appropriate with good neighbourhood agreements Running user friendly sign-up meetings for new residents to include a clear explanation of our policies on anti-social behaviour, how problems will be addressed, what you expect of the resident and what can be expected of HFH Undertaking full assessments of any potential problems that may require tenancy support when entering into a new agreement

1.2

1.3

1.4

2. 2.1

2.2

2.3

The Housing Act 1996 and the Audit Commission in the relevant KLOE refer to introductory tenancies, although other housing providers use a different

61

terminology (e.g. starter, provisional or probationary) to emphasise to new tenants that the first twelve months of their tenancy is a trial period. 2.4 Section 124 of The Housing Act 1996 gives a local housing authority the power to elect to operate Probationary Tenancies. These can be used only where a secure tenancy would usually exist. Section 125 states that the trial period should be for 12 months but this period can be extended by 6 months where there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement. Provided H&F Homes have not commenced possession proceedings the probationary tenancy automatically becomes a secure tenancy on the expiry of the trial period. Probationary Tenancies will be used for all new tenants moving into properties managed by H&F Homes. However, the exception to this would be where a tenancy is being offered to someone who was already a secure tenant immediately before the start of the new tenancy, for example, a tenant who has been transferred under one of the schemes operated by the Council. The main difference between a secure and a probationary tenancy is the legal process if the tenant breaches his/her tenancy agreement, normally for rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. A secure tenancy can only be ended by the Court if the judge considers it reasonable to do so; it is therefore at the Courts discretion. Ending a probationary tenancy is mandatory for the court as long as the landlord has correctly followed procedure and undertaken a review process (if requested by the tenant). In this sense a probationary tenancy is less secure. RESIDENT CONSULTATION Under section 105 of the Housing Act 1985, Local Authorities are required to consult with secure tenants and other relevant stakeholders before introducing this type of scheme. In response to this, a report was considered at a Council Tenant and Leaseholder Borough Forum meeting in February 2007. The view of the Forum was that PTS would provide the mechanism for ensuring new tenants understand the standards of behaviour expected of them and would set out a clear framework for monitoring behaviour and taking effective action where there were breaches of the tenancy agreement. The Borough Forum is made up of elected tenant representatives from all the various tenant associations that operate across the borough. The majority of these representatives hold secure tenancies in properties managed by H&F Homes. In order to ensure full consultation with tenants, an article on the proposal to introduce a PTS was included in the October edition of HFHs magazine 62

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3. 3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Insider, which goes out to all HFH residents. Tenants will be provided with the opportunity to comment on the proposals, which will be included in a follow-up report to the Borough Forum. 4. 4.1 OVERVIEW OF HOW THE SCHEME WILL WORK The scheme will mean that in the first year of the tenancy all new tenants will need to show that they understand their responsibilities to their neighbours and to their landlord. New tenants will be expected to: Pay rent on time and not allow their rent account to fall into arrears; Make sure that they, or anyone living in the property or visiting, do not cause a nuisance to their neighbours or local community; Look after their home and garden; Meet the other commitments of their tenancy. 4.2 In meeting these standards H&F Homes will check new tenants rent accounts every weekly and carry out home visits as required to ensure there are no breaches of the tenancy conditions. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SECURE AND PROBATIONARY TENANCY Probationary tenants have similar but not the same statutory rights as secure tenants. The table below sets out the key differences. Probationary Tenant Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No (period counts towards discount) No No No

5. 5.1

Legal right

Secure Tenant Succession to family home Yes Right to Repair Yes Right to be consulted on housing Yes management issues Right to Assign Yes Right to participate in housing Yes management contract monitoring Right to sublet part of premises Yes Right to Buy Yes Right to take in lodgers Right to improve Right to exchange 5.2 Yes Yes Yes

The Council has the discretion to grant Probationary tenants some of the rights denied to them by statute. However, it is not proposed to grant these additional rights in order to encourage new tenants to comply with their tenancy conditions.

63

6. 6.1

COMBINED TENANCY AGREEMENT To avoid the need to issue a new tenancy agreement at the end of a trial period, it is proposed to use a combined agreement which sets out clearly which terms apply to a probationary tenancy and which applies to a secure tenancy. This will mean that if the tenancy is conducted in a satisfactory manner, it will revert automatically to a secure tenancy after 12 months without the need to issue a new agreement. REVIEW PROCESS If a probationary tenant breaches the conditions of his/her tenancy, H&F Homes can serve a Notice to Terminate which must contain the following information: The reasons for the decision to apply to the Court for possession Information on the tenants rights to request a review Details of when the legal action will commence if a review decision is not in the tenants interest The date by which a review will be completed and when the tenant will be notified of the result.

6.2

7. 7.1

7.2

The tenant will then have 14 days from the date of service of the notice to request a review. The review will normally be a paper review but the tenant may request an oral hearing. At least one weeks notice of the review should be given to allow the tenant time to prepare a case. In more complex cases, additional time may need to be allotted. H&F Homes will be required to have in place robust procedures to deal with reviews. The review must be carried out in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State which include: The decision shall be carried out by a person who was not involved in the decision for an order for possession; Where a review of a decision made by one officer is to be made by another officer, the second officer shall be someone who is senior to the person who made the initial decision; Where the review is not by way of a hearing, the tenant must have the right to make representations in writing, which will be considered; Where the review is by way of a hearing, the tenant must have the right to be accompanied and may be represented by another person, whether that person is professionally qualified or not. For the purposes of the proceedings, the tenant shall have the rights and powers as detailed in the regulations; 64

7.3

Where the review is by way of a hearing, the tenant can call persons to give evidence; Where the review is by way of a hearing, the tenant may put questions to any person giving evidence Where the review is by way of a hearing, the tenant may make representations in writing. 7.4 The review process is the one area where there is the likelihood of the legal process slipping because of the tight timescales associated. It is important when deciding who should carry out the review that rules governing suitable officers outlined at 7.3 are strictly followed. The difficulty with the process is that if the decision to take the original possession proceeding involved a senior officer, the process gets escalated up the management structure, and in other organisations this has resulted in senior managers having to hear reviews. POLICY, PROCEDURE AND STAFF TRAINING The introduction of probationary tenancies represents a major change in the way tenancies are managed, as a new escalation policy and procedures will need to be developed to ensure H&F complies with statutory requirements and timescales. The new procedures will need to cover the following matters: Signups, pre-tenancy information, assessment and counselling; Assistance to sustain tenancies to ensure support is available as required; Clear guidance on what behaviour may result in a tenancy being terminated or extended; The behaviour described in the guidance should be such that it would allow possession proceedings to be taken against the tenant on rent arrears, ASB or other breaches; Good case management; Monitoring systems; Taking effective court action. 8.3 In addition, staff will need intensive training to ensure they have sufficient knowledge and understanding to adhere to procedure so as to ensure that possession action, where appropriate, happens within the statutory timescales.

7.5

8. 8.1

8.2

65

8.4

In view of this, it is proposed to go live with the scheme on the 7 January 2008; after this date, all new tenants will be granted a Probationary tenancy using the new combined tenancy agreement. The success of this scheme is very much dependent on ensuring that proper procedures are in place to meet statutory requirements and deadlines when carrying out reviews. Unless staff are fully conversant with the scheme and understand the legal implications the Council could be left open to challenge through the Judicial Review process. In view of this, effective action in terms of dealing with breaches will commence in February 2008. SET UP COSTS AND FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS As the scheme will form part of the Councils and H& F Homes early intervention strategy for dealing with anti-social behaviour and rent arrears, it is essential that procedures, training and IT system are in place. Therefore, in order to ensure the successful implementation of the scheme, the Council has agreed to fund a full time officer to lead on this initiative. This officer will have responsibility for: co-ordinating the introduction of the scheme developing procedures development of a new escalation policy monitor workload and resource implications co-ordinating IT changes producing documentation co-ordinating legal services input training staff monitoring the effectiveness of the scheme

8.5

9. 9.1

9.2

9.3

In addition, 20,000 has been set aside to cover other costs associated with setting up the scheme. These include: publicity launch and campaign production of leaflets and other documentation IT changes legal services

10. 10.1

MONITORING It is essential that when it goes live there are processes and procedures in place for monitoring the scheme to ensure that: The effectiveness of their use is properly evaluated Equalities issues are addressed The scheme is operating fairly and consistently Any need to change policy is highlighted.

10.2

In order to assess their impact, systems will need to be put in place to collect the following information:

66

Number of tenancies created Number of notices served Main breaches of tenancy for which a notice is served Number of tenancies extended Main breaches of tenancy for which a tenancy has been extended Number of Appeals against a notice or extension Number of Appeals upheld and why Number of Appeals rejected Number of Court Orders obtained and refused Number of evictions carried out Levels of turnover and reasons for leaving Equalities and diversity breakdown 11. 11.1 DEMOTED TENANCIES A Demoted tenancy is very similar to a Probationary tenancy and gives the tenant the same limited rights and less protection from eviction than a secure tenancy. Only the court can make a demoted tenancy and the court will only make the order if it is satisfied that the tenant, or another resident of or visitor to the tenants home, has behaved in a way which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. In addition, the court must be satisfied that it is reasonable to make the order. If the court makes a demotion order, it will last for 12 months. Once the demoted tenancy is in place, it will need to be monitored in the same way as a probationary tenancy and can also be terminated in exactly the same way. Likewise the demoted tenant has the same right of review as a probationary tenant. For this reason, only when robust monitoring and review procedures have been put in place can a demoted tenancy become an effective tool for controlling anti-social behaviour. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the first application to court for a demoted tenancy will be made after June 2008. COMMENTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Following discussions between Hammersmith & Fulham Homes and the Director of Community Services, it is recommended that 61k of funds be released from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to cover the following: one Co-ordinator post for one year of operation (41k) as requested in Section 9.2 running costs (legal, publicity) to the value of 20k as requested in Section 9.3

11.2

11.3

11.4

12. 12.1

12.2

The report indicates in Section 8.4 that the scheme is to commence from 7 January. Therefore, it is recommended that 3/12ths or 15k of the funds are released to H&F Homes for the financial year 2007/08, with the remaining 46k contributing to 2008/09.

67

12.3

The payments will be incorporated into the management fee paid monthly to H&F Homes in accordance with the sixth schedule of the Management Agreement between the Council and H&F Homes. It is recommended that the 15k for 2007/08 should be funded from the projected underspend currently being reported on the HRA. The latest monitoring report on the HRA projects an underspend of 2.6m. Not including this proposal, there are a currently a number of requests for use of the estimated underspend totalling 111,000, although some of them have yet to be approved. The position is being monitored, and should future requests approach the value of the underspend this will be commented on in the relevant reports. There are therefore sufficient funds available to meet the estimated cost of this scheme. The 46k for 2008/09 will need to be included as a growth item in the HRA MTFS for 2008/09. COMMENTS OF LEGAL SERVICES Section 124 of the Housing Act 1996 states that an Introductory tenancy regime (or Probationary tenancy scheme) will only apply if a Local housing authority elects to operate the scheme. Probationary tenancy schemes have been held by the courts to be compatible with the Human Rights Act. It has been found to be proportionate and reasonable to adopt such schemes to deal with breaches of tenancy in the early stages of a tenancy. However, as set out in the report, it is important that the correct review procedure is adopted by H&F homes. The court will only grant a possession order if there is evidence that a review has been properly conducted.

12.4

12.5

12.6

13. 13.1

13.2

13.3

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

No.

No 1

Brief Description of Background Papers Brief Description of Background Papers All background papers and guidance

Name/Ext. of holder of file/copy Name/Ext. of holder of file/copy Paul Nicolls (Area Housing Manager) x5666

Department/Location

Department/ Location Hammersmith & Fulham Homes, Fulham North Area Office.

68

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
Key Decisions
CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING Councillor Mrs Adronie Alford AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL HOMEBUY SCHEME AND PROPOSAL FOR A RENT FREE PERIOD FOR COUNCIL TENANTS TAKING UP HOUSING ASSOCIATION SHARED OWNERSHIP A Cabinet Decision was taken in February 2007 to offer Social Homebuy to Council Tenants. This report proposes changes to the scheme that will provide a rent free period of 3 years for Council tenants who part purchase their home under the Scheme and a partial rent free period equal to 25% equity for an additional 2 years. The report also proposes to offer mobile social homebuy and tenant incentives for under occupying tenants to move to smaller Council owned accommodation and to offer for Council tenants a rent free period of five years if they move on to purchase shared ownership housing provided by a housing association. CONTRIBUTORS DCS HLS DF Recommendations: 1. The Council offers rent free and reduced rent social homebuy to the first 20 Council tenants completing a purchase from the Council under this shared ownership scheme. The tenant, if meeting the criteria (see recommendation 2 below), will get a completely rent free period free for 3 years and a partial rent free period equal to 25% equity for an additional 2 years (both concessions ceasing to apply on sale). 2. That those buying under social homebuy where no rent is charged are charged the leaseholder housing management service charge. This arrangement to apply for the rent free period. 3. That the Director of Community Services

11
Wards All

HAS A PEIA BEEN COMPLETED? YES

69

(in consultation with the Head of Legal Services and Director of Finance) is given authority to a set a cap on the housing management service charge paid by those buying under social homebuy. 4. The Council offers mobile social homebuy to up to 5 under occupying Council tenant households who are willing to move to 1 bed room accommodation under this shared ownership scheme. This will include offering a tenant incentive (as part of the current scheme) to move of 10K per room released (e.g. 10K paid for moving from 2 bed to 1 bed). The tenant incentive will also be open to Council tenants applying under the right to buy who switch to Social Homebuy. 5. That when offering mobile social homebuy priority will be given to households releasing 4 bed room accommodation and then to any households releasing family size accommodation on the basis of when they registered an interest in the scheme. 6. Properties for purchase under the mobile social homebuy scheme be identified from the disposals list which will include units for disposal. If this method of identifying properties does not produce sufficient or appropriate units that interested households receive a limited selection of properties that meet requirements (e.g. in the local area, 1 bed properties); 7. As an incentive for Council tenants to move from high demand social rented accommodation, the Council makes payments to housing associations, offering shared ownership, to provide for the first 20 Council tenants purchasing shared ownership housing with a rent free period of 5 years in their new homes; 8. That the schemes outlined in this report will be available to those households on

70

gross household incomes up to 60K and where the amount being borrowed is two times or more the purchasers income (e.g. income 30K amount borrowed 62,500 to purchase 25% of a property worth 250K would be eligible as amount purchased would be 2.08 times income). 9. The Director of Community Services be given delegated authority (in consultation with the Director of Finance and the Head of Legal Services) to decide any conditions attached to offers under the above proposals, to protect the interests of the Council and ensure prompt takeup. 10. There is a periodic in year review of the impact of the schemes detailed above with authority given to the Director of Community Services in consultation with the Director of Finance, Head of Legal Services and Cabinet Member for Housing to end or extend the schemes in any way (including extension to more tenants and change to the benefits and terms and conditions applicable). 11. That the schemes are reviewed on an annual basis through review of the HRA Budget Strategy setting process with appropriate recommendations being made to Cabinet for funding. 12. That any receipts generated by social homebuy or shared ownership sales are (so far as lawfully possible) applied to housing for the supply or improvement of affordable housing.

71

1. 1.1

BACKGROUND The Councils draft Housing Strategy identifies the promotion of and increase in low cost homeownership opportunities as a key objective for the Council both in promoting homeownership for low to middle income households and in securing more mixed and sustainable communities. It is the case however that currently the homeownership opportunities available to Council Tenants in particular are limited either by the fact that the tenant cannot afford to buy either their or an alternative home, or in financial terms the homeownership offers available are not attractive. The Council has a number of initiatives underway that seek to encourage homeownership amongst Council Tenants. Right to Buy is available however reduction in discounts have meant that this option is less attractive to tenants and it is anticipated that this year there are likely to be less than 40 sales. The Council also offers a Tenant Incentive Scheme for households in larger family Council accommodation to move on and purchase accommodation which is proving popular. The scheme frees up much needed family sized social rented stock which can then be let to households in housing need. Council and other social housing tenants are also a priority group for housing association shared ownership (part buy part rent schemes). However, the take up of housing association shared ownership amongst social tenants has been very low. Social Homebuy, where Council tenants are able to part purchase and part rent their properties, has also been piloted in the borough since February 2007; however as yet there has been no take up of the scheme. The scheme has the double benefit of allowing the Council to retain 100% of the capital receipt for the provision (including improvement) of affordable housing. A more detailed assessment of the Social Homebuy pilot is provided in Section 2 of this Cabinet report. There is also a local and particular challenge for Hammersmith & Fulham, given the high valuations for properties and relatively low incomes of Council tenants making part purchase difficult if not unaffordable for many. This paper outlines 3 pilot schemes intended to make homeownership more attractive and more affordable for council tenants. The three schemes are: Nil Rent for Social Homebuy. The scheme will offer 20 households over the next 2 years the opportunity to purchase a share of their property with no rent being charged on the unsold part for a 3 year period and offering a partial rent free period of 25% of the unsold equity for an additional 2 years. It is estimated that the reduction in income to the Housing Revenue Account will be 131K. Mobile Social Homebuy. To offer under-occupying Council tenants the opportunity to purchase and rent a smaller Council home. The Council will offer 10K per bedroom gained to initially 5 households moving to 1 bedroom accommodation. The properties offered will in the first instance

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

72

be those properties identified for disposal under the Councils Disposal policy. It is estimated that the cost of the scheme will be 100K for 2008/09. Rent free period for Council tenants taking up housing association shared ownership housing. Through a one off negotiated payment to the housing association the scheme will offer a 5 year rent free period to 20 council tenants who buy. It is estimated that the scheme will run over a two year period and will in total cost the Council 300K.

1.7

The schemes are intended to generate capital receipts which can be reinvested back into affordable housing development and estate renewal and to free up Council accommodation and larger council accommodation to meet urgent housing needs. The schemes will also assist a minimum of 40 low to middle income households into homeownership. Each scheme is limited to a set number of households in order to limit the financial liability of the Council and to take account of the likely demand as reflected in previous interest and take up of shared ownership schemes including social homebuy and new build shared ownership by social tenants. The schemes will be kept under regular review by the Council, with any change or increase in the numbers involved being subject to relevant finance and legal considerations and advice. The schemes are not intended to financially over-extend Council tenants who are thinking of purchasing; however, they are intended to provide an incentive to purchase and some financial cushion for those tenants moving from paying social rents to mortgages and service charges (including a proportion - equal to the proportion of equity purchased - for planned and capital works).

1.8

1.9

1.10 Additionally, any Council tenant purchasing under either social homebuy or housing association shared ownership will be subject to a financial assessment to assess whether they are capable of meeting all of the financial responsibilities of homeownership. The experience of local registered social landlords who have been offering shared ownership and undertaking financial assessments has been that there is a very low level of defaulting on shared ownership arrangements. Where a household does get into financial difficulty housing association practice is to give advice and assistance to ensure that the household is able to manage its finances and not get into further financial difficulty. The Council will provide the same ongoing advice and assistance to those tenants buying under social homebuy. The Council is also assessing whether a further innovation of the social homebuy scheme might be to have, in very exceptional circumstances, a buy back policy where a household gets into financial difficulties. Proposals in this respect are likely to be put forward in a review paper for the scheme which will be presented to Cabinet after April of next year. 1.11 The DCLG 5 Year Housing Plan Sustainable Communities Homes for All identified that social tenants should have the opportunity to own their home. The benefit of homeownership identified by national government is that

73

households do not get left behind as those who own become asset rich and those who rent do not and that asset ownership provides households with more options and greater choice both in housing and in other ways. 1.12 For Hammersmith & Fulham, the key objectives for the borough in promoting homeownership is to retain those low to middle income households (on incomes up to 60K per annum) who may leave the borough as their aspirations to own cannot be met in the borough due to high house prices. In retaining low to middle income households, a number of positive benefits are anticipated: The Council reduces the economic and social polarisation found in the borough. The Council ensures that a broad range of households living in the borough use the public services available and they do not become residualised. The Council retains low to middle income working households in parts of the borough, almost wholly on the large social housing estates, where there are significant levels of unemployment and deprivation and in so doing promotes more sustainable communities and neighbourhoods. 1.13 Funding for the initiatives will be identified from HRA balances and capital receipts from HRA disposals. The total budget required to take forward the projects is 531K over the next 5 years. It is recommended that if the schemes are under or over-subscribed, authority be given to the Director of Community Services to vary the terms of the projects in consultation with the Director of Finance, Head of Legal Services and the Cabinet Member for Housing. It is recommended that the schemes are reviewed on an annual basis through review of the HRA Budget Strategy setting process with appropriate recommendations being made to Cabinet for increased funding. 2. 2.1 SOCIAL HOMEBUY Cabinet agreed in February 2007 that the Council should become a Social Homebuy pilot. The scheme provides Council tenants with an opportunity to part purchase the Council home they rent paying on the unsold equity the old social rent proportionate to the unsold equity (Councils have discretion to charge up to 3% rent on unsold equity, based on market value). Additionally, the scheme, rather than passing on the full service charges (which the Council has discretion to do) for housing management and planned works and decent homes, offers reduced service charges liability in proportion to the share owned. The February 2007 Cabinet report identified a target of achieving 20 sales in the first year of operation. The report, however, also noted that other Social Homebuy schemes that had been piloted by Councils and housing associations had been slow to take off. The Council sought from the Department for Local Government and the Communities (DCLG) improvements to the scheme that it believed would encourage purchase, including granting of a first share lower than 25% (and

2.2

2.3

74

possibly as low as 10%) and the Council having the flexibility to offer discounts greater than 16K. These improvements were not accepted by the DCLG on the basis that the improvements would conflict with other schemes in operation (Right to Buy and Housing Association Right to Acquire) and that it would not be appropriate to agree these innovations on the basis that this was a pilot scheme. 2.4 The one improvement to the scheme that is likely to be introduced is the ability to offer proportionate discounts up to 16K rather than only a one off discount proportionate to the first equity share purchased which is the current situation. This is likely to be introduced from April 2008. There is also a DCLG Small Shares Group meeting to look at the potential of offering shares lower than 25%. The Group is likely to report sometime in early 2008 with proposals. The position in terms of sales of Council housing through Social Homebuy is not encouraging, with only one sale being completed by any of the pilot Councils. Housing Associations have fared better; however this has been largely due to Housing Association tenants who had no right to purchase now being given that opportunity through this scheme. The consensus amongst London and District Councils piloting Social Homebuy who met recently was that the scheme would take longer than the pilot period (that runs up until the end of March 2008) to take off. The view was that it would take time to persuade Council Tenants that part ownership was a viable option. The group of Councils also identified Social Homebuy as a viable alternative to Right to Buy where sales in all boroughs have plummeted (13 so far in Hammersmith & Fulham up until the end of September 2007). PROPOSALS TO CHANGE THE CURRENT SCHEME In order to tackle affordability issues for some tenants wishing to purchase under Social Homebuy, to increase receipts available to the Council to reinvest in the supply or improvement of affordable housing, and to provide additional incentives for under occupying tenants to move and for social tenants to take up shared ownership opportunities being offered by housing associations, there are three additional pilot schemes proposed below. The proposals support the Councils Housing and Community Strategy objectives by promoting homeownership and promoting mobility in and from council housing stock. The offers will be available to those households on gross household incomes up to 60K and where the amount being borrowed in order to purchase is at least two times or more the gross income of the purchaser (e.g. income 30K amount borrowing 62,500 to purchase 25% of a property worth 250K would be eligible as amount purchased would be 2.08 times income). This reflects the Housing Strategy findings that households on incomes up to 60K, with limited savings or equity, would normally not be able to purchase in the borough and also ensures that households with higher incomes are encouraged to purchase higher equity stakes. (e.g. a household

2.5

2.6

3. 3.1

3.2

75

with a gross income of 40K would need to purchase over 30% of the equity to meet the requirements of the scheme). 3.3 It is anticipated and estimated that the schemes detailed that promote purchase under social homebuy will achieve for the Council a receipt in the region of 1.25m. Under the terms of the social homebuy scheme, the Council will retain 100% of the receipt where the Council invests receipts in affordable housing or improvement of affordable housing. 1.25m will provide an opportunity for reinvestment therefore to improve estates for tenants and fund housing initiatives which increase affordable housing in the borough. The following is proposed: Nil rent for social homebuy That for sales completed in 2007/08 and 2008/09, the Council will (for limited periods) not charge rent (or charge a reduced rent) on the unsold equity where a Council Tenant purchases under Social Homebuy. The amended specific consent provided in October 2007 confirms that: It is not a requirement of the Secretary of States consent that rent is charged, but if it is the rent charged under the lease shall not be more than 3 per cent per annum of the sum calculated by applying the relevant percentage to the market value, save that the authority may carry out a an annual rent review subject to the provisions of paragraph 5. Further, the revised guidance to the Social Homebuy Scheme issued in the same month confirmed: The rental charge payable by a purchaser under Social HomeBuy should not exceed 3% 1 of the remaining equity owned by the landlord. The Governments target average for rental charges is 2.75%, but it expects that some providers may choose to levy lower charges. It has not specified a lower limit. If this accords with their own policies, landlords may decide to charge either a nominal rent (e.g. "a peppercorn if demanded") or no rent. Where no rent is charged this may be either permanently, or for a limited period (e.g. for the first 5 years, or after the tenant's share exceeds a certain level). CLG recommends that where landlords charge a nominal rent they consider also including provision in the lease that will allow this to be varied. The potential financial impact on the Council is outlined in Appendix 1 of this report. The impact will vary from property to property given different rent levels currently charged. In summary, taking an average rent, the loss of income to the Council if tenants bought 50% equity would be 1,697 per annum with a likely downward adjustment to this amount as the Council achieves a subsidy benefit (estimated to be 400 per annum). The impact if a tenant brought 25% would be 3,142 before any adjustment for subsidy.
1

3.4 3.5

Annual rent increases are to be limited to RPI plus 0.5%, using the September RPI figure published annually.

76

On the assumption that the current target of 20 properties is met over a two year period, and that sales take place at regular intervals throughout the year, the loss of rental income is estimated as follows: If all purchasers bought a 50% share, 6,485 in the first year, 19,455 in the second year and 25,940 in the third year. If all purchasers bought a 25% share, 13,710 in the first year, 41,130 in the second year and 54,840 in the third year. If purchases were equally split between 25% and 50%, in the first year 10,098, in the second year 30,293 and 40,390 in the third year. Thereafter, the loss would reduce as purchasers would be required to pay rent on their remaining share less 25%.This could be estimated when the actual pattern of sales is known.

It is proposed for the rent free period that the purchaser pays the full housing management service charge due rather than a proportion of the service charge as under the current scheme, given that no rent is being paid. Hammersmith & Fulham Homes have estimated that this on average would be a payment of 600 against a reduced average rent payment of 1,018 per annum (based on 25%). Given that service charges vary between the lowest charge of 200 and the highest charge of 2,500, officers recommend that the Director of Community Services in consultation with the Director of Finance and Head of Legal Services is given authority to establish a capped charge limit, possibly related to the average charge, in order to ensure that the service charge referable to the unpurchased equity does not negate the temporary rent holiday (but subject to being satisfied as to the balance of any potential loss of housing management charge income against the benefits from sale). Shared owners would, in all cases, continue to be liable for planned work and decent homes costs proportionate to the equity purchased. It would not be possible to fund such a scheme through social homebuy or other capital receipts from disposals given the current rules as to how a Council can retain and use these receipts. It is therefore proposed to fund the scheme from HRA balances. Officers would recommend these additional safeguards: That the total commitment is to cover rental for 20 units with a review and extension of the scheme being agreed through the annual HRA budget setting process for future years (2009/10 and beyond). Recommend a periodic in year review of the financial impact of the scheme with authority given to the Director Community Services to end or extend the scheme in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, the Director of Finance and the Head of Legal Services. That the scheme offers a rent free period lasting 3 years with an additional 2 years where the Council offers 25% rent free with the shared owner paying a proportionate rent on the remaining unsold equity. This will restrict the Councils liabilities and encourage purchase of additional tranches of equity. 77

For the initial 20 sales of the scheme, the liability over the first 3 years it is estimated would be between 52K (all sales at 50%) and 110K (all sales at 25%) with an additional 2 years estimated to cost between 16K (all sales at 25%) and 44.5K (all sales 50%). The benefit to the Council will be in increased capital receipts which can be reinvested for the supply or improvement of affordable housing. Officers recommend that a three year budget should be put in place to support the scheme of 100K with provision made for funding of the 2 year period of 31K. 3.6 Tenant Incentive Social Homebuy That the Council runs a pilot scheme offering a Tenant Incentive payment to those tenants who agree to move from under occupied accommodation to council owned housing which better suits their needs. The proposal would be that the tenant would move to the smaller 1 bedroom accommodation from family size accommodation taking up a secure tenancy on the understanding that he/she would purchase the property under social homebuy. The scheme would be restricted to those households who are under occupying and who move to 1 bed accommodation, given the relatively high supply available of 1 bed accommodation against other family accommodation that is in short supply to meet urgent housing needs. The Tenant Incentive payment would be paid to a tenant's solicitors, against the solicitors' professional undertaking that the money would be held by them and used for no other purpose than to acquire a shared ownership or social homebuy property in the name of the tenant. The secure tenant would simultaneously give notice onhis/her secure tenancy and contract for the shared ownership replacement. It is proposed that we offer 10K per bedroom which the Council gains. Therefore if a household moved from a 3 bed room property to a 1 bed the Tenant Incentive would be 20K and 10K for a 2 bed property. It is proposed that the same tenant incentives would be available to those intending to exercise their right to buy but willing to move from larger council accommodation. It is also proposed that the Council prioritise households for the scheme where that household is giving up accommodation that is urgently needed by the Council to meet identified housing needs for social rented accommodation. A tenant taking up this offer in connection with a Homebuy shared ownership lease, would also be eligible for a rent free period under the scheme described in 3.5 and would also be eligible for a proportionate discount on the

78

equity purchased up to 16K (that is if 50% of a property is purchased the buyer would be eligible for a discount up to 8K). Properties for purchase would be identified from the disposals list which will include units for disposal which were the last tenanted properties in a block where all other properties are leasehold. If this method of identifying properties does not produce sufficient or appropriate units, officers recommend that interested households receive a limited selection of properties that meet requirements. Rules will clearly need to be developed that ensure that any selection or identification of interest in a property does not unduly disrupt void turnarounds. It is proposed to fund this scheme from the capital receipts from disposals of the equity purchased by the tenants under Social Homebuy. It is anticipated that take up of the scheme may be limited, so Council Officers recommend provision is made for an initial 5 sales in 2008/09 with a review as to continued funding being made at the time of agreeing the HRA Budget Strategy. Officers recommend provision is made of 100,000 for 2008/09. Officers also recommend that Cabinet delegates to the Director of Community Services in consultation with the Director of Finance and Head of Legal Services authority to vary the scheme in year where sales targets will not be met. 3.7 Rent free period for shared ownership housing Over the next 3 years over 400 units of shared ownership housing will be developed in the borough. It is the most common way that a low to middle income household will gain a foot on the homeownership ladder. Only a very small minority of the sales (2 out of the 39 sales since the Home Buy Team were set up in February 2007) are actually made to social tenants moving into shared ownership accommodation. One reason why this is the case is the low social rents charged and/or the incomes of social housing tenants making the products unattractive and for some unaffordable. This scheme is intended to act as an incentive to encourage purchase and for social tenants to vacate social rented stock that is required to meet urgent housing needs. It is also intended to provide an opportunity for those on incomes that are lower than that of the average shared ownership purchaser to purchase. In the latter case, the purchaser will still be subject to a financial assessment which will ensure that the household can afford to buy. Taking the average price for a new build shared ownership property as 250K and assuming a rent level of around 2%, the Council commitment would be between 12,500 and 18,750 over 5 years on the basis of the purchaser taking a 50% or 25% equity share respectively. This scheme would offer 20 Council tenants buying shared ownership housing a rent free period. The potential cost to the Council would be between 250K and 375K. Council

79

officers recommend that a budget of 300K be set aside to fund the project with authority given to the Director of Community Services to make appropriate changes to the scheme either to end the project if the project is financially over committed or to review the project if there is not the anticipated take up and make appropriate changes in consultation with the Head of Legal Services and Director of Finance. The scheme will be funded from HRA balances. 4. 4.1 COMMENTS FROM THE HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES The promotion of home ownership is not a specific statutory function of a local housing authority, but can be pursued as a policy to the extent that it serves the needs of persons in housing need in the borough or is beneficial in terms of management of the Councils estates. Disposal of housing stock by voluntary sale should only occur consistently with an assessment of what stock (if any) is required to meet the Councils statutory duties and housing functions generally. Disposal and the terms of disposal must be consistent also with the Councils fiduciary duty. Except where expressly permitted by statute, the Council should not (without legitimate justification) give away its property or allow its use without proper payment. The fiduciary duty is meant to protect council tax payers (and, in some situations, Council tenants) from the unfair balancing of the interests of those who benefit against the interests of those who stand to bear the burden of providing that benefit. Normally, a shared ownership lease requires the leaseholder to pay (in respect of the unsold equity) a rateable proportion of the normal rent the Council would charge for the property (with some adjustment for increased repairing liabilities on the leaseholder). A revised specific consent (dated 10th October 2007) granted by the Secretary of State to the Council in connection with the Social Homebuy pilot states that it is not a requirement that a rent is charged, but if it is it must (ignoring annual reviews) not be more than 3% per annum of the sum calculated by applying the relevant percentage to the market value. (the relevant percentage is the percentage of equity unsold). This though is not absolutely clear authority to charge nothing, as it leaves the Council with having to assess whether not charging a rent would be consistent with the Councils fiduciary duty, in particular to other Council tenants (who have to pay their rents in full because they are not purchasing). However the fiduciary duty would only be breached if the burden of the rent holiday were materially to fall on secure tenants and this could not be reasonably justified. The DCLGs Guidance on Social Homebuy for local authorities (September 2007) contains a somewhat clearer statement that landlords may decide to charge either a nominal rent (e.g. a peppercorn if demanded) or no rent. Where no rent is charged this may be either permanently, or for a limited period. Curiously, however, the guidance later says There is no lower limit, but a positive rent must be charged. The guidance makes no specific reference to either the fiduciary duty, or to S.24 (3) Housing Act 1985 (general

4.2

4.3

80

requirement to have regard to the principle that rents of any class or description of local authority housing should bear broadly the same proportion to private sector rents, under assured tenancies, as the rents of housing of any other class or description). Nonetheless the guidance does state that, if an authority does charge lower rents, it must be able to satisfy their auditors that this is financially prudent and sustainable in terms of its overall housing strategy. Given the small scale of what is currently proposed, reliance on the DCLG guidance can be justified. If the scheme is substantially extended, however, it would be advisable (especially if Council rents could be adversely affected) to seek opinion of counsel. In particular, so far as the fiduciary duty is concerned, it would seem difficult to justify a balancing of interests that afforded the benefit of a rent free period only to those council tenants who could afford shared ownership purchase. With respect to S.24 (3), the obligation is only to have regard to private sector rents. Accordingly, it would appear that (so long as rents under council shared ownership leases generally conform with the legislation and the Council genuinely considers the issue) there should be no objection to a decision to depart from the norm in the interests of pursuing a proper policy of encouraging low cost home ownership for low to middle income households that might otherwise be forced to migrate to boroughs where property is more affordable. 4.4 The revised Secretary of State consent to operate social homebuy makes provision for the Council to offer social homebuy to secure tenants moving from one council property to another (mobile social homebuy) but only if they are a secure tenant of the Council and intending to use the dwelling-house as their only or principal home, and they would have the Right to Buy it if they had a tenancy of it. The Right to Buy on the other hand is a statutory scheme and can only be exercised in relation to the property the tenant occupies as a secure tenant. If therefore the tenant chooses to purchase a different property in return for an incentive payment, this will have to be a voluntary sale by the Council under S.32 Housing Act 1985 (rather than a Right to Buy sale). General Consent A3.4 of the 2005 General Housing Consents permits such voluntary sales (and allows the same discount as on RTB). Alternatively, the tenant could first move into the new property on a secure tenancy and then exercise the Right to Buy afresh (in relation to the new property). 4.5 As to capping of service charge, the Secretary of States consent does not refer to the possibility. Nor would a cap be possible under the 1997 Directions issued by the Secretary of State (as this only confers a discretion to limit service charges to 10,000 over a 5 year period). This does not rule out capping altogether, however, since the Secretary of State consent does not expressly prohibit it, whilst the 1997 Directions are stated to be without prejudice to other powers of the Council. Under S.33(1) Housing Act 1985, the Council may (where a disposal has been sanctioned by the Secretary of State) impose such covenants and conditions as it thinks fit (which would include any with respect to levying service charges).

81

However, any proposed cap inserted using S.33 must be defensible in terms of the Councils fiduciary duties i.e. must not result in placing an unreasonable burden on council-tax payers or (by way of rent increases) on secure tenants. The present proposal of a limited period concession to ensure the rent concession (as authorised by the Secretary of States consent) is not negated by greater service charges is not considered likely to pose a problem in this regard (especially in view of the limited number of sales authorised by Cabinet and with clarity on how the service charge forgone is to be funded). 4.6 Any associated incentive payment to move from the existing dwelling to another council property could not be made under the tenant incentive scheme under S.129 Housing Act 1988 (which only applies where the accommodation acquired is otherwise than as a tenant or licensee of the authority). It is likely, though, that (subject to suitable factual justification as set out in 1.7 and 1.12 of this report) a payment could be justified either under S.2 Local Government Act 2000 (the well-being power) or under S.111 Local Government Act 1972 (power to do things conducive to discharge of the Councils functions). Any payment would of course have to be properly justified in terms of the Councils housing functions and its fiduciary duty (e.g. on the basis that scarce property was being freed up). In using the Section 2 power the Council (in addition to satisfying itself that payments would promote the economic, social or environmental well-being of the borough or anyone in it) must also have regard to the Councils Community Strategy. With mobile homebuy, there might be a danger of the incentive payment being construed as merely an enhanced discount on the new property (which would not be permitted under the terms of Secretary of State consents). To minimise this risk, it would be best for the incentive payment actually to be made to the tenants solicitors (against a suitable undertaking), rather than off-set the payment against the price of the new property. 4.7 A similar mobile arrangement is possible where the tenant instead moves to a shared ownership property acquired from an RSL. It would be essential to ensure that the tenant did acquire the new property (to minimise the risk of their taking the Councils money and later re-presenting themselves to the Council as homeless). Hence the suggestion that payment is only made to a tenants solicitors (against a suitable undertaking) or direct from the Council to the RSL. In relation to the schemes proposed in this report, provisions may be required to protect the Councils interest, in particular against tenants receiving incentive payments to buy and later re-presenting themselves as homeless (after effecting an early sale). A payment to an RSL to enable them , in effect, to offer a rent free period under the homebuy lease granted by the RSL to a tenant of the Council, may be justified under S.129 Housing Act 1988 (which allows an incentive payment to be paid to or for the benefit of a tenant). Again, each case would need to

4.8

4.9

82

be justifiable by reference to discharge of the Councils housing functions and the fiduciary duty. 5. COMMENTS FROM DIRECTOR OF FINANCE The report recommends three options that are designed to encourage prospective purchasers to take part shares in dwellings. There is a cost to each of the options as set out in the report, and it is recommended that budget provision be set aside for these initiatives in a total sum of 531,000. The estimated profile of these one-off commitments is shown in the table below. Table 5.1 Estimated cost of schemes over time Scheme Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Total 000

Revenue Rent free Social 4 Homebuy

Revenue/Capital

22

32

31

24

14

131

Mobile Social Homebuy Rent free period for Housing Assoc shared ownership All 4

100

100

112 234

112 144

76 107 24 14 4

300 531

The budget process for 2008/2009 is in its early stages and there are a number of unknown factors, principally the Housing Subsidy settlement and rent levels that could have a significant impact on the HRA position. It is therefore recommended that this growth be built into the draft budget that will be presented to Members, and consideration of how the growth be funded considered as part of that report. The HRA balance at 31 March 2007 stood at 8.1m, and together with the period 4 projected underspend reported in the Corporate Revenue Monitor of 572k, this would mean that there would be a balance available to fund these initiatives of 8.7m at 31st March 2008 (subject to a minimum balance required on this reserve). The use of available revenue funds to support these initiatives would enable the HRA to continue to provide the planned level of services to tenants without any direct impact on the remainder of tenants. However there is an opportunity cost of using these resources on Social Homebuy, as opposed to other initiatives. Against this must be set the creation of a significant level of Capital Receipts, as set out in 3.3, that may be used to fund some of these

83

schemes but also to improve estates, and otherwise to improve the position of tenants. The report recommends that, if appropriate, the scheme be reviewed from time to time. In any such review, particularly in respect of an expansion of the scheme, the impact of any additional use of resources on the HRA and its tenants needs to be considered. The use of capital receipts to fund revenue expenditure is prohibited by the capital regulations governing local government finance. However, the Tenant Incentive Scheme is chargeable to capital and these costs can be offset against the capital receipts, and the rent free period for shared ownership can be paid as a capital grant which can be funded from the capital programme. Capital receipts will be received in respect of the part sales outlined in the report, of which 75% is paid to central government under pooling arrangements. However, pooling may be avoided if the Council wishes to set aside the receipts to fund the supply or improvement of affordable housing. In relation to the Nil Rent for Social Homebuy pilot scheme detailed at 3.5 the report proposes that the social homebuyer pays the housing management service charge. The benefit to the HRA is that loss of rental income as a result of offering rent free social homebuy is at least in part covered by charging the housing management service charge (that a leaseholder would pay). Clearly, it would be perverse to offer rent free social homebuy and then apply a housing management charge equivalent to or more than the proportional rent. Therefore, the report proposes to cap service charge levels for some social homebuyers. Finance officers recommend that the cap is set to minimise loss of income to the HRA and that the cap is revised annually in line with increases in the cost of service charges. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS No Brief Description of Background Papers DCLG guidance and modelling in relation to various scenarios and impact on tenants Information on marketing Name/Ext. of holder of file/copy Richard Towes x 4021 Department/ Location Hammersmith & Fulham Housing Management Service, Riverview House. Community Services Department, 77 Glenthorne Road. Community Services, 145 King Street. W6.

Gareth Mead x5344

Specific Consent to operate Social homebuy

Chris Jones x4470

84

Appendix 1
Assuming 50% disposal Weekly Average Rent 61.12 69.98 78.46 89.10 101.25 106.34 111.42 Annual Average Rent 3,178.24 3,638.96 4,079.92 4,633.20 5,265.00 5,529.68 5,793.84 Loss on 1% Rent 1,573.23 1,801.29 2,019.56 2,293.43 2,606.18 2,737.19 2,867.95 Loss on .5% Rent 1,581.17 1,810.38 2,029.76 2,305.02 2,619.34 2,751.02 2,882.44 Loss on No Rent 1,589.12 1,819.48 2,039.96 2,316.60 2,632.50 2,764.84 2,896.92

Bedrooms Bedsit 1 2 3 4 5 6+ Averages Average Repair costs (Assuming that purchaser takes full responsibility for repairs) Net Average Loss Average Repair costs (Assuming that purchaser takes 50% responsibility for repairs) Net Average Loss Average Subsidy gain (Actual gain depends on the type of property)

50% Rent 1,589.12 1,819.48 2,039.96 2,316.60 2,632.50 2,764.84 2,896.92

88.24 4,588.41 2,294.20 2,271.26 2,282.73 2,294.20 -1,195.00 -1,195.00 -1,195.00 -1,195.00

1,099.20 1,076.26 1,087.73 1,099.20 -597.50 -597.50 -597.50 -597.50

1,696.70 1,673.76 1,685.23 1,696.70 -400.00 -400.00 -400.00

85

FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS

Proposed to be made in the period December 2007 to March 2008
The following is a list of Key Decisions, as far as is known at this stage, which the Authority proposes to take in the period from December 2007 to March 2008. KEY DECISIONS are those which are likely to result in one or more of the following: Any expenditure or savings which are significant, regarding the Councils budget for the service function to which the decision relates in excess of 100,000; Anything affecting communities living or working in an area comprising of two or more wards in the borough; Anything significantly affecting communities within one ward (where practicable); Anything affecting the budget and policy framework set by the Council.

The Forward Plan will be updated and published on the Councils website on a monthly basis. (New entries are highlighted in yellow.) NB: Key Decisions will generally be taken by the Executive at the Cabinet. The items on this Forward Plan are listed according to the date of the relevant decision-making meeting. If you have any queries on this Forward Plan, please contact Katia Richardson on 020 8753 2368 or by e-mail to katia.richardson@lbhf.gov.uk Consultation Each report carries a brief summary explaining its purpose, shows when the decision is expected to be made, background documents used to prepare the report, and the member of the executive responsible. Every effort has been made to identify target groups for consultation in each case. Any person/organisation not listed who would like to be consulted, or who would like more information on the proposed decision, are encouraged to get in touch with the relevant Councillor and contact details are provided at the end of this document. If you are reading this on a PC, you can access this contact list quickly by pressing here.
Forward Plan No. 67 (published 15 November 2007)

86

FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS

Proposed to be made in the period December 2007 to March 2008
LIST OF KEY DECISIONS PROPOSED Where the title bears the suffix (E), the report for this proposed decision is likely to be exempt and full details cannot be published. Date of decisionmaking meeting Proposed Key decision Lead Executive Councillor Page

Cabinet 3 December 2007

1. THE GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND 2007/08 REVENUE BUDGET - MONTH 5 AMENDMENTS 2. MARKET TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AWARD REPORT (PART OF REPORT EXEMPT) 3. PHOENIX HIGH SCHOOL INTERNAL/EXTERNAL REFURBISHMENT OF REDWAY BLOCK TO CREATE IT FACILITY 4. BLOEMFONTEIN ROAD/SOUTH AFRICA ROAD - LOCAL SAFETY SCHEME 5. SUPPORTING PEOPLE AWARD OF CONTRACTS - SINGLE HOMELESS FLOATING SUPPORT AND TEENAGE PARENT SERVICE

LEADER

12

Cabinet 3 December 2007

LEADER; DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT)

34

Cabinet 3 December 2007

CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES

56

Cabinet 3 December 2007

DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT)

78

Cabinet 3 December 2007

CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING; CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDRENS SERVICES; LEADER

9 10

87

Cabinet 3 December 2007

6. AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL HOMEBUY SCHEME AND PROPOSAL FOR A RENT FREE PERIOD FOR COUNCIL TENANTS TAKING UP HOUSING ASSOCIATION SHARED OWNERSHIP 7. REGENERATION OF 248 HAMMERSMITH GROVE (E) 8. PROBATIONARY TENANCY SCHEME 9. WASTE AND STREET CLEANSING CLIENT SIDE STRUCTURE

CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING

11 12

Cabinet 3 December 2007 Cabinet 3 December 2007 Cabinet 3 December 2007

CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING LEADER; DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT); CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS' SERVICES LEADER; CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS' SERVICES

13 14

15 16

17 18

Cabinet 3 December 2007

10. GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CLIENT SIDE STRUCTURE

19 20

Cabinet 7 January 2008

1. THE GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND 2007/08 REVENUE BUDGET - MONTH 6 AMENDMENTS 2. INTERNAL AUDIT SERVICE AGREEMENT

LEADER

21 22

Cabinet 7 January 2008 Cabinet 7 January 2008

LEADER

23 24

3. HENRY COMPTON SCHOOL CABINET MEMBER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILD COMMUNITY & DRAMA STUDIO FACILITY CHILDREN'S SERVICES 4. FULHAM CROSS SCHOOL CABINET MEMBER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILD COMMUNITY & MODERN LANGUAGE FACILITY CHILDREN'S SERVICES 5. HOUSING STRATEGY REVIEW CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT)

25 26

Cabinet 7 January 2008

27 28

Cabinet 7 January 2008 Cabinet 7 January 2008

29 30

6. HAMMERSMITH ROAD/ BUTTERWICK JUNCTION BUS PRIORITY SCHEME

31 32

88

Cabinet 7 January 2008 Cabinet 7 January 2008 Cabinet 7 January 2008

7. REDEVELOPMENT OF 156, 160, 162 AND 164 DU CANE ROAD 8. DISPOSAL OF 726 & 728 FULHAM GARDENS (E) 9. PRIMARY AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS' STRATEGY

CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDRENS SERVICES LEADER; DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT); CABINET MEMBER FOR STRATEGY LEADER; DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT) LEADER

33 34

35 36

37 38

Cabinet 7 January 2008

10. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

39 40

Cabinet 7 January 2008

11. WOOD LANE STREETSCAPE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

41 42

Cabinet 7 January 2008 & Council 30 January 2008 Cabinet 7 January 2008 Cabinet 7 January 2008

12. COUNCIL TAX BASE AND COLLECTION RATE 2008/2009

43 44

13. DISPOSAL OF 49 - 68 SULGRAVE GARDENS (E) 14. PROPOSED INTRODUCTION OF 20MPH ZONE IN NORTH FULHAM 15. THORNFIELD ROAD, PROPOSED 20 MPH ZONE 16. IMPERIAL WHARF STATION FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT)

45 46

47 48

Cabinet 7 January 2008 Cabinet 7 January 2008

DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT) DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT); LEADER CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING

49 50

51 52

Cabinet 7 January 2008

17. PARTICIPATION IN WEST LONDON SUB-REGIONAL TEMPORARY TO PERMANENT ACCOMMODATION SCHEME 18. REFUSE AND STREET CLEANSING CONTRACT AWARD REPORT (PART OF REPORT EXEMPT) 89

53 54

Cabinet 7 January 2008

LEADER; DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT)

55 56

Cabinet 7 January 2008

19. ADVERTISING STRUCTURE ON THE WEST CROSS ROUTE AT THE REAR OF THE EDWARD WOODS ESTATE, W11

LEADER; DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT); CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES LEADER; CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING; CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES

57 58

Cabinet 7 January 2008

20. CARERS' EMERGENCY RESPITE SERVICE

59 60

Cabinet 7 January 2008

21. CONTRACT EXTENTION REQUEST - JOINT ADULT SOCIAL CARE AND SUPPORTING PEOPLE TENANCY SUSTAINMENT CONTRACT FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS WITH METROPOITAN SUPPORT TRUST 22. CHARGING FOR CHILDREN'S SOCIAL CARE SERVICES

61 62

Cabinet 7 January 2008

CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES

63 64

Council 30 January 2008

1. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: SUBMISSION CORE STRATEGY AND SITE ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS

LEADER; DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT); CABINET MEMBER FOR STRATEGY

65 6

Cabinet 4 February 2008

1. THE GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND 2007/08 REVENUE BUDGET - MONTH 7 AMENDMENTS

LEADER

67 68

Cabinet 4 February 2008

2. REVIEW OF POLICY ON SERVICE CABINET MEMBER FOR USER CONTRIBUTIONS FOR COMMUNITY & ADULT SOCIAL CARE CHILDREN'S SERVICES (EXCLUDING PERSONAL CARE AND RESIDENTIAL CARE)

69 70

90

Cabinet 4 February 2008

3. BISHOPS PARK AND FULHAM PALACE- APPLICATION FOR A "PARKS FOR PEOPLE" LOTTERY GRANT

DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT); CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS' SERVICES; CABINET MEMBER FOR CULTURE & HERITAGE

71 72

Cabinet 4 February 2008

4. APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS CABINET MEMBER FOR OF CONNEXIONS TAP IN COMMUNITY & REFERENCE TO PA SERVICES CHILDREN'S SERVICES CONTRACTS FOR 2008-2011 5. KING STREET REGENERATION PROJECT - FINAL TENDERS LEADER; DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT); CABINET MEMBER FOR STRATEGY LEADER; CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT); CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS' SERVICES DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT)

73 74

Cabinet 4 February 2008

75 76

Cabinet 4 February 2008

6. 2008/2009 CHILDRENS SERVICES REVENUE MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME

77 78

Cabinet 4 February 2008

7. LITTLE WORMWOOD SCRUBS: JOINT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA (E) 8. GOLDHAWK ROAD LOCAL SAFETY SCHEME

79 80

Cabinet 4 February 2008

81 82

Cabinet 4 February 2008

9. MASBRO COMMUNITY CENTRE - REFURBISHMENT WORKS TO FORM A CHILDREN'S CENTRE

CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES

83 84

Budget Council 27 February 2008

1. TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY REPORT

LEADER

85 86

Cabinet 3 March 2008

1. THE GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND 2007/08 REVENUE BUDGET - MONTH 8 AMENDMENTS

LEADER

87 88

91

Cabinet 3 March 2008

2. CORPORATE PLANNED MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME 2008/2009

LEADER; DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT); CABINET MEMBER FOR REGENERATION DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT); CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS SERVICES CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES

89 90

Cabinet 3 March 2008

3. FULHAM PALACE - PHASE 2 HLF APPLICATION

91 92

Cabinet 3 March 2008

4. ADDISON PRIMARY SCHOOLINTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS

93 94

Cabinet 31 March 2008

1. THE GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND 2007/08 REVENUE BUDGET - MONTH 9 AMENDMENTS 2. BAYONNE NURSEY EXTENSION TO EXISTING NURSERY BUILDING TO FORM A CHILDREN'S CENTRE

LEADER

95 96

Cabinet 31 March 2008

CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDREN'S SERVICES

97 98

Cabinet 28 April 2008

1. THE GENERAL FUND CAPITAL LEADER PROGRAMME AND 2007/08 REVENUE BUDGET - MONTH 10 AMENDMENTS 2. ELECTRONIC RESIDENT PARKING PERMIT - BOROUGHWIDE ROLL OUT DEPUTY LEADER ( + ENVIRONMENT)

99 100

Cabinet 28 April 2008

101 102

92

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Cabinet
3 DECEMBER 2007 CABINET MEMBER CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY & CHILDRENS SERVICES Councillor Antony Lillis CABINET MEMBER FOR RESIDENTS SERVICES Councillor Paul Bristow ITEM 13.1

13

SUMMARY OF OPEN DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE LEADER AND CABINET MEMBERS REPORTED FOR INFORMATION

TRANSFER OF PREMISES FROM CHILDRENS SERVICES

This is a proposal for the relocation of various premises from Childrens Services Department to Residents Services Department and Community Services Department, to reflect the transferred roles and responsibilities between these departments. In addition, there is a proposal to transfer part of the former Munster Centre building to the adjoining St. Johns CE Primary School. Decision taken by Cabinet Member on: 23 October 2007 1. To agree the transfer of premises listed in the report from Childrens Services Department to Community Services Department and Residents Services Department on 1 October 2007. 2. To agree the transfer of rooms detailed in the report from Munster Centre to St. Johns Primary School, plus additional external space and associated boundary wall. Wards: All

DEPUTY LEADER (+ENVIRONMENT) Councillor Nicholas Botterill

13.2

IMPERIAL ROAD ROUTE IMPROVEMENTS

The purpose of the scheme is to improve the pedestrian link between Imperial Wharf and Fulham Broadway as part of the pedestrian and cycling element of the Imperial Wharf S106 agreement. Decision taken by Cabinet Member on: 25 October 2007 To approve the installation of a pedestrian refuge island, a footway build-out, resurfacing of the footway, new pedestrian signage, reducing the length of the bus lane, general streetscape improvements and de-cluttering, as detailed in this report. Ward: Sands End 93

DEPUTY LEADER (+ ENVIRONMENT) Councillor Nicholas Botterill

13.3

HAMMERSMITH RD (OLYMPIA) BRIDGE APPROVAL TO TENDER

This Council shares responsibility with Network Rail for the strengthening of the main section of Hammersmith Road (Olympia) Bridge. These works will conclude the strengthening of this bridge and will permit the removal of the current restrictions. This Council is managing the works but the works are required to be undertaken by contractors from Network Rails approved list. This report seeks approval to tender for the Phase 4 strengthening works of the above structure using Network Rails select Tender list.

Decision taken by Cabinet Member on: 1 November 2007 To waive the provisions of the Contracts Standing Orders for the following reasons: not to advertise the contract or use the Approved List (as it is not relevant); to seek tenders from a list of specialist contractors maintained by Network Rail; and

To seek less than 5 tenders due to the specialist nature of the works and short list of capable tenderers. Ward: Avonmore and Brook Green

94