Showing posts with label parks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parks. Show all posts

Monday 29 June 2015

Child's Play? Investing in the young despite austerity


This guest blog by Andrew Ross, which he has adapted from his LGiU briefing to local authority members and officers, succinctly sets out some of the arguments for maintaining play provision in the face of pressure for further cuts. Wembley Matters publishes it with permission from the author and Policy for Play LINK.  It is of particular interest following the decision of Brent Council to close Stonebridge Adventure Playground.

Readers of this blog will be acutely aware of the threats to playgrounds and to play services. The London Play & Youth Work Campaign has come out fighting, warning the new government that it must:
‘recognise the profound value of play and youth work to society. If not, then be warned: cutting us will not be an easy ride.’


It’s not as if this ‘profound value’ is a secret. I recently wrote a briefing for local authority members of the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU), an organisation that aims to improve local democracy. I pulled together the findings from two recent reviews that caution local councils against cutting money for play because of the many wider benefits that play services bring. The first was by the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on a Fit and Healthy Childhood. Adrian Voce has written about the APPG approach, set out in its first paper, Healthy Patterns for Healthy Families; and about its forthcoming play review, expected later this summer.

The other – The Play Return – was commissioned by the Children’s Play Policy Forum and written by Tim Gill. Tim cites the many developmental benefits for children of play. But he also points out that play could be a prudent investment for other reasons too. Play initiatives:
  • encourage volunteering and community cohesion: the review illustrates a number of examples of where this has happened, including Playing Out schemes
  • reduce antisocial behaviour and vandalism: Thames Valley Police have reported that installing youth facilities in Banbury led to a 25 per cent drop in the cost of repairs to children’s play equipment
  • reduce obesity: one study has found that children with a playground in a local park are ‘almost five times more likely to be classified as being of a healthy weight rather than at risk of being overweight’ than those without playgrounds in their nearby park
  • create healthier places: providing enticing outdoor play spaces can make a trip to the local park more inviting for children and their carers, and is one way of making it easier for people to maintain good health
  • reduce inequalities: public parks are – or should be – free to use, and are places where any child can play regardless of their family’s income.
  •  
It’s tempting to think that the arguments speak for themselves. But local authorities are under enormous pressure to cut budgets. For example, government figures show that council spending on open spaces (excluding national parks) fell by 14 per cent, or almost £15.5 million between 2009-10 and 2013-14. In practice, that means councils have already reduced funding on maintaining parks, adventure playgrounds, sports fields and a whole range of services that go on in them.


How can they be persuaded to keep spending on play? I think elected members need to be reminded constantly of how increasing the opportunities for play can help create the sorts of communities that councils are elected to deliver, even as budgets continue to decline: places that are attractive to live in, safe, connected and where everyone feels like they have a stake in the local area.

This means making spending on play part of something bigger. One example is Knowsley Council’s Green Space Strategy (2015-2020). It acknowledges the many benefits of providing outdoor play spaces, but recognises that funding to maintain and develop these is under threat. The strategy focuses on what the council can influence:
  • Leadership: this starts with the council and elected members but should draw in people from public, private and social enterprise sectors (which could include representatives from the play sector)
  • Achieving more with partners: including local communities, but also working with other stakeholders to create new management partnerships (again, the play sector could have an influential role here)
  • Establishing a compelling business case for investing in green space assets: Knowsley believes that its future economic resilience and competitiveness ‘will be strongly influenced’ by the overall quality of its parks and green spaces
  • Securing funding and investment: Knowsley is developing a needs-based approach that will allow it to assess how best to continue to invest in green spaces and services
  • Identifying alternative delivery models: these are likely to include private funding, support from the community and voluntary sectors, generating more income from uses of the green spaces, and fund-raising/sponsorship.

As for what limited spending there will be on play specifically, what might be the biggest wins for any investment? The former director of Play England Cath Prisk writes that:
 ‘The onus will be on local providers, schools and councils to make the case that is right for them to increase or sustain investment in most provision.’
She suggests three possibilities:
  • Street Play (championed by the Bristol-based Playing Out), where streets are closed regularly so children can play – this achieves multiple objectives of play, physical activity, and community cohesion – ‘not free, but certainly not a huge expense’
  • Encouraging head teachers to use some of the pupil premium and protected school funding to invest in spaces to play because of the evidence that play and outdoor activity improves attainment (most particularly for this funding in reading and maths)
  • More outdoor nurseries utilising existing quality outdoor spaces following the government’s commitment to double the free childcare allowance for three- and four-year-olds in England.
  •  
I’d be really interested to know how well the local authority in your area understands how play connects to some of the wider arguments about creating decent places to live, and whether that is reflected in their spending plans! Feel free to leave me a comment below, or tweet me at @andrew_ross_uk.

This blog was written by Andrew Ross, a freelance writer, researcher and facilitator specialising in urban places, andrew@fdconsult.co.uk. It is an abridged version of an LGiU briefing, available to members only. For more information, or to subscribe, visit www.lgiu.org.uk/briefings

Friday 20 June 2014

Brent Council consults on new Local Plan and development management

Following the story below on the South Kilburn Queen's Park Place development, readers may be interested in this from Brent Council:

We are updating our planning policies to shape the future of Brent.

We are consulting on the draft Development Management Policies Document, which will guide how we determine future planning applications.

Once adopted it will form part of the Local Plan, and supersede saved UDP policies.
The policies deal with important issues such as:
  • promoting strong town centres by setting limits on the number of takeaways, betting shops, pawnbrokers and payday loan shops
  • limiting takeaways and shisha cafes near schools
  • seeking the quality, size and type of homes the borough needs
  • boosting the economy, protecting open space and community facilities.
This is an opportunity for local people and organisations to say what you think about the proposed policies.

The period for consultation runs from 20 June to 31 July 2014. During this period we are also consulting on the accompanying Sustainability Appraisal, and associated alterations to the Core Strategy and Policies Map. All documents can be downloaded below.
Copies of these documents can also be viewed in all Brent libraries during the consultation period.

Policy evidence base

How to have your say

During the consultation period you can complete our online comment form.
Alternatively you can provide detailed comments on the document itself.
You can also email ldf@brent.gov.uk or write to: Planning Policy and Projects Team, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 0FJ.
The deadline for receiving your comments is 5pm on 31 July 2014.
There are also opportunities to find out more about the policies at drop-in sessions where council officers will be on hand to answer your questions. These will take place at:
All comments received will be taken into account before the Development Management Policies Document is modified and taken forward to the next stage.

Sunday 6 October 2013

Will Veolia, as sole bidder, represent Best Value for Brent Public Realm contract?

The Officers' report on the Public Realm contract to be presented to the Brent Council Executive on Monday October 14th reveals that only Veolia submitted a final bid. Serco dropped out at Stage 3 due to internal changes within the company structure and 'issues relating to resourcing and targets' but more controversially at the final stage Enterprise, the only competitor to Veolia left, asked for extra time to finalise their bid. The report states:
Officers fully considered the merits of the request but determined that it was not appropriate to agree such an extension.
The report contains no explanation or justification for this decision in the same way as campaigners were given no explanation for the panel's decision that no grounds existed for the exclusion of Veolia on human rights grounds.

A spokesman for Amey, who now own Enterprise said unfortunately as there is an on-going procuremnt process, we cannot comment further at this time.
 
The officers' decision means that the comparative tables for the Invitation to Submit Final Tenders (ISFT) stage look rather ludicrous:

In an email to Brent Executive members I wrote:
It is clearly legitimate to ask if ‘Best Value’ has been obtained when such a large contract is awarded with no competitive bid to evaluate it against. It is also legitimate to ask why Enterprise was not granted more time to submit. (Enterprise has now been taken over by Amey)
The new contract is a mixed bag with some improvements envisaged for the service but other changes which impact on jobs.

The Council expects costs for the new contract to be £1.3m less in the first year 2014-15 rising to £1.7m in 2017-18. This is brought about by reduction in the crews of bin lorries and the expectation that all residents, except those not physically able to, will leave their bins at their property boundary. These changes will be implemented before the new contract with a reduction in costs this financial year of £300,000.

88 council workers are directly affected  and will be subject to TUPE, although Veolia has said it will honour their pension position. Wetton's employees who service Brent Housing Partnership estates  and SDK employees who empty the dog excrement bins will also be subject to TUPE,

More positively, Veolia has undertaken to pay those who remain the London Living Wage, although that will be little comfort to those who lose their jobs. Volia has also undrtaken to fulfill the 'Safer Lorries' pledge which protects cyclists, to offer 8 apprenticeships and to take action to offer jobs locally through various agencies.

One aspect that may concern councillors is that Veolia will be responsible for monitoring itself:
The contract will be self-monitoring, meaning that the contractor is accountable for measuring, monitoring and improving their own performance with the council carefully auditing their performance. This, along with Key Outcome Targets set for each of the different services will ensure that the Contractor is motivated to deliver the services.
Veolia will also be dealing with complaints from councillors and residents in the first instance thus 'placing responsibility on the Contractor to ‘own’ and be accountable for service complaints'.

All new or replacement residual bins will be 140litre rather than the present 240litre. Large households or multi-occupied premises will be able to request a largr bin if they can justify it. Although increased recycling should mean a smaller residual bin is adequate I do worry that some of the fly-tipping so evident on our streets is the result of residual bins being full and residents then dumping the excess on the street.

There are changes to the street sweeping regime with the expectation that streets will meet the Grade A standard after cleansing and will not fall below Grade B:

Grade A: No litter or refuse
Grade B: Predominately free of litter and refuse apart from some small items
Grade C: Widespread distribution of litter and/or refuse with minor accumulations
Grade D: Heavily affected by litter and/or refuse with significant accumulations

This is clearly a challenge given the current state of our streets.

One of the main concerns of residents has been over parks maintenance. We are rightly proud of our parks and have witnessed the sensitivity of Brent staff in maintaining them properly, rather than the 'chainsaw' gardening that we see on some estates where shrubs are reduced to three dimensional geometric shapes regardless of whether they are about to come into flower or have a different natural shape.

Although the report says that Veolia has agreed to maintain the parks to Green Flag standard, without any further explanation it also says that the council will no longer submit  applications for Green Flag Awards. Given how the council has always proudly publicised these awards, and the tremendous effort parks staff put into achieving them, I can only ask why not submit applications? Surely the Award is a prestigious external audit of the success or otherwise of the contract?

The full report can be found HERE







Wednesday 31 October 2012

Barnet may opt out of public realm 'supercontract'


On Wednesday 7 November 2012 Barnet Council Cabinet Resources Committee is considering a recommendation to support the One Barnet in-house Street Scene Project. The One Barnet Street Scene Project includes the following services:
·         Refuse, organic waste and recycling collections
·         Waste strategy
·         Street cleansing
·         Greenspaces
·         Highways operational team

Earlier this month the Brent Executive approved a joint 4 borough procurement for a contract of up to 16 years  which would have covered the first four of the above items. Barnet was one of these partner boroughs, another,  Richmond recently dropped out. If the recommendation is approved by Barnet Council only Brent and Hounslow would remain in the 'super public realm' contract.


A proposed  Brent and Hounslow joint appointment of a Public Health Director was withdrawn before the Brent Executive meeting after encountering opposition from within the Labour Group.

John Burgess Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary said: “This is fantastic news for residents and 700 council workers delivering these services. I want to take the opportunity to applaud the Council for at last recognising the potential of in-house services to be able to compete with the private sector. We are now calling for the Council to halt the current outsourcing plans for the other two contracts (1), worth in excess of a Billion Pounds public money. We are asking for the Council to work with staff, unions and the community to develop efficient, innovative services for Barnet residents and ensure savings go back into the pockets of the council tax payers.” 

(1)  The first One Barnet project known as New Support Customer Services Organisation (NSCSO) will be for back office services such a Finance, Revenues & Benefits, Estates, IT, HR & Payroll etc, it is estimated to be worth up to £750 million.
 
It involves approximately 700 council workers. There is a high probability that the winning bidder will not deliver these services from Barnet so there is a high risk of significant redundancies at the moment of transfer.
 
This contract will be awarded to either Capita or BT at the Barnet Council Cabinet Resources Committee on Thursday 6 December 2012.
 
The second One Barnet project is known as Development & Regulatory Services (DRS) which includes the following services:
Trading Standards & Licensing, Land Charges, Planning & Development, Building Control & Structures, Environmental Health, Highways Strategy, Highways Network Management, Highways Traffic & Development, Highways Transport & Regeneration, Strategic Planning & Regeneration, Cemeteries & Crematoria.
This contract, worth up to £275 million pounds, will be awarded to Capita Symonds or EC Harris at the Barnet Council Cabinet Resources Committee on 8 January 2013.

Monday 8 October 2012

Brent to join with other boroughs to out-source 'Public Realm' including waste and parks maintenance

In a report to go before the Executive on October 15th LINK officers are recommending that the Council join with Barnet, Hounslow and Richmond in a 'super contract' see my previous blog HERE that will cover:

• Household waste collections and recycling
• Street Cleansing operations
• Graffiti clearance
• Winter maintenance
• Cleansing of public conveniences
• Grounds maintenance to parks and open spaces (including Brent Housing Partnership HP estates)
• Grounds maintenance to cemeteries and grave digging
• Highway verges and shrub beds
• Playground inspection and maintenance
• Warden service
• Commercial waste

Brent's contract with Veolia ends on March 31st 2014. The contract, across the 4 boroughs and BHP which may not all buy into all the services, would be worth £700m over the 16 year contract period..

In a controversial move the report recommends:
The Executive to give approval to an exemption from Contract Standing Order 88 to allow an advert to be placed and a pre-qualification process to be run without the approval of evaluation criteria and certain other pre-tender considerations, subject to approval of such matters at a future Executive
And further recommends, as a consequence of the problem of the lack of a Brent Council depot when the last contract was awarded to Veolia, that the Council acquire a depot. Andy Donald Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, appears to be leading on this:
That the Executive agree to an amendment of £6.2m to the Council’s capital budget for 2012/13 to procure a new depot as set out in section 3.6 of the report. If a suitable site is identified, due to the reasons set out in paragraph 3.6.6, that the final terms of any acquisition including the purchase price be delegated to the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects and the Director of Finance and Corporate Services in consultation with their respective Lead Members. Such purchase price to be contained within the amendment to the Council’s capital budget as set out within this report
As a lay person it seems to me that this is not a particularly transparent or accountable  process when the Executive is not fully involved in an exceptionally large contract.

The proposal has come as a surprise to people in Barnet where a large number of staff are involved. In Brent waste management and recycling are already out-sourced to Veolia and it is the Parks and Sports staff who are most affected. The report states:
For Brent, whilst the majority of staffing implications are for staff currently employed by the current contractor, there are implications for existing Brent staff in Sports and Parks and Highway Operations. The proposal is that in excess of 50 council staff providing grounds maintenance and a number of staff in other services are transferred to the successful provider. In addition, if the decision is to create a single client arrangement a small number of staff in waste and recycling would be affected,

TUPE will apply and presumably this will also be the case for the cleaning and grounds maintenance contractors currently employed by Brent Housing Partnership, which also comes under Andy Donald's umbrella.

Sunday 26 August 2012

Brent parks: charging and privatisation

Poster for recent Eid event at Fryent Country Park

Following the council's cuts in festivals and other events, and the subsequent use of the parks and open spaces by organisations putting on their own events, the September Executive will consider a range of charges to contribute towards the council's costs in assisting the groups meet health and safety requirements. Having lost their grants the community organisations will now face charges when they try and put on their own events to replace those cut by the council!

I can confirm my July prediction LINK that Brent Council appears likely to combine waste management, recycling, street cleaning and parks maintenance in one new 'super contract'. The Council's Forward Plan LINK lists these items under the heading 'Managing the Public Realm' and states that it is considering collaboration with Barnet, Richmond and Hounslow councils on the delivering of the services.  Consultation on this will only be internally within the council and the decision on procurement arrangements will be made at the15th October Executive.

This seems to rule out any public debate on whether the parks maintenance service should be out-sourced (privatised)..

Better news is the declaration of Masons Field, Kingsbury as a Local Nature Reserve, and part of Fryent Country Park.




Efficacy of dog walking limits need to be reviewed

Dog walkers on Barn Hill earlier this week
I spoke at the Brent Council Executive in November last year LINK on the proposed restrictions on the number of dogs one person could walk in Brent parks. The proposal was to restrict the numbers walked by 'professional dog walkers' who earn upwards of £10 per dog per walk, to six. I had witnessed one dog walker with 15 dogs.

I suggested that enforcement would be a problem with the number of wardens cuts and many of the walkers coming from outside Brent.  I was also concerned that they would bring along a friend and thus reduce the ratio to the prescribed limit.

At the same meeting Cllr Powney agreed to a suggestion by Cllr Gavin Sneddon that the dog control orders should be reviewed after 6 months.  This appears not to have been done yet.

Last week I came across the dog walkers above on Barn Hill in Fryent Country Park  (there is another dog out of the picture) and two women who appeared to be waiting for them to move on.  The  women told me that the previous day they had been jogging around the field and were pursued by a pack of dogs, they thought there more than in the above picture, and that the solitary dog walker with them was unable to call them off.  A confrontation ensued about her lack of control.  As a result the women were now fearful of jogging when large numbers of dogs are around and it had spoiled their enjoyment of the park. They did remark that the walkers in the above picture appeared to have their dogs under better control but they were not taking any chances.

I am concerned that if this situation continues the public will be put off using the park and, in the worst case, there could be a serious incident. One dog walker who contacted me by e-mail to berate  Brent Council for introducing the ban quite unselfconsciously referred to 'my pack' of dogs. We really shouldn't be in the position of having packs of out of control dogs roaming in one of our Green Flag parks.

A review of the effectiveness of this policy is urgently needed.


Saturday 12 May 2012

Brent Council to act on wild animal abuse



Brent Council will adopt a formal policy regarding the use of animals at events in the Borough's parks and open spaces in a report going before the Executive on May 21st is approved. The policy reflects current concern, spear-headed by the RSPCA, about the use of wild animals in circuses and other events. The report states:

In the past the Council has received requests to hold events in its parks from circuses with performing animals as well as events which have included animal rides, dog shows and falconry displays. More recently there has been a significant increase in the number of events which local community groups want to organise and host on Council owned land. In 2011 the Parks service received a request to have elephants, tigers and camels included in large community events.
 
The Report suggest a policy that:

a.  Does not permit animals that come under the Schedule Kinds of Dangerous Wild Animals’ in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (Modification) (No.2) Order 2007, to be allowed to be part of any event including circuses and funfairs on the Council’s parks and open spaces.

b.  Does not permit the provision of live creatures as prizes at any event including circuses and funfairs on the Council’s parks and open spaces.

c.  Does permit animals that do not come under the Schedule Kinds of Dangerous Wild Animals’ in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (Modification) (No.2) Order 2007 to be part of an event including circuses and fun fairs on the Councils parks and open spaces. This would therefore allow for example dog shows, performing horses and falconry displays to take place.