Recommendation agreed.

To consider the results of a scrutiny investigation into Waste Disposal

The report sets out a draft of Sutton Housing Partnership’s (SHP’s) proposed Delivery Plan for 2012/13 including their priorities and strategic objectives.  It also includes a service improvement plan and a performance plan as well as providing information on past performance and achievements and budgets, both revenue and capital.

The Executive considered the Sutton Housing Partnership’s proposed Delivery Plan for 2012/13. This set out the Partnership’s priorities and strategic objectives together with a service improvement plan and a performance plan.  It also provided information on past performance and achievements and budgets, both revenue and capital.  It linked closely to the production of the Council’s 30 year Housing Revenue Account Business Plan.

            Resolved:  To approve the Sutton Housing Partnership Delivery Plan for 2012/13.

To approve the role descriptions for Councillors to be included in the Members Allowances Scheme.

New Governance Arrangements – Role Profiles for Councillors

Resolved:  That the revised Councillor role profiles be adopted as part of the Members Allowances Scheme.

To allow the Chief Executive to sign a Memorandum of Understanding between the London Borough of Sutton and NHS South West London in respect of Public Health Shadow working arrangements.

To note that the following matter has been dealt with under the Urgency Procedure since the last meeting of The Executive

The report provides an update on the continuing demand for additional places for September 2012 and September 2013 onwards, seeks further funding to enable the delivery of additional pupil places and provides an update on proposals to use the former Stanley Park High School (SPHS) site for primary provision. 

Further to Minute 115/12, The Executive considered a report which updated them on progress on meeting the increasing demand for primary school places in 2012 and 2013.

Possible options for extending four primary schools by one form of entry were currently being consulted upon.  There were four options and the advantages and disadvantages of each were reported.  The four suggested primary schools to be extended were Amy Johnson, The Avenue, St. Mary’s Catholic Infants School and Dorchester Primary School.  The progress made in developing the former Stanley Park High School site into a 4FE primary annexe with an ASD base was also reported. Bandon Hill Primary School best met the criteria for governance of the provision on the former site of Stanley Park High School.  All the proposed school expansions were currently being consulted upon which finished on 14 May, 2012. 

Details of the capital and revenue funding involved were reported.  A further report on cost estimates together with the results of the consultation process would be made to the Children Family and Education Committee in June 2012.

            Resolved:  (i) To confirm, whilst noting the schools below meet the criteria previously agreed by the Executive in the first two phases (2010 and 2011) of the Primary Expansion Programme, that the proposed expansion of capacity for 2013 onwards should include some or all of the following: Amy Johnson Primary School (30 to 60 places at YR); The Avenue Primary School (90 to 120 places at YR); St Mary’s Catholic Infants School (60 to 90 places at YR); Dorchester Primary School (90 to 120 places at YR).

(ii) To note that consultation on the possible expansion of these schools to provide up to 120 places (4FE) of additional primary place capacity, commenced on 19 March 2012 and will close on 14 May 2012 and that feedback from this consultation, along with the consultation for the 4FE expansion of the former Stanley Park High School site be reported to the Children, Family and Education Committee in June 2012.

(iii) To note the early feedback from the ongoing feasibility studies in relation to the schools listed above

(iv) To authorise Officers to continue with feasibility work on these proposed projects for different types of buildings e.g. permanent, modular and demountable and delegate authority for the commissioning of such work with a budget limit of £300,000 in 2012/13 to the Strategic Director for Children, Young People and Learning Services and report back to the Children, Family and Education Committee in June 2012 with a detailed cost update.

(v) To authorise Officers to continue work with a budget limit of up to £100k relating to new schools, including the identification of possible sites and explore with the Department for Education (DfE) and other relevant partners the processes required for such provision in 2014 or beyond.

(vi) To authorise Officers to proceed with detailed design work with respect to the provision of Key Stage 2 accommodation at the five schools expanded at Key Stage 1 with effect from September 2011, which will require Key Stage 2 accommodation for September 2014 (September 2013 for Devonshire Primary School), to ensure that such expansion will be feasible and affordable and that the Strategic Director for Children, Young People and Learning Services be given delegated authority for the commissioning of such work with a budget limit of £500,000 across the 2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years.

(vi) To note the projected additional demand for places beyond 2013, which will be kept under review as more up to date and accurate data becomes available and which will be the subject of a further report to the Children, Family and Education Committee in the Autumn 2012.

(vii) To approve capital investment of up to £1.0m, which is required for the replacement life-expired mobile buildings, which will provide appropriate Key Stage 2 (KS2) provision at Camden Junior School by September 2013;

(ix) To note that in partnership with the Environment and Leisure Group and emerging from the September 2011 and 2012 primary expansion programmes, further funding of up to £150k is required for improvements to the surrounding road infrastructure network.

(x) In order to meet building and Health and Safety requirements, to approve an additional capital investment of £100k for the provision of sufficient school accommodation at Cheam Common Infants School for September 2012.

(xi) To delegate to the Strategic Director Children, Young People and Learning Services authority to authorise bulge classes for September 2012 with a capital investment of up to £1m. (NB: Bulge Classes are additional classes added to one year group only; it is not a permanent expansion and so will not continue year after year.)

(xii) To approve capital investment of up to £100k which will be required at Hackbridge Primary School to complete works in relation to Key Stage 2 provision for September 2012.

The report sets out how the council intends to implement its new council-wide approach to commissioning and the further work that needs to be delivered over the coming months.

Further to Minute 873/11 The Executive had before it a draft Commissioning Framework which set out how the Council would commission external services with Sutton citizens and its partners and commission internal services to support front line delivery that provided value for money.  The Framework document outlined:

·           The commissioning cycle that would be followed, including activities within that cycle that allowed for full consultation.

·           Clear definitions, roles and responsibilities.

·           Key principles that would underpin decisions.

·           Standards against which people would be held accountable.

·           Skills that commissioners would need to develop.

·           Governance arrangements.

The Framework also set out the council’s commitment to a strategic commissioning approach which would enable staff to:

·           Understand in detail the evolving needs of the community, as well as the key priorities that public sector bodies could most effectively deliver against.

·           Design and deliver appropriate services to meet those needs, utilising the full capabilities of in-house services, market providers, and voluntary and community groups.

·           Constantly review and validate whether the work done by partners, or on behalf of partners, through private and third sector providers was effective, thereby guaranteeing the best use of our resources.

·           Manage the process effectively, facilitating the work done by partners to identify and maximise opportunities for collaboration, challenge ‘accepted thinking’, and encourage innovation about the right way to meet community needs.

Two pilot projects for the provision of Looked After Children’s (LAC) placements and the provision of ecology services had tested the wider applicability of the commissioning approach. These showed that:

·           Clear, evidence-based, commissioning intentions was vital.

·           Commissioning for outcomes was important and allowed for a more collaborative approach that partners could sign up to.

·           All services should go through a commissioning process, even if they remained in-house, so that there was a robust rationale for their continuation and a broader range of stakeholders could input into future development.

·           Commissioning had not been commonly understood across the council or amongst partners but there was an increasing awareness of what the term meant.

·           There was a tension between being responsible for managing a service and leading on its re-commissioning that needed to be understood and managed.

·           Partners were key in engaging with the wider community and officers needed support to involve them at all stages of the commissioning cycle.

·           Commissioning often involved brokering arrangements using external resources and this could require additional skills and understanding.

·           Testing demand and market capability had to be carried out early in the commissioning cycle.

It was now proposed to build this approach into the business and financial planning round for 2013/14.  High level council-wide objectives for that period would now be agreed that reflected the corporate priorities consistent with the current plan.  Overall guidance for the forthcoming business and financial planning round would be agreed in July so that Groups could begin to identify service commissioning intentions and the resources that would be required to deliver them.  Milestones to achieve these objectives, that were all part of the wider set of changes to implement the Smarter Council, were reported.

In the longer term, this approach to commissioning should produce significant financial savings for the Council.  Financial implications would be considered on a project by project basis.

            Resolved:  (i) To agree the commissioning framework set out in Appendix A to the report;

(ii)  To agree the overall approach to implementation and the links with the council’s business and resource planning for 2013/14.

(iii)  To agree the priority work streams in relation to assessing need, managing the market and learning and development programme.

To consider an approach from Epsom and Ewell Borough Council to place and manage their insurance arrangements.

The Executive considered a request from Epsom and Ewell Borough Council to provide their insurance services.  The reasons behind the request were reported. 

It was noted that, before agreeing to this request, a number of due diligence tests would have to be carried out details of which were reported.  Advantages to the Council of taking on this work were the potential benefit of long term additional income using existing skills and resources.  There would be some costs involved for independent insurance and legal advice that could amount to £5k which could be contained within existing estimate provision.  However, if proceeded with, the arrangements were likely to yield financial savings against the current net costs of the Council’s insurance services in excess of the additional expenditure referred to above.  It was not thought that any additional staff needed to be employed if these proposals went ahead.

            Resolved: (i) To agree to the principle of the provision of insurance services to Epsom and Ewell Borough Council and to authorise the necessary due diligence assessment to be carried out;

(ii) To delegate authority to the Strategic Director – Resources, in consultation with the Executive Member for Finance and Efficiency/Lead Councillor for Resources to enter into the proposed arrangements subject to the satisfactory outcome of the due diligence process.

Disposals Programme

(i)  That the Executive delegate to the Strategic Director of Resources in consultation with the Lead Member for Resources, authority to agree the surrender and re-grant of the necessary leases to facilitate the development of the site at 38 Kimpton Road and 4/6 Wealdstone Road together with the capital receipt at or above the level shown in the Disposals Programme of [1/12 para 3] and to delegate authority to the Executive Head of Property and Procurement in conjunction with the Executive Head of Legal and Democratic Services to negotiate terms and complete the legal agreements.

(ii)  To approve the Constitution of the Wentworth Hall Consultative Committee subject to amending para 2(i)(a) of the proposed constitution for the Wentworth Hall Consultative Committee by deleting “Executive Committee” and inserting “Strategy and Resources Committee” and to delegate to the Executive Head of Property and Procurement in conjunction with the Executive Head of Legal and Democratic Services authority to complete any necessary documentation.

(iii)  To authorise and delegate to the Executive Head of Property and Procurement in conjunction with the Executive Head of Legal and Democratic Services authority to:

(a)  negotiate and complete the legal agreements for the sale of Middleton Road, Merton to Classgrade Ltd for [2/12 para 3] or any of the other lower bidders if Classgrade Ltd do not proceed, subject to any sale being at or above the level shown in the Disposals Programme which is [3/12 para 3].

(b)  negotiate and complete the legal agreements for the sale of Glastonbury Centre to Affinity Sutton for [4/12 para 3] or any of the other lower bidders if Affinity Sutton do not proceed, subject to any sale being at or above the level shown in the Disposals Programme which is [5/12 para 3].

(c)  negotiate and complete the legal agreements for the joint sale with the South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust of the Council’s part interest in the Henderson Hospital site at or above the level shown in the Disposals Programme which is [6/12 para 3].

(d)  negotiate and complete any Statutory lease extension under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 for any individual flat in Hilliard Court, 136 Demesne Road, Wallington at a premium calculated in accordance with the relevant Statutory framework or to be determined by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal if not agreed.

(e)  negotiate and complete the legal agreements for the sale of 287/289 High Street, Sutton at or above the level shown in the Disposals Programme which is [7/12 para 3].

(f)  negotiate and complete the legal agreements for the transfer at [8/12 para 3] the surplus area of land shown on Val Plan 3451 to the Diamond Riding School.

(g) set as reserve prices and dispose by auction at the values shown in the Disposals Programme the former Parks Services properties at (a) 2 Hannibal Way, Wallington [9/12 para 3],  (b) Farm Cottage, The Grove Park, Carshalton  [10/12 para 3] and (c) The Grove Lodge, 1 High Street, Carshalton [11/12 para 3].

(h)  to continue with negotiations to commercially rent out the former Parks Services properties at The Grange Lodge, London Road, Wallington and 2 South Lodge, Oaks Park, Croydon Lane, Banstead but if that approach fails to set as reserve prices and dispose by auction at the values shown in the Disposals Programme at (a) The Grange Lodge, London Road, Wallington [12/12 para 3] and (b) 2 South Lodge, Oaks Park, Croydon Lane, Banstead [13/12 para 3].

(i)  negotiate and complete the necessary variations to the existing Development Agreement and Lease for Site B at Kimpton to relax the period by which completion of the development of the site should be completed and to make these conditional with securing payment of the [14/12 para 3] due in September 2012.

The report seeks to release financial provision from the disposal of Century Youth Centre to progress a capital scheme at The Quad Youth Centre

Councillor Dave Callaghan introduced a report which informed The Executive that the Smarter Services Sutton Review had proposed the creation of a new Integrated Service for Young People which would be formed from the Youth Service, the Youth Offending Team, Targeted Youth Support and the Joint Adolescent Service.

As part of these proposals it was proposed to refurbish and expand The Quad Youth Centre so that it would provide appropriate accommodation for a multi-disciplinary hub providing both universal and targeted support to some of the borough’s most vulnerable young people and their families. This project would enlarge the current Quad Youth Centre to incorporate interview rooms, crèche, teaching kitchen, medical room and co-located office space to bring about a fully integrated service for both the locality and beyond.  It would also enable young people and their families to receive services from a central point within their locality but would also enable borough-wide access. This provision would facilitate the ‘team around the child’ approach to enable staff, young people and their families to manage better risk-taking behaviours in relation to key factors such as offending, anti-social behaviour, school exclusions and academic outcomes to improve life opportunities.

The latest estimates on the capital receipt accrued from the disposal of Century Youth Centre would cover the cost of the above proposals and could be incorporated into capital estimates so there was sufficient resource to fund the scheme.  Financial provision totalling £764,000 now needed to be released and vired into a separately identified scheme so that work could proceed. The renovation/remodelling project was expected to start later in the summer with completion by April 2013.

            Resolved:  (i) To authorise a departure from the normal policy of all receipts being corporately allocated to enable the capital receipt from the disposal of Century Youth Centre to be earmarked for the refurbishment of the Quad Youth Centre sufficient to cover the expenditure detailed below and incorporated in the capital resources;

(ii) To authorise the Strategic Director – Children, Young People and Learning Services to amend capital estimates for £764,000 funded from the capital receipt and release financial provision so that a capital scheme can proceed at the Quad Youth Centre on the understanding that the disposal of Century Youth Centre will fund this project and enable the Design Team and Contractors to commence the necessary work to achieve the best possible outcome for the proposed investment.

Final recommendations from the Scrutiny Overview Investigation, into the waste disposal contract and the proposal for an energy recovery facility at Beddington Lane, for approval.

In the absence of Councillor Joyce Melican, Councillor Jill Whitehead, Vice Chair of the Scrutiny Overview Committee introduced a report which looked at the Waste Disposal Contract and Proposal for an energy recovery facility at Beddington Lane waste site and outlined the procedures the Committee had undertaken in carrying out this work. (Minute 395/12 refers).  The Executive also had before it a response from officers to that report. 

The Committee had found that Energy Recovery Facilities complied with national, regional and local policies for sustainable waste management.  However, concerns had been expressed by representatives of local stakeholder groups and committee members that the proposed development would impact on the quality of life in the local area with particular reference to the impact of vehicle movements and air quality. These concerns would be addressed through the planning process and robust evidence in these areas would be required.

For the facility to be acceptable to the local community there needed to be clear benefits to them in the form of regeneration, environmental improvements, community well being, jobs and energy.  Continued engagement with all stakeholders, particularly in the local community was felt to be important to addressing their concerns and ensuring that the proposed facility benefited the local area wherever possible.  Emissions/air quality monitoring data should also be made publically available.  All of the credible scientific evidence showed that modern, well-managed Energy Recovery Facilities were safe and that government scientists agreed with this view.

The Scrutiny Overview Committee had made six specific recommendations which were commented on the officer’s report as follows

Recommendation 1:  Through the planning process the Council seek to maximise the benefits for the local community, in particular;

·           Delivering the Wandle Valley Regional Park

·           Addressing the current traffic issues and the current poor condition of Beddington Lane

·           Ensuring that jobs and apprenticeships created during the construction and operational phases were made available to the local community

·           Delivering and maintaining environmental improvements to improve the local area

·           Delivering community-based projects to address the welfare, environmental and economic issues within the local area.

·           Public health as a material planning consideration

It was suggested that these comments be made directly to the contractor to take into account in the preparation of their planning application. They would also be reported to the Development Control Committee when it considered the application.  It was noted that any planning obligations agreed with the applicant, if permission was granted, were limited to mitigating the impact of the proposal.  They could not be used to address existing deficiencies.  The Council had a long-standing objective to make improvements to Beddington Lane for all road users which was set out in the Council’s Local Implementation Plan.  Investigations were underway as to how these major works could be funded.

Recommendation 2:  Through the planning process the Council support the development of a decentralised energy network that benefitted the local community in Hackbridge and Beddington in particular as part of the proposed Energy Recovery Facility at Beddington Lane waste site.

It was noted that a decentralised energy network, or more particularly a combined heat and power system, was a policy requirement of this Council and the Greater London Authority.  The contractor and the Development Control Committee would be made aware of this. 

Recommendation 3: Concerns expressed by the stakeholder groups with regard to air quality, health and traffic to be addressed through the planning process, in particular;

·           The overall air quality within the local Beddington and surrounding area compared to now (taking into account the existing activities in the local area)

·           That health improvements be gained in accordance with the council’s new Public Health responsibilities

·           That the implications of the vehicle movements associated with the construction and operation of the site be closely assessed and subsequently monitored and enforced through planning conditions if necessary.

These comments would also be passed on to the contractor and the Development Control Committee when it considered the planning application.  The Environment Agency should also be informed so that it could take them into account when any permit application for the proposal was considered.

Recommendation 4:  Emissions data from the proposed facility be made publicly available for the purpose of public accountability and scrutiny and be closely assessed and monitored.  Encouragement would also be given to the Environment Agency to strengthen and expand on the requirements to monitor and act on emissions information.

It was reported that emissions from facilities were monitored continuously as part of the permitting requirements of the Environment Agency.  The requirement to make this data publicly available would be raised with the contractor as part of the procurement process.  It was also suggested that smaller particulates should be measured in addition to those that were currently required to be measured as part of the monitoring of this facility and the results made publicly available. 

Recommendation 5:  To have ongoing and effective engagement and consultation with all stakeholders, in particular local community groups in Beddington and Hackbridge. As the proposals progressed, there was a need to ensure that all of the above recommendations were delivered to meet the needs and concerns of the local community.

Regular meetings of local groups such as the Beddington Farmlands Liaison Group and the Hackbridge Community Forum would continue together with liaison with Local Committees.  Officers would also attend any resident/community group to discuss these matters if requested.

It was noted that as part of the planning application process there would be the opportunity for residents and community groups to make representations once the formal planning application had been received.  There would be a six week period for comments when the proposals would be discussed at neighbourhood forums.  Those views would be taken into account by the Development Control Committee.

Recommendation 6:  That the issues covered in this report should be revisited in the new governance arrangements.

Arrangements would be made to ensure that this matter was included on the 2012/13 Forward Plan of committee business for the Environment and Neighbourhood Committee.

Councillor Jill Whitehead was thanked for presenting the Scrutiny Overview Committee’s report.

Resolved:  (i) That the responses set out above to the Scrutiny Overview Committee’s report be agreed;

(ii)  That copies of all the reports be sent to the contractor to enable them to consider the matters raised.

(iii) That the comments made by Scrutiny Overview Committee be referred to the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation for him to consider whether the matters raised are material and, if so, to include these in the report that will go to the Development Control Committee when they consider the planning application.

The report recommends proposals for introducing Moving Traffic Enforcement in order to tackle the causes of congestion on Sutton’s roads.

Councillor Simon Wales introduced a report which proposed to introduce Moving Traffic Enforcement to tackle the congestion on Sutton’s roads.  In 2008, the Metropolitan Police had decided that they would no longer enforce moving traffic contraventions in London Boroughs.  Individual London Boroughs had the power to take on this enforcement work, twenty seven of which had already done so.  Neighbouring boroughs were also considering taking on these powers.

Details of the procedure to seek permission to start enforcing Moving Traffic Contraventions were reported.  It was noted that there were a number of areas in the Borough where the traffic did not run smoothly and it was hoped that by taking on these powers, current congestion could be eased.

Councillor Graham Whitham addressed the Executive and gave his support to these proposals.

            Resolved:  (i) To note the policy issues and aims balanced around road safety, economic development, traffic congestion and flow set out in the report

(ii)  To note the council’s duties under the Traffic Management Act 2004 to secure the expeditious movement of traffic in Sutton.

RECOMMENDED:  That full Council be recommended to agree that proposals for the enforcement of Moving Traffic Contraventions (including Bus Lanes) are taken forward for implementation, according to the statutory procedures as defined by London Councils, set out in the report.

The Chief Executive reported on the results of a consultation paper on the proposed future direction of the Council.  The paper “Putting Sutton Residents’ First – Implementing the Smarter Council” focused on three areas for change

·                     The further development of the Council’s approach to commissioning

·                     A new approach to working in neighbourhoods

·                     The development of the Council’s own internal working arrangements.

The Executive had before them a report which set out the results of the consultation, proposals for the next steps and high level milestones for implementation.  The key issues that the Council faced included the need to significantly reduce expenditure probably beyond 2014/15, the transition of public health responsibilities from the NHS to the Council, welfare reform with the localisation of Council Tax support move from national to local provision with a 10% reduction in current funding levels, demographic changes with a significant increase in the number of young and elderly people and increasing customer expectations and demands leading to further pressure on services.

The report set out how the consultation had been undertaken and the specific feedback that had been received.  A Peer Review had also been undertaken within which that team had specifically identified:

·           The need to explain clearly the practical impact of any changes and how they related to the key challenges the Council faced, including ongoing financial challenges. 

·           The need for clarity for staff on the future organisation in terms of the size and shape and the processes on how the future organisation would operate.  Though the Council would be smaller in the future there was a need to provide further clarity as and when any future operating model for the Council was agreed.

·           Opportunities to draw together more effectively research/ intelligence functions that were currently dispersed across the council which would strengthen the Council’s effectiveness and basis for commissioning.

·           The opportunities for further development of the Council’s approach to neighbourhood services.

As a result, a number of short and medium terms changes were required.  These included commissioning (specifying, securing and monitoring services to meet people’s needs at a strategic level); working with neighbourhoods and residents to reduce costs and to be open about challenges that were faced together with the requirement to continue to deliver high quality services.  It was also proposed that there would be internal structural changes to the Council with a corporate core of two directorates – Chief Executives and Resources and three commissioning directorates – Environment and Neighbourhood, Children, People and Learning and Adult Social Services, Housing and Health.  Details of the services to be provided within each of these Directorates was reported.  Additionally there was also a need to recruit a Director of Public Health, in conjunction with NHS South West London for a three year fixed term renewable contract.  Staff and Councillors also had to be supported during this period and three specific Leadership Programmes were outlined as follows: 

·           The One Sutton Leadership Programme for senior managers and councillors to provide them with the ability to lead and manage across the organisation.

·           The Future Leaders programme to develop and build internal talent.

·           The Frontline First programme to develop and empower frontline staff to develop the values and behaviours that allowed them to confidently make decisions which always put residents first and to ensure that learning from frontline delivery was incorporated into the Council. 

A number of specific measures to deliver these changes together with their terms of reference were reported.  These would all be managed using a programme and project management approach with political decision making taken within the new governance arrangements.  Key dates for achieving targets were also reported.

            Resolved:  (i) That the organisational arrangements as described in Section 4 of the report be approved and authority delegated to the Chief Executive to undertaken consultation with affected staff in line with the Council’s people management procedures as follows:

Senior management and leadership for Human Resources and ICT to be transferred to the Strategic Director for Resources from June 2012.

Senior management and leadership for local committees to be transferred to the Strategic Director for Environment and Neighbourhoods in September 2012.

The Groups be renamed Directorates and called:

Environment and Neighbourhoods Directorate

Children, Young People and Learning Directorate

Adult Social Services, Housing and Health

Resources Directorate

Chief Executive’s Directorate

That all other proposed name changes to services within Directorates be implemented with immediate effect.

(ii)  That recruitment be undertaken for the post of Director of Public Health in consultation and co-operation with NHS SW London, in line with national policy and guidance, for a three year fixed term renewable period. 

(iii)  That the Strategy and Resources Committee receive further reports, as appropriate, on the transition plans for Public Health.

(iv)  To delegate authority to the Chief Executive to develop and procure appropriate resources to put in place the three proposed Leadership Programmes, within existing financial resources.

(v)  That the terms of reference for the Smarter Council projects, set out in the Appendices to the report be approved and to note the development of further workstreams in relation to organisational development and economic development.

To agree a revised charging schedule for Blue Badges.

In February 2011, the Department of Transport had announced a national programme of reform to modernise the Blue Badge scheme in England, with measures designed to tackle rising levels of badge fraud and abuse, to ensure that disabled people received improved customer service and that the scheme remained sustainable in the long term for those who relied on it most. The new national service had been launched on 1 January 2012.  Alongside this the Department for Transport had also reviewed the maximum fee chargeable for the Blue Badge, which had not been revised for 30 years.

Councillor Colin Stears introduced a report which set out the key elements of the new service, and made recommendations for introducing a charge for a Blue Badge as other local authorities had already done.

Currently, the Council did not charge to issue a Blue Badge.  The maximum amount that could now be charged was £10.  Thirteen out of fifteen London Boroughs contacted also planned to charge this amount which would cover the three year life of a badge.  It was thought that the average benefit to a badge holder amounted to over £300 over the three year period.  The proposed charge would cover the cost of the badge and help towards but not cover the costs of administering the scheme.  Additionally, an Occupational Therapist was employed to undertake mobility assessments of applicants.  This post was funded for three years by grant aid and if that funding was lost, alternative sources of funding for that post would have to be found. 

            Resolved:  (i)  To note the changes to the Blue Badge scheme operating from 1st January 2012;

(ii)  To agree that a consultation is undertaken regarding a contribution to the cost of issuing a Blue Badge (and replacements) by the introduction of a charge of £10.00 per badge, valid for three years, from 1st October 2012;

(iii)  To note that a further report will be provided to the Adult Social Services & Health Committee in September 2012 to provide details of the outcome of the consultation.

To agree a revised housing allocations policy and a new tenancy strategy for the borough.

Councillor Ruth Dombey reminded The Executive that in its recent White Paper “Local decisions: a fairer future for social housing” the Government had set out a number of proposals for the reform of social housing which included the following proposed policy changes:

·           Greater freedom for local authorities to determine who was qualified to join their housing register or waiting list, albeit alongside the retention of the statutory ‘reasonable preference’ categories of housing need

·           The option for existing social tenants without a need to move but wishing to transfer to be considered for re-housing outside of the policy framework applying to other housing applicants

·           The introduction of a new optional “flexible tenancy” with fixed terms and with a minimum of two years

·           Limiting the right of succession to a tenancy to a qualifying spouse or partner but allowing councils discretion to offer additional ‘rights’,

·           A requirement on local authorities to produce a strategic tenancy policy.

These proposals had been incorporated into the Localism Act 2011.  There was also a new Regulatory Framework for Social Housing which had to be complied with by April 2012, details of which were reported. 

In the light of the above requirements, The Executive considered a revised housing allocations policy and a strategic tenancy policy both of which had been extensively consulted on.  Details of the consultation arrangements were reported.

Councillor Dombey informed the Executive that these policies had been put together after extensive consultation with tenants and residents. She described the guiding principle behind the new policies as being to ensure that those people most in need had the stability that came from having secure accommodation and are able to put down roots in supportive communities. The main features of the new polices were:

• Lifelong tenancies would remain.
• The exception was that two year fixed term tenancies would be granted when low level anti social behaviour persisted throughout the initial introductory period for a new tenancy.
• Succession rights would be limited to the minimum recommended nationally i.e. only a spouse or civil partner has automatic succession to a property.
• The new Housing Allocations policy reduced the seven original bands to four to reflect the national guidance for ‘reasonable preferences’.

            Resolved:  (i) That the draft revised housing allocations policy, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved and adopted with effect from 1 October 2012;

(ii) That the draft tenancy strategy, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report, be approved and be brought into effect from 1 October 2012.

This Report sets out details of Section 106 contributions received in the Borough and spent in the financial year 2010/11, summarising receipts by local committee area, spend and new agreements signed.

The Executive considered a report which set out details of the Section 106 contributions received in the Borough and spent in the financial year 2010/11, summarised receipts by local committee area, the spend and new agreements signed.  It was noted that the Government had introduced a new statutory charge on new developments called the Community Infrastructure Levy details of which had already been considered by The Executive (Minute 290/12 refers).  Details of how this new levy would work were reported.

            Resolved:  (i)  To note the position on Section 106 funds received and spent between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011;

(ii)  To note the details for the proposed introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy in Sutton.

To describe the responsibilities and implications of the transfer of Public Health from the NHS to the Council under the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Councillor Simon Wales spoke to this item and reported that, under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, responsibility for public health would transfer from NHS Primary Care Trusts to local authorities on 1 April 2013. These responsibilities included steps that the Council considered appropriate for improving the health of the people in its area such as information and advice, commissioning or providing services to promote healthy living and for the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness. The Council had to appoint a Director of Public Health to take responsibility for these new functions. In addition the public health function was required to provide advice to the Sutton Clinical Commissioning Group (SCCG) to enable it to discharge its functions in relation to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness and the protection and improvement of public health. These new responsibilities were intended to clearly demonstrate the leadership role for local authorities in:

·           Tackling the causes of ill health, and reducing health inequalities

·           Promoting and protecting health

·           Promoting social justice and safer communities

Local authorities had to agree plans for the transition of Public Health with NHS Primary Care Trusts, including staff, programmes and contracts, and to implement this plan during 2012/13. In Sutton and Merton, this transition had required decisions and consultation about the distribution of the public health arrangements between both boroughs.  The final Draft Transition Plan for Sutton was before the Committee.  The Primary Care Trust was also required to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the local authority which set out the working arrangements for 2012/13.  This document made it clear that responsibility for public health functions remained with the NHS SW London until 31 March 2013, unless there was a formal legal agreement to transfer responsibilities to the Council. The document also set out the role of the Sutton Public Health Transition Board who had responsibility for the operational oversight of the transition as well as monitoring performance and public health outcomes, including finance and activity, to ensure transparency during the transition year. The Memorandum of Understanding was also before the Committee.

The role of the local authority in delivering these new public health functions was reported.  A Memorandum of Understanding would be entered into with the Sutton Clinical Commissioning Group, before April 2013, which specified public health inputs and outputs and reciprocal expectations.  Key aspects of this core offer included strategic planning, reviewing service provision, deciding priorities and procuring services.  The Director of Public Health would also be expected to contribute to the governance and decision making for the Clinical Commissioning Group either as a formal Board member or in an advisory capacity.

The Department of Health would make available to the Council a ring fenced grant to cover these additional responsibilities.  For 2012/13 Sutton and Merton PCT had a budget of £14.681m to carry out these responsibilities.  The ring fenced grant had been calculated using actual spend figures for 2010/11 and amounted to £14.419m, a shortfall of £262,000 between both boroughs.  Sutton would receive £6.95m whereas the actual budget should be £7.047m.  The Department of Health had been notified about this shortfall.  National guidance indicated that the budget for 2013/14 was not expected to fall in real terms compared with 2012/13.

However, it was clear that the spending on public health in Sutton was significantly lower than elsewhere in London and was below the national average. This would have an on-going impact on the services that could be provided.  Furthermore, the Council would be expected to provide services in certain areas that were not reflected in the grant and had already lobbied Central Government concerning this matter.

The Council was required to appoint a Director of Public Health jointly with the Secretary of State for Health, who had to be a public health specialist.  They would also be a statutory chief officer.  This appointment would be made by NHS Sutton and Merton and the post holder would transfer to the Council on 1 April 2013.  However, the Council would be fully involved in the appointment process.  The single staff team currently responsible for public health functions in Sutton and Merton would also need to be split.  National guidance on how this should happen was expected to be published shortly.  

            Resolved:  (i) To agree the London Borough of Sutton Public Health Transition Plan;

(ii)  That a Director of Public Health be appointed for Sutton with arrangements for the appointment subject to the Council’s senior officers’ appointments procedure and relevant requirements of the NHS;

(iii) That a report updating progress on the delivery of the Public Health Transition Plan be submitted in September 2012;

(iv) To note that the Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the Chief Executive on 30 March 2012 for the London Borough of Sutton, under the urgency procedure;

(v)  That the on-going analysis to identify the degree of inequity in historical funding of Public Health in Sutton by NHS Sutton and Merton be supported and the case for additional funding to be made to the Department of Health.

Apologies were received from Councillors John Drage and Jayne McCoy.

This report presents an update on progress made in reviewing and re-aligning advocacy services to meet citizens’ needs within the changing economic and social landscape.

Councillor Colin Stears introduced a report which updated The Executive on progress made in reviewing and re-aligning advocacy services within adult social services to meet citizens’ needs within the changing economic and social landscape.  It also contained a model for the strategic commissioning and development of advocacy services aligned to the statutory functions of Adult Social Services and the delivery of the personalisation agenda.

There was a need to move towards a more inclusive, citizen-centric model of service delivery. The emphasis of the Council’s role as strategic commissioner, working with and through statutory partners and the third sector, had shifted to that of enabler and facilitator of the development of community based support, building social capital and creating a more empowered and actively engaged local community.  At the same time, the Council was required to deliver its statutory responsibilities to its most vulnerable citizens through Fair Access to Care Services.  This was consistent with the principles underpinning Smarter Services Sutton. 

The report set out progress to date in providing advocacy services using a range of service providers, as well as its future commissioning intentions.

.

Resolved:  (i) To note the contents of the report and progress made to date in reviewing and realigning advocacy services to meet changing needs;

(ii)  To note the new model for developing and commissioning advocacy services;

(iii)  To note the current and planned levels of investment across the spectrum of advocacy services, including the new funding streams available through the Innovation Grant and Prevention Prospectus

(iv) To agree the commissioning intentions set out in the report

(v)  To authorise the Strategic Director Adult Social Services and Housing, in agreement with the Executive Head of Legal and Democratic Services, to enter into a contract with the successful provider.

Councillor Kirsty Jerome declared a personal interest in this item as she was a citizen advocate with the charity Advocacy Partners Speaking Up.

This report sets out options for the realistic further development of the coordinated response to Domestic Violence in the Borough.

Councillor Graham Tope introduced a report which set out options for a realistic further development of the coordinated response to deal with Domestic Violence.  This had been developed in discussion with members of the Domestic Violence Strategic Group.  It also built on an investigation into the effects of domestic violence on children whose recommendations had been approved by this Committee.  (Minute 108/12 refers.) 

Statistics showed that Domestic Violence represented 36% of violent crime in the Borough.  In an effort to reduce this percentage a number of recommendations were put forward.  These included establishing early intervention hubs such as children’s centres and schools, where staff could identify signs of abuse, conduct routine enquiries and refer matters on to the appropriate service.  Partner services would be asked to include explicit references to Domestic Violence in job descriptions, reinforced by training, targets and appraisals.  A Domestic Violence Champion programme would also be implemented and Housing Associations asked to consider sanctuary installations for victims.  It was hoped that the St. Helier Accident and Emergency Independent domestic Violence Advocate Service pilot would also continue.  A culture of non-tolerance of Domestic Violence would also be created.  The Integrated Offender Management Strategy would specifically include Domestic Violence offending with the aim of increasing contact with perpetrators to reduce offending behaviour, enhance intelligence sharing and joint case management and link Probation data with that of the Police and Council. 

It was noted that continued Home Office funding for Domestic Violence and Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference had recently been denied.  The proposals set out above were not about spending more money but working in a more efficient, effective and coordinated way.

Councillor Sean Brennan thanked Councillor Pathumal Ali in her role as the Council’s Domestic Violence Champion for her excellent work across the community highlighting the need to report this crime.

Resolved:  (i) That the proposals set out in paragraphs 4 to 6 in the report be endorsed;

(ii)  To agree to forward the report to the Local Safeguarding Boards for both Children and Adults for their comments;

(iii)  To recommend the proposals in the report to the Safer Sutton Partnership Board to further develop the Domestic Violence Strategy.

This report sets out progress in implementing the Outcomes Prospectus for Prevention, incorporates details of a recent outcomes focussed tender process, including the involvement of Sutton LINk in the tender evaluation, gives details of the outcome of the tender and makes recommendations for the award of contracts.

Councillor Colin Stears introduced a report which set out progress in implementing the Outcomes Prospectus for Prevention, the Council’s chosen approach to commissioning preventative services for vulnerable Sutton citizens. (Minute 529/12 refers). The report included how the tenders had been put together and the results of a recent outcomes focussed tender process.  It explained how Sutton LINk had been involved in the tender evaluation process, gave details of the outcome of the tenders and made recommendations for the award of contracts.

The Outcomes Prospectus for Prevention acknowledged the important contribution of the voluntary and community sector in delivering services and developing social capital.  Liaison with the voluntary sector had been important throughout. This tender process had provided an opportunity for providers to offer the service models they considered most responsive to service users’ needs and aspirations. 

Five outcome tenders were being sought by this process.  Details of these outcomes and the results were as follows.

Outcome 1: Information and Advice - People live their own lives to the full, maintain and improve their health and wellbeing by accessing and receiving high quality information and advice

Several organisations had provided submissions to provide services to meet Outcome 1 – Information and Advice. Two offered combined proposals across Outcomes 1 and 4.  All proposals that passed the individual Stage 1 evaluation were assessed as a group to determine which combination of proposals provided the best overall information and advice services in terms of quality, value for money and user group coverage, including self-funders. The recommended Advice and Information service portfolio consisted of a generic service available to all citizens supplemented by a range of specialist Advice and Information provision for particular needs groups. The services also provided an outreach function, supporting people in their communities before they required the support of statutory social services, thereby acting in a preventative capacity.  The provision of this range of information and advice services met the recommendations put forward by the recent Health and Well Being Scrutiny Committee (Minute 16/12 refers) following its review of the Transforming Social Care programme.

Outcome 2: Carers - Carers can balance their caring roles and maintain their desired quality of life, which may include employment

Two organisations submitted proposals to deliver a comprehensive service across all groups of carers and a recommendation was to accept one of these proposals. Several of the proposals recommended under other outcome headings would also incorporate some support to carers.

Outcome 3: Practical help - People maintain and improve their level of independence through accessibility of help with practical tasks

A limited number of proposals were received to support Outcome 3. A recommendation had been made to purchase one service.  Consideration would also be given within other prevention work-streams to identify additional ways of ensuring Sutton citizens had access to a range of help with practical tasks.

Outcome 4: Community involvement and preventing isolation - People were able to develop/maintain a family and social life and contribute to community life, avoiding loneliness or isolation

A number of proposals were made addressing Outcome 4 which were of sufficient quality to potentially be funded by the Council and recommendations were made accordingly.

In total, it was suggested that the Council purchased services worth £829,565 to deliver Outcomes 1, 2, 3 and 4. This recommended group of services provided good coverage across these four outcomes and all service user groups.  Where a gap had been identified (primarily the issue with Outcome 3 noted above) consideration would be given to future options.

Outcome 5: Supporting people with dementia - Supporting people with dementia to enable them to remain living in their own homes

It was suggested that the Council purchased services worth £139,456 per annum through the Outcomes Prospectus for Prevention to meet Outcome 5. This was less than the full £200,000 reserved to enable people with dementia to remain living in their own homes. The remaining £60,544 would be reserved for additional initiatives to support this group.

The total cost of the Outcomes Prospectus for Prevention was £920,000 which could be fully met from within current budget provision.  Additional expenditure of £109,565 for the current year could be met by virement from Gaynesford Day Centre following its closure and from the Older Person’s Day Service.

If approved, steps would now be taken to manage the end of current contracts and the transition to new services in a planned way, minimising the any disruption to service users and carers and, where necessary, allowing local services to adjust to any changes in future funding.

            Resolved:  (i)  To agree to the award of 16 contracts totalling £1,029,565 per annum to deliver prevention services for Sutton citizens aged 18 and over as set out in Appendix One to the report;

(ii) To delegate decisions about the use of the balance of funds for preventative services to the Strategic Director of Adult Social Services and Housing.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 26 March 2012 were agreed as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.