Showing posts with label public realm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public realm. Show all posts

Sunday 28 August 2016

Is Brent's 'Metroland' suburban housing under threat?

The Quintain site surrounded by 'low density suburban housing'
A report going to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on September 6th LINK highlights some of the issues facing Brent Council in the provision of housing.

It is estimated that 1525 new dwellings need to be built every year until 2026. The report expresses confidence that this can be met in the early part of the period through developments taking place, particularly in Wembley, but additional measures will be needed in the future.

One immediate problem is that developers favour one or two bed-roomed units to ensure a maximum return while Brent's  Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment 2016 said that to meet local needs 66% of them should be of 3 bedrooms or more.

The report says that one option would be for the Council to control dwelling size as a condition of the sale of its land, rather than at the planning stage. This comes up against current 'market sentiment' when the Council tries to meet the 50% 'truly affordable' renting target and developers have recourse to viability assessments as well as limits on the ability of the Council to cross-subsidise from other funds.

Given the recent controversy about the development of Heron House, near the Quintain redevelopment area around the stadium, this possibility for finding additional sites is a concern:
...on a potentially more contentious note redevelopment of extensive areas of low density suburban housing where there are high public transport accessibility levels
One of the Heron House residents' issues was that the development was out of keeping with the largely traditional suburban nature of the immediate area.

Could this mean that those traditional 'Metroland' homes in the north of the borough that happen to be close to tube stations and bus routes (see above) might be under threat in the future as high rise-high density housing becomes the norm? Could we see speculators buying up such houses, with their large gardens, in order to redevelop them into blocks of flats with the blessing of the Council?

Other suggestions in the report may also cause concern:

The opportunities for additional sites for housing are likely to be found from a variety of sources for example: 


·      within existing growth areas, through for example increasing densities on already identified sites and identifying new sites;

·      extending where appropriate existing growth areas into adjacent areas;

·      more supportive policies for redevelopment/conversion of existing residential into addition dwellings;

·      having a more pro-active approach to identifying sites within town centres;

·      the identification of further extensive growth areas 
·      a more flexible approach to existing non-residential allocations, the most obvious due to their scale and existing developed nature being employment sites. 
 

The last obviously raises the possibility that local employment opportunities may be lost as employment sites get used for housing.


Sunday 31 July 2016

UPDATE: It is time for Veolia's Public Realm Contract performance to be scrutinised

"Love where you live'
Brent Council's bulk collection service before the Public Realm contract was handed to Veolia used to take about a fortnight from request to notification.

I have received a number of complaints about how long it now takes for goods to be collected. 

This is an example sent in by reader Paul Lorber with a 7 week gap.
From Brent Customer Services June 15th 2016
Thank you for your Special Collection enquiry. Your request for:
Item 1: Freezer
Item 2: Non Metal Bed Frame
Item 3: Other Household Waste
Item 4: Other Household Waste
Item 5: Other Household Waste
To be collected has been logged and your unique reference number is  XXXXXXX
Your items will be collected on 08 August 2016.
Please ensure the items are placed together in the front garden ready for collection.
If you have any queries or wish to change the week of your collection please telephone the Customer Services on 020 8937 5050.
 Lorber has asked what the service timescales are but remarks that if this service has been commissioned by Brent Council and is acceptable to them it is clearly poor value for money, although representing plenty of profit for Veolia.

 Lorber is fortunate in having a front drive in which the items can be placed but many residents have extremely small front gardens or none at all and is is surely no wonder that mattresses, sofas, fridges, gas stoves, lavatory pans and broken gym equipment all end up on the pavement attracting further fly-tipping.

Brent Council promised an improved service when Veolia took over but I pointed out what I saw as a weakness in the contract:
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'.
I think it would be useful for the Scrutiny Committee responsible for Public Realm to review Veolia's performance by inviting Veolia executives to answer questions from councillors and the public about the service.  Cllr John Duffy has raised a number of issues on his own blog LINK and on Wembley Matters  LINK  LINK

This should cover the grounds maintenance of BHP estates and parks maintenance which were handed over to Veolia along with street cleansing, cemeteries, sports centres and much else.  When the Council gave the Public Realm contract to Veolia they withdrew from the Green Flag scheme for parks and open spaces which had provided a widely valued external audit of parks maintenance.

One matter we have heard little about is how the litter enforcement contract, awarded to Kingdom, is working.  This was also criticised by Cllr Duffy LINK and an update on it would be useful as it was seen as a trial.  At the same time Veolia's promised role in spotting fly-tipping and acting upon it included  working with Brent's enforcement team. Is this happening?

From the original Officer's report to Cabinet on the Public Realm contract:
Fly tips will be cleared promptly. That is a key requirement. Veolia have committed their operatives to becoming “the eyes and the ears” of the council, trained to identify, report, and manage all day-to-day fly-tips using mobile devices. The initial role on all enforcement will be Veolia. Enforcement investigations will be managed as far as possible by the Veolia supervisors and managers who will ensure photographic evidence and pocket notebook records are taken to secure evidence. Once a case is correctly and sufficiently built, Veolia will work with Brent’s enforcement team to bring final prosecution. 

UPDATE; The day after this article was published Brent Council issued a press release on the Kingdom fixed penalty litter enforcment trial. LINK


Sunday 14 February 2016

Brent admits single Scrutiny Committee failures and proposes a change to two committee system

Less than two years after the adoption of the controversial decision to have just one Scrutiny Committee in Brent proposals are to go before the Cabinet to have two Scrutiny Committees. If adopted this would go to the May Council AGM.

The proposal outlines the issues that have arisen from the single committee structure, some of which were forecats by a guest blog on Wembley Matters in May 2014 LINK:

.        The purpose of moving to a single Scrutiny Committee meeting on a frequent basis was to enable a more consistent, holistic and streamlined approach to all scrutiny activities commissioned by a single committee. The introduction of a single committee to replace the previous four themed scrutiny committees also made a considerable saving in terms of member allowances. Prior to May 2014 each scrutiny committee had a chair, vice-chair and six members with respective allowances. The annual potential cost of each committee was £38,020 in member allowances, making a total for the whole scrutiny function of potentially £152,080. The current cost of member allowances for a single scrutiny committee is potentially £36,190 making a potential saving of £115,890 on the previous model. These costings are maximum potential costs only as members already in receipt of a special responsibility allowance would not be entitled to a second special responsibility allowance for their scrutiny role. The costings nonetheless provide a useful illustration of the indicative costs implications.

.        It was considered that operating separate scrutiny committees produced a fragmented approach to scrutiny with each committee developing its own work programme which did not always reflect the cross-cutting aspects of complex policy issues. It was also felt that a single committee would be a more effective use of the finite officer resources available to support scrutiny given the pressure on resources.

.        However after nearly two years of operating the single Scrutiny Committee structure, the anticipated advantages have not outweighed the logistical issues of monthly meetings and has resulted in a concentration of scrutiny activities into a relatively small group of members and officers.

.        Having one committee responsible for all scrutiny activities has meant that the committee has not developed in depth specialism and understanding of services or key policy agendas. With a wide variety of issues being considered at each meeting the agendas can be incoherent and this makes it difficult to develop continuity on specific subjects or issues between committee meetings.

.         In particular the move away from themed committees has resulted in less active engagement of service areas in working constructively with scrutiny members as there is less perceived ownership of one corporate Scrutiny Committee. This has both distanced service departments from scrutiny and meant that less members overall are activity engaged in debate and discussion on the policy issues and performance of Council services. In practice the current model means that only eight members are actively engaged in scrutiny discussion on a regular basis (although other members who are not part of the formal scrutiny committee do contribute to task groups). Previously around 30 non–executive members regularly contributed to a scrutiny committee at least once a quarter.

.        The single Scrutiny Committee model has also impacted on the development of a productive scrutiny relationship with statutory partners, particularly in relation to the duties of the Council to scrutinise the provision of local health services and partnership work on community safety. It has proved difficult to accommodate a consistent work programme on health issues, children’s services and adult social care within the single work programme. This has limited the development of an in depth understanding of these complex and critical service areas, which was noted in the findings of the recent Ofsted inspection of Brent’s Safeguarding and Looked After Children’s services.

.        The disadvantage of a single Scrutiny Committee structure could not necessarily have been foreseen. Brent is still the only Council in London to operate a single scrutiny committee structure, although three others have a main committee with themed sub-committees. However as the Council enters the next phase of change with the development of the Brent 2020 Vision and the programme of outcome based reviews, it is vital that we reconsider the most appropriate scrutiny structure which will facilitate the effective engagement of members in shaping the future direction of the Council via the Scrutiny function. This is particularly important given the political composition of the Council and the challenging nature of the issues the borough faces.

The report goes on to propose a two committee structure to remedy the situation after setting out the role of Scrutiny:
 
.        There are a number of key objectives which any new scrutiny structure should be designed to achieve. These are:-
·      To enable non-executive members to develop a thorough understanding of key policy and service issues which supports effective and constructive scrutiny of performance and decision-making across Council services and meets the statutory requirements of scrutiny.
·      Maximises the number of Members engaged in regular scrutiny activities and enables non-executive members to contribute to the shaping of Council policy at the right point in the policy development process.
·      A structure that covers both the breadth of internal and external issues but also provides sufficient scope for the committee to develop specialisation and become experts in their subject areas.
·      The frequency of scrutiny meetings is aligned to the decision-making timetable and enables high quality reports to be produced with scrutiny input made at the right time in the development of options and proposals.
·      Can take a holistic view of partnership, performance and resourcing issues in relation to the individual service or issue under scrutiny.
·      Enables clear accountability of Lead members and senior officers for decisions and service performance.
·      The scrutiny function should be responsive to the views and concerns of service users and residents, actively seeking their opinions to shape their work programme.
·      Is properly resourced and supported by senior officers and services within the Council and the contribution of scrutiny members is a valued part in the process of defining the Council’s future policy direction.
.        3.15  In order to achieve these objectives it is therefore proposed that the future Scrutiny committee structure should, as set out below, be more closely aligned to the organisational structure of the Council as well as providing more opportunity for in-depth scrutiny.

 Proposed Scrutiny Structure

The proposal is to have two scrutiny committees combining the following remits:-

·      Community and Well being Scrutiny Committee 

This committee would cover Housing, Adult Social Care, Public Health and the statutory responsibilities with regard to scrutiny of local health services and major reconfigurations of provision. It would also scrutinise the children and young people’s service, partnership work undertaken by the Children’s Trust and scrutiny of Safeguarding arrangements. The committee would be composed of eight elected members (seven from the Labour Group and one opposition group member which is consistent with current political balance arrangements). The four voting education co-opted members and the two non voting education co-opted members would be part of this committee. 

·      Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee 

This committee would cover corporate resources, (including Customer Services, Policy, Partnerships and Performance, Procurement and IT) as well as regeneration, environment and community safety. The committee would be composed of eight elected members (seven from the Labour Group and one opposition group member which is consistent with current political balance arrangements). 
The indicative cost implications in respect of special responsibility allowances are set out below. As previously stated, however, these costings are potential maximum costs only and actual costs are likely to be lower as some of the members will already be in receipt of a special responsibility allowance. In addition, in accordance with the provisions of the Members’ Allowance Scheme, a 1% uplift in allowances has been factored in. On this basis the total potential costs are £40,614 higher than the current scrutiny structure.

2 x Chairs allowance at £14,140
2 x Vice Chairs at £5,050
12 x SRA allowance for committee members at £3,202
Total
£28,280 £10,100 £38,424
£76,804
  
The full report can be found HERE